Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>Joe the Denier says, “The important point is that Darwinism doesn’t have to wait for cellular life to arise before it can work its spell; it could be equally effective at the molecular level. Davies 2011”

That quote by Davies was from “The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence”, 2011

That said, there is no scientific evidence for Darwinism, at all. It is an imaginary construct based on wild extrapolation of observable data.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joe the Denier says, “The fossil record shows about 145 million years separating the first fish from the first amphibians plus another 35 million years to the first reptiles. That’s a lot of repetitions of an iterative process, no single repetition of which has to be more than a small baby-step.

The fossil record doesn’t really show anything except there are billions of dead things buried in as much as a mile or more of flat, uneroded, unbioturbated sedimentary rock layers.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joe the Denier says, “I used [Shermer’s book “Denying History”] debating Holocaust deniers — it not only debunks their nonsense, but also provides brief biographies of then leading deniers.”

I am in my 70’s, well-traveled, and a long-time WWII History buff; and yet I have never met a holocaust denier. But I do know an arrogant, slanderous, know-nothing jackass when I read his posts.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I disagree with any effort to turn science into a religion.”

It is too late. Evolutionism is the established religion of the United States, thanks to the ACLU, the thugs at the NCSE, and a few tyrannical judges who thought nothing of usurping the power of free expression from the states and the people.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Science specifically rejects any appeal to supernatural or spiritual realities, which means that, by definition, science cannot be a religion.”

Science doesn’t reject anything.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Complete nonsense — people can & do “question Darwin” anywhere, any time.”

Not in the classroom, if they want to obtain tenure; and not in their research, if they want to get published. You need to get out more, Joe.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “The question in public schools is whether teachers should be required to present “alternate theories” in class. I think they should — in theology class, or western civ. But in science classes teachers should hold to traditional distinctions between what is, or is not, science.”

If evolutionism was not the established religion of the United States, it could be challenged in the classroom by other theories. But evolutionism has become the modern-day Church of England, which caused the colonists to flee England and come to America.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Ruse’s term, metaphysical is a key word and equates to “philosophical”, “ontological” and even sometimes “scientific” naturalism. They all mean the same thing — atheistic. So: metaphysical naturalism = atheism. ontological naturalism = atheism. philosophical naturalism = atheism. scientific naturalism = atheism.
All of those terms signify an atheist using science to bolster his/her theological views”

That is exactly how the orthodoxy promotes evolutionism — as theology.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “So atheist Huxley, lacking other religious beliefs, gloms onto “evolution as religion”.
I’d say, as a religion, Huxley’s “Evolutionary Humanism” is a rather pathetic substitute for the real thing.”

The orthodoxy liked him well enough to invite him to be the guest speaker at the 100th anniversary of Charlie’s silly book.

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.DARWIN100

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Dated from 1981 — sorry, but I missed that “wave”, was busy elsewhere.”

You never missed it. Faith has been the prime mover of evolutionism from the beginning. You believe on sheer faith that someone out there has scientific evidence for evolution, and you have faith that the highly creative artwork that adorns many of your posts are based on something other than highly fragmentary fossils and vivid imaginations.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Religious people disliked [evolution] because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe- the existence of living matter.

Evolutionism doesn’t solve anything except for those who hate societal order and stability. Well, it did provide myriads of tax-payer funded jobs over the years to those desperately trying to prove Charlie right.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I hold to the original Enlightenment Era view of our Founders, among others: methodological naturalism does not “dispense with God”, but merely shows us some of the workings of His Creation.”

Darwinism is not natural.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “It turns out that Paine thought of himself as a Quaker — hardly “anti-Christian” — and wanted to be buried amongst his Quaker neighbors.”

Paine was not a Christian when he wrote this book:

“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism— a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the surf, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.” [Paine, Thomas, “The Age of Reason.” Citadel Press, 1988, pp.72-73]

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No, to repeat, they had no information, none, which would let them make informed decisions about such matters as the age of the earth.”

Nor does anyone, even today, except those of the faith of Newton, Faraday and Maxwell. Those three were able to make informed decisions, since they were not around to be corrupted by the fake geology of the lawyer Lyell.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Nothing in the Bible is natural-science as we understand the term. Nor is there any suggestion that the Bible even cares whether it matches to today’s science or not.”

Are you going to spend the rest of your life with your head in the sand. God’s Word is loaded with scientific gems. For example, at the beginning of creation he created plant and animal “kinds”, or “types” (if you will,) which eliminates the possibility of common descent, which we are only now finding out, 6000-7000 years later.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Sophistry is what Kalamata is here to sell. I stick to the facts & truth, as best I can.”

Says the arrogant Jackass who slandered me with his imaginary ability to read minds.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And they prove beyond reasonable doubt that your purposes here are entirely theological, not scientific.”

Your purposes here are theological, thinly disguised as science.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “In none of your quotes did Linnaeus use the term “family”. Was he trying to distance himself from God?”

He used the Latin Vulgate mis-translation of genera and species.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And you have a quote from the Bible which says as much?”

No. Only scientific observation. The Word of God implies as much, when 2 of each kind went aboard the ark with Noah; and when later God said to multiply AFTER their respective kinds.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As would Darwin — nothing in evolution theory requires any individual to suddenly jump from one “kind” to another. Every step is a small change from the one before it.”

Real science disputes Darwin’s extrapolation. There is not a shred of evidence for common descent — not in the fossil record, nor in the living record. If you were a scientist, you would know that.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Well... anybody can cast reckless aspersions.”

Casting aspersions is your bread and butter.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Yours are only recognized by others like you who hate science as we understand it.”

See what I mean?

Joe, I know you are going to deny this, but I made a good living in science; and in all those years, I never saw or heard of anyone using evolution for anything.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As of today, “intelligent design” is theology, not natural-science. That’s one reason why Paley is listed as a theologian.”

Intelligent design is the only possible solution to the mind-boggling complexity of the cell, the symbiotic nature of every living organism, both within and without, and the fine-tuning of the universe.

Evolutionism is pure theology.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Nonsense, of course they do, if that’s what the data suggests — it’s called a hypothesis.
Next step: confirm the hypothesis by attempting to falsify it. Evolution theory has never been seriously falsified.”

That is where you went astray from science. Evolutionism cannot be falsified, because it is not science. Evolutionists have been brainwashed into believing that the absence of evidence is evidence, making it impossible to falsify. You yourself are guilty of claiming, in this very thread, that the lack of evidence is evidence.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And the lies just keep on coming... Natural science, by definition, rejects ‘magic’.”

Evolutionism and big-bangism are based on magic.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “You seem not to know of some basics of western civilization.”

I did very well in western civilization courses, and it is still one of my favorite subjects. I have over 50 books in my libary on Western Civ, alone, not to mention all the books on U.S. History, WWII and World Civ. Therefore, you are talking to be talking.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And there’s a perfect example. Nobody with a basic western education would claim such a ludicrous idea (that there is nothing more natural than our creator).

Western civilization was founded on, and blessed by Christianity. The rejection of Christianity will destroy it.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No, evolution theory underlies all of DNA research and much of cutting-edge medicine. When you have your family’s DNA tested, the reports tell you where your ancestors came from, based on our understandings of mutations, a fact in evolution theory.”

Evolution has nothing to do with medicine, or DNA. Evolutionists have attempted to hijack the prestige of them, but their folly will not continue much longer.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No need, because your claims that the Bible condemns science are justified by nothing ore than your own “wild extrapolations of observable data”.

You are lying again, Joe. I would never claim the Bible condemns science. To the contrary. The Bible promotes science.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I’ll repeat: in none of your quotes does Linnaeus use the term “family”, much less define it as “kind”.

Why the misdirection? I showed you where Linnaeus grouped genera by “kind”. Let’s try it again. This time, I will capitalize those two words for clarity:

“The succulent plants are worthy of distinction; so are the largest GENERA, e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this KIND are: Haller’s Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the essential character distinguishes a GENUS from those of the same KIND included in the same natural order.” [Freer, Stephen, Translator, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica.” Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]

Pretty neat stuff, huh?

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Please, when they put Kalamata in charge of redefining the English language to suit your theological purposes, send me an invite to your coronation. Until then, I’ll assume that all such comments are just you puffing yourself up.

No, just being a scientific observer. I will say it again so everyone will know what were are talking about: evolutionary science is an oxymoron.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Michael J. Behe. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “

I see you learned how to use Wikipedia. Michael Behe is probably the most brilliant scientist on earth, except for perhaps the organic chemist James Tour. It is a tossup.

This is a segment of a recent interview of Behe discussing his most recent book, Darwin Devolves, followed by the full interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWxC4ncb5vc&list=PLrCQerz2L0IfFCguKDL1ohtlFFYskKCFJ&index=2

Behe is not only brilliant, but he is a genuinely nice and funny guy.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.”

That’s it. But his new book will propel him into history as the one who exposed the fraud called common descent.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was not science and was religious in nature.[3]”

It is always good to know there are lawyers and judges available who can tell everyone what science is.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe’s claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast ajority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe’s views and intelligent design.”

“Consensus is the refuge of the scoundrel.” — Crichton

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And yet another flat-out lie.”

You gotta stop lying, Joe. Every geneticist worth his salt knows that speciation is the result of breaking genes, not gaining new ones.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Like all of evolution, it’s a confirmed theory based on tons of evidence from fossil morphology & species DNA comparisons.”

You are severely scientifically-challenged, Joe. There is no evidence any of those handful of fragmented, fossilized land animal forms ever had babies, nor ever had any whale features. Gingrich and Thewissen made it all up, and Carl Werner exposed their charlantry. But evolution icons DIE HARD! We are still trying to ge rid of Haeckel’s Embryos, over a century after they were exposed as fraudulent. This is a short article on the whale fraud:

https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “If you actually talked to Thewissen, I’m certain he’d tell you, in his mind there were sufficient reasons why he included a blow-hole for Ambulocetus, and that new discoveries could yet prove him right.”

Are you really that dense? There is no blowhole. He imagined it!

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Consider a similar living creature, the Walrus: Looks like a blow-hole to me, goo goo g’joob.

It is a walrus, Joe, with two nostrils.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Evidence for which you presented where?”

I didn’t. It is mentioned here:

https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “In other words, it’s all just science doing what science does, nothing more.”

No, they are two sleazy scientists who were trying to make a name for themselves by fudging the data. There was no science involved.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Total nonsense which reveals Kalamata to be a man of propaganda, not science. No data was presented to justify such claims.”

That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel’s Embryos; and, now, fraudulent “whale evolution”.”

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “But the “observable evidence” is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.”

There you go again, pretending the absence of evidence is evidence.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Disparity before diversity” makes perfect sence when viewed against mass extinctions:”

That occurred in the Cambrian, Joe, when all the major phyla, including Chordata, showed up all at once, with no transitional forms. This is Gould:

“Older textbooks proclaim that our phylum, the Chordata, did not appear until the subsequent Ordovician period, and that this later evolution must imply advanced status. But the Burgess Shale contains a chordate, the genus Pikaia, misidentified by Walcott as a polychaete annelid... Chen and colleagues’ discovery and description of a beautifully preserved and unambiguously identified chordate from the still earlier Chengjiang fauna now seals the fate of this misguided effort in asserting specialness for our ancestry. Chordates arose in the Cambrian Explosion... During the past decade, however, the discovery and development of another fauna of marvellously preserved soft-bodied Cambrian organisms at Chengjiang in China has proven that full diversity was reached within the explosion itself... Charles Darwin faced this challenge to his gradualistic preferences with characteristic honesty, writing in the first edition of the Origin of Species: “The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained” (1859, p.308).” [Stephen Jay Gould, “Of it, not above it.” Nature, 377, pages 681–682 (26 October), 1995]

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “[A vivid imagination] is how science is supposed to work.

I am speechless.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joe the Denier says, “I doubt if any real scientist will be deterred by your or Tour’s definition of ‘impossible’.”

Real scientists were not the target of James Tour’s lecture.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And this was decided in a court of law, where Tour himself was assigned to administer punishment? Or was it Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where your good buddy Michael Bahe testified against evolution? Hmmmmm…”

Charlie Darwin’s theory is so shady the evolutionism cult must appeal to lawyers and judges to browbeat the opposition into accepting it.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Lies as defined by Tour, punishment administered by Tour — prosecutor, judge, jury & prison-keeper all rolled into one? What an amazing man!

Lies are lies. Wild extrapolations are also lies, when hyped as the truth, like the Origin of Life cult does.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Somehow the idea that public funds might be less available for Anthropogenic Global Warming science doesn’t disappoint me so much.”

Your heros are promoters of the global warming scam:

Michael Shermer:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=KVvggZo8m7c

“According to [biologist Tim] Flannery, even if we reduce our CO2 emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between 2 to 9 degrees C by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224±41 cubic kilometers per year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses 1 cubic kilometer of water per year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise 5 to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants of coastal communities. Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.” [Michael Shermer, “Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye.” 2016]

Shermer had a brief hiatus from insanity of “global warming” in 2014; but the “Man-is-a-pimple-in-the-scheme-of-things Deniers” browbeat him back into submission, perhaps by accusing him of being a holocaust denier.

Donald Prothero:

“Donald Prothero has emerged as one of America’s foremost experts on and debunkers of pseudoscience of various stripes. As a world-class paleontologist and geologist he diverted precious research time to the cause of taking on the evolution deniers—creationists and their intelligent design brethren—because of the threat they pose to good science education in America. Prothero noticed that global warming skeptics and climate deniers employed the same tactics as creationists: focusing on minor anomalies in the data, interpreting normal scientific debates as indications that mainstream science is flawed, and quote mining experts to make it sound as if they were saying something in support of their denialist cause. Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future is Prothero’s magnum opus on all things pseudoscience, covering not only creationism and climate denial, but also other threats to a rational and sane society, including the anti-vaxxers (those who believe vaccinations cause autism and other problems and should be abandoned), the AIDS deniers (yes, believe it or not, there are still people who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS), alternative medical practitioners who deny the benefits of modern science-based medicine, the tobacco deniers (primary smoking deniers have morphed into secondhand smoking deniers), the peak oil deniers (those who hold that the supply of oil is nearly endless), and many others who employ tried-and-true strategies of selling doubt as a product.” [Forward by Michael Shermer, in, Donald R. Prothero, “Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future.” Indiana University Press, 2013]

“Most people reading through that list would immediately assume that it describes the creationists and their attempts to target the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution. Indeed, the list could describe creationists, or evolution deniers—but it also describes the actions of the climate deniers (who deny global warming is real and caused by humans) as well. Indeed, the membership lists of creationists and climate change deniers have a great deal of overlap, and both causes are promoted equally by right-wing political candidates, news media (especially Fox News), and religious organizations such as the Discovery Institute.” [Ibid. Chapter 1]

You have some mighty strange heroes, Alinsky Joe.

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “You make the claim, so you provide the evidence. I’ve seen no evidence to support your claim.

Suppose you tell why any private entity would fund Origin of Life research?

******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Here’s what I know for certain: years ago I spent many months debating Holocaust deniers and they sounded & worked much like Danny I-don’t-see-no-stinkin’-facts Kalamata. Granted, they were far more vulgar, but the bottom line was: no evidence, no testimony, no logical conclusion was ever accepted as legit, so in the end, there was no Holocaust, they said. It was the same attitude & tactics I see from Kalamata. Right, exactly like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum.

I am not buying for a minute that Alinsky Joe has ever debated a holocaust denier. He is a proven liar, not to mention being a rabid evolutionist. Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the “’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove.

Alinsky Joe lives in the world of the logical gutter; and his hatred of Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews is undeniable. His heros, the devout atheists, climate change propagandists, and abortion advocates, Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, have taught him well how to become an expert in the use of slander and ad hominems against anyone who speaks out against his warped view of what is and what is not science.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Right, substitute the word “Holocaust” for “evolution” and we are repeating, almost word for word, a debate which went on for many months, years ago. Same tactics, same insults, same nonsense.”

Substitute the phrase “holocaust denier” for “creationism denier” or “intelligent design denier” in the belligerant rants of any Darwin-hugging bigot, and you will see there is no difference in tactics: same insults, same slander, same nonsense.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “But first you’d have to identify which of their funding dollars came from federal taxpayers, which you’ve steadfastly refused to do.

All of it for evolutionism “research”.

>>Joe the Denier says, “So who exactly is the “charlatan” here?”

You.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “The Big Lie here is that Kalamata alone knows the true meaning of the Word of God.”

Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God? It sounds like that is what you are saying.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As for our ancestors, the Bible teaches we were made from mud! Sounds amazingly like abiogenesis to me.”
>>Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Stop with the craziness, Alinsky Joe. The Bible verse you quoted teaches us that the Lord God (not “Charlie-Chance”) intelligently-designed man from the dust of the ground, and then breathed the breath of life into him:

I don’t see anything in the bible, or in observational science, that points to man evolving from an ape, or a frog. The only place you will find common descent is in diagrams mined from the imaginations of evolutionism cultists.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joe the Denier says, “Right! Exactly like there’s no evidence for the Holocaust in a Holocaust museum! How could there be, since it never happened?! </sarcasm>

There are boatloads of evidence for the holocaust, dummy. None for evolutionism.

As an aside, Dr. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute, an “evolutionism denier” and therefore a “holocaust denier” by association, according to the dark mind of Alinsky Joe, came from Jewish parents who fled the Nazi’s near the beginning of World War II. Can you imagine anyone in their right mind would claim David Berlinsky to be a holocaust denier? Alinsky Joe, perhaps, but no one in their right mind.

This is Dr. Berlinski:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl_halncgdU&list=PLrCQerz2L0IeG17t1-k59uM87cbESCWDQ

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “You keep asking for evidence, I’m telling you where you can go to find it, see it, touch it. If you can’t find it there, nothing I say will help.

I asked for scientific evidence, Alinsky Joe, not just-so stories and fake lineages.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Right! Exactly the way a Holocaust denier, literally, can’t see evidence of the Holocaust in a Holocaust museum. What can I say?

Get a hold of yourself, Alinsky Joe. There is plenty of evidence for the holocaust in a holocaust museum. Go look for yourself! On the other hand, there is no evidence for evolution in a natural history museum.

Alinsky Joe became completely unhinged when I asked him for scientific evidence for evolutionism, rather than the typical just-so stories, imaginary tree diagrams, and the wildly imaginative museum mockups that the evolutionism cult typically feeds the unwashed masses.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Right, your opinions based on incomplete knowledge are not evidence of “no evolution”, but are evidence of your theological commitments.

Quit denying the fact that there is no evidence for your religion, Alinsky Joe. Either that, or point us to EMPIRICAL,
OBSERVABLE, SCIENTIFIC evidence.

The evolution cult has had 160 years to find evidence to support Charlie Darwin’s lame-brain theory, and there was even less evidence 40 years ago, than there was in Charlie’s day, according to this fellow:

“Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution — defined as change in organisms over time — and the explanation of this change. Darwin’s contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” [Raup, David M., “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology.” Field Museum of Natural History, Bulletin Vol. 50 No. 1, January, 1979, pp.22-23,25]

There is even less today, now that the whale evolution myth has been exposed, and Haeckel’s fake embryos have been removed from most of our children’s textbooks. Haeckel’s embryos have been retained only in books written by a few die-hard fanatics, such as the atheist and antichristian bigot, Donald Prothero, one of Alinsky Joe’s heroes.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Nonsense, evolution is theory (artwork) based on facts (fossils).”

LOL! Only a fool would believe that:

http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And once again the god of definitions, Lord Danny I-don’t-see-no-stinkin’-facts Kalamata redefines words for us lowly humans. Amazing!

Facts are facts, Alinsky Joe. The fact that you don’t have any facts supporting your cult demonstrates that it is founded on religion, not science.

*******************
>> Kalamata said: “Those are observable features of the geologic column and the fossil record? “
>>Joe the Denier responded, “Naw… it’s pure nonsense concocted by someone who loathes science with a passion strong enough to justify any lies.

I see that geology and paleontology are not your strong suits, Alinsky Joe.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “Nonsense, you pick, you accuse, I’ll defend.”

It is your deceptive link, Alinsky Joe. Show us the evidence from it. Pick one.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “I see you are still lying about pretty much everything, from small points to large.

Everything you say is a lie, Alinsky Joe.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “No, there are literal mountains of evidence, though some scientists (ie., Bob Bakker) insist that asteroid was not the only cause.

There is only evidence in the world-wide strata for a global flood; no asteroid strikes.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “Right, estimates are billions of fossils in hundreds of thousands of species found so far.
That’s a lot of evidence and answers a lot of questions, though many more are still unknown.

That is evidence for a global flood; nothing else.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “And yet you looked straight at contrary evidence and still lied about it? Amazing.

I never dispute evidence of any kind. That is a character trait that made me a good troubleshooter during my career, and somewhat of a “loose cannon” during my college years, since I refused to bow to the establishment.

That said, I believed in evolution and uniformitarian geology for all of my career, because I had no reason to doubt what I was told. When I finally saw the evidence (the geological column) I realized we have been conned.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “And the lies just never stop.

Not while you are posting.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “Of course not, just like there’s no proof for the Holocaust, not even in a Holocaust museum. </sarcasm> But there’s endless physical evidence for the Earth’s age, some radiometric, a lot of it not. As important, there’s no physical evidence suggesting otherwise.

You can tell the lies of Alinsky Joe are being exposed when he throws out the “Holocaust Card”. Lately he has been playing that card with the same religious fervor that Brother Al Sharpton plays the Race Card.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “Now you’re just projecting your own mindset & denial practices onto me. Totally untrue.

How so? You are the one using the same debating tactics with the same religious fervor as holocaust deniers?

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “If there were serious evidence falsifying evolution theory, it would eventually make its way into recognized publications, one way or another.

You are more naive than even I thought.

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “And yet again, by your own quotes, you lie. That M.D. never said he found a single fossil.
He said he “talked to” others who claimed they had, at some point, found bird & dinosaur fossils together. An amazing story if true, would make world-wide headlines if confirmed, and yet we’ve heard... nothing. Why? Just my first guess... because it’s not.

He found the fossils in museum and museum drawers that came from dinosar dig sites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSFytEpevU&list=PLrCQerz2L0Ifpe9QdbWBZ1ACbEa3kMO2g&index=10&t=8m59s

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “Nonsense, geologistgs spend lifetimes studying different geological strata worldwide to predict locations of natural resources like oil & minerals. Sure, there are similarities, but they are far from the same.

The geologic column and fossil record supports world-wide catastrophe, not uniformitarian gradualism. This evolutionary geologist explains how geologists have been brainwashed into believing Lyell:

“My excuse for this lengthy and amateur digression into history is that geology got into the hands of the theoreticians who were conditioned by the social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field. So it was–as Steve Gould put it–that Charles Lyell ‘managed to convince future generations of geologists that their science had begun with him.’ In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes. However, it seems to me that the stratigraphical record is full of examples of processes that are far from ‘normal’ in the usual sense of the word. In particular we must conclude that sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid indeed and very spasmodic. This may be called the ‘Phenomenon of the Catastrophic Nature of the Stratigraphic Record.’” [Ager, Derek V., “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record.” John Wilson & Son, 3rd Ed, 1993, Chap 4., p.70]

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “Many different kinds of fossils are found above the K-T boundary, just not dinosaurs.

So? Where are the dinosaur transitions?

*******************
>> Joe the Denier said: “Now my time here is up, will come back another day... “

That is enough lies out of you for one day, Alinsky Joe.

Mr. Kalamata

Boogieman: "Certainly a great many of them have to me more than a “small baby-step”.
Every step where the altered child can no longer breed with the parent species is an insurmountable hurdle, since it’s an evolutionary dead-end..."

Surely you know that's not how it works, don't you?
For sake of discussion, let's consider a hypothetical example -- critter-X, beginning population 1,000, reproduces every year.
Critter-X is perfectly adapted to its environment, but over geological time the environment changes.
As the climate grows colder, baby-X's born with longer hair & stubbier legs survive better, so over time, the entire population gets more winterized.
Now the environment grows hotter & dryer, new predators arrive and only Critter-X's built for more speed survive.
In time the climate grows very wet and now Critter-X's who swim do better.

Adaptions to new environments can happen slowly, resulting in occasional population collapses, down to just a few breeding individuals.
Then populations explode when adaptions better match environment.
Multiply these changes times millions and at the end of that time there's no way the offspring could still interbreed with their ancestral population.
And yet at no time during this was any offspring ever born in a different species from its parents.
Sure, some "baby-steps" are more rapid than others, but none is ever a giant leap forward.

That's evolution theory, which our deniers claim is contradicted by fossil records.
The fossils show "sudden appearance" and then "stasis", they say.
But it's important to notice that still 99%+ of species have not been found.
And we do have one rather important sequence of fossils transition forms:

Reily, was your intent to talk behind my back, or did you forget to ping me?

*******************
>>Kalamata continues to demonstrate the difference between dogma & science. He also continues to show that he is angry that dogma is not science and science is not dogma.

You have it backwards, Reily. I was an evolutionist well into my 60’s, at which time I took a look at the evidence for the first time. Science is about observable evidence, not dogma and story-telling like we get from evolutionists.

*******************
>>He also shows a complete misunderstanding of the word “theory”.

Quit lying.

*******************
>>Theories come & go as we observe more facts. However when I say “come & go” its doesn’t mean they disappear the are 999/1000 subsumed into a larger explanation/theory. For example I have a book on my shelf called Classical Theory of Electromagnetics (I include electrodynamics in electromagnetics.). Is it right or wrong? Is it dogma or science? Well this book does not include relativistic electromagnetics. I have other books that do. The classical theory has been subsumed into the theory that takes into account relativity. Something will come along and subsume it into a larger theory. (Einstein thought so!) You can do the same with mechanics. Aristotelian mechanics was subsumed by Galilean mechanics which was subsumed by Newtonian (Classical Mechanics) which was subsumed by Einstein’s relativity. There are a myriad of other science examples.”

Leave it to an evolutionist to conflate empirical science, such as mechanics, with historical “science”, such as evolutionism. That is deceitful.

*******************
>>If the case is closed, the explanation complete and their nothing in the explanation/theory that allows it to be subsumed into a larger theory then it isn’t science. (Its Global Warning!). I mean “dogma”!

Add evolutionism to that list, following global warming.

*******************
>>It has been observed! You don’t accept the interpretations of the observations. Which is fine, you’re perfectly free to do so. But you can’t honestly say it hasn’t been observed!

I can honestly say evolution has never been observed. I can also honestly say that you can present absolutely NO scientific evidence in support of evolution.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joe the Denier says, “The problem with Anthropogenic Global Warming (hypothesis) is that it’s so entangled with Leftist politics that most people can’t tell where the science ends and politics begins.

No doubt about that. Two of the leftists on your most-admired list, atheists Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, are global warming propagandists.

Mr. Kalamata

You are consistent!
Please continue to be Exhibit A - “The Man that Wants Science to be Dogma!”

“....
Reily, was your intent to talk behind my back, or did you forget to ping me?
….”

Paranoid much?
Since its an open forum and postings are seen by many how can I be “talking behind your back”? After all you’ve addressed me in postings where I never initiated the conversation.

Please look up the word “theory”.
Maybe you do understand, you just haven’t demonstrated it.
Theory is an explanation that best fits the evidence. The evidence changes the theory changes or is eventually subsumed into a greater explanation or theory. That’s science all else is dogma.

Empirical Science
“.. The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. …”

And yes some scientists are horrible at this! They’re human beings subject to all the foibles of all humans!

Even then there are useful things embedded in some theories that aren’t observable!

It seems your understanding of the word empirical science is “shaky” also. “Historical science” - what’s that? Is it Aristotelian mechanics, Galen’s Medical Theory, etc. That’s the only thing I can think of that qualifies.

It all comes back to “evidence” at what you accept vs what I, BroJoK and others accept. All science is linked if BroJoK, I and others were as wrong as you say we are, we would not be pounding on computers talking via the Internet.

There are always other viewpoints & interpretations to anything. If you require others to only see things only your way, we’re back to dogma! So again your mad that science isn’t dogma & dogma is isn’t science.

Calling me an evolutionist is inaccurate at least in the manner you seem to mean it.

By the way I am perfectly happy if we ignore each other! However I will continue to post on this issue if I think I have something to say.

>>Paranoid much?

It is common courtesy to notify those you are talking about so you don’t come across as a back-biter.

*************
>>Since its an open forum and postings are seen by many how can I be “talking behind your back”? After all you’ve addressed me in postings where I never initiated the conversation.

It is a big forum.

*************
>>Please look up the word “theory”. Maybe you do understand, you just haven’t demonstrated it. Theory is an explanation that best fits the evidence. The evidence changes the theory changes or is eventually subsumed into a greater explanation or theory. That’s science all else is dogma.

Why so condescending?

*************
>>Empirical Science. “The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. …”

That is what I have been saying all long. Evolution has not been observed in 160 years of painstaking laboratory research and physical digging in the rock layers. If anyone claims there is observable evidence for evolution, they should be able to present it, without obfuscation. The evidence is in the details.

*************
>>And yes some scientists are horrible at this! They’re human beings subject to all the foibles of all humans! Even then there are useful things embedded in some theories that aren’t observable!

Name some.

*************
>>It seems your understanding of the word empirical science is “shaky” also.

Perhaps your understanding of empirical science is the “shaky” one.

*************
>> “Historical science” - what’s that? Is it Aristotelian mechanics, Galen’s Medical Theory, etc. That’s the only thing I can think of that qualifies.

Evolutionary biology is a historical science:

“Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” [Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought.” Scientific American, Nov 24, 2009]

So is Paleontology. Perhaps you were one of those Jack Horner was referring to:

“There is no equivalent in paleontology to the law of gravity, no equations that apply to the behavior of one kind of dinosaur under one set of circumstances, still less to all kinds under all circumstances, no mathematical procedures for predicting exactly where or how fossils will be deposited. Moreover, unlike botany or zoology, which also concern living things, paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard-and-fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals, points beyond which no further debate or research would be necessary. These days it’s easy to go to school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive. But in fact paleontology is closer in spirit to the traditional definition of science—a method rather than a set of principles, a form of systematic doubt, a way of testing ideas.” [Horner & Dobb, “Dinosaur Lives - Unearthing An Evolutionary Saga.” Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997, Chap.2, p.19]

The historical nature of Darwin’s theory was probably the reason the fossil record was so important to him. He understood that his theory would be in trouble, if the fossil record didn’t “come around”:

“[W]hy, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” [Difficulties on Theory, in, Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection.” John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap.IV,p.172]

“All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.” [Geological Succession, in, Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection.” John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap X, p.342]

Of course, Charlie didn’t realize at the time there would be multitudes of followers who would do anything and everything to keep his theory alive, even promoting the pretense that the absence of evidence is evidence.

*************
>> It all comes back to “evidence” at what you accept vs what I, BroJoK and others accept. All science is linked if BroJoK, I and others were as wrong as you say we are, we would not be pounding on computers talking via the Internet.

Empirical Science is why we are pounding on computers; but evolution is not empirical science. It is historical, and is not linked to the empirical, as you suggest, unless verifiable and repeatable evidence is discovered.

You can “accept” whatever you want; but when you try to pass it off as evidence, sooner or later someone like me will come along and hold your feet to the fire by saying, “prove it!”.

*************
>>There are always other viewpoints & interpretations to anything. If you require others to only see things only your way, we’re back to dogma! So again your mad that science isn’t dogma & dogma is isn’t science.

Very few things make me mad, except lies, with slanderous lies the the most vile.

*************
>>Calling me an evolutionist is inaccurate at least in the manner you seem to mean it.

Evolutionists believe in common descent. If you don’t believe in common descent, you are not an evolutionist. The key word is “believe”. There is no evidence for common descent, so the belief is based strictly on faith.

*************
>>By the way I am perfectly happy if we ignore each other! However I will continue to post on this issue if I think I have something to say.

That is what forums are for. But if you have anything to say to or about me, please be courteous and let me know.

Mr. Kalamata

Your dogma is chasing cars again!

>>>Your dogma is chasing cars again!

You are weird!

Reily quoting Kalamata on evolution theory: “It has never been confirmed, or even observed.
It is a theory on life support, perpetuated by suppression of opposing theories.
It is dead, for all practical purposes..."

By the way, you may wonder why I bring up Holocaust denial.
One reason is, when I read this from Kalamata, it is almost word-for-word the language of Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago.
They pretend they've already scored points, won the argument and so do their little end-zone victory dance.
Of course that's absurd and they're actually dancing in their own endzone!

Danny the-projector Kalamata: "Joe the Denier says..."

Projecting your own evolution denial.

Danny the-projector Kalamata: "The page was a VLS propaganda piece promoting the Evolutionism Party line.
There is no science to be found in it."

It's a news report on the current status of DNA research.

Kalamata: "So, who do we believe: Francis Collins and the highly professional ENCODE staff, or those of the ilk that gave us Haeckel, Piltdown, Peppered Moth, Vestigial Organs, fake radiometric dating, fake horse and whale evolution, and, of course, Junk DNA?"

Your suggestion that ENCODE researchers were somehow anti-evolution is totally bogus.
From what I can see of Collins' views, they are the same as mine.

Kalamata: "Again, who do you trust: the professional ENCODE scientists, or a few rabid ideologues of a dead theory propped up by lies, inneundo, suppression of opposing ideas, and downright fraud?"

Even ENCODE reported that only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution.

Kalamata: "The dirty little secret is the evolutionism cult made up the Junk DNA myth out of thin air, like every other “proof” they trumpet or have trumpeted.
They can’t let this one go because there is nothing left to cling to — there is not a shred of observable evidence in any field that supports evolutionism."

Total nonsense.
"Junk" originally referred to the 98% on non-coding DNA.
As certain functions were found, the term "junk" is reduced to some smaller percent, but even ENCODE tells us only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution.
That makes the rest... well... ah... "junk".

Kalamata: "It is true that every scientist on the project was probably an evolutionist, including Collins.
So, if anything, they were biased toward evolutionism."

Exactly, it's just scientists doing their science thing, sometimes disagreeing, but none trying to disprove or deny evolution theory.

Kalamata: "How did anyone confirm DNA was millions of years old, as the Wisegeek bunch claimed? (This I have to see.)"

Evolution theory predicts and observations confirm that descent from common ancestors will leave large sections of DNA similar across closely related species, less similar across more distantly related species.
The fossil record shows evolution's timescales to be in the many millions of years.

Kalamata on reading Graur's new book: "Not that one.
I have Graur & Li, “Fundamentals of molecular evolution”, 1st & 2nd editions.
Of course, I have many other books on the subject, for reference."

And yet you continue to lie blatantly about them -- amazing!

Kalamata quoting ENCODE: "However, we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons.
This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome.” "

I'd say those words "lacking evolutionary constraint" are a long-winded expression for "junk".
So, sure, they want to be "neutral", but even ENCODE admits that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution.

Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: "Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since."

So let's notice first that Collins is here talking about, yes, evolution.

Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: "Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as”junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance."

Kalamata: "So, Collins was in harmony with the pilot project report.
However, in 2015, Collins had changed his tune, as previously quoted from the 2015 Zimmer article:"

From what I can see of Collins' views, they are the same as mine.

Kalamata quoting Francis Collins: " 'Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’ "

Sure, but even Collins doesn't claim that "stuff" is important enough to be constrained (or restrained) by evolution.

Kalamata quoting Graur: "A recent slew of ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional.
This claim flies in the face of current estimates according towhich the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is less than 10%."

Right, 80% is said to be "functional but unconstrained", meaning what?
In effect: "junk".

Kalamata: "Yes, I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium."

Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur's remarks.

Kalamata quoting: " 'What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’ ', says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. 'This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes."

We're still talking about alleged "functional but unconstrained".
And as of today almost none of those alleged functions have been identified.

Kalamata quoting: "It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection.
Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’ "

So, it seems, to summarize: the old results showed that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution and a new test shows that only 5% is not constrained -- or did they just change definitions?
Going from 5% yes to 5% no looks like a huge difference and should send a lot of researchers back to their labs to carefully reexamine just what, exactly, they meant by their terms.
Are they using the same word to describe two different phenomena?

Kalamata: "Oops, so much for human evolution!...
This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data.
And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions.” "

Right!
It's just a case of scientists doing what science does.
One group of scientists studied data from a different source and came to a new conclusion.
When they finish hashing it all out they may well arrive at a new model for evolution.

Kalamata: "If I understand that correctly, the only human ancestors are other humans."

And, depending on your definitions, pre-humans.

Kalamata quoting: " ‘It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,’ says Birney.
‘We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA.
This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.’ "

A key to the idea of "junk" is that mutations there cause no harm to the individual and so get passed down over generations thus providing a window into our ancestors' origins & lives.
It's said these "harmless" mutations average about 100 per individual and that if they were indeed harmful, they'd quickly lead to the extinction of the species.

So far, nothing has been presented to explain that.

Kalamata quoting: "Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint, with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner.
The rest can be assaulted by random mutation with little effect."

So, you win the point that "constrained" = "restrained" = "constrained" = "restrained".
But, by your own quote I still win the larger point that only 5% plus maybe another 4% of DNA is restrained = constrained by evolution.

Danny the-projector Kalamata: "You do not know it is junk.
Your imagination is running wild."

You do not know what functions alleged "junk" has.
Your imagination is running wild.

Danny the-projector Kalamata: "You really should consider dropping the 5% nonsense."

But 5% seems to be the magic number -- either 5% is constrained or 5% is not constrained, those are the test results.
We are not told what either number truly represents, or if they are even necessarily inconsistent -- depending on word definitions, they might conceivably both be true.
So I'd expect an effort to clarify & explain what's going on.

Kalamata: "Pouyet F et al.
Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences. eLife 2018;7:e36317 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36317"

Again, we're talking definitions of words -- is "biased gene conversion" and "demographic inferences" really the same things as "evolutionary constraint" or "selective restraint"?

Kalamata the denier: "It take more faith to be an evolutionist, since all of its so-called evidence is extrapolated and/or imagined.
I know; I used to be an evolutionist."

So, you used to be an honest man?

Kalamata the denier on evolution theory: "It is not falsifiable."

Of course it is, which if you had any serious education, you'd know.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata: "You are confounding imaginative mockups based on fragmentary fossils with observable scientific evidence.
That is a no, no."

That is a lie, lie.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata: "There is not a shred of observable scientific evidence for evolutionism.
It is a myth,"

Another lie, lie.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata: "The evolutionism model is fake, since there is no data before the flood; but it does reveal the population flattens out before 3,000 BC, which is about the time of the flood."

Complete nonsense.
The graph shows that your mathematical equation is rubbish.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata: "Evidence of common descent doesn't exist in the fossil record -- certainly not in any of the many paleontological books in my library.
The fossils show the opposite of common descent."

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata: "Michael Behe's ~~research reveals~~ theology claims there is no common descent to the found in the DNA.
Animals cannot evolve past the genetic boundary at the family level; and below that it is no genetic change, or devolution."

Fixed it.
No "research" could support such claims.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin' evidence Kalamata: "That said, there is no scientific evidence for Darwinism, at all.
It is an imaginary construct based on wild extrapolation of observable data."

Right, just like the Holocaust. </sarc>

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "The fossil record doesn’t really show anything except there are billions of dead things buried in as much as a mile or more of flat, uneroded, unbioturbated sedimentary rock layers."

Grand Canyon geological layers have been dated from nearly 2 billion years to about 200 million years old:

>>Joe the God Denier says, “By the way, you may wonder why I bring up Holocaust denial. One reason is, when I read this from Kalamata, it is almost word-for-word the language of Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago. They pretend they’ve already scored points, won the argument and so do their little end-zone victory dance. Of course that’s absurd and they’re actually dancing in their own endzone!”

You are a shameless liar, Alinsky Joe.

I now know why you brought it up. I could not understand why someone claiming to be a Freeper would stoop as low as a CNN anchor, so I did a little background research from the works of those you admire — well-known bigots such as Dawkins, Shermer, Prothero, et al.. I soon learned that the act of applying the label of “holocaust denier” to those who reject the foolishness of evolutionism/atheism was the easiest way of dehumanizing them. That is, by marginalizing or dehumanizing those who believe in the creation narrative of Moses, athiests have been successful in suppressing opposition to the alternate creation narrative given to them by their prophet, Charlie Darwin.

That is exactly the same tactic the radical left uses against conservatives when they play the Race Card or the Nazi Card; and that is exactly the same tactic the Nazis used against the Jews. You will find a lot of holocaust deniers in that mix, but they are okay with Joe as long as they do not criticize Darwin.

When you get tired of trying to dehumanizing me, perhaps you will take the time to show us some scientific evidence for evolutionism.

Mr. Kalamata

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "I am in my 70’s, well-traveled, and a long-time WWII History buff; and yet I have never met a holocaust denier.
But I do know an arrogant, slanderous, know-nothing jackass when I read his posts."

Just as you never met me, yet we've debated now at some length.
From that I see that you're quite good at projecting your own nature onto others.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "It is too late.
Evolutionism is the established religion of the United States, thanks to the ACLU, the thugs at the NCSE, and a few tyrannical judges who thought nothing of usurping the power of free expression from the states and the people."

Naw, you call it "religion" because you disagree on religious grounds.
Strictly defined & taught, science is the opposite of any religion.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Science doesn’t reject anything."

Science absolutely rejects your anti-science ideas.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata on criticizing evolution: "Not in the classroom, if they want to obtain tenure; and not in their research, if they want to get published.
You need to get out more, Joe."

Sure they can, in classrooms on theology, philosophy, history of western civilization, etc.
As for research, what, exactly, was all that discussion of the 2012 ENCODE report?
Some people even claim ENCODE itself falsifies evolution, don't they?

As for who gets out more, it's why my time here is limited.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "If evolutionism was not the established religion of the United States, it could be challenged in the classroom by other theories.
But evolutionism has become the modern-day Church of England, which caused the colonists to flee England and come to America."

There is no other scientific theory.
By definition, Creationism and Intelligent Design are theology, not science.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That is exactly how the orthodoxy promotes evolutionism — as theology."

I agree that atheists searching for some kind of spiritual meaning may glom onto anything, including science.
But I strongly disagree that evolution is necessarily contextualized as a "substitute for religion".

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You never missed it.
Faith has been the prime mover of evolutionism from the beginning.
You believe on sheer faith that someone out there has scientific evidence for evolution, and you have faith that the highly creative artwork that adorns many of your posts are based on something other than
highly fragmentary fossils and vivid imaginations."

Billions of "highly fragmentary" fossils representing hundreds of thousands of identified species, together providing clear evidence of transitional forms, these, for example:

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionism doesn’t solve anything except for those who hate societal order and stability.
Well, it did provide myriads of tax-payer funded jobs over the years to those desperately trying to prove Charlie right."

Evolution answers many, but far from all, questions about natural history.
It supports and is supported by our understandings in biology, geology, cosmology, physics & medicine, among others.
As for Federal funding, you don't know what that is or was historically.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Darwinism is not natural."

Kalamata is not honest.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Paine was not a Christian when he wrote this book:"

Paine's father was a Quaker, his mother Anglican.
Paine wished to be buried in a Quaker cemetery.
Paine was decidedly deistic, but some of his criticisms of Christianity echoed those of other non-conformists Unitarians & Anabaptists.
Paine's contemporary, Edward Gibbon ("Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire") also wrote scathingly of the early Roman Catholic church, while maintaining his own Protestantism.

Bottom line: Paine was a man of his Enlightenment Era, who held far more in common with contemporaries like Jefferson or Adams than with 20th century atheists like Russell.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Nor does anyone, even today, except those of the faith of Newton, Faraday and Maxwell.
Those three were able to make informed decisions, since they were not around to be corrupted by the fake geology of the lawyer Lyell."

This site lists hundreds of historically famous geologists, none of whom would agree with denier Kalamata's description of their work as "fake".

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Are you going to spend the rest of your life with your head in the sand.
God’s Word is loaded with scientific gems.
For example, at the beginning of creation he created plant and animal “kinds”, or “types” (if you will,) which eliminates the possibility of common descent, which we are only now finding out, 6000-7000 years later."

There's nothing, zero, of natural-science in such "gems" as you call them.
They are the opposite of natural, they are creation by divine supernatural actions.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Says the arrogant Jackass who slandered me with his imaginary ability to read minds."

Says the denier whose entire argument is a slander on natural-science and even on the Bible he pretends to defend.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Your purposes here are theological, thinly disguised as science."

One cannot discuss Creationism without getting into theology.
My purpose is to defend both traditional theology and natural-science.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "He [Linnaeus] used the Latin Vulgate mis-translation of genera and species."

Neither of which translates to "family", and both of which mistranslate the Biblical work "kind".

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "The Word of God implies as much, when 2 of each kind went aboard the ark with Noah; and when later God said to multiply AFTER their respective kinds."

Which is nowhere defined in any scientific sense.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Real science disputes Darwin’s extrapolation.
There is not a shred of evidence for common descent — not in the fossil record, nor in the living record.
If you were a scientist, you would know that."

You don't speak for science or scientists.
You speak only for your own misunderstandings of the Bible.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Casting aspersions is your bread and butter."

You are here to cast aspersions on science and its defenders.
I am here to defend both science and the Bible, properly understood.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Joe, I know you are going to deny this, but I made a good living in science; and in all those years, I never saw or heard of anyone using evolution for anything."

Natural-science is a really big subject.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Intelligent design is the only possible solution to the mind-boggling complexity of the cell, the symbiotic nature of every living organism, both within and without, and the fine-tuning of the universe."

I think we agree that the Universe was designed intelligently.
The question on the table here is whether it was designed intelligently enough to, on its own, without further divine intervention, "grow" life from the "seeds" of organic matter?
The honest answer is: maybe, scientifically (as opposed to theologically) we don't know for sure.
But if the Universe was designed to create life on its own would that not be the ultimate in Intelligence and theological proof of God?

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionism cannot be falsified, because it is not science."

That's a total lie which, even if you repeat it endlessly, remains a lie.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionists have been brainwashed into believing that the absence of evidence is evidence, making it impossible to falsify."

There simply is no confirmed evidence falsifying evolution.
If there were, you'd present it here in a heartbeat.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You yourself are guilty of claiming, in this very thread, that the lack of evidence is evidence."

You yourself have lied endlessly on this point, no matter how often you've been corrected.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionism and big-bangism are based on magic."

You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you?

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "I did very well in western civilization courses, and it is still one of my favorite subjects.
I have over 50 books in my libary on Western Civ, alone, not to mention all the books on U.S. History, WWII and World Civ."

And yet you are amazingly ignorant of some basic ideas in Western Thought, such as the origins and definitions of natural-science concepts.
My guess is that whatever you did learn at some time in the past has been destroyed by some overwhelming new false anti-western construct that both is itself, and renders everything else, unintelligible.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Western civilization was founded on, and blessed by Christianity.
The rejection of Christianity will destroy it."

But neither the Bible nor any Christian thinker ever claimed that God was merely "natural".
I can't even think of famous heretics who claimed that.
So to my knowledge, yours is a heresy in a class by itself.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolution has nothing to do with medicine, or DNA.
Evolutionists have attempted to hijack the prestige of them, but their folly will not continue much longer."

Again you sound like those Holocaust deniers I debated almost 20 years ago, they loudly proclaiming the debate was over, their side won, the Holocaust was disappearing from history, even while they themselves, like the Wicked Witch of the East from Dorothy's water were rapidly melting away.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You are lying again, Joe.
I would never claim the Bible condemns science.
To the contrary.
The Bible promotes science."

And that is one of your biggest lies.
You can only pretend it's true by redefining such words to suit your own nefarious purposes.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Why the misdirection?
I showed you where Linnaeus grouped genera by “kind”.
Let’s try it again.
This time, I will capitalize those two words for clarity:"

Why the misdirection?
Nowhere did Linnaeus use or define the term "family".
Nowhere did Linnaeus equate "family" to "kind".
Nowhere did Linnaeus provide evidence as to where biological "barriers" might exist between different categories of life.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "No, just being a scientific observer.
I will say it again so everyone will know what were are talking about: evolutionary science is an oxymoron."

But you've observed nothing, zero.
Your "science" is theology, nothing else.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "I see you learned how to use Wikipedia.
Michael Behe is probably the most brilliant scientist on earth, except for perhaps the organic chemist James Tour.
It is a tossup."

So there are three (including you) who hate natural-science and wish to replace it with their own unique theology.
Wonderful.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That’s it.
But his [Behe's] new book will propel him into history as the one who exposed the fraud called common descent."

Or, more likely, toss his already tarnished reputation onto the trash-heap of history.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "It is always good to know there are lawyers and judges available who can tell everyone what science is."

Or, more precisely, what science is not.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You gotta stop lying, Joe.
Every geneticist worth his salt knows that speciation is the result of breaking genes, not gaining new ones."

You gotta stop lying, Danny.
Every geneticist worth his/her salt knows that speciation is the result of changes in DNA, not "gaining" or "breaking" genes.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You are severely scientifically-challenged, Joe.
There is no evidence any of those handful of fragmented, fossilized land animal forms ever had babies, nor ever had any whale features.
Gingrich and Thewissen made it all up, and Carl Werner exposed their charlantry."

Your mind is severely corrupted if you suppose that pre-historical creatures didn't normally reproduce.
As for your alleged "handful of fragmented" fossils, there are far more than a handful, and the numbers grow every year.
As for whether those fossils were land or sea animals, which one is Ursus maritimus? --

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Are you really that dense?
There is no blowhole.
He imagined it!"

The blow-hole is irrelevant because, for example, this animal has no defined blow-hole, but is also very much a sea creature:

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "It is a walrus, Joe, with two nostrils."

Regardless of whether you call them "nostrils" or "blow-holes", the walrus is still very much a sea-creature.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "No, they are two sleazy scientists who were trying to make a name for themselves by fudging the data.
There was no science involved."

Says our theologian in chief.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel’s Embryos; and, now, fraudulent “whale evolution”.”"

Science, by its very nature is supposed to be self correcting.
Your theology, by contrast, cannot ever correct itself since it insists it's perfect to begin with.
That explains why theologians like Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata don't see.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "There you go again, pretending the absence of evidence is evidence."

And there you go again with bald-faced lies.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That occurred in the Cambrian, Joe, when all the major phyla, including Chordata, showed up all at once, with no transitional forms."

I can't see a useful distinction between the terms "diversity" and "disparity".
For practical purposes they seem to be the same thing, both the result of evolution.

Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "I am speechless."

Of course, because contrary to your claims, you have no real clue as to how science-discovery works.

>>Joe the God Denier says, “It’s a news report on the current status of DNA research.”

Quit lying. The (not so) “Wise Geek” report is fake news, based on old inferences.

*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Your suggestion that ENCODE researchers were somehow anti-evolution is totally bogus. From what I can see of Collins’ views, they are the same as mine.

Quit lying. I never suggested the ENCODE researchers were anti-evolution. To the contrary. It was your buddy, the sociopath Dan Graur, who suggested they were anti-evolution.

*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Even ENCODE reported that only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution... “Junk” originally referred to the 98% on non-coding DNA. As certain functions were found, the term “junk” is reduced to some smaller percent, but even ENCODE tells us only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution. That makes the rest... well... ah... “junk”.

Quit lying. The 5% number was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report. The later 2012 report, which released Dan Graur’s rage against ENCODE, was 80% and counting.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “It is true that every scientist on the [ENCODE] project was probably an evolutionist, including Collins. So, if anything, they were biased toward evolutionism.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Exactly, it’s just scientists doing their science thing, sometimes disagreeing, but none trying to disprove or deny evolution theory.

Earlier you falsely claimed that I said the ENCODE researchers were “anti-evolution”. Do you lie so much you can’t keep track of all of your lies?

*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Evolution theory predicts and observations confirm that descent from common ancestors will leave large sections of DNA similar across closely related species, less similar across more distantly related species. The fossil record shows evolution’s timescales to be in the many millions of years.

You are being deceptive about DNA. Darwin knew nothing about DNA. Modern evolutionism theory is based on lies, such as the human and chimpanzee having 98.5% similar DNA. You are lying about the fossil record, which shows nothing but a bunch of minealized dead things, none of which have a time stamp.

*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “And yet you continue to lie blatantly about [Graur and Li] — amazing!

You are lying. I have never misquoted Graur, nor Li. Besides, my books are old — 1991 and 2000 — years before ENCODE exposed Junk DNA as a myth.

*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “I’d say those words “lacking evolutionary constraint” are a long-winded expression for “junk”. So, sure, they want to be “neutral”, but even ENCODE admits that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution.”

You are lying. That quote, and the 5% number, was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report, not the 2012 report.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: “Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, So let’s notice first that Collins is here talking about, yes, evolution.

You are being deceitful. Collins has always been a evolutionist, as far as I know, and I have never disputed it. I was an evolutionist for most of my long life, so there is still hope for him.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: “Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as”junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance.” Kalamata: “So, Collins [in 2007] was in harmony with the [2007] pilot project report. However, in 2015, Collins had changed his tune, as previously quoted from the 2015 Zimmer article:”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “From what I can see of Collins’ views, they are the same as mine.

Perhaps you are simply scientifically-challenged, or you cannot read. Or perhaps you believe your own lies.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Francis Collins: “ ‘Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’ “
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Sure, but even Collins doesn’t claim that “stuff” is important enough to be constrained (or restrained) by evolution.

You are being deceitful. That statement was from a New York Times article about Collins and ENCODE.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Graur: “A recent slew of ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according towhich the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is less than 10%.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Right, 80% is said to be “functional but unconstrained”, meaning what? In effect: “junk”.

You are being deceitful. No where in the ENCODE report does it say anything like that.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Yes, I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur’s remarks.

How do you respond to a nut who believes that, if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right?

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “ ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’ ‘, says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. ‘This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “We’re still talking about alleged “functional but unconstrained”. And as of today almost none of those alleged functions have been identified.

Perhaps I should re-label you, “Joe the Science Denier”.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’ “
>>Joe the God Denier says, “So, it seems, to summarize: the old results showed that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution and a new test shows that only 5% is not constrained — or did they just change definitions? Going from 5% yes to 5% no looks like a huge difference and should send a lot of researchers back to their labs to carefully reexamine just what, exactly, they meant by their terms. Are they using the same word to describe two different phenomena?

The definitions haven’t changed. Human evolution is a myth, and has always been a myth.

The latter number was from a report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on a research paper by a Swiss team.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/siob-agu100918.php

*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “It’s just a case of scientists doing what science does. One group of scientists studied data from a different source and came to a new conclusion. When they finish hashing it all out they may well arrive at a new model for evolution.

Whenever evolution is falsified, it is a simple matter to repackage it using brand-new imaginary “proofs”, and call it . . . [drum roll] . . . “EVOLUTION!” In other words, it cannot be falsified. The orthodoxy will not let it be falsified.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “If I understand that correctly, the only human ancestors are other humans.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “And, depending on your definitions, pre-humans.

If you want to define evolutionists as “pre-human”, don’t let me stop you.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “ ‘It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,’ says Birney. ‘We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.’ “
>>Joe the God Denier says, “A key to the idea of “junk” is that mutations there cause no harm to the individual and so get passed down over generations thus providing a window into our ancestors’ origins & lives. It’s said these “harmless” mutations average about 100 per individual and that if they were indeed harmful, they’d quickly lead to the extinction of the species. So far, nothing has been presented to explain that.

Much has already been “presented”; but nothing will be accepted by the orthodoxy unless the presenter kisses the ring of Charlie Darwin.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint, with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner. The rest can be assaulted by random mutation with little effect.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “So, you win the point that “constrained” = “restrained” = “constrained” = “restrained”. But, by your own quote I still win the larger point that only 5% plus maybe another 4% of DNA is restrained = constrained by evolution.

You are being deceptive, again! That blog post was based in part on “research” by the sociopath, Dan Graur.

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “You do not know it is junk. Your imagination is running wild.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “You do not know what functions alleged “junk” has.Your imagination is running wild.

I see you are still pushing the deception that, “the absence of evidence IS evidence” (for “evolution”, that is).

*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “You really should consider dropping the 5% nonsense.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “But 5% seems to be the magic number — either 5% is constrained or 5% is not constrained, those are the test results. We are not told what either number truly represents, or if they are even necessarily inconsistent — depending on word definitions, they might conceivably both be true. So I’d expect an effort to clarify & explain what’s going on.

If you are not lying or being deceptive, you are sleeping. Frankly, I really believe you are a “Science Denier”.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Pouyet F et al. Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences. eLife 2018;7:e36317 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36317”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Again, we’re talking definitions of words — is “biased gene conversion” and “demographic inferences” really the same things as “evolutionary constraint” or “selective restraint”?

What difference does that make to a Science Denier like you?

*******************
>>Kalamata the denier: “It take more faith to be an evolutionist, since all of its so-called evidence is extrapolated and/or imagined. I know; I used to be an evolutionist.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “So, you used to be an honest man?

Not according to YOUR definition of “honesty”, which is, “it is okay to lie to defend the religion of evolutionism”.

*******************
>>Kalamata the denier on evolution theory: “It is not falsifiable.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Of course it is, which if you had any serious education, you’d know.

Says the liar and deceiver, but I repeat myself.

Mr. Kalamata