Why can't ATHEISTS understand that adaptation isn't evolution?

Question

Whether by natural selection, or by directed hyper-mutation, or by lateral gene transfer, living organisms do make the necessary genetic changes in order to adapt to new conditions.

In this way cultures of bacteria can become resistant to new strains of viruses, or produce enzymes necessary to break down material such as nylon.

But they remain fundamentally the same species, only better adapted to their present environment.

However the notion that all the parts of our bodies have "evolved" by way of adaption is plain ridiculous: is my liver an adaptation, or my solar plexus for that matter? What about my spleen?

The human body is an intricate network of interrelated parts comprising a holistic function: do you seriously believe that such an intelligent system could have evolved through the selection of best DNA replication mistakes?

You are entitled to your views, but don't expect me to not laugh out loud at them. You guys are pathetically ignorant and uninformed.
Educate yourselves please.
http://creationwiki.org/Evolution

Answer 1

It is you who is ignorant and uninformed, dear. As a scientist, I have no problem with laughing at your beliefs.





Adaption is evolution, kid. There is no magical barrier by which small changes cannot accumulate in a system enough to make two populations incapable of reproduction. That's speciation, and that's evolution. Your organs evolved from simpler ones that performed the same task in our ancestor species. It's not that difficult to watch the progression. Most of the intermediate forms of those organs still exist in creatures in varying taxa.



As a biologist, I am more than aware of how we evolved through natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. Molecular genetics provides more than ample evidence of how this came to be so. It is certainly not our fault that you can't understand such concepts. They are a little complex for someone who believes a magic man poofed everything into existence.



I have a PhD in the biological sciences. Perhaps it is YOU who should educate YOURSELF. Especially since you think creationwiki is credible source material.



*pats head*

Now run along and let the grownups talk.

Answer 2

Odd. You seem to be an example of your complaint. Confused much?



If you want to debate evolution, try actually studying the sciences rather than theology sites that play with words and water down the English language by coining wishy-washy definitions of evolution.



It's like those dumb commercials asking people to evolve. Evolution happens at the species level, not the individual level. And "adaptation?" This isn't chimpanzees learning how to SCUBA dive, kid. You throw an unequipped monkey in the middle of the ocean and it doesn't suddenly "adapt" to become aqua-monkey. Instead, it dies unless you pull it out. Luckily, this is why there are no land sharks unless you are talking humans that try to scam you on real estate loans.



The problem isn't just the Atheists, but the entire country is becoming ignorant thanks to people playing with definitions and watering down the English language so that nobody can understand one another. It's pathetic. PLEASE. Do not be part of the problem. That site you chose to cite is a perfect example of what I am talking about: totally screwing up the definition into meaninglessness.



The specifics matter. Your first paragraph demonstrates you don't get it.



The worst part is failing to understand how mutations often lead to organism failure/ death/ extinction. Explain how cancer saved your life and is not only a mutation you don't want, but will kill you...



Good luck with that because that site you gave provides only a fairy-tale version of "happy evolution" where everyone just improves. Sorry. That's not how it works and anything else is not really, by the original and accurate definition of the word, evolution.

Answer 3

The human body is an intricate network of interrelated parts comprising a holistic function: do you seriously believe that such an intelligent system could have evolved through the selection of best DNA replication mistakes?



- Yes



You are entitled to your views, but don't expect me to not laugh out loud at them.



- ditto

Answer 4

What little credibility you had was shot with that link. As an answer to your question, adaptation and natural selection are the basis for evolution. Over very long periods of time, those adaptations build on themselves to make huge changes. Evolution now has so much evidence backing it that a person almost has to hide his head in the sand to avoid believing it. If you insist on doing that, however, that is your business.

Answer 5

"The human body is an intricate network of interrelated parts comprising a holistic function: do you seriously believe that such an intelligent system could have evolved through the selection of best DNA replication mistakes?"

Yes.

Answer 6

We learned about adaptation in biology. We learned about evolution in biology. We learned about God and creation in catechism.



So why you raggin on atheists? Lots of christians understand adaptation and evolution too. In fact, some religious folk will say to you that God is the only One who does not change. Everything else does. The immutability of God is sacrosanct: an intrinsic and necessary part of the core belief of any theist.



To say that man is not a part of change and not a part of evolution is to put man on par with God. This is blasphemous. Man is extremely limited.

Answer 7

So organisms can adapt and change over time and through natural selection, but there's some kind of "change border" that the changes can't pass because the species would become different and violate your premise that the species don't actually change? Got it.

Answer 8

First of all, Evolution is not specific to Atheism. I am a Christian and accept the theory as valid.



Is the evolution of higher animals seemingly absurd on some points? Sure, especially with things like the elephant's cooling system (can't get into detail here). But for theistic evolutionists, we understand that God sovereignly allowed for the right conditions (like the dinosaurs being killed off) in order for us to evolve.

Answer 9

No matter how many creation websites you reference, adaption is the result of evolution.



Evolution is the change in genetic material between generations. Adaption is the result of changes in genetic material between generations. Adaption is evolution.



Changing a definition to suit your agenda doesn't make that definition valid. Sorry.

Answer 10

>But they remain fundamentally the same species, only better adapted to their present environment.



Are you saying that bear in the Amazon is the same species as with bear in the Antartica? Different environment, different species.

Answer 11

Not true.



We have literally observed species splitting off into 2 different species.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060601213407.htm



So, wrong again. These are not "my views." This is frickin' reality.



P.S. Did you honestly try to pull a wiki entry from a creationist website as some sort of objective/scientific source? Seriously?

Answer 12

Genetic adaptation changes a species, enough changes to a species creates a new one altogether. THUS EVOLUTION OCCURS.



You are entitled to your views, but don't expect me to not laugh out loud at them. You are pathetically ignorant and uninformed.

Educate yourself, please.

Answer 13

Aaand when something "adapts" to the extent it starts an entirely new species it's evolution!



NEXT!

Answer 14

Wow. Any website that starts with the word "creation" is obviously going to be biased. You are the only one here who needs some education.

Answer 15

This is like walking into Toys R Us, filled to the ceiling with tall, long shelves of all kinds of toys imaginable and saying "BUT it's NOT a toy store!"







You basically said it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, even laughs like a duck... but no it can't be possible that it's a duck.



Maybe you just don't like the word.

Answer 16

Speciation has been observed. Plus, there's tons of other evidences for evolution also.

Answer 17

>But they remain fundamentally the same species



Nonsense. We have observed speciation directly and indirectly, in the lab and in the wild.

Answer 18

Ever hear of microevolution? Take a bio anthropology class



Also, I don't trust a website titled "creationwiki"

Answer 19

Except,thats wrong because adaptation leads to changes in how something looks,works or both.





Did you seriously expect it to be pokemon style or what?.

Answer 20

So please explain, what are the limits of adaptation? What is responsible for "capping" adaptation, and what alternate theory would you offer for the astronomical number of markers of common descent?



I eagerly await your response.

Answer 21

Did you honestly just cite creationwiki as a source?! Jesus balls, man.



Also, you're ignorant.

Answer 22

Okay.... and just exactly what is Sphincter hair for?

Answer 23

i know right?



it's NOT the same! the names are different!



stupid us!

Answer 24

I can understand the claim, it's simply false.

Answer 25

Evolution Fraud

In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in the National Geographic.



Human Ancestral Frauds



Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modem age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!



Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" (source: Henry M. Morris & Gary E.

Parker, What Is Creation Science?, [Master Books 1987],

pp. 155-156)

Now all evolutionists have no logical alternative but to accept that Jesus is God:



“I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.



You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. “



For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Col 2:9 (NIV)



Hope you have a Happy Easter !!! (Jesus the reason for the Holy-day)

Answer 26

^All good answers.



Funny how creationists never title their questions "Evolutionary biologists, can you explain..." or "Astrophysicists, can you explain..."



Why atheists, bro?

Answer 27

You are pathetically ignorant and uninformed. Please educate yourself.