[whattajoke]

It must be noted that you've yet again failed to answer one of my simple questions. In lieu of that, you've chosen to toss about the terms you learned in philosophy 101 yet again.

(I'll readily admit, you would kick my ass in philosophy 101... which of course has no bearing on biology 101.)

You’re assuming evolution...

Not really, not for the purpose of my question re: adaptation/speciation.

So let's say we agree that there is no such thing as evolution. But, as you admit, there IS something called adaptation. In fact, this is the imaginary world you live in, isn't it? Adaptation but no speciation - right?

Ok. So... In that world, what causes adaptation? Why do you see adaptations? What is the mechanism for those adaptations? Why do species adapt? Surely you've thought of this and have answers.

And while you're thinking about that, please think about the follow-on question which is what I originally asked: What stops these adaptations from continuing and becoming more pronounced over many generations? What is the biological mechanism that puts the brakes on and says, in effect, "hey! Whoa there! Stop adapting or you'll become a tad too different from that population of you across that river!"

As for your explanation of how human races came about, I'll leave that for another day. After all, you hyper-fast "hybridization" hypothesis requires dna changes occurring many magnitudes faster than any scientist would propose.

[MrB]

I see that you didn’t answer MY question, either, about repeating the experiment of

Molecules to Man evolution.

Are you beginning to see the futility of an evidentiary-based argument on this topic?

Do you understand that this is actually a presuppositional argument?

Evos and creation scientists both look at the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE, that exists IN THE PRESENT, and interpret that evidence through their presuppositions, their worldview, and come to radically different conclusions. These conclusions are, for the most part, an affirmation of the presupposition that they started from.

Do you, and this is a big one, even recognize that you have presupposed assumptions that you’re basing your interpretation on? Actually, most people don’t think that way, especially if they haven’t been exposed to the idea that there are actually other presuppositional views of the world.

Again, do you see the futility of an evidentiary argument?
Most creationists, having studied BOTH presuppositional mindsets, do understand this futility. That’s why the logic based approach actually yields much more benefit, if both parties can agree to think on that level.

Given that, I’ll give you a bit of your “red meat” that you’ve asked for, but you have to actually be able to step out of your presuppositions to get it.

You asked me what allows for, or what “causes” adaption to occur and what “stops” it.

Adaptive ability was inherent in the first created kinds (species). The first creatures’ DNA and trait expressive abilities contained everything necessary for the population of that kind (lest you again accuse me of individual adaptation) to adapt to their environment (polar bears vs grizzlies & black bears, for example).

These more specialized versions of the original kinds have LESS adaptive information than their forebears :) and eventually become relatively homogeneous within their populations, and adaptation tends to cease because of the loss of broad spectrum adaptive information.

Notice the lack of “adding” of information through the mutation process. Birth defects rarely add a benefit to the species, and creatures have built in mutation detection and repair systems, so mutations, though they occur, cannot be the primary driving factor behind adaptation.

Now, the limbic part of your brain is probably shorting out. “That’s not right! That’s wrong! That’s... DANGEROUS!”.

Examine your presuppositions of evolutionary assumption:
simple to complex, adding information to the DNA by mutation, long periods of time, etc.

Now, I hope I’ve given you some insight into the creationist view of “evolution” so that you can argue without setting up straw men (though, to your credit, I didn’t see this happening with you), and perhaps see that there isn’t any “magic bullet” evidence that will “finally convince those creationists they’re wrong”.

Always keep in mind, rocks don’t talk, evidence doesn’t “speak”, they must be interpreted. And that interpretation cannot avoid being filtered through your presuppositions.