Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 8-5-19 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

[fishtank]

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

[Kalamata]

>>My response is to recommend the book Wonderful Life by Stephen J Gould. It is the scholarly story of three individuals that studied the fossils in the Burgess Shale. That is a geologic formation high in the Canadian Rockies.
Any one who reads that book and attempts to understand that all those fossils result in all that is alive today.

Thanks. That is a wonderful book. It has been in my library for years. This is one of my favorite passages:

“Several of my colleagues (Jaanusson, 1981; Runnegar, 1987) have suggested that we eliminate the confusion about diversity by restricting this vernacular term to the first sense-number of species. The second sense-difference in body plans-should then be called disparity. Using this terminology, we may acknowledge a central and surprising fact of life’s history-marked decrease in disparity followed by an outstanding increase in diversity within the few surviving designs. . . Measured as number of species, Burgess [Shale] diversity is not high. This fact embodies a central paradox of early life: How could so much disparity in body plans evolve in the apparent absence of substantial diversity in number of species? of vertebrates? or of life on land? or simply of multicellular persistence for 600 million difficult years? “ [The Meanings of Diversity and Disparity, in Stephen Jay Gould, “Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History.” W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, Chap. I, pp.48-49]

For all practical purposes, Gould said that Darwinian evolution, which predicted diversity before disparity, is falsified.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: “Joe the Science Denier says...”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “That’s a blatant example of my Rule for Deniers, #5, post #272.

Alinsky Joe’s redirection is a blatant example of Science Denier Rule#6: “Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you’re most guilty.”

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Your do know that your lying becomes pathological once you start believing your own lies, don’t you?”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “That would be my Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Alinsky Joe consistently applies Science Denier Rule#8 against those threatening his worldview:

Science Denier Rule#8: “If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down. OK to personally insult, disparage & malign.” Narrative: If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Now, to magic. These are the 3 universe creation stories, according to the Moses-hating evolutionist: 1) The universe magically exploed into existence...”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Rule #6. In fact, science never recognizes “magic”, but some theologians do.”

Science is science; it doesn’t recognize anything. Scientists, however, never recognize magic, however most all recognized a supernatural creator. Theologians in the evolutionism cult recognize various forms of magic.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Well, there is also a 4th called the ‘multi-verse”, where a gazillion of so universes magically appear,”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “There’s no physical evidence for “multi-verse”, it’s pure speculation.

Of course the multiverse theory is speculation; that is why so many evolutionists embrace it. Their religion thrives on speculation. Check out some of the multiverse hits in these journals:

https://search.sciencemag.org/?searchTerm=multiverse&order=tfidf&limit=textFields&pageSize=10&&;
https://www.nature.com/search?q=multiverse
http://www.astronomy.com/search?q=multiverse

*******************
>>Kalamata: “These are the origin of life stories from the Moses-hating evolutionist: 1) Life magically arose from...”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Natural science, by definition, cannot recognize “magic”.

Natural science is science; it doesn’t recognize anything. Scientists, however, never recognize magic, but most recognize that life is a gift from our creator. Theologians in the evolutionism cult recognize various forms of magic, including life magically appearing in pond scum, primordial soup, and etc...

*******************
>>Kalamata: “There are probably others. The common thread is a wild imagination, and “magic”.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “No Origin of Life proposal yet qualifies as theory and most not even as falsifiable hypotheses. So they are at the pre-hypothesis speculation stage. Doubtless many will prove wrong and get discarded. But science recognizes nothing “magic”.

Science doesn’t recognize anything.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Did you ever wonder who imagined that silliness about “no divine intervention”? They certainly fooled you, and me too for a long time.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Science is all about studying natural explanations for natural processes while leaving divine intervention to theologians . . . That’s why traditionally Western thought has considered God’s miracles as divine intervention and the natural realm as something different — as something which natural science can study.”

That was not true until Charlie & Charlie corrupted science. Before their deception, scientists were driven to understand how God’s universe operated, rather than trying to prop up the dumb theories of Charlie and Charlie. A couple of examples:

“[S]ince as the Creation is, so is the Creator also magnified, we may conclude in consequence of an infinity, and an infinite all-active power, that as the visible creation is supposed to be full of siderial systems and planetary worlds, so on, in like similar manner, the endless immensity is an unlimited plenum of creations not unlike the known universe.” [Thomas Wright, “An Original Theory or New Hypothesis of the Universe.” 1750, p.83]

“the parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the earth s atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in or bits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” [Newton, Isaac, “Newton’s Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.” Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, p.501]

They were real scientits. They gave glory to God, rather than mock him.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “No. What good is a creation if there is no one around to enjoy it with.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “God’s timescale is not the same as ours.

Of course not. But he gave us understanding through his word of the time he took to create the universe and its host through:

“Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day” — Exo 20:9,11 KJV

*******************
>>Kalamata: “We are created in that image — the image of him who sits on that throne.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Right, and that’s theology, not natural-science.

That is not theology; that is a permanent fact. This is science, and history:

“from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” — Mar 10:6 KJV

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

===========================
The Enlightenment?
===========================

>>Kalamata quoting Rupke 1983: "These Scottish writers argued..."
>>Joe says, "The time period for this quote is apparently early 1800s, which is still within influence by Age of Enlightenment thinkers.

You mean, the Age of "Dark Reasoners", don't you?

*******************

>>Joe says, "Note specifically the reason for separation of science & scripture is not lack of faith."

That is what they claimed; but every "good" politician has a tool called "name-dropping" in his bag of tricks.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "Make note of the part that explains the foolish "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham was still in the developmental stage in the late 1700's and early 1800's. It is a Johnny-Come-Lately sham that has corrupted rather than advanced science."
>>Joe says, "I disagree with your words of disparagement, but agree that this is perhaps a critical point at which natural-science and religion parted ways. But it was very far from the first or only time -- see Galileo in 1633.

You are greatly deceived. The "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham reinstalled the type of scientific orthodoxy that threatened Galileo, which now hinders the advancement of science, world-wide, while suppressing those who oppose their worldview.

*******************

>>Joe says, "Indeed, the ancient Church Fathers themselves well understood that there are limits to which the Bible can be applied scientifically. Here is St. Augustine of Hippo, circa 400 AD in words sounding like they were written just yesterday: . . .

He was not a scientist; but if you insist on using him as a reference, you should first know that he was a young earth creationist:

"In the creation God finished His works in six days, and rested on the seventh. The history of the world contains six periods marked by the dealings of God with men. The first period is from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the captivity in Babylon; the fifth, from the captivity to the advent of lowliness of our Lord Jesus Christ; the sixth is now in progress, and will end in the coming of the exalted Saviour to judgment." [Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, in Schaff, Philip, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 04." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887, Book XII.8, p.185]

"As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since He began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion. If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity." [Augustine, City of God, in Schaff, Philip, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.12, p.233]

He denounced old-earthism, calling those who embraced it, "deceived":

"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed." [Augustine, City of God, in Schaff, Philip, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.10, p.232]

*******************

>>Kalamata: "am very familiar with how the atheists hijacked the definition of science from real scientists."
>>Joe says, "They were, according to your own quote, not "atheists" and theologians never claimed to be "real scientists".

Theologians routinely claim to be real scientists. A few examples are, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Richard Lewontin.

*******************

>>Joe says, "In fact scientists then were like our Enlightenment Era Founding Fathers -- Christian believers, some leaning towards deism, but none were atheists.

Many scientists were and are young earth creationists.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "It is your atheistic religion of evolutionism that is destroying western civilization. In the meantime, it has led to the holocaust, eugenics, abortion, virulent racism, and 4 of the most blood-thirsty dictators in the history of the world."
>>Joe says, "Destroying" Western Civilization since the time of our Founding Fathers? And you wish to return us to which pre-Enlightenment era?

No matter how much you try to attach your religion of evolutionism to the coattails of the Founding Fathers, it is going to be a hard sell. We are already back in the "Dark Ages" as a society, in part because of evolutionism.

*******************

>>Joe says, "As for blood-thirsty tyrants, there've been plenty throughout history, and no scientific theory was ever needed to push them into evil.

Are you saying you do not believe in the Darwinist roots of the holocaust? If you had actually read that book of Shermer's – the one you keep name-dropping -- you would know that Shermer explains the role of Darwinism in the holocaust:

"The racial theories of social Darwinism gave the Nazis and others the scientific sanction they needed to make their racist ideology seem wholly rational and their actions justifiable in defense against what they considered to be a real threat to their nation and their culture." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.227]

Shermer quoted a significant chunk of Mein Kampf to justify that statement.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "Why did you say that I claimed God was "merely 'natural'"? What's the matter with you? Don't you know how to tell the truth?"
>>Joe says, "So now you're going to lie your way out of your lies by telling more lies? How does that even work? >>Joe says, "You claimed God is natural, I called you on it and now you wish to lie your way out of it.

You are lying like Bill Clinton by misquoting me and taking my statement out of context. This is my statement:

"There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation."

The words "more natural" are NOT the same as "merely natural", nor will they ever be.

For the record, that was in response to your dismissal of God and his church and their role in the advancement of Western Civilization, while promoting pagan philosophers, in your never-ending quest to redefine God's creation as "natural processes", which is a clever way of saying "godless". I simply responded to your attempt at rewriting history,

BTW, angels have nature. God, rather than taking on the nature of angels, took on the nature of a man. That sounds pretty natural to me:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." -- Heb 2:16-18 KJV

As you can see, you don't get to define God. He can do as he pleases, and be anything he pleases, including being "natural."

*******************

>>Joe says, "God, by traditional Western definition is supernatural -- He created the natural, but it is not Him. I think the analogy of a house-as-nature is perfectly acceptable: God designed & built the house, God lives in the house but He is not the house. The house has heat & A/C which comes on automatically but God can override those controls when it suits Him. Indeed, if or when the time comes God can modify or destroy the old house and build Himself another. Science studies the house and it's controls but knows nothing of Him who built & lives here.

Gobbledygook.

*******************

>>Kalamata: "The so-called "Age of Enlightenment" turned out to be more of a darkening."
>>Joe says, "We are children of the Enlightenment."

That should be called "The Darkening" since the days of Charlie & Charlie, perhaps before. Besides, the Renaissance played a greater role in the origin of modern science; and those men rejected "enlightenment" type arguments against political and religious traditions.

*******************

>>Joe says, "Our Founding Fathers were the Enlightenment Era's leading political figures, the jewel it its crown, our Declaration and Constitution are two of the era's greatest documents.

You have been exaggerating the influence of the enlightenment figures on the Founding Fathers. The founders secured the idea of "due process" from a 15th century pre-enlightenment document, which included both personal liberty and the rights to property. In general, the protections in the Bill of Rights are pre-enlightenment.

The "Enlightenment" crowd these days seem to be Marxists and other anti-nationalists, though they seem to be as least as driven toward destroying our traditional morality as they are our national borders.

*******************

>>Joe says, "We on Free Republic are the conservatives here to preserve, as best we can, their ideals, their visions, their Constitution and their Christian faith."

That is why I am here. One way to promote our Constitution and Christian faith is to get evolution and the ACLU out of our classrooms.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says..."

Still Rules #5, #6 & #7, post #272.

Kalamata: "That quote was by your hero, Michael Shermer, "

I think Shermer did a good job debunking Holocaust deniers.
I don't know & can't speak for his other work.

Kalamata: "I have never personally met a holocaust denier; but it is hard to imagine anyone more nasty and vulgar than the evolutionism cult that posts on Youtube."

I don't know of them, can't speak for them.
I am certain Holocaust deniers would not be allowed to spew their filth on Free Republic.

Kalamata: "They also lie like you, Alinsky Joe."

I may sometimes be mistaken, but never deliberately lie.

Kalamata: "You should be very familiar with Alinsky.
You use his tactics when your world-view is challenged."

That is Rules #5. #6 & #7.

Kalamata on Rule #1: "Narrative: Science deniers, like Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott, ignore contradictory data, at first. "

I've never ignored nor seen "contradictory data" which could falsify evolution theory.
Eugenie Scott I know of, I have her book.
Brown's Ken Miller I don't know beyond seeing that he testified at Kitzmiller v. Dover Schools.

So it's worth noting that the issues at the Kitzmiller trial were both the Creationists' Panda book and a statement denigrating evolution which the government school board voted to order read in science classes.
That vote caused three opposing board members to resign, then science teachers refused to read the statement and Kitzmiller filed suit.
Later voters voted out the anti-evolution school board members.

"Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness.
He testified as an expert witness that 'Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community.'
He said that the idea of intelligent design was not subject to falsification, and demonstrated that many claims made by intelligent-design advocates against evolution were invalid.
When asked what the harm was in reading the statement, Miller gave a two-fold response.
• 1) "[I]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means." And
• 2) "As a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith.' "

Kalamata: "But if the contradictory data doesn't go away, they recruit the Sword of the government to help suppress it."

But "contrary data" had nothing to do with Kitzmiller v. Dover, that was all about an anti-evolution statement the government school board wanted to ram down the throats of science teachers & pupils.

Kalamata on Rule #2: "Narrative: Science deniers must continually reshuffle their vocabulary to stay "in business".
For example, "divergent evolution" has morphed into "convergent evolution", "parallel evolution", "preadaptive evolution", and "reductive evolution" (and perhaps a few others), so that, no matter what happens, evolution is ALWAYS true."

There's no doubt that the volumes of data confirming evolution theory today are orders of magnitude greater than what was available to Darwin some 150+ years ago.
And as data increased new natural processes were discovered needing new names.
That's how science is supposed to work, no matter how much it disappoints deniers like our own Kalamata.

Kalamata on Rule #3: "Narrative: The more accomplished science deniers use a large collection of quotes and references, like Michael Shermer in his books and lectures.
The less accomplished resort to artistic renditions of "evidence", such as pictures and models of imaginary whale, horse, and embryo evolution."

And speaking of imaginary drawings used to illustrate science related ideas, here's one I found in the Creationist book, Of Panda's and People.
I think it's Creationists' "proof" that there's no difference between truth & lies.

Or something.

Will stop here for now, pick up again later...

[Kalamata]

This needs to be expanded upon.

*********************

>>Joe wrote, "We are children of the Enlightenment. Our Founding Fathers were the Enlightenment Era's leading political figures, the jewel it its crown, our Declaration and Constitution are two of the era's greatest documents."

Since you used the word "era", we may on the same page, more or less. The Founding Fathers relied mostly on traditional conservative Christian priciples, not anti-Christian "enlightenment" philosophies. The founders were mostly Christian conservatives, so it was a natural progression. See:

Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers

The scientific revolution was primarily a product of pre-enlightenment Christian conservatives, such as Copernicus, Boyle and Newton.

*********************

>>Joe wrote, "We think those are important as both the origin of our nation and the only possible hope to preserve it United. If we fail, the nation fails and if the United States fails then the human race will have lost something vital to our existence, imho. If we fail, the nation fails and if the United States fails then the human race will have lost something vital to our existence, imho."

No doubt the Constitution is hanging on by a thread, primarily due to an evil doctrine called "stare decisis," in which previous decisions of the SCOTUS supercede the plain words of the Constitution. John Marshall called it a crime to take the oath, and then ignore the words of the Constitution:

"The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime. It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank." [U.S. Supreme Court, "Opinion 1805 Marbury v. Madison." Cornell Law, 5 U.S. 137, 1805]

The two Great Commandments of the judicial system are:

I: Thou shalt fill the halls to the rafters with case law.
II: Thou shalt build more halls.

Outlaw "stare decisis", and the mountains of case law generated by it, and, presto, the Constitution is restored.

In the meantime, the bulk of the powers belonging to the states and the people have been usurped by the Federal Government. Even the religious clause has been usurped, to be replaced by a strange doctrine called "separation of church and state", which was never the intention of our founders, nor of the government itself, until the ACLU came along.

*********************

>>Joe wrote, "So don't trash the Enlightenment because it is who we are, always were and hopefully always will be."

Which part of the so-called "Enlightenment" do you wish to preserve? The part promoting the overthrow of political traditions? The part promoting the overthrow religious and moral traditions? Which parts?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: "Joe the Science Denier says..."
>>Joe wrote, "Still Rules #5 & #7.

I see you are still playing childish games instead of debating.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "ENCODE is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, and no doubt the evolutionism high-priesthood will resist as long as they can. But, for all practical purposes, evolutionism is a dead religion. Good riddance."
>>Joe wrote, "So you are back to claiming ENCODE is anti-evolution? And this despite the fact that nobody in ENCODE agrees with you?

I believe it is safe to assume that you are naturally obnoxious.

*********************

>>Joe wrote, "If you claimed that cutting edge DNA research has nothing to do with evolution, that would be Rule #6.

If you claim it does, you are either deceiving or have been deceived. Evolution is a historical "science".

*********************

>>Joe wrote, "the processes of evolution can include devolution, meaning life does not always "complexify" but can also simplify.

Gibberish. Devolution is the opposite of evolution, by definition:

"Definition of devolution: retrogression from a derived to a primitive or less differentiated state; the reverse of evolution." [Mai et al, "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution." 2005, p.142]

*********************

>>Joe wrote, "Behe mentions polar bears which turn out to be much more closely related to brown bears than previously understood. Behe seems to think it's a problem, but how big can that "problem" be if the two species routinely interbreed?

It is only a "problem" for evolutionary theory.

"It seems, then, that the magnificent Ursus maritimus has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed. Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving." [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.1]

Quit playing games.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Joe said, "The Bible is all about God's rule over nature and His power to overrule it. The Bible doesn't care about natural laws except to show God's control of them."

The Bible doesn't care, but God cares.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "Only a fool would ignore the science in the Bible."
>>Joe said, "The Bible is full of good advise for us. But it also insists that God rules nature and can overrule it.

It is also full of science and history, along with the way of salvation, which is via the gospel.

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" -- Rom 10:12-15 KJV

*********************

>>Kalamata: "This may come as a surprise to you, but Christians have no choice but to believe the words of Moses: from the creation narrative, to the flood narrative, and forward:"
>>Joe said, "First, those words do not mean what you claim. Second, they are not science.

The words of Moses and Christ include real science, such as man and woman being created at the beginning of creation, and man becoming alive when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils! In other words, the first man had a complete body, before he became alive and could breath. Genetic research is only now revealing what God told us from the beginning: that man did not evolve!

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: "I have been seeking those answers that you claim to be "out there" for 7 or 8 years, but all I get are generalities, like the one you just spewed. No one seems to know where to find the evidence for evolution, or any scientific use for evolution. But the fanatics are "certain" someone else knows."
>>Joe said: "Here are two sites which address your search for evolution uses directly: [Practical applications] [The Value of Science]"

You don't understand science, Joe. Neither of those sites provide any observational evidence for evolution, nor any practical applications of evolutionary theory. For example, one mentions antiobiotic resistance; but that is a result of broken genes, which is devolution, not evolution.

The amateurs at Talkorigins.org did go through the motion of listing a series of hijacked applications for evolution, where none exists, nor has ever existed. But, they gave themselves a way out with these statements:

"Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself. "

"Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances. "

LOL!

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Joe says: “Bottom line: you don’t know how much, if any, Origin of Life research there is, or how much of it is Federally funded. You suspect it’s a lot, I suspect it’s not so much, and my reason is precisely that direct practical applications for Origin of Life research are... limited.

I agree that there are limited (perhaps ZERO) practical applications. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that ALL of the OoL research is funded by the taxpayer.

*********************
>>Kalamata: “You have to be pretty desperate to recruit a corrupt judge and an even more corrupt legal team to suppress the opposition. Science should be able to stand on its own without the threat of a Galilean type of Inquisition to those simply questioning it.”
>>Joe says: “Says our proponent of religious rule over science.”

That would be you, Joe, and your promotion of the religion of evolutionism.

*********************
>>Joe says: “It’s worth noting that the school board which had voted to accept the Creationist textbook was voted out of office.

That means nothing, Joe. When are you going to address the fact that thugs from the evolutionism orthodoxy, and a devout communist organization called the ACLU, team up to recruit corrupt federal judges to suppress those who question your religion? I thought you were supposed to be a great defender of the constitution?

What creationist textbook?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: " [Joey posted the same non-annotated chart of human and ape skulls he showed before]:"
>>Joe said: The annotations are readily available, but you wouldn't even see them because they violate your Rule #1.

Show us the annotations, Joe; but with the fossils, not the mockups. The rule of thumb for scientists is never trust an artistic rendition or computer simulation of data, until you have seen the data up close and personal.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "I was once fooled by those, like you are. But I now realize there is no way you can tie those together. In fact, you don't know if any of those had children."
>>Joe said: Still mostly Rule #1, though I confess to being bewildered by your wish to deny prehistoric creatures normally had offspring.

I am bewildered by your continuous attempts to put your words into my mouth. I believe that is called, "deception".

*********************

>>Kalamata: "There may be a few apes mixed in to make it appear they are transitionals; but in reality it would take an enormous number of transitions to honestly identify a transitional line from an ape to a man. It has always been like that, according these anthropologists:"
>>Joe said: "Those skulls are in sequence from oldest (B = 2.6 million years, upper left) to newest (N=modern, lower right), with "A" a modern chimpanzee for comparison. Here again is the overall timeline of fossils starting 5 million years ago [Chart]:

My response:

1) There is no evidence that any of those fossils are more than, say, 5,000 thousand years old.

2) There is no evidence that any of those is an ancestor or descendent of any other.

That is the truth, and the only truth. Joe. Everything you say, or reference, is pure speculation based on no evidence.

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting J&E 1981: "At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were."
>>Joe said: "As it were", meaning fewer fossils were found.

No transitional fossils were found, Joe. There are ape fossils, and there are human fossils, and nothing in between.

*********************

>>Joe said, "This listing of primate fossils includes hundreds, of which at least a third were discovered after 1981.

Did you have a point?

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting Lewin 1997: "[T]he real story of it all has been somewhat obscured: 'namely, what could have led so many eminent scientists to embrace such a forgery?' "
>>Joe said, "Presumably Lewin is talking about Piltdown. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Piltdown was suspected by scientists almost from the very beginning.

50 years, and 50 PhD theses later, the Piltdown was exposed as a fraud.

Hey, that is better than we are faring with Haeckel's embryos. They are still in our children's textbooks more than a century after they were exposed as fraudulent.

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting Gauger 2012: "Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process?"
>>Joe said, "Nobody knows how exactly, but I'd suggest that a feature which worked well would be quickly passed around not only within a species, but also between closely related species which may themselves have evolutionary improvements to share in return.

Actually, it would be statistically impossible. Natural selection doesn't work like you are presenting it. Read Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves" if you want to know what is really going on.

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting Gauger 2012: "You don't have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years."
>>Joe said, "G.I.G.O. calculation."

I agree that most secular research is "Garbage In, Garbage Out"; but Ann is a pretty thorough reviewer, so Durrett & Smith's research's is probably real science. This is their paper:

Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution

*********************

>>Kalamata: "The bottom line is, it doesn't really matter how you look at it, or in what field, there is no scientific support for evolution. It is all based in imaginitive story-telling."
>>Joe said, "No, your quotes tell us that some people (who may or may not be recognized in evolution studies) have found ways to criticize evolution theory and Kalamata sees no reason to dispute them.

I know you want to believe that, but evolution never existed. It is all a big game of , "I don't have the evidence, but I am sure someone does".

*********************

>>Kalamata on falsifying evolution: "You are lying again, but in this case out of ignorance."
>>Joe said, "Evolution could easily be falsified, in any of thousands of ways, one I mentioned before: scientifically confirm that dinosaurs & elephants lived together, same time, same place.

Why would elephants live with dinosaurs?

*********************

>>Kalamata: "I have, but you reject it by pretending the absence of evidence is evidence. The fossil record, according to Steven Stanley, is the ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE for evolution:"
>>Joe said, "I would call fossils "indirect", a category which includes: comparative fossil morphology.

Morphological similarity is a sign of intelligent design.

Joe, nothing in your list can overcome two crucial characteristics of the fossil record:

1) Abrupt appearance, and then stasis.

2) Disparity before diversity.

Those are the opposite of what evolution predicts.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "However, the fossil record reveals disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis, both of which falsify evolution."
>>Joe said, "Neither of which "falsify evolution! First of all, "disparity" and "diversity" are functionally the same thing, so your phrase "disparity before diversity" means nothing except a mass extinction is followed by diversification among surviving species.

That is a very dumb statement, Joe. First of all, it is not "my phrase", but a phrase that expresses a common characteristic of the fossil record known by all paleontologists. That is a very big deal, Joe!

*********************

>>Joe said, "Second, "abrupt appearance" is a function of how many fossils we have and in the case of pre-humans we have hundreds over millions of years, in dozens of species and they show nothing like "abrupt appearance", but rather precisely the slow transitions you anti-science people deny can happen.

That is not true, Joe. You have been misled.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "Yet, you and other evolutionists reject those falsifications under the umbrella of "sooner or later something will come along," because "WE KNOW evolution is true!" That is not science, but religion."
>>Joe said, "No, every day "something comes along" and yet Rules #1 & #9 dominate your mind so you literally cannot see it.

Nothing has or will come along, Joe; and you really should stop with the childish rules.

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "Several of my colleagues (Jaanusson, 1981; Runnegar, 1987) have suggested that we eliminate the confusion about diversity by restricting this vernacular term to the first sense-number of species. The second sense-difference in body plans-should then be called disparity."
>>Joe said, "Sure, I "get" that, but it's still a meaningless distinction.

Perhaps you should write your own Paleontology text book, Joe.

*********************

>>Joe said, "Gould claims there was more "disparity" and less "diversity" in the Cambrian. Here's what's been found: a maximum of 600 genera alive at any one time during the Cambrian explosion ~530 million years ago. Those were simply critters who learned a new trick: hard body shells. Shells preserved better as fossils and so "suddenly" we see many more of them.

Soft-bodied animals were fossilized in the Cambrian, Joe.

Oldest Soft-Bodied Marine Fossils Discovered

The secret is rapid burial by highly-mineralized sediment to prevent deterioration.

*********************

>>Joe said, "What were those 600 genera? A lot were trilobites, of which about 17,000 species total have been found before the mass extinction 255 million years ago. So, 600 genera which Gould calls "disparity". How many genera today? Among animals, about 200,000 genera. And Gould wished to call those "diversity" as distinguished from "disparity" -- why? It's meaningless distinction. 600 genera then compared to 200,000 today does not make one "disparate" and the other "diverse".

You really should fall back and regroup, Joe. Think about it this way:

"In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]

Did you get that, Joe? There has been no new phyla in the past 500 million years since the Cambrian.

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "The current earth may hold more species than ever before, but most are iterations upon a few basic anatomical designs."
>>Joe said, "Well... 600 maximum genera in the Cambrian, ~200,000 genera today. Even if every one of those Cambrian genera was also a taxonomic family (aka alleged "kind") that still compares to some 20,000 families today, about 6,000 of them animals.

You still don't get it, Joe. All basic anatomical designs appeared in the beginning. There have been no new phyla -- no new body plans -- no evolution.

*********************

>>Joe said, "Finally, there's no real way today to know how closely related those different Cambrian genera were -- like different dogs today, they might well show a lot of "disparity" without being really very different inside.

You are hopelessly lost, Joe. I wish I could help, but I have said it every way I know how to say it.

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting Gould 1993: "Before Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972, the stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged...Evolution was defined as gradual transformation in extended fossil sequences, and the overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution)."
>>Joe said, "Just so we're clear, I have no problem with Gould's "punctuated equilibrium", it's a fine idea which Gould himself admitted might prove wrong.

It was Gould's way of hiding the absence of evolution in the fossil record inside a new theory.

*********************

>>Gould: "I take pride in one success relevant to Cordelia's dilemma: our theory has brought stasis out of the conceptual closet."
>>Joe said, "Fine, but consider: the idea of "lengthy geological lifespans" is totally a function of our definitions of words like "species" and "genus" and our abilities to tease out separate "species" within a sequence of "genus" fossils. It's said a species can live maybe 2 million years so its genus could survive 10 to 20 million years. During that time any number of species could appear & disappear and yet we are to believe these have nothing to do with evolution?

The lack of evidence is not evidence, Joe.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "You made the claim, so you are the liar. Of course, you made such claims under the cloak of story-telling, as follows: 'But the “observable evidence” is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.' [Joey]"
>>Joe said, "And here again Kalamata looks the truth straight in the face and lies bald-faced about it.

LOL!

*********************

>>Kalamata: "I didn't say that pre-historical creatures didn't normally reproduce. I said there is no evidence the handful of so-called "whale-transition" animals ever reproduced."
>>Joe said, "And that's a worthless point unless you intend by it to imply that the lack of evidence of reproduction is evidence of non-reproduction. Surely, surely, surely to Goodness that's not what you're hoping to imply, is it?

I am saying for the umteenth time, Joe, the lack of evidence is NOT evidence.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "The one on the left was the original imaginary creature."
>>Joe said, "Right, an example of scientists doing what science does. New data or fresh eyes can lead to a better explanation.

That is not science, Joe. A scientist would have said, we have a few fragments of the skull and jaw, and a tooth or two; but we have no clue what the animal looked like.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "Why the misdirection, Alinsky Joe? Bears are members of the bear kind, nothing else."
>>Joe said, "Polar Bears go by the name Ursus Maritimus because, why? Because they spend a lot of time in the water -- semi-aquatic. That is just the condition suggested for early whale ancestors.

LOL!

*********************

>>Kalamata: "That is a seal, dummy, not a whale."
>>Joe said, "Seals are considered fully aquatic, even though they spend a lot of time on land. Their nose, along with the walrus, looks more like a blow-hole.

No, they have noses and nostrils, Joe:

*********************

>>Kalamata: "Yes, and it is called a Walrus, not a whale."
>>Joe said, "Polar bears, seals & walrus are all examples of semi or fully aquatic mammals similar to the fossils found of ancient whales.

I am not sure what your point is.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "You said it, and now you deny it? That is what I have come to expect from the evolutionism cult. These are your words: "But the "observable evidence" is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing."
>>Joe said, "And yet again you look my words straight in the face and, bald-faced, lie about them.

Are you saying you didn't say what you said?

*********************

>>Kalamata: "As everyone can see, Alinsky Joe disputed my previous statement by imagining there is missing evidence -- 99% missing, in fact -- with the implication that the proof would be found in the missing evidence. You are a shameless liar, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe said, "The fact is, deny it if you wish, that more "missing evidence" is discovered every year, at least hundreds of new species, since we're told the total so far is circa 250,000 fossil species discovered. The estimate of 99% is a calculation based on observed rates of speciation and observed dates of fossils found.

It is not evidence until it can be observed, Joe.

*********************

>>Joe said, "As for "implication" of "proof": you inferred, I did not imply. Everyone knows you can't "prove", but new evidence can support or confirm and that is not just a reasonable expectation, it's also what's happened for over 150 years. And yet you wish us to believe it will never happen again? Why?

That is a very dumb statement, Joe.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata quoting BJK: “Nowhere did Linnaeus provide evidence as to where biological “barriers” might exist between different categories of life”
>>Kalamata quoting Linnaeus: “...these forms have produced more forms, according to the laws laid down, but always ones that are similar to themselves.”
>>Kalamata: “How do you interpret the underlined words?”
>>Joe said, “Those words are clearly evidence of Linnaeus’ opinion, they are not evidence of any biological “barriers”.”

Linnaeus, like everyone else in the world before Darwin, observed natural barriers that kept the animal families (kinds) distinct. It is not rocket science.

*********************
>>Kalamata: “They, like me, want to chase the theology of evolutionism out of science.”
>>Joe said, “They like you will die disappointed. However, as master propagandists you will doubtless find ways to puff up your own importance in whatever future changes happen.

Evolutionism is already on its last breath, Joe.

*********************
>>Kalamata: “The only thing that would tarnish Michael Behe’s stellar reputation would be to embrace the religious cult of evolutionism.”
>>Joe said, “I have no interest in Behe’s opinions.

I can tell you never really cared much about science.

*********************
>>Kalamata: “ Linnaeus didn’t use the word “family”. He used the word “kind”, and expressed it as multiple genera, which would place “kind” at what is now known as the family level.”
>>Joe said, “Sure, I “got” that, so you tell me, did Linnaeus ever define “kind” biologically or name the “kinds” he imagined existed?

If not for quibbling, Joe, you wouldn’t have much to say.

*********************
>>Kalamata quoting Behe: “Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin’s vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos. But no, nothing.”
>>Joe said, “A ludicrous claim, demonstrating that Behe hates science as much as Kalamata.”

LOL! Behe was simply repeating what Gould and other paleontologists have observed in the fossil record.

You have an unnatural hatred for a great scientist and a genuinely nice guy. I have never been a religious fanatic, so I don’t know exactly what you are going through.

*********************
>>Kalamata: “The created kind is observable science. Even children can tell the difference between the dog kind, the cat kind, and the human kind.”
>>Joe said, “But neither you nor Behe can scientifically define or list such “kinds” and match them up to taxonomic categories.

I couldn’t and wouldn’t; but Behe could do as good a job as anyone else. Probably better than most, since he has a better understanding of the molecular side of the issue than most.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BJK simply said that you displayed similarities in style, language, techniques & logic to some Holocaust deniers, not that you were a Holocaust denier. I’m afraid you took that all wrong.

No, I didn’t take it wrong. He is using the same trick the left uses to marginalize their opponents.

*********************
>>However, your total rejection of any evidence gathered across multiple disciplines supporting evolutionary theory is baffling to those of us with even a passing acquaintance with the physical sciences.

That is a talking point. I am seeking observable evidence for common descent. That is all.

*********************
>>Denial of accumulated knowledge seems medieval to me.”

Accepting something for which there is no evidence is called religion. I already have a religion. I don’t need two.

*********************
>>My thinking is more in line with BJK’s. God is the author of all things—including evolution. I have absolutely no angst, spiritually or otherwise, regarding that point.”

God told us how he created man, and it was not by evolution

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: "Fools will. The wise know that it is God that gives life."
>>Joe said, "All of natural science then are "fools", for wishing to learn how God does what He does."

If that was the case, I would agree with you; and many scientists, especially those in the Renaissance, and even today, were/are trying to understand how God did it. But Origin of Life researchers are almost exclusively trying to prove that God didn't do it.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "If the schools and parents object to having the religion of evolution rammed down the children's throats, you can always send in the federal troops."
>>Joe said, "But in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District it was the school board which tried to ram Creationism down the students' throats and the result was voters voted out the school board.

Nonsense. It was thugs from the evolutionism cult, along with their best buds -- the anti-Constitution, anti-Christian ACLU -- that sued, not the local citizens.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "I seem to recall that "scientists" who clung to the pagan philosophies of Ptolemy and Aristotle in the days of Galileo, also required the assistance of the sword of the State to "stay in business"."
>>Joe said, "Isn't it odd how memory plays tricks on you? Galileo was the scientist who discovered things the Church said the Bible didn't approve of. So it was the Bible-believing Church who tried & convicted the scientist Galileo, and yet, somehow in Kalamata's mind it was the other way around.

'Nice' attempt to spin the truth, but it was not the Bible they were protecting, but pagan philosophies. The same is true for much of the Church orthodoxy, today, who have been brainwashed into promoting the atheist philosophies of Darwin and Lyell, rather than the historical and scientifically accurate doctrines of Moses and Christ.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "I always question the motives of fanatical antichristian bigots, as well as fanatical promoters of atheism. In the case of Shermer, he is both."
>>Joe said, "So, do you think Shermer was wrong to debunk Holocaust deniers? . . . are you saying, because Shermer agrees with evolution he has no right to debunk Holocaust deniers?

I question his motives, in particular his continuous attempt to redefine left-wing socialist neo-Nazis and skin-heads as right-wingers. In fact, he openly labels every Holocaust denying individual and organization as "right-wing". Is it any wonder that brainwashed leftist students think all republicans and conservatives (you know, "us", the "right-wing"), including the Trump administration, are Nazis?

With people like Shermer and his side-kick Prothero out there spreading far-left propaganda, conservatives do not need any more enemies. I cannot imagine how any true conservative could support Michael Shermer, for any reason.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "For example, in Shermer's book, he marginalized the memory of the holocaust victims by attempting to conflate holocaust deniers with those who are attempting to expose the evil of the very theory that helped precipitate the holocaust in the first place. That, in itself, is a valid reason to question his motives, if not to denounce them."
>Joe wrote, I have Shermer's year 2000 book debunking Holocaust deniers and it says nothing -- zero, nada -- about other types of deniers. So I see no reason to question Shermer's motives in attacking Holocaust deniers, do you?

I surveyed Shermer's deceptive book for key words and phrases, in both the text and reference titles. This is what I found, in general:

Shermer mentions the words "right wing" 18 times, all in improper context, for example, he defines left-wing, big-government, socialist neo-Nazis as "right-wing".

Shermer mentions "creationist" or "creationism" 10 times, all in the context of guilt by association of being a "denier". What does that have to do with the holocaust? NOTHING! But Shermer makes it appear that the neo-Nazis, skin-heads, and creationists are all part of the great "right-wing" conspiracy.

Shermer mentions "conservative" or "neoconservative" 12 times, all in the context of guilt by association, apparently relying on the fact that some have labeled a holocaust denier or two as being "conservative".

Shermer mentions "anti-semite" or "anti-semitism" over 60 times, but in no case does he assign "anti-semitism" to any anti-Christian evolutionist, or to the Democrat Party (which is loaded with anti-semites,) but rather reserves his associations to the socialist Neo-Nazi's (e.g., the "right wing") and Christian fundamentalists (e.g, the "right-wing"). He did mention, off-hand, that someone claimed that Karl Marx was anti-semitic, but he didn't elaborate

On the other hand, Shermer mentions the phrase "left-wing" only twice; in one instance regarding a left-winger who who sued for being falsely accused of being a holocaust denier:

"One of those CNRS scientists was Gabor Rittersporn, who was accused in the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung of denying that the Nazi gas chambers had been used for mass homicide. In response Rittersporn successfully sued the paper and cleared his name, but in the trial it came out that in the 1970s and 1980s he belonged to 'extreme left-wing groups that favoured free expression for revisionists.' The article pinpointed the free speech problem for the CNRS, 'which is split between the need to preserve academic freedom and a desire to discipline such individuals.'" [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.11]

In the other instance, Shermer attempted to distance the left-wing from the word "authoritarianism", by shifting the word to the Neo-Nazis, who he identifies as "right-wing" in other places:

"An interesting puzzle sociologists have been working on is what is called the phenomenon of “left-wing authoritarianism,” which, as Goertzel notes, should be a contradiction in terms: 'Leftist protesters are usually compassionate people who empathize deeply with the suffering of others, while authoritarians, such as the Nazis and their apologists, have only hatred and disdain for society’s victims." [Ibid. p.91]

All in all, Shermer went out of his way to avoid mentioning the flagrant anti-semitism on the left, except for the case of the Neo-Nazis, which he redefined as "right-wing." At best, his book can be described as an anti-conservative, anti-Christian propaganda piece, disguised as a treatise on holocaust denial.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "It is much more likely the holocaust would have never happened, if not for Charlie Darwin's books. It was Darwin who marginalized humans with his insane ape-to-man myth: the same humans who in western civilization almost universally believed to have been made in the image of God, until Charlie came along."
>>Joe said, "Sadly, it's not true that Nazis invented anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism has been with us for a very long time, in one form or another. Nazis were far from the first people to murder Jews just for their religious beliefs, what Nazis did was simply apply concepts of mass production to mass destruction of Jews. In that sense, the Holocaust owed far more to, for example, Henry Ford than to Charles Darwin.

You can thank Charlie for planting the seed for extermination, as follows:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Affinities and Genealogies, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]

*********************

>>Kalamata quoting Weikart 2013: "Therein Graf combated Lamarckism and promoted Darwinian evolution through natural selection. He claimed that knowing about human evolution is important, because it shows that humans are not special among organisms. He also argued that evolution substantiates human inequality."
>>Joe said, I agree that Nazis and Communists used Darwin to help dehumanize classes of people they wished to destroy. But in Stalin's case especially, he was far more influenced by Darwin's atheist contemporary -- Marx's ideas on class warfare. Hitler too had no need of Darwin to support his own ideas of "herrenvolk" and "untermenschen". Indeed, Hitler's propaganda was all about ancient Teutonic myths, Wagner & Nietszche, not Darwin's scientific theory."

Not according to the historians I have read. Have you ever read these statements written by an evolutionist about the days of Hitler?

"The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national 'front' of Europe is also the evolutionary 'front'; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!" [Sir Arthur Keith, "Evolution and Ethics." G. P. Putnam's Sons, Ed, 1947, p.10]

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application." [Ibid. p.230]

According to a statement by one of Hitler's secretaries, his religion was the "laws of nature":

"One of Hitler's secretaries, Traudl Junge, confirms Dietrich's conclusions. After mentioning that Hitler often led interesting discussions with his entourage about the church and human evolution, she noted that Hitler had contempt for the church. Rather, 'his religion was the laws of nature,' according to Junge. She then explained that the law of nature Hitler invoked most often was the law of struggle, which humans could never escape, because we are 'children of nature.' These laws had brought about evolutionary progress, but only by eliminating the weak and those unfit to live. Hitler would also criticize the churches for taking it upon themselves to protect the lives of the weak, the 'inferior,' and those unfit for life." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress." Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, p.41]

Hitler frequently used the term "struggle for existence", as follows:

"Naturally, it is easier, as I have said, to consider the authority of the State as nothing but the formal mechanism of an organization, rather than as the sovereign incarnation of a people's instinct for self-preservation on this earth. For these weak minds the State and the authority of the State is nothing but an aim in itself, while for us it is an effective weapon in the service of the great and eternal struggle for existence, a weapon which everyone must adopt, not because it is a mere formal mechanism, but because it is the main expression of our common will to exist." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p.310]

So did Darwin:

"Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence; and this from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not bitterly to regret, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils with the lower animals, lie has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to the rank of manhood." [Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex - Vol I." 1871, p.180]

Darwin used the phrase "struggle for existence" 11 times in Part I of "The Descent of Man", and over 20 times in the 1859 "Origin of Species". Hitler used the term 16 times in the 1939 translation of Mein Kampf.

Coincidence?

The following book claims the study of Darwinism, especially human evolution, was standard fare for German school children:

"Evolutionary biology had been well entrenched in the German biology curriculum long before the Nazis came to power (this is why it was so influential on Nazi ideologists). The Darwinian explanation for evolution was the most prominent theory taught in German schools, though it was not uncontested. The biology curriculum under the Nazi regime continued to stress evolution, including the evolution of humans and races. The Nazi curriculum and texts espoused Darwinism and rejected Lamarckism, which it sometimes castigated as Marxist, because it flew in the face of the Nazi stress on hard heredity.

"In 1938 the Ministry of Education published an official curriculum handbook for the schools. This handbook mandated teaching evolution, including the evolution of human races, which evolved through 'selection and elimination.' It stipulated, 'The student must accept as something self-evident this most essential and most important natural law of elimination [of unfit] together with evolution and reproduction.' In the fifth class, teachers were instructed to teach about the 'emergence of the primitive human races (in connection with the evolution of animals).' In the eighth class, students were to be taught evolution even more extensively, including lessons on 'Lamarckism and Darwinism and their worldview and political implications,' as well as the 'origin and evolution of humanity and its races,' which included segments on 'prehistoric humanity and its races' and 'contemporary human races in view of evolutionary history.'

"The Ministry of Education's 1938 biology curriculum reflected the biology curriculum developed by the National Socialist Teachers' League in 1936–37, which likewise heavily emphasized evolution, including the evolution of human races. The Teachers' League document, authored by H. Linder and R. Lotze, encouraged teachers to stress evolution, because 'The individual organism is temporary, the life of the species to which it belongs, is lasting, but is also a member in the great evolution of life in the course of geological times. Humans are also included in this life.' Thus evolution was supposed to support the Nazis' collectivist ideals—the importance of the species or race over the individual. This biology curriculum called for teaching plant and animal evolution in classes three and four and human evolution in class five. Of the ten topics required for biology instruction in the upper grades, one was evolution and another was human evolution, which included instruction on the origin of human races."

[Richard Weikart, "The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought." German Studies Review, 36/3, Ed, 2013, pp.542-543]

That was followed up by this statement:

"As seen in [previous] examples, human evolution was standard fare in Nazi biology texts."

"A 1942 biology text by Hermann Wiehle and Marie Harm gave extended attention to human evolution. Of the ten main chapters, two were on evolution generally and another one was devoted exclusively to human evolution. One of the recommended activities for classes was a zoo visit to view the primates: 'Since in the curriculum we have covered evolution and the origin of humanity, during a visit to the zoo the primates will especially grip us.' As this text and the accompanying activity make clear, German school children during the Third Reich were encouraged to see primates as their evolutionary relatives., [Ibid. p.543]

*********************

>>Kalamata: "It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over. "
>>Joe said: "Your point here is not entirely untrue, but there is more to this story. I'll repeat, Nazis didn't need Darwin to justify their ideas of racial superiority because they had a much better example they could easily see and carefully study -- of just how "herrenvolk" should treat their despised "untermenschen". It was the United States 1920s era South, of course."

Have you not read that racism exploded world-wide, post-Darwin, and that Racism in America against blacks was not confined to the South? Blacks were relegated to the rank of second-class citizens in the North, as well.

A book that came out a few months ago titled, "The Strange Careers of the Jim Crow North," is reported to argue that racism actually originated in the North, not the South:

"The book ultimately dispels the myth that the South was the birthplace of American racism, and presents a compelling argument that American racism actually originated in the North." [J. T. Roane, "Jim Crow North: A New Book about Segregation and Struggle outside the South." Black Perspectives, May 3, 2019]

https://www.aaihs.org/jim-crow-north-a-new-book-about-segregation-and-struggle-outside-the-south/

I have two books by the co-author, Jeanne Theoharis; and in one she writes:

"We see Rosa Parks not simply as the bus lady but as a lifelong criminal justice activist; Martin Luther King Jr. challenging not only Southern sheriffs but also Northern liberals;" [Jeanne F. Theoharis, "A More Beautiful and Terrible History: The Uses and Misuses of Civil Rights History." Beacon Press, 2016, Preface]

"There was no national honor or memorial event for the 1964 school boycott, perhaps because the movement did not prevail, and New York City never comprehensively desegregated its schools. To recognize the long movement in New York and Boston to desegregate schools would have opened a much more uncomfortable set of questions on the limits of Northern liberalism and the pervasive nature of school segregation. It would disrupt the happy ending and challenge the easy morality tale the fable gives us—of Northern good guys who went South to support the movement—and show how white Northerners disparaged and quelled movements in their own backyards... Many scholars and journalists since the 1960s have clung to this false distinction between a Southern 'de jure' segregation and a Northern 'de facto' segregation, making Northern segregation more innocent and missing the various ways such segregation was supported and maintained through the law and political process." [Ibid. Chap.1]

*********************

>>Kalamata: "It is past time the world is freed from the evil religion of evolutionism."
>>Joe said: "I think any science, not just evolution, in the hands of evil people can become a weapon of evil. As conservatives must constantly remind opponents of the 2nd Amendment: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Darwin's theory itself killed nobody."

Guns don't kill, but words create killers out of little minds full of mush. Ask the Columbine killers, who were doing their own bit of "natural selecting".

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: "Narrative: Science deniers, like Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott, ignore contradictory data, at first. "
>>Joe said: "I've never ignored nor seen "contradictory data" which could falsify evolution theory."

You don't want to see it.

*********************

>>Joe said: "So it's worth noting that the issues at the Kitzmiller trial were both the Creationists' Panda book and a statement denigrating evolution which the government school board voted to order read in science classes. That vote caused three opposing board members to resign, then science teachers refused to read the statement and Kitzmiller filed suit. Later voters voted out the anti-evolution school board members.

How does it feel to be an apologist for the ACLU?

If the states and people had NOT lost its power of free exercise of religion to a usurpation by the Federal Government (at the instigation of the ACLU,) there would have been no trial. But, because of the usurpations, the ACLU and their cult following have been able to brainwash many citizens into believing there was supposed to be "separation of church and state", which is always interpreted to mean, "No Christians Allowed!"

You have some strange "bedfellows", Alinsky Joe.

*********************

>>Joe said: "Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that 'Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community.'

Is that the same Ken Miller who maintained the fraudulent Haeckel's Embryos through FOUR editions of his Biology textbook, until he was shamed into taking them out in the 5th edition by Richardson et al, in 1997? Of course it is; and he lied his behind off at the trial, the most egregious of which was his appeal to being "a person of faith", as if it is okay to lie as long as you claim to be a "person of faith".

It is time for creationists and ID'ers to play hardball against that deceitful thug.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "But if the contradictory data doesn't go away, they recruit the Sword of the government to help suppress it."
>>Joe said: "But "contrary data" had nothing to do with Kitzmiller v. Dover, that was all about an anti-evolution statement the government school board wanted to ram down the throats of science teachers & pupils."

Don't try to downplay it. Dover was a well-orchestrated, left-wing assault on the Christian heritage of our nation.

*********************

>>Kalamata: "Narrative: Science deniers must continually reshuffle their vocabulary to stay "in business". For example, "divergent evolution" has morphed into "convergent evolution", "parallel evolution", "preadaptive evolution", and "reductive evolution" (and perhaps a few others), so that, no matter what happens, evolution is ALWAYS true."
>>Joe said: "There's no doubt that the volumes of data confirming evolution theory today are orders of magnitude greater than what was available to Darwin some 150+ years ago.

There is not one shred of evidence for evolution. The accumulation of a vast body of just-so stories, and constant hand-waving, is not, nor shall ever be, evidence!

*********************

>>Joe said: "And as data increased new natural processes were discovered needing new names. That's how science is supposed to work, no matter how much it disappoints deniers like our own Kalamata.

Now you are getting really annoying. Those new-fangled evolution "methods" were nothing more than desperate cover-ups of falsifications of evolution.

*********************

>>Joe said: "Kalamata: "Narrative: The more accomplished science deniers use a large collection of quotes and references, like Michael Shermer in his books and lectures. The less accomplished resort to artistic renditions of "evidence", such as pictures and models of imaginary whale, horse, and embryo evolution."
>>Joe said: "And speaking of imaginary drawings used to illustrate science related ideas, here's one I found in the Creationist book, Of Panda's and People.I think it's Creationists' "proof" that there's no difference between truth & lies."

That is deceitful. No, it is a lie! That drawing is used to demonstrate how the same data can yeild entirely different interpretations. From the book:

"Darwin, for example, sought to establish common descent by examining evidence from several different areas: paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and embryology. Others have relied, in addition, on evidence from genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry.

"The problem with this kind of historical detective work, however, is that it seldom produces a conclusion that forecloses other alternatives. As philosopher of biology Elliot Sober points out, there may be any number of plausible explanations—or "past histories"— that can account for the same evidence. Sobers observation recalls the insightful warning of fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. "Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing," said Holmes. "It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something different."

"What do you see—a tired old woman or an attractive young lady? Depending on what you're looking for, you can probably see either one. The drawing hasn't changed. The only thing that's different is the way you look at it. The point is, unless we can eliminate plausible competing explanations, it's presumptuous to call descent with modification a fact. As most people understand the term, a fact "is supposed to be distinguished from transient theories as something definite, permanent, and independent of any subjective interpretation by the scientist.

"By this definition, descent with modification simply doesn't warrant the status of a fact. Far from compelling a single conclusion, the evidence may legitimately be interpreted in different ways, leading to several possible conclusions. None of those conclusions warrants the status of a "fact".

"Of Panda's and People" is a very good book, and highly recommended. It is co-authored by Professor Dean Kenyon, a former evolutionist, who, along with Dr. Gary Steinman authored the 1969 origin-of-life book "Biochemical Predestination" (McGraw-Hill) – a very professional book which received rave reviews from evolutionists:

Of Pandas and People

Biochemical Evolution

It was only after the release of "Biochemical Evolution" that Dr. Kenyon realized that evolution was impossible (that is, well beyond the scope of probability.)

This link discusses Dr. Kenyon's encounter with the Inquisition when he committed the ultimate heresy of abandoning evolutionism:

https://freescience.today/story/dean-kenyon/

This is Professor Kenyon in a candid moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B21_aHl3WvQ&t=2m50s

The following video segment is a from a lecture by Dr. Terry Mortensen in which he explains the above photo, using a lead-in from statements by geologist Derek Ager, and a follow-up with statements by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould:

Anti-Biblical Philosophy Masquerading as Science

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>My response is to recommend the book Wonderful Life by Stephen J Gould. It is the scholarly story of three individuals that studied the fossils in the Burgess Shale. That is a geologic formation high in the Canadian Rockies.

Bert, are you familiar with paleontologist Kurt Wise who was one of Gould’s graduate students at Harvard? In the following segment of a lecture on the fossil record, Wise discusses disparity vs. diversity. He references Gould’s book “Wonderful Life” (but not by name) and the Burgess Shale about 6 minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o&list=PLrCQerz2L0IfnffPfmHHZz06v-Eu60sZ7&index=8&t=24m39s

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Now I finally have some time to begin working through the roughly two dozen Kalamata & others' posts -- some quite lengthy -- not yet responded to.
Will do my best to keep the tone civil, even when that is more than Kalamata deserves.

We need to begin by reviewing my discovered "Rules for Deniers" from post #272 above.

1. Rule #1: First, foremost & always: ignore all data which contradicts your own claims.

2. Rule #2: Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific.

3. Rule #3: Begin your presentation with a large collection of quotes & references -- some meticulously sourced, others mis-quotes, out of context & dubious provenance.

4. Rule #4: Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments.
   Equate defeat on his weakest points to defeat on every point -- "wrong on one = wrong on all."

5. Rule #5: Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.
   For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc.

6. Rule #6: If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down.
   Remember, for propaganda purposes a lie repeated boldly & often enough becomes true!

7. Rule #7: OK to personally insult, disparage & malign.

8. Rule #8: Guilt by association: if your opponent knows somebody who was wrong about something, then he is wrong about everything!

9. Rule #9: When all else fails, remember rule #1.

I posted at #272 that I thought there could be more rules so here are two more worth mentioning:

• Rule #10: Shift the Burden of Proof to your opponent -- whatever you claim, no matter how ridiculous, demand your opponent "prove" it false.

• Rule #11: Final Rule, when you've been totally defeated, when your lies are exposed, when your "logic" is revealed as nonsense, when nothing you say is believable, then Declare Total Victory!
  Announce that your side has already won and your despicable opponents are fading into history, nothing is left of their arguments but your victory dance in their football end zone.

I think at least one and often several of these "Denier Rules" apply to every post by Kalamata, and will try to point out which ones were used & where.

Next post will pick up where I left off, Kalamata's post #282 referring to these "rules".

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: >>Science Denier Rule#4: "Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments."

Kalamata on Rule #4: "Narrative: If that fails -- if your opponent has no scientific weaknesses -- smear, slander, and accuse him of the most vile thing imaginable."

That is actually Rule #7, which Kalamata slavishly practices, but for this purpose conveniently ignores.

Kalamata on Rule #5: "Narrative: Be careful. If you support the ideology that led to the holocaust, and there is no way anyone would believe his ideology led to the holocaust, if might be better to accuse him of something else, such as being a holocaust denier."

Blaming evolution theory for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate.

Kalamata still commenting on Rule #5: "Narrative: Again, be careful.
This tactic worked well on all Creation and Intelligent Design scientists until recently; but now, with new discoveries in the genome, and with no supporting discoveries in the fossil record from the time of Darwin until now, the more accomplished scientists can legitimately throw that back in your face. Choose your targets wisely."

Here Kalamata obeys Rules #1, #2 & #6.

Kalamata: "LOL! They are not my rules. They are yours!"

I have yet to see where Kalamata violated even one of his "Rules for Deniers".

Kalamata on origin of life research: "Who paid for it?"

You don't know, but you claim it must be Federal tax dollars.
That's Rule #10.

Kalamata: "Assuming the so-called prebiotic molecules magically organized into self-replicating RNA, how does the RNA replication occur without the assistance of protein polymerases?"

Natural science is all about research to answer such questions.

Kalamata mis-attributing his own words to BJK: " >>Joe the Science Denier says, '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."

Kalamata: "That is more than appropriate to explain today's usurpations and left-wing fanaticism.
Those trying to destroy our nation and culture with the religions of evolutionism and socialism, frequently use the "Stop thief" first deception, as you do."

I agree that the political tactics of our Leftists are despicable, even when used by propagandists like Kalamata.

Kalamata: "The word "gutter" appropriately identifies the filthy, foul-mouthed trash on Youtube and in other open forums who rabidly defend their religions of evolutionism and socialism (the religions that led to the holocaust and killing fields) with the most vile language and slander imaginable.
Alinsky Joe uses all of those tactics, except for the filthy language, so far."

I know nothing of any of those people or forums, can't answer for them.
Your comment here is a good example of Rules #6 & #8.

Kalamata referring to Shermer & Prothero: "We know those fellows are devout atheists.
We know both promote the climate-change scam.
We know both condemn those who are anti-abortion.
And we know that Alinsky Joe uses slander against those who oppose his world view.
So where are the lies, Alinsky Joe?"

Rules #6, #7 & especially #8.

Kalamata: "I think he intended to say, Rule #6."

I noticed that in attempting to "translate" my Rules of Deniers into your own language you mixed & garbled the numbers.
See my post #316 above for clarity on that.

Kalamata: "No doubt about that. But what about my question?
Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?"

Possibly you refer here to John 8:44 (NIV):

"You belong to your father, the devil.
You want to obey your father’s wishes.
From the beginning, the devil was a murderer.
He has never obeyed the truth.
There is no truth in him.
When he lies, he speaks his natural language.
He does this because he is a liar.
He is the father of lies."

First, let's set aside the theological/historical question of whether the Hebrew word "Satan" equates exactly to the Greek word "diablos" translated here as "devil".
Second, it appears (?) that Jesus is talking to Pharisees, who Matthew 12:24 tells us said of Jesus:

"But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.' "

Jesus first explains that's impossible and then accuses his accusers of being children of the devil, "the father of lies".
But were those Pharisees victims of doubt?
No, doubt was not their problem, they had no doubts, they held to, instead, misunderstandings -- lies about scripture fostered by their "father", the devil.

Indeed, doubt is a problem for Christians, recognized in the New Testament, but it's not necessarily sin.
Yes, we are often told not to doubt, but Jude 1:22 also tells us:

"Be merciful to those who doubt; "

Doubt alone does not make us "children of the devil", but lies do, and lies are what those Pharisees spread, not doubt.

Kalamata: "You can pretend the little microorganism your religion claims to be the first life was equipped with nostrils to receive that first breath, but nostrils on a microorganism is way too silly for any rational person to believe.
LOL! Evolution has to be the nuttiest theory ever imagined."

First, evolution theory is the opposite of any religion because it only provides natural explanations for natural processes, nothing super-natural in it.
Second, your quote itself provides the link between natural science and our beliefs in super-natural Creation.
God's Breath of Life created in Adam a Living Soul, which until that point had never existed.
No organism before Adam was a spiritually living human being.

[bert]

Blah blah blah yada yada yada

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "The real answer is, “if they can interbreed, they only produce sterile hybrid offspring, which are indeed an evolutionary dead end”."

According to this article:

"In certain regions of Kenya, plains zebras and Grévy's zebra coexist, and fertile hybrids occur.[10] "

Plains Zebras have 44 chromosomes, Grevy's have 46.

Boogieman: "The question isn’t how extinct species died off, but how a creature that is an entirely new species, unable to produce fertile offspring with its parent species, could ever pass on its genes to continue this process that Darwin dreamed up."

Again, your problem is false premises.
Offspring born with different numbers of chromosomes are not automatically "a different species."
They still can & do interbreed, albeit with more likelihood of miscarriage or other problems.
If we remember that pre-human populations were often quite small & scattered, then it can be no surprise to imagine two identical twins, or others closely related, with different numbers of chromosomes from their ancestors, but the same as each other, bearing offspring that went on to populate the earth.

Indeed, isn't that just what the Bible tells us happened?

Boogieman: "Nobody has ever offered a satisfactory answer to that question.
The only real conceivable solution is if by a miracle two creature, male and female, living in close enough proximity to each other, received exactly the same type of mutations at the same time, so that they could form a breeding pair of this new species.
Of course that just multiplies by a large degree the unlikelihood of every significant step that would be required for evolution to work, making something that is already statistically impossible even more impossible."

Twins or others closely related (i.e., cousins) born with the same number of chromosomes.

Boogieman: "You haven’t demonstrated that.
Just showing us animals that have different chromosome counts does not tell us how one can gain or lose chromosomes in “baby steps” so that the new species can somehow breed with the parent species and produce fertile, non-hybrid offspring of the child species."

Again, your problem is false premises.
Different numbers of chromosomes do not automatically rule out interbreeding.

Boogieman: "That fossils have been found is not evidence that other fossils which have not been found actually exist.
That is just poor logic.
One cannot assume facts not in evidence."

The important fact in evidence here is that hundreds to thousands of new fossil species are discovered every year and each one fills in a "gap" in the previous fossil record.
The fact that most of these are marine animals doesn't reduce their value as representatives of transitional forms.

Boogieman: "I agree, and the current definition of species if far too loose to be of much use in these types of discussions, but that is by design. "

All such definitions are matters of practical convenience -- whether we call any two populations different breeds, or sub-species, or species, genera, families, etc. is irrelevant except as those words suggest how closely, or distantly, the two populations are related by evolution.
Outside of evolution theory, no such classifications make any sense.

Boogieman: "You assume you can deduce a “rate of speciation”..."
"You assume those species are all correctly classified..."
"You assume, of course, that any of those species even have a common ancestry in the first place..."
"You assume that the rate of speciation you deduce would be uniform over long periods of time..."
"You assume that the “new species” of zebras we see after your starting point are actually new..."

"I could go on, but that should suffice to show that this type of methodology is composed mostly of speculation rather than anything reliable."

First, just so we're clear on this: what's not observed can never be fact, but must remain at best a confirmed theory.
Second, all of those items you list as "assumptions" are based on far more than just "speculation".
Instead they are reasonable conclusions based on huge volumes of evidence.
Third, there's no known reason not to suppose (sorry for the double negative) that the numbers of species alive today is roughly equivalent to the numbers alive in previous geological eras, absent episodes of mass extinctions.

Finally, when new fossil species are found they confirm our previous evolution-based expectations -- again, I'll cite the timeline of pre-human skulls.

Boogieman: "However, if you are doing real science, there is always a reason to look critically at fundamental, undemonstrable assumptions that a whole house of cards of other assumptions have been heaped upon."

Sure, but here's your problem: no other explanation based on natural science has ever been proposed, much less tested for falsification.
Every other alleged "theory" is in fact thinly-disguised theology masquerading as "science".
And propagandists for such "theories" practice the worst sorts of denial to skirt around obvious issues.
I'll refer you to my post #316 above.

Boogieman: "That hypothetical dotted line between australopithecus and the homos is the graphical representation of the lack of actual evidence that any of these apelike creatures ever “evolved” into humans."

The chart, so far as I know, is an accurate representation of what is presently accepted, including an inventory of numbers of individuals found in each category.
The fossils themselves do not tell us how closely each group is related to the others, but importantly, there's no evidence suggesting they are not related.
Indeed, DNA for Neanderthals and other extinct pre-humans suggests they were not only closely related, they also interbred with ancient humans.

Again, your theological opinions notwithstanding, there's no other scientific theory which explains all the evidence we have.

Boogieman: "The point is that they are so morphologically different, if they had not been found in such proximity, they probably would have been classified differently.
That is why the discoverer commented that this find calls into question the classification of previous finds."

Sounds like possibly just one person's opinions, not shared by his colleagues.
I see no reason why different sup-species or breeds couldn't live in proximity -- consider the example of humans & Neanderthals.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "There is a lot of detail in those statements.
Do you really believe them?"

Yes, properly understood.
I disagree with much of your theological interpretation.