Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>Danny Denier post #409: “I guess that means you plagiarized, Dishonest Joey. My apologies for thinking you were being honest — that those were your own words.”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Now, now, Danny boy, there’s no need for you to lie about this — I’ve been very careful to put in quotes, italics and links for whatever is copied here. So there’s no need to “plagiarize” and my own words are in plain text. But I confess to being utterly baffled by whatever it is that’s driving you so bananas over Graur and some others too.”

LOL! I am enjoying the ride, Joey. It is always fun to flog the beast of Darwin.

**************
>>Danny Denier: “Silly child.”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Denier Rule #5.

Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Danny Denier post #410: “Joey I have been responding to one silly post of yours after another, all afternoon. You must be desperate to keep your friends from finding out you are a fraud.”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Nah, I’m just trying to keep up with your nonsense.

The only time you have seen any nonsense out of me, Joey, is when I quote you.

****************
>>Danny Denier quoting BJK post #328: “I’m just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted?
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is “constrained” or “restrained” or even “influenced” by evolution. ENCODE’s numbers were 5% to 10% “constrained” by evolution. Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is “constrained” by evolution. Those are your posts, not mine.”

One more time, Joey: ENCODE reported 80% of the genome is functional. Six years later, the Swiss team reported 95 percent of the Genome is under influence. Let’s leave it at that.

****************
>>Danny Denier “Those statements have no basis in reality, Joey. Perhaps you were tired.”
>>That covers Denier Rules #1, #5 & #9.

Child.

****************
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “In fact, my statements you quoted are 100% accurate, at least so far as I’ve seen. I’m still hoping you’ll somehow produce quotes which prove me wrong. But hope is fading fast.

You don’t understand the science, Joey.

****************
>>Danny Denier: “Forget Graur: he is your useless source.”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “No, Danny denier boy, Graur is your source, I never heard of him. You introduced him here saying you agree (or disagree?) with his trashing of ENCODE.”

He was interviewed in the article you referenced, Joey. Perhaps you should have read the article before referencing it.

****************
>>Danny Denier quoting Science 2012: “A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking.”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Sure, I “got that” the first time — 80% has some function, but what percent is “constrained” by evolution?

Constrained means it cannot evolve, Joey; in that case, 80%.

****************
>>Danny Denier quoting Nature 2012: “Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification.
These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome...”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Right, “got it” again — 80% has some sort of function. But what percent is “constrained” by evolution?

Constrained means it cannot evolve, Joey; in that case, 80%.

****************
>>Danny Denier quoting I.C.R. 2013: “Biochemical functions have been determined for at least 80% of the human genome and most of the rest is also predicted to be functional (Dunham, et al., 2012) to at least some degree.”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Right, still “got it”, 80% functional but what percent is “constrained” by evolution?

Constrained means it cannot evolve, Joey; in that case, 80%.

****************
>>Danny Denier “As you can see, Science, Nature and ICR all reported that ENCODE claimed 80% of the DNA is constrained. You must suffer from selective memory loss, Joey.”
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Danny, Danny, Danny, boy, boy, little fellow, your mother was supposed to wash your mouth out with soap for lying, and she failed! So you keep lying & lying, I blame her in part, and your Dad too, for not strapping you near enough. Or, who knows, maybe you were just born devious. But when your lies are so obvious anybody can see them, how “devious” is that?”

I guess that means you haven’t a clue what I am talking about.

****************
>>Joey the Science Denier said: “Do I have to point out the obvious? Not one of your quotes said anything about any DNA being “constrained” or “restrained” by evolution.”

Good. If I said that, I didn’t intend to. Evolution doesn’t exist, except as a fairy tale, so it cannot restrain anything.

Foolish Child.

Mr Kalamata

>>Kalamata: “Collins plainly states that most of the genome is functional, Joey. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the terminology. In evolutionary language, the word “neutral” means unconstrained, or evolvable; the word “functional” means constrained, or not evolvable. More than once I posted a quote that explains the terms, but perhaps it was insufficient. Here it is again:... [quotes]” Of course, that is from an old dictionary.”
>>Joey: “Right, I “got that”, noticed it long ago and also that more recent reports on “functional” DNA don’t really use that term “constrained” or “restrained” but instead words like “influenced” meaning somewhere in-between “constrained” and “unconstrained”. So, how “influenced” is “influenced”?

If it can be influenced, it cannot evolve, Joey. If it can be influenced, it has function.

**************
>>Joey: “How much does evolution seriously weed out such mutations and how much does it allow them to multiply without restrictions?

There is no research that I am aware that mentions “multipy without restrictions.” Do you have a source?

**************
>>Joey: “My guess is there’s a sliding scale ranging from “totally restrained” to “minimally restrained”, and that “minimally restrained” is the vast, vast majority meaning the word “junk” while inelegant might not be so terribly inaccurate.”

There is no Junk DNA, Joey. That was a myth invented by a desperate establishment.

**************
>>Joey: “But regardless, none of this serves as an argument against evolution.”

All of it does, Joey. Evolution is little more than rhetoric.

Mr. Kalamata

“Intelligent Design” is meaningless in a science context, unless and until we are corporeally introduced to said designer.

Think about it — what use is ID in science? It can’t be applied, it can’t be used as a tool. It just a shoulder shrug.

Science needs empiricism. It a search for natural rules to the universe that can be applied or at least understood. “The ID guy/gal/entity didit” is useless.

>>Kalamata: “That is what evolutionists do: move the goal posts.”
>>Joey said: “It’s called mathematics, you were supposed to learn it in school.”

I went to good schools, Joey. They didn’t teach voodoo math.

***************
>>Joey said: “There are any number of ways to calculate DNA similarities among species and somebody who reports 98% DNA similarity between two species uses one set of assumptions, somebody else reporting, say, 80% is using different assumptions.”

You can’t be that dumb, Joey? The research findings of gene functionality are cumulative. The ENCODE team of 2012 predicted the 80% would go higher, even to 100%:

“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]

The findings of the Swiss team of 2018 brought the number up to 95% (actually, a little more.)

***************
>>Joey said: “Both can be “correct,” but the point of the number is to illustrate how closely related the species are and if we are talking about humans & chimpanzees, then what matters most is that no other living species is more closely related to humans than chimps.”

Why are you changing the subject, Joey?

***************
>>Joey said: “In other words: 80% might be valid provided you don’t somehow find that, say, elephants are 90% similar. Then we’d know something is rotten in Denierland.”

You are very confused, Joey. The 80% and 95% numbers mentioned above are the 2012 and 2018 percentages of the genome that are being used, in one manner or another, by human cells. Those numbers have nothing to do with chimpanzes.

***************
>>Joey said: “Kalamata: “Not even close, Joey. Even when using the old, fabricated number of 98.8% genetic similarity, there are about 35 million differences in our genomes.That’s 35 MILLION, Joey.”
>>Joey said: “Sure, and there are millions of DNA differences among different human beings too. But that’s out of, what is it, 3.3 billion base pairs?

When did you fall off the turnip truck, Joey?

***************
>>Joey said: “And when they compared human to ancient Neanderthal DNA they found Neanderthals were much closer to humans than to chimpanzees. That makes perfect sense when you consider the timeline of evolution as revealed in thousands of fossils.”

Neanderthals were humans, Joey, and your stick graph is foolishness.

Mr. Kalamata

Danny Denier post #425 on "junk" DNA: "I hope that helps."

It does help and thanks again to your lovely research assistant who has yet again provided me enough data to argue against your points.
In my post #419 I listed 9 different terms which may, or may not, refer to similar ideas.
That list needs to be expanded here:

"evolutionary constraint"
"selective restraint"
"highly conserved"
"conserved in a lineage dependent manner"
"influenced"
"non-neutral"
"background selection"
"biased gene conversion"
"bias demographic inferences"
"junk DNA"
"coding & noncoding DNA"
"functional DNA"
"biochemical function"
"redundant DNA"
"introns and repetitive sequences"
"parasite DNA"
"spreading control"
"alive with activity"
"a lot more going on..."
"negative selection"
"transmission bias"
"neutral variants"
"forces that act on human evolution"
"affected by different evolutionary pressures"
"some type of selection"
"influenced by functional sites"

Danny Denier: "In summary, the constrained part of the genome, the part that cold not randomly evolve, went from 80% in 2012, to more than 95% in 2018. "

Maybe, maybe not, depending on exactly how such terms as those above are defined.
Instead of the old terms like "constrained" & "restrained" we are now talking about "influenced", "transmission bias" and "some type of selection".
I think what such terms tell us is: we see, in reality, a sliding evolutionary scale from Coding DNA which is highly "constrained", "restrained" or "conserved" to such categories as introns and repetitive sequences which may, or may not, be slightly "influenced" by "some type of selection".

So, DNA sequences with less important functions are subject to less restrictive evolutionary pressures.
All of which directly tells us that, yes, evolution is both real and vitally important to species survival.

But the key fact is this: so far you've quoted the October 2018 Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (95% function) and you've quoted your own ICR's response a week later (no evolution).
However, your lovely research assistant has so far found us nothing since 2012 from anybody at ENCODE or from your bosom buddy, young Danny Graur!
I'll be most interested to learn their responses, especially young Graur's since your... ahem... deep affection for him tells me he's most likely a really good guy. ;-)

reasonisfaith post #426: "Evolution claims genetic mutation brings adaptive change.
But random mutations cannot result in viable proteins."

Can you quote for me the Bible verse which tells you that?
Can you cite for me the scientific laws which tell you that?
Can you define either "random" or "viable protein"?

“Random” equates with chaos, disorder or confusion.

A viable protein equates with life. Life comes from God.

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:33

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” John 1:3-4

reasonisfaith post #427: "You mean where the fossil evidence shows thousands of advanced species suddenly appearing at the same time, with practically previously existing species?"

Well, first, the Cambrian lasted about 55 million years, from 541 MYA to 485 MYA, which is hardly "sudden".

Second, "thousands of species" over 50 million years, but only about 600 genera alive at any one time (see post #294).
That's 600 total genera during the Cambrian verses today about 200,000 living animal genera alone.
So, more of a slow burn than "explosion"

Third, today there are about 36 different animal phyla.
From my post #347:

This chart lists

2 phyla -- Precambrian
3 phyla -- early Cambrian
10 phyla -- "Cambrian Explosion"
3 phyla -- Post-Cambrian
18 phyla -- no fossils found
36 phyla -- total living animal phyla.

So, of 36 living phyla, 10 are first seen in the Cambrian Explosion, 8 more are first found before or after and 18 have never been found in fossils.

Fourth, what truly did change during the Cambrian Explosion was the first appearance of hard shelled creatures.
These fossilize more frequently and are what make many life-forms seem to appear "suddenly".

Danny Denier post #428: "Joey is such a whiny child . . ."

That is just Danny practicing Denier Rules #1, #5, #6 & #7.

>>Danny Denier from post #413: "No, Joey. The “established chronology”, which is known as the “Conventional Archeological Chronology,” or CAC, comes from the conflation of the archaeologically discovered Egyptian Pharoah Shoshenk with the biblical Pharoah Shishak, which is then used to inaccurately date biblical events prior to Shishak. It essentially pushes the biblical date of the Exodus forward a couple of hundred years, which points wrongly to Ramsees as the Pharoah of the Exodus, and consequently, to no presence of Israel in Egypt."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "I understand that serious scholars differ on this particular point and my faith does not depend on which ones are right or wrong. I'm patient and at my age expect to learn the real truth, all in due time.

The real truth is found in the Word of God, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "There is plenty of evidence for Israel in Egypt, but not at the “right” time. The CAC also points to Jericho being destroyed before Joshua arrives, since the CAC puts Joshua at about 1200 BC, rather than the biblical 1400 BC."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Sorry, but I can't get excited over those 200 years. Either is fine by me."

I wonder how the anti-semites will react when sufficient proof comes in to convince even the hard-liners of the historicity of Israel's stay in Egypt, and of the Exodus? They will probably deny it in public, like evolutionists deny modern genetic research that falsifies evolution. There is a lot more at stake than science and history: namely, money and power.

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

>>Danny Denier" "Don’t waste our time with quotes from the Left-Wing Wikipedia, Joey."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Once again: Wikipedia represents standard cultural "conventional wisdom" supported by well known references. It's great for looking up names, dates & basic ideas. At best its reporting is "fair & balanced", intending to present both sides with a neutral tone. Wikipedia is also the only similar site I know not cluttered up with ads & other popup nonsense."

It is okay to use Wikipedia as a "cultural standard," with the understanding that our culture has gone to hell.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier: "In other words, I can find the standard data I'm looking for in Wikipedia often in far less than half the time it takes looking anywhere else."

It is fine if you don't try to pass it off as science or history.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier: "Danny, if I understand correctly, you yourself have "thousands of books" which you (or your lovely research assistant) can apparently access through word searches. By contrast, I have dozens-hundreds of hard-copy books on many subjects, some last read decades ago. And as that exercise with Shermer's Holocaust book illustrated, with word searches you can ferret out quotes from electronic books, quotes that I had long since forgotten were even there in my hard copies."

I wish it was that easy. Most e-books can be searched; but with hard and soft copies I either read them, use the index (for those that have an index,) or in combination. When I read a book I take notes, and then create and store footnotes that I can retrieve later to copy/paste into my work.

A great way of accumulating good source material is to purchase or borrow a good book, and then try to source every single footnote in the book. If it is a well-researched book, it is not that easy to obtain access to every source, but the effort is always rewarding.

That said, it is always a good idea to check out the sources, because many (MANY!) authors cannot be trusted. My rule of thumb is, don't trust any author until you can verify his sources on the parts in question.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier: "So Wikipedia provides quick access to standard data and represents today's "conventional wisdom" -- a pretty good place to start any discussion. It doesn't necessarily mean the Wiki report is correct, but does suggest where debate should begin."

I sometimes use it for biographies, but even those have a leftwing ideological slant, if the person is not censored altogether. For example, this is the wiki bio on the great rhetorician, John Angus Campbell:

"John Angus Campbell (born March 10, 1942 in Portland, Oregon, US) is a retired American Professor of Rhetoric and is a Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture[1] (a branch of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank[2]) and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design,[3] a professional society dedicated to the promotion of intelligent design.""

That is deceiving. It is not a Christian think-tank, but a serious scientific institute. Dr. David Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is a Jewish agnostic who simply believes that Darwin's books are lunacy. Michael Medved and David Klinghoffer, also senior fellows, are orthodox Jews, and Jonathon Wells, another senior fellow, is a Moony (with 2 PhD's).

Regarding censorship, Gunter Bechly, a senior fellow, and a highly published paleontologist, had his page deleted by Wikipedia after he abandoned Darwinism for Intelligent Design. Notice the number of publications by Bechly (there are about 60 listed):

Gunter Bechly on Wikipedia

Leftists cannot stand for anyone with distinguished credentials to question Pope Charlie Darwin. The less brainwashed might get the "wrong" impression. This is a report on that particular Wikipedia censorship:

Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly
Gunter Bechly's bio

Bechly is a world-class scientist, who made the mistake of believing the data.

Frankly, when I see someone using Wikipedia as a source to discuss science and history, I typically consider them to be unscholarly, lazy, and potential tools of the Left.

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

>>Danny Denier on Jericho's age: "Baloney. There are no ancient cities older than about 4000-5000 years. The earlier ones were destroyed in the flood. There are dinosaur fossils, coal and diamonds that date less than 10,000 years using Carbon 14."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "All lies, total complete scurrilous lies, absolute fantasies. The scientific data is what it is and carbon-14 dating can go back about 50,000 years. There are no confirmed legitimate dates as you suggest here."

They are all legitimate, Joey; and, yes, dinosaur fossils, diamond and coal seem to always contain sufficient C14 for testing.

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

>>Danny Denier quoting Wood 1999: "The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. "
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Like I said, serious scholars disagree and I expect to learn the real truth, all in due time."

The truth is already out there, Joey, but you must take off your blinders to see it. Check this out:

Tracing the nations back to Babel

I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation that Peleg lived in the days of the scattering of the nations, but the secular timelines are confirmational.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Danny Denier post #417: "LOL! It appears Joey has bought into the claims of hucksters that "cumulative selection" could even exist in nature without an "Intelligently-Designed Template" (or, "IDT.") Richard "Tricky Dicky" Dawkins tried to pull that fast-one in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," as follows: >>Kalamata: "Dawkins first acknowledged that it would take virtually forever for a monkey typing at a typewriter to luck upon a particular 28-character phrase. . . "
>>Joey the Science Denier: "So Danny boy's mockery aside, he here acknowledges that science itself does not expect millions of random chemicals to suddenly come together, on their own, to make primitive life."

Does that mean you can point out the Intelligent Designed Template that Dawkins smuggled into his monkey-typewriter-computer example, or does that mean you are too scientifically-challenged to know the difference between natural selection and pre-programmed cumulative selection? Just curious. . .

***********

>>Joey the Science Denier: "Therefore all the many Denier arguments against that probability are wasted efforts."

That is gibberish, Joey.

***********

>>Danny Denier on Dawkins' idea: "Wow! That is an incredibly slick con! Remember, Natural Selection doesn't have a clue where it is going, or how to get there! So, the key phrases in Richard's scam is, the computer examines [intelligently], chooses [intelligently], and target phrase [the IDT], which is how Dawkins snuck intelligent design into the simulation via an intelligently-designed template, or IDT (and has mostly gotten away with it.)"
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Again, setting aside Danny boy's mockery, the computer here was programmed to simulate "natural selection" and in the end even Danny boy confesses that he understands what natural selection is and how it works to weed out less effective forms. And natural selection is part of what process? Oh, that's right, evolution.'

LOL! I assume that is Joey's confession that he is too scientifically-challenged to know the difference between random selection and intelligently-designed pre-programmed selection.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "Evolutionism hucksters, like Dawkins, are able to get away with this kind of chicanery because for years our children have been brainwashed into believing that "natural selection" has some sort of magical powers. What they are seldom taught is "natural selection" is just a fancy way of saying "death before reproduction". The least fit are selected out of life, naturally, because they don't produce enough offspring."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "And here it is: Danny freely confesses that natural selection is real, all the while pretending that evolution, of which natural selection is a key part, is not real."

Of course I understand "natural selection," Joey; but you don't, nor did Charlie Darwin, or at least he didn't seem to know; but Charlie was such a great con-man that it is hard to detect in his books whether he was lying, or not. It is likely Richard Dawkins understands natural selection, but he is enjoying his fortune and fame too much to admit he has been lying to you.

Why didn't you address Dawkins' phony "cumulative selection" argument, Joey? Too complicated?

***********

>>Danny Denier: "As you can see, Joey bought into the cumulative selection hogwash."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "So seemingly here Danny wishes us to believe that natural selection in one generation is real but then somehow "cumulative selection" after that is not?"

LOL! Read these words carefully: Natural selection is NOT cumulative selection! Got that?

You can't be that dumb, Joey. Frankly, I think you are trying to pull a con-job on the casual reader. On second thought, perhaps you are that dumb.

***********

>>Joey the Science Denier: "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

Yes, you have, but it is finally catching up with you, Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata post #324: "The number of tree rings formed in a year is variable, depending on the climate and other factors; and there have been wild climate swings since the flood."
>>Joey: "dendrochronology science goes back at least 150 years and includes an international tree ring data bank: "The International Tree-Ring Data Bank(ITRDB) is a data repository for tree ring measurements that has been maintained since 1990 by the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology.[1]"

More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey? Did the Wikipedia article tell you that long-term tree-ring chronologies are difficult (if not impossible) to assemble; and that a common technique is to RC-date a large group of specimens, and then select the ones that give the desired age? That is called, injecting bias into the calculation, which is cheating.

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

>>Joey: "Experts in the field can well recognize the tell-tale signs of unusual drought, cold winters, etc. "As of 2013, the oldest tree-ring measurements in the Northern Hemisphere are a floating sequence extending from about 12,580 to 13,900 years.[2]" This listing includes dozens of different tree-ring sequences, some dating back ~10,000 years.

There is way to much "old-earth" bias injected into the research. It is better now than in the past, when so-called "experts" in the field hid their data from other researchers under the pretense of it being "proprietary," much like the climate-change scammers of today.

That said, there is plenty of evidence by tree physiologists of multiple tree ring growth (as many as 5) in a single year. In fact, the largest living tree on earth, the giant sequoia named "General Sherman," was once thought to be over 6,000 years old. But, in the year 2000, that number was revised downward to about 2150 years, or even younger. That is a 4,000 year reduction in age, Joey? You really can't trust any research by an old-earther.

One question that I would ask is, why are the oldest living trees less than 5,000 years old? The chronology in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament that the NT authors frequently quoted) gives a date for the flood at about 5,100 years ago. Perhaps the global flood explains it, Joey?

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

>>Kalamata on ice-core layers: "There are way too many assumptions built into old-earth methodology to be believable, Joey. Foremost, the layers are not necessarily annual; and circular reasoning is utilized to adjust counts to fit old-earth expectations."
>>Joey: "Complete rubbish, in fact there are any number of methods to cross reference & calibrate ice-core layer results, for one example, volcano explosions & geomagnetic reversals leave traces in the ice of that year which can be used to validate the layer count."

Rubbish back at you, Joey. The models used by old-earthers assume the ice has existed for millions of years. Further, glaciologists must guess how many layers were deposited in any given year, which becomes increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, at the depth increases. Once you get it through your thick skull that scientists assume facts not in evidence to get the dates they are looking for, only then will you have a chance of understanding the literature.

Both young- and old-earthers assume the upper-most layers typically represent annual layers. But even that assumption must be weighed against some observable evidence, such as the 300 feet accumulation of ice on Mount St. Helens in a mere 30 years.

However, as the ice layer gets thicker, the interpretations diverge dramatically. The primary difference is, old-earthers believe in multiple ice ages, along with uniformitarianism; whereas young earthers believe in a single, dramatic ice age following the flood due to increased ocean temperatures from world-wide geological upheavals and the resulting volcanic activity, the dust of which later contributed to dramatic cooling.

By dramatic, I mean, mammoths were frozen in their tracks with undigested vegetation still in their mouths and stomachs. That type of vegetation implies the animals were flash-frozen in later summer to early fall, and that the climate was temperate before the big freeze. It also implies there was abundant vegetation, since some of the frozen mammoths are estimated to have required about 300 pounds of food a day, similar to modern-day elephants.

It gets better. It is reported that large fish swimming in an organized school in Siberia, along with the stream they were swimming in, were instantly frozen solid inside transparent (not frosty) ice. Oxen were also frozen solid while swimming across a stream in Tibet. I found this on the oxen:

"The missionary Hue relates, in his Travels in Tibet in 1846, that, after many of his party had been frozen to death, the survivors pitched their tents on the banks of the Mouroui-Ousson (which lower down becomes the famous Blue River), and saw from their encampment 'some black shapeless objects ranged in file across the stream. As they advanced nearer, no change either in form or distinctness was apparent; nor was it till they were quite close, that they recognised in them a troop of the wild oxen, called Yak by the Tibetans. There were more than fifty of them encrusted in the ice. Ho doubt they had tried to swim across at the moment of congelation, and had been unable to disengage themselves. Their beautiful heads, surmounted by huge horns, were still above the surface, but their bodies were held fast in the ice, which was so transparent that the position of the imprudent beasts was easily distinguishable; they looked as if still swimming, but the eagles and ravens had pecked out their eyes'." [Charles Lyell, "Principles of Geology Vol I." John Murray, 12th Ed, 1830, Chap.X, p.188]

I have not been able to obtain the old Russian "Nature" article on the fish, but this is the citation, should you stumble across it:

Y. N. Popov, “New Finds of Pleistocene Animals in Northern USSR,” Nature, No. 3, 1948, p. 76. This is the former Soviet (not the British) journal Nature.

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

>>Joey: "Your claim this could be accumulated in 10,000 years or less does not take into account the annual effects of summer warming and pressures at depth.

I believe the evidence supports a rapid and intense ice age after the flood. In any case, the less-than-10,000 year number came from Cal Tech, based on a 0.3 m/yr growth rate:

"The lack of ice in the eastern sector is thought to result from the desiccation of the air as it passed over the northern ice. Once ice sheets begin to grow, a positive feedback (in addition to the albedo feedback) occurs. The"ice elevation feedback" results from the fact that at higher altitude, temperatures are colder. An ice sheet 2 km thick with a 6 oC/km lapse rate will be fully 12 oC colder at top than at the margin. Once ice sheets begin to grow, the accumulation rate can increase as the elevation of the ice field increases. Note that even at +0.3 m yr growth rate, nearly 10,000 years is required to grow a 3 km ice sheet. Under a climate forcing, note that the maximum size of the ice sheet reflects the time when the glacier moves from net accumulation to net ablation. This will happen long (thousands of years) after the climate begins to warm. This phase lag can be modeled using a simple sinusoidal forcing function and will be part of future homework." ["Ice Core Study. ESE-GE 148a class lecture notes." Caltech Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, 2018, p.3]
Cal Tech Ice Core Study

This is the probably the best article from creation scientist, Dr. Jake Ebert, which cites the Cal Tech paper:

Earth's Thick Ice Sheets Are Young

From the article:

"Volcanoes sometimes deposit ash and glass fragments called tephra on the ice sheets. The tephra layers provide a test between the creation and secular age models. Remember that secular age models assign truly vast ages to the bottom halves of the deep Antarctic ice cores. If the ages assigned to the lower halves of the cores are greatly exaggerated, as creation scientists claim, these excessive bottom ages will cause the deepest tephra layers to appear extremely infrequently. Ash layers from eruptions that in reality may have been separated by just decades or centuries will seem to be separated by hundreds of thousands of years.
"This is what we observe!2,15 Figure 2 shows the depths at which tephra layers appear in the EPICA Dome C (EDC), Vostok, and Dome Fuji ice cores. Figure 3 shows the ages that secular scientists have assigned to these tephra layers. On the time graph, the layers are much more infrequent in the supposed distant past. The pattern was so striking that secular scientists commented on it:

"A striking feature emerging from our study is that the frequency of visible tephra in the Vostok and EDC cores decreases dramatically in the ice older than ca 220 ka [220,000 years]….The last [i.e., the most recent] 220-ka sections of both records contain about a dozen discrete tephra layers while only one event is identified at EDC and two at Vostok in the interval 220-414 ka, encompassing more than two complete climate cycles [about 200,000 years]. Tephra layers even disappear from 414 to 800 ka, i.e. the bottom of the EDC core.2

This is Dr. Ebert's biography:

Bio of Jake Ebert, PhD Physics, Univ. of Texas

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joey the Science Denier wrote: "To all: In my spare time, which is surprisingly little lately, I've been reading the proposed high school text book, "Of Pandas & People" with the idea of learning exactly what all the fuss was about. It turns out the book is about 80% straight science, but oriented towards pointing out alleged "gaps" or "weaknesses" in evolution theory.
>>The other 10% to 20% makes the case for Intelligent Design, and I'm starting to think that, unlike Danny Denier here, the book argues somewhat honestly, or almost honestly, that Intelligent Design is not a natural explanation, but rather it implies supernatural interventions.
>>Supernatural interventions mean that Intelligent Design is not natural-science, but is instead a form of theology, and one that I don't think passes even theological scrutiny. But I'll have more on it later.

I told you "Of Pandas & People" was a good science book, Joey; and who said supernatural interventions were not science? Could it be the failed theologian Charlie Darwin; the slick lawyer Charlie Lyell; or perhaps one the atheistic "enlightenment" philosophers who help corrupt the morals of western civilization? Whoever it was, the premise that science and the supernatural do not mix is in itself a theological argument.

For the record, the book titled, "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life " is most definitely theology. It is certainly not science. A year after the release of that book, Charlie wrote this theology-loaded letter:

"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I sh[oul]d wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can." [Francis Darwin, "Charles Darwin To Asa Gray - Down Bromley Kent - 22 May." Darwin Correspondence Project, 1860]

So what was Charlie's solution to the misery? He teaches others to reject God, which has resulted in exponentially more misery in the world, including eugenics, intense racism, and even the Holocaust. Nice move, Charlie!

Charlie always "humbles" himself at the end his "theological" rants, thus following the lead of all successful con-men.

Sir Isaac Newton's work exposes the false, atheistic premise of Charlie Darwin, and Joey:

"The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another." [Newton, Isaac, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, p.504]

Those are the words of a man you can trust! Did I mention he was also a pretty good scientist? Einstein thought so. Newton, along with Maxwell and Faraday, were Einstein's heros.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Danny Denier post #425 on "junk" DNA: "I hope that helps."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "It does help and thanks again to your lovely research assistant who has yet again provided me enough data to argue against your points. In my post #419 I listed 9 different terms which may, or may not, refer to similar ideas. That list needs to be expanded here: "evolutionary constraint" "selective restraint" . . . blah, blah, blah."

The word constrain is part of the English language, Joey. The definition is: severely restrict the scope, extent, or activity of.

When a functional or influenced gene is damaged by mutation, the built-in DNA repair processes identify and correct the damage. In this manner, the mutation process is constrained.

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

>>Danny Denier: "In summary, the constrained part of the genome, the part that cold not randomly evolve, went from 80% in 2012, to more than 95% in 2018."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Maybe, maybe not, depending on exactly how such terms as those above are defined."

No, Joey. It is Yes, not maybe.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Instead of the old terms like "constrained" & "restrained" we are now talking about "influenced", "transmission bias" and "some type of selection"."

Constrained is constrained.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "I think what such terms tell us is: we see, in reality, a sliding evolutionary scale from Coding DNA which is highly "constrained", "restrained" or "conserved" to such categories as introns and repetitive sequences which may, or may not, be slightly "influenced" by "some type of selection". So, DNA sequences with less important functions are subject to less restrictive evolutionary pressures. All of which directly tells us that, yes, evolution is both real and vitally important to species survival.

There is no such thing as evolution, Joey. It is a fairy tale. There is plenty of devolution, but no evolution.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "But the key fact is this: so far you've quoted the October 2018 Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (95% function) and you've quoted your own ICR's response a week later (no evolution). However, your lovely research assistant has so far found us nothing since 2012 from anybody at ENCODE or from your bosom buddy, young Danny Graur! I'll be most interested to learn their responses, especially young Graur's since your... ahem... deep affection for him tells me he's most likely a really good guy."

Dan Graur is your buddy, Joey. He is a devout evolutionism apologist, just like you, and just as deceptive.

ENCODE wrote the eulogy for Junk DNA, and seems to have left the rest of the work to others, such as the 2018 Swiss team. But you may be interested in this recent news article from the National Human Genome Research Institute:

To build a goldfish, start with a blueprint

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "G.I.G.O. math based on absurd assumptions. The reality is vastly different. Rather than one impossibly small probability of life "springing forth", abiogenesis doubtless began with millions of small baby-steps each one inevitable under the right conditions."

That statement is a perfect example of raw, unbridled imagination at work. Hear it from a real scientist:

Abiogenesis: In some cave somewhere, it happened

***********

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "What were those conditions, were they even possible on Earth" Nobody knows, but geological evidence suggests the very earliest, simplest, organic chemistry-cum-life began relatively "soon" (a few hundred million years) after the Earth itself cooled enough for solid land."

Joey writes fairy tales for a living. Hear the truth about abiogenesis from a real scientist:

The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained

Ironically, the first top comment on that video at the time I wrote this was by a fellow named Don Edstrom, who wrote:

"I am a Ph.D. trained synthetic organic chemist, actually was in the same laboratory with Dr. Tour some 30 yrs ago. He speaks the truth. The whole story of prebiotic chemistry is a total hoax with no basis in reality. I read over 400 scientific papers in this area and they do not explain anything."

Mr. Kalamata

>>reasonisfaith post #427: "You mean where the fossil evidence shows thousands of advanced species suddenly appearing at the same time, with practically previously existing species?"
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Well, first, the Cambrian lasted about 55 million years, from 541 MYA to 485 MYA, which is hardly "sudden".

That is funny, Joey. Now, hear the truth from a paleontology expert and evolutionist, Dr. James Valentine:

On the Origin of Phyla

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Second, "thousands of species" over 50 million years, but only about 600 genera alive at any one time (see post #294). That's 600 total genera during the Cambrian verses today about 200,000 living animal genera alone. So, more of a slow burn than "explosion."

Joey doesn't even qualify as scientifically-challenged. God instructed the animals to multiply after their kind (or family, as it is called today.) That is exactly what the animals did: each family produced genera, and each genus produced species.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Third, today there are about 36 different animal phyla.
>>From my post #347: This chart lists all 36 animal phyla and shows their fossil origins: 2 phyla --
>>Precambrian 3 phyla -- early Cambrian 10 phyla -- "Cambrian Explosion" 3 phyla -- Post-
>>Cambrian 18 phyla -- no fossils found 36 phyla -- total living animal phyla.
>>So, of 36 living phyla, 10 are first seen in the Cambrian Explosion, 8 more are first found before or after and 18 have never been found in fossils.

Joey is confusing major phyla with some minor forms that some claim to be phyla. This is Dr Valentine on Phyla after the Cambrian:

Dr. Valentine on the number of phyla that has arisen since the Cambrian Explosion

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Fourth, what truly did change during the Cambrian Explosion was the first appearance of hard shelled creatures. These fossilize more frequently and are what make many life-forms seem to appear "suddenly".

There are many soft-bodied animals fossilized in the Burgess, Joey:

"The exquisite preservation of soft-bodied animals in Burgess Shale-type deposits provides important clues into the early evolution of body plans that emerged during the Cambrian explosion." [Smith & Caron, "Primitive soft-bodied cephalopods from the Cambrian." Nature, Vol.465, Abstract; May 27, 2010]

I believe Dr. Valentine speaks of the soft-bodied animals in the Cambrian. Watch the entire video to understand the Cambrian from an evolutionist perspective

Mr. Kalamata

>>told you “Of Pandas & People” was a good science book, Joey; and who said supernatural interventions were not science? <<

No point in reading past there,

>>Kalamata: told you “Of Pandas & People” was a good science book, Joey; and who said supernatural interventions were not science?
freeDUMB>>>No point in reading past there,

Are you from the drive-by media, or just another ankle-biter?

Mr. Kalamata

Danny Denier post #429: "Whiny child."

Danny Denier: "Quit whining... child, "

Danny Denier: "Fair enough, Whiny Child?"

Danny Denier: "Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child."

Danny Denier: "Whiny child."

So again, and not to over-belabor the obvious, Danny boy here uses exactly the tactics & logic of Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago.
The worst of them were more vulgar, but no less insulting and all employed the same "reasoning", spelled out in my listing of Denier Rules, especially #1, #2, #5, #7 & #9.
In this particular case Kalamata has redefined evolution as only "common descent", then demanded to see "proof" of common descent, then denied ever seeing such "proof" and therefore declares evolution false.

It is exactly the "logic" Holocaust deniers used 20 years ago.
They began by redefining "Holocaust" to mean only gas chambers, then demanded "proof" of gas chambers, then denied ever seeing such "proof" and therefore declared the Holocaust false -- "Holo-hoax" was their word for it.
Any evidence presented to them was declared false, witnesses were all liars, documents were all forgeries, physical structures were used for something else -- i.e., showers, they claimed.
In the end they'd do their little end-zone victory dance, whooping & hollering their "victory" in declaring the Holocaust dead & buried (Rule #13).

Today, so far as I can tell, Holocaust denial is almost unheard of outside the realms of Islam, since that old generation of European deniers followed... (to use Adolf Eichmann's words): "I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction.".

Manifestly, evolution denial is a vastly more worthy cause, especially since anti-evolutionists conspicuously blame "Social Darwinism" for the Holocaust.
But the tactics and "logic" of posters like Kalamata are straight out of the old Holocaust Deniers' playbook.
Is that because Kalamata was himself once a Holocaust denier, and knows how they worked?
Or more likely, did he simply study hard at Denier University, gaining a general knowledge of how to deny anything and now just applying that to evolution?
Or, highly unlikely, is it a case of weird "convergent evolution" where deniers of one taxonomic "family" independently "evolved" the exact same tactics as those from an entirely different world?

Sadly, there is no specifically anti-denier school, so far as I know, it's all just O.J.T. … {sigh}

Danny Denier: "Show us some observable, repeatable scientific evidence, child, and you can put this matter to rest.
No highly-imaginative museum mockups, or appeals to your mystical “mountains of evidence,” please."

Right, by your own claims, Danny boy, you have been to museums and have "thousands of books" on this subject, which means you just can't see the evidence, whether it's big as mountains (geological strata) or small as DNA.

Danny Denier: "Perhaps you will be so kind as to point to a page number and paragraph in any of them where I can find scientifically veriable evidence for common descent.
If you will do so, I will post the paragraph in context, for everyone to read, and I will admit that evolution is true."

And there it is: Denier Boy redefines "evolution" as "scientifically verifiable evidence for common descent" none of which he can find in the "thousands of books" he already has.

Well... here is a summary of the types of evidence supporting the theory of common descent.
Here is another, more detailed.

Danny Denier: "When all else fails, Whiny Joey seeks one of the refuges of scoundrels, in this case, slander!
Some of the other refugees, which Joey frequently resorts to, are called “appeals to authority,”, such as “overwhelming evidence,” or “consensus says,” or the “Federal Courts ruled.”
But none of that is science, but rather is brow-beating — thuggery."

But Danny boy, you yourself "appeal to the authority" of, for example, a mathematical genius like Kenyon, or a scientific icon like Newton, whenever they can be used to support your own views.
So you don't in the least object to "authority" itself, only to authorities who oppose your own opinions.
And, you were totally fine with the "brow-beating thuggery" of the Dover Area School Board imposing its own theology on science classes, but you object when voters or courts use their own authority to stop the school board.

Danny Denier: "There is plenty of evidence for a bush of life, but none for a tree of life.
Besides, the bush of was coined by a devout evolutionist, Craig Venter, to the astonishment of other devout evolutionists in the room (naughty, naughty, musn’t publically doubt Darwin.)"

"Bushes" and "trees" are metaphors illustrating the idea of common descent.
Some ancient bushes -- i.e, the King Clone creosote in Mojave Desert, nearly 12,000 years old -- work as metaphors just as well as "trees" of life.

Danny Denier: "I quote them, Joey.
You pretend to speak for them through your CNN, I mean Snopes, I mean Wikipedia copy/paste adventures."

Apparently you do speak for anti-evolutionists, since I've so far seen no others of them objecting to even your most obnoxious posts.
And you do quote legitimate scientists, whenever their words can be twisted to oppose their own opinions.

Danny Denier: "Joey is obviously comfortable in slandering Jews who do not buy into his warped worldview.
Isn’t slander a Far-Left political tactic?
Of course it is.
They also whine when they do not get their way, like Joey.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assumen that Joey is a closet Leftist.
Perhaps one of the Seminar Caller types."

Utter nonsense, and apparently the term, "Danny Denier", doesn't make this point strongly enough and so you wish now to be known as "Danny Slander-Whiner Denier".
That comes from Denier Rule #5: accuse your opponent of whatever you are most guilty.

Danny Denier: "The truth of the matter is that I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolutionism.
I require scientific evidence.
I should have been from Missouri."

I did once live in Missouri and still visit there often.
It's a great place with great people.
Anyway, as repeatedly pointed out: by definitions science does not use terms like "belief", "faith", "truth", "dogma", "canon", "tenet" or "creed".
Such words belong to religion & philosophy.

By sharp contrast, at its core natural science deals in only two things: observations (aka "facts") and explanations (aka "hypotheses", "theories" or mathematical "laws").
All are understood to be mere models or metaphors for reality; none are based on "faith" or "belief" but rather, if strongly confirmed, are tentatively accepted pending new falsifying facts or better explanations.

Danny boy, your whining slanders that science amounts to just another religion is in fact yet another case of your using Denier Rule #5.