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.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "Evolution is a confirmed hypothesi”

Code Toad: "No, it is not.
There has been nothing confirmed about it. "

Scientifically confirmed, meaning predictions made later found confirmed.
In post #159 above I linked to a partial listing of confirmed predictions.

But even more important, basic evolution theory has never been falsified.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "By definition, science deals only in natural explanations for natural processes.”

Code Toad: "Nope. Wrong, again.
Science deals with observations.
An observation can be non-natural."

By historical definition, natural philosophy (today's science) deals only in natural explanations for natural processes.
Everything else came under different categories, especially theology.

Your personal compulsion to redefine science to better suit your own theological perspective is not recognized by any natural scientist, living or past.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "One other point: I am NOT “Kalamata”. I am “Mr. Kalamata”. Big difference!"

The key point for Kalamata to take away here is that your tone of voice, your use of "logic", your debate tactics in denying evolution are identical to those of Holocaust deniers I debated for many months, many years ago.
In one sense you are superior to them -- so far, no serious vulgarities.
But in all others it's the same old nonsense, just a new subject.

That's when I learned about Michael Shermer.
His book (see above) not only debunks Holocaust denial arguments, but also provides biographies of the then leading deniers.

So we don't hear so much about Holocaust denial anymore -- outside of radical Islam, the denier generation seems to have passed.

But their denial tactics still seem alive & well in posters like Dan Kalamata, only the topic is different.

[BroJoeK]

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

Theologically, the Creator is above & beyond his Creation, He is not nature, nature is His Creation.
Consider, in mythology deities of nature would include a Gaia or, say, Hawaii's Pele.
By contrast, our spiritual God is Nature's Creator, nature's ruler and supernatural over-ruler on occasion.
That's precisely what makes Christ's descent from supernatural heaven into the natural realm so astonishing and unexpected.
For the immortal divine to become natural unto death is unheard of, if not scandalous.

When Einstein said his work was to understand "the mind of God" what he meant by that is not that God Himself is natural, but rather what we'd mean regarding the author of, for example, a great work of architecture.

Consider, Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings tell us a lot about his mind, but they are not themselves his mind.
Wright was not his buildings, neither is God the Universe.
It's an important distinction -- God is supernatural, his Creation is natural, theology studies the supernatural, natural-science studies nature.

Even today, no scientist or theologian wants to see the distinction erased.

[Kalamata]

>>>The key point for Kalamata to take away here is that your tone of voice, your use of “logic”, your debate tactics in denying evolution are identical to those of Holocaust deniers I debated for many months, many years ago.
In one sense you are superior to them — so far, no serious vulgarities. But in all others it’s the same old nonsense, just a new subject.

Alinsky Joe, if that is your criteria, then every radical evolutionism apologist, like you, and every radical, left-wing, anti-Christian bigot, like Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, are holocaust deniers. Are you a holocaust denier, Alinsky Joe? You have all the character traits, including your tone.

BTW, your choice of those to admire, such as the radical bigot Shermer, is a sign of poor character. The only reason Shermer and Prothero became warriors against holocaust deniers is to misdirect the conversation away from the many exposing the Darwinist roots of the holocaust, and the unprecedented violence of the 20th century, including eugenics and abortion. I thought you were a better man than that.

When are going to apologize to all the Jews you slandered by labeling them holocaust deniers, or are you also anti-semitic?

This is the testimony of James Tour, one of those evolutionism “deniers”, who, in your warped world, must be a holocaust denier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNGLZvtRoiU&t=0s

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>>That’s when I learned about Michael Shermer. His book (see above) not only debunks Holocaust denial arguments, but also provides biographies of the then leading deniers. So we don’t hear so much about Holocaust denial anymore — outside of radical Islam, the denier generation seems to have passed. But their denial tactics still seem alive & well in posters like Dan Kalamata, only the topic is different.

You are a very sick person, Alinsky Joe.

This is Michael Shermer and one of his subtile pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-feminism, pro-evolutionism, pro-atheism, anti-Christian propaganda pieces:

“Openly antigay, antiabortion, and antifeminist, Promise Keepers members rally against the standard targets the Christian right loves to hate: atheism and evolution, and the perceived moral degradation of America that comes with them.” [Michael Shermer, “How we believe: the search for God in an age of science.” W. H. Freeman and Company, 2nd Ed, 2003, pp.26-27]

Are you sure you want this antichristian bigot on your “most-admired” list, Alinsky Joe?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>By historical definition, natural philosophy (today’s science) deals only in natural explanations for natural processes Everything else came under different categories, especially theology.

There is nothing natural about the atheist definition of nature. Anti-god types, like the sleazy lawyer Charlie Lyell, pushed for the redefinition using fake but convinving geology, and underhanded plots like this:

“If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q. E. is open to you.... I conceived the idea five or six years ago, that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.” [Letter to G. Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, London: June 14, 1830, in, Charles Lyell, “Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I.” John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.271]

I also wouldn’t place too much stock in Alinsky Joe’s scientific aptitude. He doesn’t understand the difference between logic and the logical fallacy called circular reasoning. Check out his replies to my post on radiometric dating.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=206#206

You can’t make that stuff up.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

See #227. I accidentally forgot to ping you.

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3769318/posts?page=227#227

[BroJoeK]

I have some time today, will pick up where left off and see how far we get...

Kalamata on WiseGEEK's "junk DNA" article: "That is ancient history, based on an old evolutionism myth.
Try to stay current."

The WiseGEEK article is undated and the site began in 2003, but there's no reason to think the article does not reflect the latest data & ideas.

For perspective, the ENCODE project began in 2003, issued a major report in 2012, phase four began in 2017.
The Carl Zimmer NY Times article is from 2015.
The New Scientist piece is from 2017.

To summarize the debate:

1. Less than 2% of total DNA encodes functional proteins.

2. Of the remaining 98% about 6% is recognized as being functional, which gives us the number 8% of DNA recognized as critical to human life.

3. Beginning in 2003 the ENCODE project researched the remaining 92% to see how much had some sort of functionality.
   They found up to 80% did, but their definition of "function" has been widely criticized.

4. The chief criticism starts here: does a mutation in this region cause some harm to the individual?
   If the answer is "no", then it has no practical "function".

Kalamata: "That is what it says, but it is story-telling, not science."

Says Danny the-denier Kalamata.
We should notice that the ENCODE project was not anti-evolutionist and does not consider its results to somehow "oppose" evolution.

Kalamata "It is NOT a fact that “noncoding DNA has been preserved for millions of years”.
That is more story-telling."

Right, not an observed fact, but a theory confirmed by (among other things) results from projects like ENCODE.

Kalamata "There is no need for you to quote profusely from an article I have already read.
Just give me your interpretation, and I will tell you why it is wrong."

Says Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata.

Kalamata on Dan Graur: "No sane person wants to know him personally.
It is burden enough to read his ideologically-driven rampages."

So, you read his book?

Kalamata: "Seriously, you need better sources."

Did you say you read Graur's book?

Kalamata on defining "junk DNA": "The definition was abused by those desperately seeking evidence for evolution, and against intelligent design."

The ENCODE project is in no way anti-evolution:

"A total of 5% of the bases in the genome can be confidently identified as being under evolutionary constraint in mammals; for approximately 60% of these constrained bases, there is evidence of function on the basis of the results of the experimental assays performed to date."

ENCODE (not Graur!) says that only 5% of human bases are identified as "under evolutionary constraint", meaning mutations there cause harm.

"Surprisingly, many functional elements are seemingly unconstrained across mammalian evolution.
This suggests the possibility of a large pool of neutral elements that are biochemically active but provide no specific benefit to the organism.
This pool may serve as a 'warehouse' for natural selection, potentially acting as the source of lineage-specific elements and functionally conserved but non-orthologous elements between species."

That is ENCODE speaking, not Graur, not yours truly and certainly not "ancient history".

Kalamata post #162: "95% of the human genome is restrained, that is, it cannot evolve:"

Nonsense.
First of all, the word is "constrained", not "restrained".
Second, ENCODE tells us that only 5% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution, the rest has no effect on natural selection.
Third, and to your point: "constrained" does not mean "no evolution", rather it means mutations there are normally harmful so eventually deleted by natural selection -- by evolution!

Kalamata on the term "junk DNA": "That is slanderous.
You are accusing the ENCODE researchers, most or all of which are evolutionists, of faking their results."

Nonsense, but ENCODE did define "functioning DNA" as any discernable activity, whether it produced results or not.
That number is around 80%, which makes so-called "junk" 20%.
However, ENCODE found that only 5% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution, meaning mutations there are usually harmful.

Kalamata: "The rule-of-thumb for real scientists is, 'Don’t call it junk, unless you know it is junk.' "

So far it's never been demonstrated that any beyond the ~8% of known functioning DNA is anything other than "junk".

Kalamata on Graur's opinions: "There are some who agree with him, and there are plenty who do not."

Reasonable people, even scientists, can disagree reasonably.
It all depends on your definition of "junk".

Kalamata quoting Le Page's 2017 article: "ENCODE defined DNA as such if it showed any “biochemical activity”, for instance, if it was copied into RNA.
But Graur doesn’t think a bit of activity like this is enough to prove DNA has a meaningful use."

Kalamata: "And the ENCODE biomedical researchers obviously thought it did."

ENCORE researchers are evolutionists who also said only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution.
They don't label the other 95% as "junk", they don't need to.

Kalamata on harmful mutations: "That would require evidence that evolution can occur."

Evidence which, unlike self-blinded Kalamata, ENCORE researchers had no trouble seeing.

Kalamata on harmful mutations are not "junk": "Maybe, or maybe not."

There's no dispute that a harmful mutation is not to "junk", but if the mutation is harmless, then "junk" sounds about right.

Kalamata on Graur: "Of course I don’t like him.
He is a belligerent jackass.
But everything I quoted can be found in the literature, some of which can be found in this article:

“Graur’s atheism inflamed his anger at ENCODE...."

That article is not available without a subscription, so no way to tell if you've only cherry-picked a hyperbolic quote.
Regardless, even ENCORE says that only 5% of human DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

Kalamata: "In my post, I left out the part about Graur resorting to circular science:"

That link is available, so a quick review of it shows the following:

"ENCODE determined a range of possible functional sequences of 20-80 percent.
It would not be a surprise, given the above considerations, that the percentage of our genome that is functional may be double what Graur estimates.
This places the percentage of junk DNA considerably lower than it was historically thought to be, and well within the range found by ENCODE."

Again, the question here is how, exactly, to define "functional".
Even ENCODE admits, "functional" may be as low as 20%, leaving 80% by their own definition "junk".

Kalamata: "Have you read that mutations within Junk DNA can cause cancer?"

Maybe, in select cases, maybe not.

Kalamata: "That clearly states, “What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’”."

But your article gives no specifics, none, on how non-"neutral" assumptions might change previous results.

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

Complete nonsense.
So here is another place where your reckless use of words like "confirmed", "observed" and "theory" tell me you never did get any, ah, edumacation and so have no clue to what those terms actually mean.
Or, if you ever did know sometime in the past, what they meant, you've suppressed the memories in order to replace them with your new theological opinions.

So, once again by definition: what can be observed is a fact.
Scientific explanations of facts are hypotheses and when confirmed theories.
A theory cannot normally ever become "fact" unless, as in the case of the globe-shaped Earth, it is eventually observed directly.

The evolution hypothesis is now a theory confirmed by two different methodologies:

1. Predictions from theory later observed as facts.

2. Failure to falsify.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Show us some of that evidence.
Make certain it is observable scientific evidence.
No story-telling, please.
If one must believe evolution to be true to see the evidence, then it is not evidence, but conjecture based on faith."

Total lies.
You can observe evidence at any museum of natural history in pretty much any major city -- that's evidence you can see, touch, even smell.
Evolution hypothesis/theory is an explanation of the evidence, a scientific narrative (aka "story") which ties together the known facts and predicts what is not yet known.

Since Darwin's time the evidence supporting evolution theory has grown exponentially but has not ever falsified his basic ideas.

Kalamata: "You don’t understand the math.
It doesn’t matter what happened in between.
The calculation is from time1 to time2."

Of course I understand, you're using the wrong calculation, and it gives you a false picture of population growth, that's all.

Kalamata: "You obviously don’t understand the meaning of the words “scientific evidence”.
I’ll make it easy on you.
Show us evidence for the cornerstone of Darwinism, which is “common descent.”
The evidence must be observable whether we believe evolution to be true, or not.
Fair enough?"

You'll observe some of that evidence (fossils) in any museum of natural history.
DNA evidence requires you read a book or two -- you might start with Graur's.

Kalamata: "You may think I am lying, but it is only because you are scientifically-challenged."

Says Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata.

[Reily]

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

Kalamata continues to demonstrate the difference between dogma & science. He also continues to show that he is angry that dogma is not science and science is not dogma.
He also shows a complete misunderstanding of the word “theory”. Theories come & go as we observe more facts. However when I say “come & go” its doesn’t mean they disappear the are 999/1000 subsumed into a larger explanation/theory. For example I have a book on my shelf called Classical Theory of Electromagnetics (I include electrodynamics in electromagnetics.). Is it right or wrong? Is it dogma or science? Well this book does not include relativistic electromagnetics. I have other books that do. The classical theory has been subsumed into the theory that takes into account relativity. Something will come along and subsume it into a larger theory. (Einstein thought so!) You can do the same with mechanics. Aristotelian mechanics was subsumed by Galilean mechanics which was subsumed by Newtonian (Classical Mechanics) which was subsumed by Einstein’s relativity. There are a myriad of other science examples. If the case is closed, the explanation complete and their nothing in the explanation/theory that allows it to be subsumed into a larger theory then it isn’t science. (Its Global Warning!). I mean “dogma”!

“...or even observed ....”

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

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "This is Dobzhansky on Darwinism:"

From 1957.

Kalamata: "Michael Ruse on Darwinism:"

From 2005, Ruse identified earlier as anti-evolution.

Kalamata: "Paul Davies on Darwinism:"

"The important point is that Darwinism doesn’t have to wait for cellular life to arise before it can work its spell; it could be equally effective at the molecular level.” "

Davis from 2011.
I argue against the term "Darwinism" because the state of understandings today is so far beyond what Darwin could imagine.
My term "basic evolution theory" (descent with modifications, natural selection) corresponds roughly to this use of the term "Darwinism".

Kalamata: "Ernst Mayr on Darwinism:"

"However, since the 1860s no two authors have used the word ‘Darwinism’ in exactly the same way.
As in the old story of the three blind men and the elephant, every writer on Darwinism seemed to touch upon only one of the many aspects of Darwinism..."

Right, from 1991, no single definition for "Darwinism".

Kalamata: "Stephen Jay Gould on Darwinism:"

"The comparisons may be stretched, or even silly, but they do reflect the essence of Darwinism—the creative power of natural selection."

Right, from 1988, "Darwinism" = natural selection.

Bottom line: I don't see the word "Darwinism" ever strictly defined or used today outside some historical context.
For example, none of the ENCODE articles reviewed here mentioned Darwin or Darwinism.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "The other type of speciation, where the process continues until one creature transforms into a radically different type of creature, with what we now know of the probabilities involved, I think we can say only exists in the fertile imagination of Darwinists."

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

[Boogieman]

“no single repetition of which has to be more than a small baby-step”

Certainly a great many of them have to me more than a “small baby-step”. Every step where the altered child can no longer breed with the parent species is an insurmountable hurdle, since it’s an evolutionary dead-end, yet those dead-ends have to happen millions of times and some how miraculously succeed.

[BroJoeK]

freedumb2003: "You are most kind.
Keep reminding people of real science (AGW is not science so there goes that meme) — and why it matters to Conservatives."

The problem with Anthropogenic Global Warming (hypothesis) is that it's so entangled with Leftist politics that most people can't tell where the science ends and politics begins.
Just one quick example: does rising CO² cause global warming?
Answer: no, historical graphs show just the opposite -- rising & falling global temperatures result in corresponding increases & decreases in CO².
But that doesn't fit the alarmists' narrative, so we never hear it.

By contrast, evolution theory, while a delight to atheists, is nevertheless without a readily apparent political agenda.
Indeed, large Christian denominations (i.e., Roman Catholic) have, ahem... "adapted" to evolution theory by saying, in effect: whatever science may say, we're certain it was God's will & plan.

More "literalist" Christians say we can't hold both the Bible and evolution to be true at the same time, must reject one or the other.
I don't agree with that, but can respect their choices.

The ones that bother me are the ones who pretend their objections to evolution are "really" scientific, not religious.
But when you ask, it turns out that all their objections are intended to bolster their religious views by attempting to redefine (& dumb down) what is science.
I don't see that as in any way honest.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata on Shermer's book "Denying History": "What, in particular, did you like about that book?"

I used it debating Holocaust deniers -- it not only debunks their nonsense, but also provides brief biographies of then leading deniers.

Kalamata "Shermer is not a skeptic of "science" so-called, and certainly not of its popularizers, of which he is one."

I disagree with any effort to turn science into a religion.
The conservative perspective is that science is simply a search for natural explanations of natural processes, so there should be nothing "religious" about it, just the opposite.
Science specifically rejects any appeal to supernatural or spiritual realities, which means that, by definition, science cannot be a religion.

Again, people being human can glom-on & make a religion of most anything, but it's not something we should encourage.

Kalamata "You really should try to keep up.
Evolution is the established religion of the United States, and everyone who is anyone knows it. as the visiting Chinese scientist explained:

'In China you can question Darwin, but not the government.
In the United States, you can question the government, but not Darwin.' "

Complete nonsense -- people can & do "question Darwin" anywhere, any time.
The question in public schools is whether teachers should be required to present "alternate theories" in class.
I think they should -- in theology class, or western civ.
But in science classes teachers should hold to traditional distinctions between what is, or is not, science.

Kalamata quoting Michael Ruse, 1993: "... what [Phillip E.] Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that.
And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself... "

Ruse's term, metaphysical is a key word and equates to "philosophical", "ontological" and even sometimes "scientific" naturalism.
They all mean the same thing -- atheistic.
So:

1. metaphysical naturalism = atheism.
   
2. ontological naturalism = atheism.
   
3. philosophical naturalism = atheism.
   
4. scientific naturalism = atheism.

All of those terms signify an atheist using science to bolster his/her theological views.
Methodological naturalism is something different -- it simply says, in effect, "we will only consider natural explanations for natural processes and leave theology to the theologians."

Kalamata "This is Julian Huxley on evolution as religion:

'I find myself inevitably driven to use the language of religion.
For the fact is that all this does add up to something in the nature of a religion: perhaps one might call it Evolutionary Humanism.' "

So atheist Huxley, lacking other religious beliefs, gloms onto "evolution as religion".
I'd say, as a religion, Huxley's "Evolutionary Humanism" is a rather pathetic substitute for the real thing.

Kalamata "Colin Patterson describes evolution not necessarily as a religion, but as faith-based:

'I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge, to evolution as faith."

Dated from 1981 -- sorry, but I missed that "wave", was busy elsewhere.

Kalamata "This scientist implies a sort of religious fanaticism among some evolutionists:

'Religious people disliked [evolution] because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe- the existence of living matter.
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.' "

Again, from 1980 and again, I missed that "wave".
I hold to the original Enlightenment Era view of our Founders, among others: methodological naturalism does not "dispense with God", but merely shows us some of the workings of His Creation.

Kalamata "Are you claiming that Russell and Paine were not ideologically in the same ball-park?
Both were anti-Christian."

It turns out that Paine thought of himself as a Quaker -- hardly "anti-Christian" -- and wanted to be buried amongst his Quaker neighbors.
He wasn't and they wouldn't have him, but it suggests Paine had less affinity for the modern European Russell than for traditional Christian-American values.

Kalamata on 17th century Steno & others: "You mean, they were not given the chance to be brainwashed, don't you?"

No, to repeat, they had no information, none, which would let them make informed decisions about such matters as the age of the earth.

Kalamata "What was the question?"

Your post #130, my response #149:

Kalamata: "I showed you where “kinds” has been used in scientific literature?
Did you not bother to read my post?"

BJK: "And that is post number what?"

Kalamata: "Why all the science in God's Word, if God doesn't give a "hoot about science"?"

Nothing in the Bible is natural-science as we understand the term.
Nor is there any suggestion that the Bible even cares whether it matches to today's science or not.

Kalamata: "I call that sophistry . . . major league!"

Sophistry is what Kalamata is here to sell.
I stick to the facts & truth, as best I can.

Kalamata: "What you pretend are idle words, are the inspired words of God:...
...There is a cloud of witnesses disputing you."

They dispute you, FRiend.
And they prove beyond reasonable doubt that your purposes here are entirely theological, not scientific.

Kalamata: "...many are too pig-headed to use the name "kind", choosing rather to use the name "family" to distance themselves from the Word of God, as you do."

In none of your quotes did Linnaeus use the term "family".
Was he trying to distance himself from God?

Kalamata "But, no matter what you call it, the "kind" denotes the genetic boundary which no plant or animal can cross."

And you have a quote from the Bible which says as much?

Kalamata: "The Bible states that plants and animals multiply after their kinds: "

As would Darwin -- nothing in evolution theory requires any individual to suddenly jump from one "kind" to another.
Every step is a small change from the one before it.

Kalamata: "You missed my point.
Charlie's "science" was his wild imagination, which interprets to, he wasn't a scientist."

Well... anybody can cast reckless aspersions.
Yours are only recognized by others like you who hate science as we understand it.

Kalamata on Paley: "I have his book, Natural Theology, and it promotes intelligent design and fine-tuning, unlike the pseudo-science Darwin imagined."

As of today, "intelligent design" is theology, not natural-science.
That's one reason why Paley is listed as a theologian.

Kalamata: "Scientists do not resort to wild extrapolations of observable data, like Charlie did."

Nonsense, of course they do, if that's what the data suggests -- it's called a hypothesis.
Next step: confirm the hypothesis by attempting to falsify it.
Evolution theory has never been seriously falsified.

Kalamata "Neither is magic "natural" according to your own definition, but you seem to have no problem believing it."

And the lies just keep on coming...
Natural science, by definition, rejects "magic".

Kalamata "I was indoctrinated for most of my life, like you.
Only late in life did I get an education."

You seem not to know of some basics of western civilization.

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

And there's a perfect example.
Nobody with a basic western education would claim such a ludicrous idea.

Kalamata "Evolution is completely useless to science, and every real scientist knows it."

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

Kalamata: "Your platitudes are getting tiresome.
Take your Bible out of the trash can and show us why my claims are false."

No need, because your claims that the Bible condemns science are justified by nothing more than your own "wild extrapolations of observable data"

Kalamata: "In this statement, Linnaeus seems to be saying there can be multiple genera within a single kind, distinguishable by their "essential character"."

I'll repeat: in none of your quotes does Linnaeus use the term "family", much less define it as "kind".

Kalamata "The term "evolutionary science" is an oxymoron."

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

Kalamata: "Long-term scientific observation of both living organisms, and the fossil record, has shown my statement to be true, and yours to be hogwash."

Hogwash.

Kalamata: "Only the scientifically-challenged, and/or those protecting their turf like street thugs, would say such foolishness.
Michael Behe's books are masterpieces of scientific rigor, unlike the junk science you are accustomed to."

"Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific[2] principle of intelligent design (ID).
He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.
Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was not science and was religious in nature.[3]

"Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[4][5] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.[6][7]"

So... no thanks.

Kalamata "You are even more scientifically-challenged than I imagined.
Speciation is the result of a loss of genetic information, period.
There are no exceptions."

And yet another flat-out lie.

Kalamata: "That is insanity.
The myth of whale evolution is the stuff fairy tales are made of, like the unicorn."

Like all of evolution, it's a confirmed theory based on tons of evidence from fossil morphology & species DNA comparisons.

Kalamata: "There is no disagreement.
The Ambulocetus is Thewissen's "baby", so his sensational admission may have caused some to change their mock-ups, or if creating new ones, to leave out the imaginary blow hole."

And still more nonsense.
If you actually talked to Thewissen, I'm certain he'd tell you, in his mind there were sufficient reasons why he included a blow-hole for Ambulocetus, and that new discoveries could yet prove him right.
Consider a similar living creature, the Walrus:

Looks like a blow-hole to me, goo goo g'joob.

Kalamata: "But Evolution Icons DIE HARD, and we are stuck with Ambulocetus for years to come, despite the fact that all eight characteristics Thewissen reported as whale features are questionable, or absent altogether."

Evidence for which you presented where?

Kalamata: "Get a clue, fellow!
The revelations by Gingrich and Thewissen were from many years back, perhaps as early as 2012. "

In other words, it's all just science doing what science does, nothing more.

Kalamata: "You just cannot let it go, can you.
That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel's Embryos; and, now, fraudulent "whale evolution"."

Total nonsense which reveals Kalamata to be a man of propaganda, not science.
No data was presented to justify such claims.

Kalamata: "That is meaningless.
The observable evidence in the fossil record shows disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by statis.
That matches the observable evidence of living organisms. "

But the "observable evidence" is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.
"Disparity before diversity" makes perfect sence when viewed against mass extinctions:

Kalamata: "The paleontologists at the University of Michigan have unusually vivid imaginations."

It's how science is supposed to work.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Smug is your middle name."

Says Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata.

Kalamata: "No, it was an appeal to all knuckleheads trying to do the impossible to return to science."

I doubt if any real scientist will be deterred by your or Tour's definition of "impossible".

Kalamata: "He was being kind. They lied."

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

Kalamata: "You left out the part where he wants them to quit lying to the public."

Lies as defined by Tour, punishment administered by Tour -- prosecutor, judge, jury & prison-keeper all rolled into one?
What an amazing man!

Kalamata: "Here's the ramifications of calling conjectures"facts":
•Claims that mislead the patient taxpayer are unhelpful, and the public will even distrust scientific claims into other fields."

Somehow the idea that public funds might be less available for Anthropogenic Global Warming science doesn't disappoint me so much.

Kalamata: "Okay, you show us how it is funded."

You make the claim, so you provide the evidence.
I've seen no evidence to support your claim.

Kalamata: "Only a sleazy con-man would attempt to lump holocaust deniers in with those who oppose pseudoscience.
But if that is the only argument they have to protect against threats to their fairy tale world-view, then what choice do they have?"

Here's what I know for certain: years ago I spent many months debating Holocaust deniers and they sounded & worked much like Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata.
Granted, they were far more vulgar, but the bottom line was: no evidence, no testimony, no logical conclusion was ever accepted as legit, so in the end, there was no Holocaust, they said.

It was the same attitude & tactics I see from Kalamata.

Kalamata: "Been there, done that, saw no evidence, only fraud."

Right, exactly like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum.

Kalamata: "Admit it.
You know of no evidence for evolution, so you must resort to the party line of ad hominems and wild goose chases.
You are such a lightweight."

Right, substitute the word "Holocaust" for "evolution" and we are repeating, almost word for word, a debate which went on for many months, years ago.
Same tactics, same insults, same nonsense.

Kalamata: "Can I assume you are satisfied with the statis quo of "over-hype" and "religion" being defined by the Grand Inquisitor Richard Dawkins, and the punishment set by Pope Ken Miller?"

They like you are entitled to their opinions, beliefs, etc.
They like you are not entitled to punish people who disagree.

Kalamata: "I personally would prefer suing to get our tax dollars back from those charlatans."

But first you'd have to identify which of their funding dollars came from federal taxpayers, which you've steadfastly refused to do.
So who exactly is the "charlatan" here?

Kalamata: "The father of lies teaches men to doubt the Word of God.
The children of the father of lies teach children their ancestors were apes."

The Big Lie here is that Kalamata alone knows the true meaning of the Word of God.
As for our ancestors, the Bible teaches we were made from mud!
Sounds amazingly like abiogenesis to me.

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "There is not a shred of evidence for evolution in any museum, nor any book."

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

Kalamata: "I am curious as to why you keep trying to send me on wild goose chases, or why you post highly creative artwork based on a few fragmented fossils, rather than showing any real evidence, or even the fossils they are based on.."

You keep asking for evidence, I'm telling you where you can go to find it, see it, touch it.
If you can't find it there, nothing I say will help.

Kalamata: "Deny what? I didn't deny anything. I told you exactly what I saw."

Right! Exactly the way a Holocaust denier, literally, can't see evidence of the Holocaust in a Holocaust museum.
What can I say?

Kalamata: "Incomplete knowledge is not evidence.
Imaginary constructs based on incomplete evidence is pseudo-science, or, perhaps, metaphysics."

Right, your opinions based on incomplete knowledge are not evidence of "no evolution", but are evidence of your theological commitments.

Kalamata: "Why did you show the highly-creative animal artwork, rather than the few fragmented fossils they are based on?
Are you trying to fool everyone?"

Nonsense, evolution is theory (artwork) based on facts (fossils).

Kalamata: "That is not evolution.
Devolution perhaps, but never evolution."

And once again the god of definitions, Lord Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-facts Kalamata redefines words for us lowly humans.
Amazing!

Kalamata: "Those are observable features of the geologic column and the fossil record? "

Naw… it's pure nonsense concocted by someone who loathes science with a passion strong enough to justify any lies.

Kalamata: "You won't' pick one because you are afraid you will be exposed."

Nonsense, you pick, you accuse, I'll defend.

Kalamata: "I see you are still pushing the pseudo-science called: "The absence of evidence IS evidence.""

I see you are still lying about pretty much everything, from small points to large.

Kalamata: "There is no evidence an asteroid wiped out anything on earth."

No, there are literal mountains of evidence, though some scientists (ie., Bob Bakker) insist that asteroid was not the only cause.

Kalamata: "The absence of evidence is the absense of evidence.
Nothing else.
But if you can imagine evidence, then you can prove anything . . . . . in you mind."

Right, estimates are billions of fossils in hundreds of thousands of species found so far.
That's a lot of evidence and answers a lot of questions, though many more are still unknown.

Kalamata: "Gould was simply saying that he observed what Darwin observed, that no gradual transitional forms have been seen in the rocks.
After 160 years one would think we would find something. But, so far, nothing."

And yet you looked straight at contrary evidence and still lied about it?
Amazing.

Kalamata: " I never saw any evidence, but I believe it on faith.
My reasons for rejecting evolutionism (finally) were purely scientific."

And the lies just never stop.

Kalamata: "Okay, so prove the earth is millions of years old. Betcha can't."

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

Kalamata: "Your religion will not allow you to admit you are wrong, so the best you can do is throw an aspersion or two, and hope no one notices you are avoiding all challenges."

Now you're just projecting your own mindset & denial practices onto me.
Totally untrue.

Kalamata: "It is virtually impossible to get a paper "peer-reviewed" in secular literature without kissing the rings of Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell.
A more appropriate name for "peer-review" is "PAL-review"."

If there were serious evidence falsifying evolution theory, it would eventually make its way into recognized publications, one way or another.

Kalamata: "By the way, the M.D. who found bird fossils with dinos in museums and dig sites, is the same person interviewing Gingerich and Thewissen about their fraudulent "whale evolution" scheme."

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

Kalamata: "You can only avoid so much evidence before people start thinking you have an agenda"

Clearly speaking of yourself again.

Kalamata: "No, the strata is virtually the same, world-wide, even in areas of intense uplift.
Note the folded -- not broken -- strata on this mountain range:"

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

Kalamata on no dinosaurs found above K-T boundary: "But marine fossils are, some in the closed position."

Many different kinds of fossils are found above the K-T boundary, just not dinosaurs.

Now my time here is up, will come back another day...

[Kalamata]

>>Joe the Denier says, “The WiseGEEK article is undated and the site began in 2003, but there’s no reason to think the article does not reflect the latest data & ideas”

The page was a VLS propaganda piece promoting the Evolutionism Party line. There is no science to be found in it.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “For perspective, the ENCODE project began in 2003, issued a major report in 2012, phase four began in 2017. The Carl Zimmer NY Times article is from 2015. The New Scientist piece is from 2017.”

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

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Less than 2% of total DNA encodes functional proteins. Of the remaining 98% about 6% is recognized as being functional, which gives us the number 8% of DNA recognized as critical to human life. Beginning in 2003 the ENCODE project researched the remaining 92% to see how much had some sort of functionality. They found up to 80% did, but their definition of “function” has been widely criticized. The chief criticism starts here: does a mutation in this region cause some harm to the individual? If the answer is “no”, then it has no practical “function”.

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

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

>>Joe the Denier says, “We should notice that the ENCODE project was not anti-evolutionist and does not consider its results to somehow “oppose” evolution.”

Don’t tell Dan Graur that! It is true that every scientist on the project was probably an evolutionist, including Collins. So, if anything, they were biased toward evolutionism.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Right, not an observed fact, but a theory confirmed by (among other things) results from projects like ENCODE.”

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

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “So, you read [Graur’s] book?

Not that one. I have Graur & Li, “Fundamentals of molecular evolution”, 1st & 2nd editions. Of course, I have many other books on the subject, for reference.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, The ENCODE project is in no way anti-evolution: “A total of 5% of the bases in the genome can be confidently identified as being under evolutionary constraint in mammals; for approximately 60% of these constrained bases, there is evidence of function on the basis of the results of the experimental assays performed to date.” ENCODE (not Graur!) says that only 5% of human bases are identified as “under evolutionary constraint”, meaning mutations there cause harm. “Surprisingly, many functional elements are seemingly unconstrained across mammalian evolution. This suggests the possibility of a large pool of neutral elements that are biochemically active but provide no specific benefit to the organism. This pool may serve as a ‘warehouse’ for natural selection, potentially acting as the source of lineage-specific elements and functionally conserved but non-orthologous elements between species.” That is ENCODE speaking, not Graur, not yours truly and certainly not “ancient history”.

I believe you are quoting from a 2007 Encode Pilot Project report, which concluded:

“At the outset of the ENCODE Project, many believed that the broad collection of experimental data would nicely dovetail with the detailed evolutionary information derived from comparing multiple mammalian sequences to provide a neat ‘dictionary’ of conserved genomic elements, each with a growing annotation about their biochemical function(s). In one sense, this was achieved; the majority of constrained bases in the ENCODE regions are now associated with at least some experimentally derived information about function. However, we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome.” [”Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project.” Nature, 447; June 14, 2007, p.812]

That was the year Francis Collins released the paperback version of his book, “Language of God,” in which he wrote:

“Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as”junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.” [Collins, Francis, “The Language of God.” 2007, Gen 1:12, p.136]

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

“In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome—as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’” [Carl Zimmer, “Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?” New York Times, 2015]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/magazine/is-most-of-our-dna-garbage.html

Have you read this article on Graur’s interpretation of ENCODE (hint: “it is ‘evolution-free’”)?

“A recent slew of ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according towhich the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is less than 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80-10=70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these ‘functional’ regions or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious.” [Graur et al, “Human Genome According to the Evolution-Free Gospel of ENCODE.” Genome Biology and Evolution, 5(3), Feb 20, 2013]

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/3/578/583411

Yes, I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium. It got much
worse for Graur with this AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) report on a Swiss study:

“What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’”, says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. “This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes. These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation.” [”A Genome Under Influence: The faulty yardstick in genomics studies and how to cope with it.” Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, October 9, 2018]

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

Geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins reported on those results in this manner (he mentions Graur in the main article):

“According to the popular neutral model of evolutionary theory, much of the human genome is nothing but randomly evolving junk. All of this so-called neutral DNA that is allegedly not under any ‘selective restraint’ only serves as fodder for functional new genes and traits to somehow magically arise and thus provide the engine of evolution... Global data among diverse people groups for DNA sequence variability across the human genome was inputted into a statistical model of neutral evolution. It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’’ Oops, so much for human evolution!... This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions.” [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]

https://www.icr.org/article/ninety-five-percent-of-human-genome-cant-evolve

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

Tomkins references an article he wrote on the GENOME project, which references this report:

“According to ENCODE’s analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a ‘biochemical function’. More on exactly what this means later, but the key point is: It’s not ‘junk’. Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function, and more and more solid examples have come to light [edited for clarity – Ed]. But, many maintained that much of these sequences were, indeed, junk. ENCODE says otherwise. ‘Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more,’ says Tom Gingeras, one of the study’s many senior scientists. And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described ‘cat-herder-in-chief’. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. ‘It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,’ says Birney. ‘We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.’” [Ed Yong, “ENCODE - the rough guide to the human genome.” Discover Magazine, Sept 5, 2012]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/09/05/encode-the-rough-guide-to-the-human-genome/#.XRUkEHtKgkJ

100% function? Wow!

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “First of all, the word is “constrained”, not “restrained”.

Jeffrey Tomkins used that phrase in his article (above), but added quotes. It is possible he took the phrase from this blog post that was based on the work of Dan Graur, Alexander F. Palazzo and T. Ryan Gregory, in which the authors state that human genome is under “selective restraint”:

“The relevance of this to junk DNA is that most of the human genome (~90%) accumulates mutations in this way and that the effective historic size of the human population is small, close to 10’000 which means much of the genome changes unnoticed by natural selection, including viral insertions and other indels. These change the size of the human genome, usually by making it larger than it needs to be. Other research on genome conservation has largely confirmed the predictions of neutral theory. Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint, with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner. The rest can be assaulted by random mutation with little effect.” [Wallis & Rhiannon, “Junk DNA, Bunk.” Synthetic Duo, Jan 24, 2016]

https://syntheticduo.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/junk-dna-bunk/comment-page-1/

I have seen the phase in other papers.

BTW, I believe Jeffrey Tomkins is the one who explained the human-chimp genome comparison in this manner:

“Where it is similar, it is 98% similar”. LOL!

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “So far it’s never been demonstrated that any beyond the ~8% of known functioning DNA is anything other than “junk”.

You do not know it is junk. Your imagination is running wild.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “ENCORE researchers are evolutionists who also said only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution. They don’t label the other 95% as “junk”, they don’t need to. Evidence which, unlike self-blinded Kalamata, ENCORE researchers had no trouble seeing.

Again, you are quoting from the 2007 Pilot Project report.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “That article is not available without a subscription, so no way to tell if you’ve only cherry-picked a hyperbolic quote. Regardless, even ENCORE says that only 5% of human DNA is “constrained” by evolution.

This is the same paragraph, sandwiched between the previous and next:

“Graur is given to intemperate griping over whatever he finds silly or stupid or wrong. By his own admission, he has a streak of vigilantism: On occasion he’ll produce a serious paper that debunks someone else’s finding. In 2001, he and a colleague at Tel Aviv University published a genetic analysis showing that a bacterium claimed to be 250 million years old was likely just a modern strain. Another team confirmed that Graur was right. When we met in December, he was getting ready to publish a study designed to poke statistical and analytical holes in a claim that the last common male ancestor of humans walked on Earth 338,000 years ago. On his personal blog, labeled Judge Starling (Judge is ‘Dan’ in Hebrew; Graur is ‘starling’ in Romanian), he regularly excoriates science in his field that he deems shoddy or hyped.

“Graur’s atheism inflamed his anger at ENCODE. He perceives an echo of intelligent design in the consortium’s ‘80% claim,’ which he takes to imply that most of the genome exists because it serves a purpose. ‘What ENCODE researchers did not take into account,’ he contends, ‘is that everything is shaped by evolution.’ And evolution is slow to weed out useless features.

“Genetic mutations—the drivers of evolution—occur at random, and those that are deleterious are weeded out, sometimes over many generations. Other mutations, salubrious and inconsequential alike, get passed down to progeny. As a result, species like humans and elephants that have a small effective population size are expected to accumulate a lot of junk in their genomes.”

[Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, “The Vigilante.” Science, Vol.343, Iss.6177; March 21, 2014, p.1307]

You really should consider dropping the 5% nonsense.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “But your article gives no specifics, none, on how non-”neutral” assumptions might change previous results.”

The paper is cited by both AAAS and Science Daily reports, with a link provided by the latter:

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

https://elifesciences.org/articles/36317

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “So here is another place where your reckless use of words like “confirmed”, “observed” and “theory” tell me you never did get any, ah, edumacation and so have no clue to what those terms actually mean.
Or, if you ever did know sometime in the past, what they meant, you’ve suppressed the memories in order to replace them with your new theological opinions.

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

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “The evolution hypothesis is now a theory confirmed by two different methodologies: Predictions from theory later observed as facts. Failure to falsify.

It is not falsifiable.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Joe the Denier says, "Total lies. You can observe evidence at any museum of natural history in pretty much any major city -- that's evidence you can see, touch, even smell. Evolution hypothesis/theory is an explanation of the evidence, a scientific narrative (aka "story") which ties together the known facts and predicts what is not yet known.

You are confounding imaginative mockups based on fragmentary fossils with observable scientific evidence. That is a no, no.

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

>>Joe the Denier says, "Since Darwin's time the evidence supporting evolution theory has grown exponentially but has not ever falsified his basic ideas.

There is not a shred of observable scientific evidence for evolutionism. It is a myth,

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

>>Joe the Denier says, "Of course I understand, you're using the wrong calculation, and it gives you a false picture of population growth, that's all.

The evolutionism model is fake, since there is no data before the flood; but it does reveal the population flattens out before 3,000 BC, which is about the time of the flood.

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

>>Joe the Denier says, "You'll observe some of that evidence (fossils) in any museum of natural history. DNA evidence requires you read a book or two -- you might start with Graur's.

Evidence of common descent doesn't exist in the fossil record -- certainly not in any of the many paleontological books in my library. The fossils show the opposite of common descent.

Michael Behe's research reveals there is no common descent to the found in the DNA. Animals cannot evolve past the genetic boundary at the family level; and below that it is no genetic change, or devolution.

Mr. Kalamata