Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>Joey wrote: "In post #459 Kalamata entertains us with responses in roughly equal parts of: fake "facts" misused quotes insults obedience to Denier Rules. On rare occasions he will sidle up to the truth (i.e., "Either way, cells are intelligently designed, Joey."), but then quickly backs away in favor of more insults & nonsense."

You are remarkable juvenile! LOL!

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

>>Kalamata: "Are you blind, or just scientifically-challenged? This is the photo by Richardson et al:... There are no similarities."
>>Joey wrote: "In fact there are numerous similarities and those are what is left of Haeckel's original idea. Here is another collection of photos you may be familiar with: >>Joey inserted this Lennart Nillson photograph found on the Ken Miller and Joseph Levine website:

You have to be scientifically-challenged (which includes all die-hard ideologues) to believe those embryos contain anything other than vague similarities. You would expect similarities from single cell embryos multiplying into two cells, then into four, and so forth, until they are distinguishable. But for evolutionists to claim that is evidence for evolution is ample proof that evolutionists have no science to support their ideology.

Evolutionists, like Miller and Levine, were forced to reject Haeckel's fraud (after Richardson et al (1997) exposed it) in order to remain relevant; but they still cling to the myth of recapitulation, though heavily disguised, as follows:

"As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past."

"One example is the fact that the embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development. Why is this important? Because the eggs of these organisms do not have large amounts of stored yolk, and therefore their yolk sacs are empty! Nontheless, the persistence of a yolk sac stage makes perfect sense when one considers that these animals are descended from egg-laying reptiles in which the sac encloses a massive amount of yolk to support embryonic development."

"This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!" [Miller & Levine, "Haeckel and his Embryos: A Note on Textbooks." 1997]

Did you see the bait and switch? The conversation went from the "rejecting" the fraud of recapitulation, to the sophistry of "embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development," a process in which any child would expect to see similarities.

Did you also notice the statement, "Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded." That is true ONLY if you believe the word "quickly," in this context, can be defined as over 100 years.

A good rule of thumb is, never buy a used car from Brown University's Ken Miller. I would also avoid his textbooks.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey, Haeckel was a fraud! Even in his confession he deliberately misrepresented the facts. His later work with the Nazi's indirectly contributed to the holocaust. Why are you defending him, Joey?" Anyone can be, and nearly everyone is sometimes mistaken, but that does not make everybody a "fraud". >>Joey wrote: "The fact is that Haeckel excited strong opposition during his lifetime and responded in part by modifying his drawings as better information became available. Some people have noticed that not all of Haeckel's opponents were themselves 100% truthful."

I can't believe you are still defending him.

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

>>Joey wrote: "As for Haeckel's alleged "later work with the Nazis" that was possibly a case of Halloween resurrection from the dead, since Haeckel died in August 1919 (age 85), and the Nazi party was founded in February 1920."

Haeckel's fraudulent research publications survived his death, as did his promotion of abortion and eugenics.

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

>>Joey wrote: "In other posts I've also noted how, like Kalamata, Adolf Hitler himself opposed certain features of Darwinian theory such as common descent of humans from ape-like ancestors."

Nope. Adolf Hitler believed in the Darwinian ape-to-human myth.

"One of Hitler's secretaries, Christa Schroeder, remembered that on several occasions the Führer discussed religion, the church and biological evolution with his secretaries. After explaining that Hitler rejected the church, she provided a lengthy description of Hitler's views on human evolution:

"Science does not yet clearly know from which root human beings have arisen. We are certainly the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, which evolved from reptiles to mammals, perhaps through apes, to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living organisms. And in nature the law of the struggle rules from the beginning. Everything incapable of living and everything weak will be eliminated."

[Weikart, Richard, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.9]

"On October 24, 1941, Hitler spoke at great length to his entourage about the controversy between science and religion, and specifically between evolution and Christianity. Hitler opened this lengthy monologue on evolution by claiming that the church's teachings are contrary to modern research. In fact, as Hitler expounded on this science-religion controversy, he clearly came down on the side of science and bashed the church, asserting, 'The definition of the church is a misuse of the creation for earthly purposes.' He also divulged his pantheistic tendencies: 'Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle and not in the Whole, cannot be pious deep inside; he remains stuck in the outward.' In addition, Hitler praised the French Enlightenment thinkers' anticlericalism and the progress of science. After expostulating on the glories of science and the ignorance of the church, Hitler pronounced his belief in the evolution of humans. He stated, 'There have been humans at the rank at least of a baboon in any case for 300,000 years at least. The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer.' Hitler clearly accepted evolutionary theory, including human evolution, and rejected religious teachings to the contrary." [Ibid.]

"Many of [Josef ] Lanz's doctrines became core tenets of Hitler's worldview: the primacy of race in determining historical developments, Aryan superiority (with the Aryans being the sole creators of culture), the Darwinian racial struggle, the need for eugenics policies, and the evils of racial mixing. Hitler also shared Lanz's view that Aryans had developed an ancient civilization in the mythical Atlantis. In a passage of Mein Kampf that decries racial mixing in a manner reminiscent of Lanz's writings, Hitler admonished the state to elevate the status of marriage, which under the present system was supposedly contributing to biological decline. By hindering the marriages of those he dubbed inferior, he hoped marriages could 'produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.' By claiming that racial mixture could result in human-ape hybrids, Hitler was pulling a page out of Lanz's repertoire. No wonder Daim was struck by the similarities between Lanz and Hitler and supposed that Hitler's ideology hailed largely from Lanz's writings. Given all these parallels, most historians acknowledge the likelihood that Lanz's Ariosophy influenced Hitler's ideology, either directly or indirectly." [Ibid. Chap.7]

Richard Weikart is a Professor of History at California State University at Stanislaus. His books are well-researched, and highly recommended.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are out of the loop, Joey. More from Richardson:

>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you were brainwashed by the same Biology texts that brainwashed me."
>>Joey wrote: "Your photo shows some remarkable similarities among very young embryos.

You are hopelessly scientifically-challenged, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are persistent. Wrong, but persistent. You sound like a Robert Richards apologist, Joey."
>>Kalamata on Richardson's 2013 book, "Was Hitler a Darwinian": "I have it in my library. My analysis of Richard's work concludes that Richards believes Haeckel's reputation must be rescued (e.g., "revised") in order to save Darwin's reputation. "
>>Joey wrote: "Your savage treatment of Haeckel suggests to me he must have been on to some important truth that you deniers just can't face.

Haeckel was a scientific FRAUD! I cannot believe you are defending that jackass, unless that is one of the progressive talking points you are obliged to disseminate.

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

>>Kalamata: "We got a kick out of the words, "More reputable scholars," which Richards reserves for evolutionists, while Hitler historian and professor Richard Weikart and the genius David Berlinski (whose Jewish parents escaped the Vichy government) are relegated to the dregs as "constricted thinkers." No bias there. Move along now . . . "
>>Joey wrote: "I would not politely call them "constricted", to me they seem more like charlatans and scoundrels."

Joey slanders scholarly Christians and Jews who do not bow down to his religion of evolutionism, and defends frauds like the eugenicist Ernst Haeckel. Joey is no conservative.

Mr. Kalamata

Post #459 cont. 2
Kalamata on similarities in embryos of different species: "Please point them out, Joey, so that biologists the world over can learn from you."

Here are some articles pointing out similarities:

Similarities in the embryonic development of various animal species are also found at molecular level Date:December 15, 2010
Developmental Similarities: Karl von Baer
Common Past, Different Paths 2001
Carnegie Stage Comparison 2019

Kalamata on evolution "probabilities": "What false assumptions, Joey?"

Any that assume instantaneous assembly of organic molecules to make lifelike organisms in one improbable step.

Kalamata on facts vs. theory: "What is the difference, Joey?
BTW, when are you going to show us a pebble or two of that mountain of facts?
We really would like to see some evidence."

You know for someone who pretends to be a scientist, you have remarkably vague notions of basic scientific ideas, i.e., the difference between fact and theory.

As for evidence, you know perfectly well where to find it, but like any denier, Holocaust or otherwise, you can spend all day, or days on end, looking straight at it and yet see nothing.

Kalamata: "Just as I thought.
Behe's work is too complicated for you."

I have no interest in the propaganda of charlatans, whether "complicated" or not.

Kalamata: "You are confused, Joey.
You embrace charlatans of most every "scientific" stripe.
The reason you do not understand Behe's work is because he sees right through the charlatans of the evolutionism cult who pretend to be real scientists, and you cannot."

That's complete nonsense, however, I'm pretty sure that whatever, if any, golden nuggets of scientific wisdom can be panned out of the charlatan sands of Behe's anti-science propaganda, will be, in due time.
I'll begin to take him seriously when other respected scientists do.

Kalamata: "Perhaps you were confused by the words, "in some of Michael Behe's arguments".
Try to keep up."

Not at all, because "some" is plenty enough to suggest that Behe himself should go back and rethink his ideas.
At the very least, if Kalamata had in himself even an ounce of scientific honesty, such comments would be enough to give you a moment's pause.
But apparently not.

Kalamata: "Santimonious Child."

Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "You said "trial and error."
Those words in the world of Darwin are synonymous with Dumb Luck."

Well... if or when you walk into a gambling casino, you may well think it's "dumb luck" whether you win or lose money.
But you can be 100% certain that all such "gambling" is very carefully designed & engineered to guarantee that the "house" will always win, in the long run.
The Universe is God's House.

Kalamata: "Joey, get a grip!
You are the one who keeps parading out pictures of artistic mockups depicting the fantasy world of whale evolution; not me."

Whale species -- about 100 still living plus 500 now extinct -- seemingly have unique capacities for driving Kalamata into paroxysms of insanity.

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
That is called "bringing forth after their kind."
For example, like a single pair of dogs brought forth a myriad of breeds (and mutts;) a single pair of bears brought forth the brown, black and polar bears (and maybe a few others;) and a single pair of humans brought forth humans in various shapes, colors and facial characteristics."

Oh, Danny boy you seem fixated on taxonomic "families" which you fantasize somehow connected to Biblical "kinds".
But taxonomically there are many more categories above "family" than below it -- Kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder, infraorder, parvorder, superfamilies etc., all before you get down to the level of "family".
Among living & extinct whales there are many different categories of superfamily, parvorder, infraorder, & suborder before reaching the levels of family, genus & species.
And there's no evidence -- none -- that any of these categories appeared through any process other than evolution.

Kalamata: "I believed that too, Joey, for most of my long life, until I realized there is no supporting evidence."

Naw, you just closed your eyes pretending not to see what is clearly there.

Kalamata: "No, Joey, wrong analogy.
When serious paleontologists look at the fossil record, about all they see is stasis.
A more creative one may imagine a whale transition line from 4 or 5 fragmented skeletons; but no serious scientist would go that route."

The numbers are about 600 whale species discovered so far, about 100 still living, 500 extinct, some of the extinct species with dozens of individuals.
Fossils can be lined up by age and taxonomic category to show many transitional forms.

Kalamata: "Statis is not about speciation or adaptation, but rather the absence of common descent -- the absence of transitions containing new body parts."

Only in your own warped anti-science dictionary.
In real science there are numerous transitional forms, notably these:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls.
Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone).
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Kalamata: "No. Evolution is a myth.
Prothero is attempting to explain it away.
Essentially what is he saying is there is no evidence of common descent, which he alluded to in the first sentence of this quote, and in the other book I quoted:"

I "get" that you dislike Prothero, and so, given your own nature, cannot report honestly or accurately on his words.

Kalamata on "punctuated equilibrium": "Of course it does, since you believe the absence of evidence is evidence.
It does make for a nice story, doesn't it?
It is too bad for the evolutionist that it is not science."

Complete nonsense, since "punctuated equilibrium" is a scientific hypothesis which well explains the observed facts.
And, as it happens, there is no other scientific theory for those particular facts.

Kalamata: "You claimed that disparity and diversity are functionally the same, Joey, under the pretense that they are synonyms.
They are not."

Of course they are, in the same sense that "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" refer to the same processes over different time periods, shorter-term and longer-term.

Kalamata: "Fossils of all major phyla designs are found in the Cambrian, Joey."

"In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter.
The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs."

Sorry, but regardless of what Gould said in 1989 the fact is that only 10 of 36 living phyla are first identified in the Cambrian Explosion circa 541 million years ago.
See my post #529 for more details.

Kalamata: "The number of species is not a critical issue for evolutionists.
The critical level is the family."

No, taxonomic "family" is only critical to anti-evolutionists who wish to tie that word to Biblical "kinds" and so defeat natural science with bogus Biblical theology.

Kalamata: "Joey, rather than insinuate I am a holocaust denier if I don't believe in your nutty religion of evolutionism, why not simply provide some solid evidence for it in the way of common descent?
That would instantly put this matter to rest."

Danny baby boy, why do you always lie about this?
The real truth is not that hard and you could easily say it if there was an honest bone in your body.
The truth is I compare you to Holocaust deniers because you use the same tactics they did -- you close your eyes, pretend not to see the evidence and then claim repeatedly -- claims accompanied by great volumes of bluster, insults & mockery -- that no evidence exists.

That's how they did it, it's how you do it and I conclude it's a general rule for deniers of all stripes.

Kalamata: "Silly Child."

Says Danny liar denier, can't see from your good eyes, Kalamata.

Kalamata: "I have been an evolution denier for only 7 or 8 years, Joey; before that I never questioned evolution.
I have been a climate change denier for much longer, though previously it was called global cooling (in the 70's,) and then global warming.
How long have you been a science denier, Joey?"

LOL!
Even Holocaust deniers never referred to themselves as "deniers", preferring terms like "skeptics" or "doubters" or even "unbelievers" in the "Holo-hoax".
Crude & vulgar as some of them were, they at least understood that "denial" is a pathological condition, implying knowing disregard for obvious evidence.
So I'll take your referral to yourself as a "denier" here is simply a function of late-at-night fatigue, more than self-revealing Freudian slip.

As for science denial, that's what you do, Danny boy, and yes, it is a pathological condition.

Kalamata: "Evolution is not science, so it is unfalsifiable.
Only science deniers believe in evolution."

And that is just more of Danny boy's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #2, #5 & #6.

Will stop here on post #459 for now, more later.

>>Kalamata on similarities in embryos of different species: "Please point them out, Joey, so that biologists the world over can learn from you."
>>Joey wrote: "Here are some articles pointing out similarities:

The first link you provided is this article:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm

The first reference is Kalinka et al, which asserts:

"The notion that early development is similar among related animal species has been a guiding principle in comparative embryology since von Baer (1828) formalized the observation as his third law. Darwin (1859) believed this to be the most compelling evidence in favour of common descent, Reasoning that adult life-stages will afford the greatest opportunity for natural selection to operate, and thus adult structures should show signs of species-specific adaptations more than earlier stages. These earlier stages, where adaptive opportunities are limited, will ultimately represent the 'pruned' but necessary features of ancestral differentiation."
"Despite its intuitive appeal, the principle of early embryonic conservation has not been supported by morphological studies. Counter to the expectations of early embryonic conservation, many studies have shown that there is often remarkable divergence between related species both early and late in development, often with little apparent influence on adult morphology. The extensive variation that is seen in early and late development is contrasted by a period of conserved morphology occurring in mid-embryogenesis. This is known as the phylotypic period because it coincides with a period of maximal similarity between the species within each animal phylum." [Kalinka et al, "Gene expression divergence recapitulates the developmental hourglass model." Nature, Vol.468; Dec 9, 2010, p.811]
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09634

That doesn't seem to support your claim, Joey. Other papers dispute the notion of conserved morphology in the middle stages, as well:

"One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed." [Richardson et al, "There is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development." Anatomy and Embryology, 1997, p.92]
"[V]ariations in the adult body plan are often foreshadowed by modifications of early development. A good example is the aortic arch system in the rat that, even during the pharyngula stage, begins to presage the adult pattern of arteries… These modifications of embryonic development are difficult to reconcile with the idea that most or all vertebrate clades pass through an embryonic stage that is highly resistant to evolutionary change. This idea is implicit in Haeckel's drawings, which have been used to substantiate two quite distinct claims. First, that differences between species typically become more apparent at late stages. Second, that vertebrate embryos are virtually identical at earlier stages. This first claim is clearly true. Our survey, however, does not support the second claim, and instead reveals considerable variability – and evolutionary lability – of the tailbud stage, the purported phylotypic stage of vertebrates. We suggest that not all developmental mechanisms are highly constrained by conserved developmental mechanisms such as the zootype. Embryonic stages may be key targets for macroevolutionary change." [Ibid. p.105]
https://hankenlab.oeb.harvard.edu/publications/there-no-highly-conserved-embryonic-stage-vertebrates-implications-current
"For both datasets, the results using two different metrics were counter to the predictions of the definition: phenotypic variation between species was highest in the middle of the developmental sequence. This surprising degree of developmental character independence argues against the existence of a phylotypic stage in vertebrates." [Bininda-Emonds et al, "Inverting the hourglass: Quantitative evidence against the phylotypic stage in vertebrate development." Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol.270; March, 2003, p.341]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10854821_Inverting_the_hourglass_Quantitative_evidence_against_the_phylotypic_stage_in_vertebrate_development

The others links you provided are also not supportive of your position.

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

>>Kalamata on evolution "probabilities": "What false assumptions, Joey?"
>>Joey said: "Any that assume instantaneous assembly of organic molecules to make lifelike organisms in one improbable step."

That wasn't the topic, Joey. Why the misdirection?

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

>>Kalamata on facts vs. theory: "What is the difference, Joey? BTW, when are you going to show us a pebble or two of that mountain of facts? We really would like to see some evidence."
>>Joey said: "You know for someone who pretends to be a scientist, you have remarkably vague notions of basic scientific ideas, i.e., the difference between fact and theory."

I don't pretend to be a scientist, Joey. You do.

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

>>Joey said: "As for evidence, you know perfectly well where to find it, but like any denier, Holocaust or otherwise, you can spend all day, or days on end, looking straight at it and yet see nothing."

In Joey's dream world, you first make up a story, and then you pretend it is science.

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

>>Kalamata: "Just as I thought. Behe's work is too complicated for you."
>>Joey said: "I have no interest in the propaganda of charlatans, whether "complicated" or not."

LOL! Michael Behe has a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania; and Joey is still living in fantasy land.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are confused, Joey. You embrace charlatans of most every "scientific" stripe. The reason you do not understand Behe's work is because he sees right through the charlatans of the evolutionism cult who pretend to be real scientists, and you cannot."
>>Joey said: "That's complete nonsense, however, I'm pretty sure that whatever, if any, golden nuggets of scientific wisdom can be panned out of the charlatan sands of Behe's anti-science propaganda, will be, in due time. I'll begin to take him seriously when other respected scientists do."

All respectable scientists take Michael Behe seriously, plus he scares the hell out of the establishment (who are not so respectable.) Therefore, it is past time you took him seriously. Two of his three books can be borrowed, and one of those can be downloaded as a permanent copy, here:

Michael Behe books at Archive.org… slow loading

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

>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you were confused by the words, "in some of Michael Behe's arguments". Try to keep up."
>>Joey said: "Not at all, because "some" is plenty enough to suggest that Behe himself should go back and rethink his ideas."

When I see Behe I will tell him that Joey suggests he should rethink his ideas. LOL! You have much too high an opinion of your own understanding, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "At the very least, if Kalamata had in himself even an ounce of scientific honesty, such comments would be enough to give you a moment's pause. But apparently not."

I am a scientist, and so is Behe. That is why you cannot understand us.

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

>>Kalamata: "You said "trial and error." Those words in the world of Darwin are synonymous with Dumb Luck."
>>Joey said: "Well... if or when you walk into a gambling casino, you may well think it's "dumb luck" whether you win or lose money. But you can be 100% certain that all such "gambling" is very carefully designed & engineered to guarantee that the "house" will always win, in the long run. The Universe is God's House."

Charlie Darwin thought there was no higher power than himself. Why bring up God? Don't you believe Charlie?

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey, get a grip! You are the one who keeps parading out pictures of artistic mockups depicting the fantasy world of whale evolution; not me."
>>Joey said: "Whale species -- about 100 still living plus 500 now extinct -- seemingly have unique capacities for driving Kalamata into paroxysms of insanity."

LOL! Actually, I think the crazy notion of whale evolution is hillarious, except when it is used to brainwash our children.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. That is called "bringing forth after their kind." For example, like a single pair of dogs brought forth a myriad of breeds (and mutts;) a single pair of bears brought forth the brown, black and polar bears (and maybe a few others;) and a single pair of humans brought forth humans in various shapes, colors and facial characteristics."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy you seem fixated on taxonomic "families" which you fantasize somehow connected to Biblical "kinds"."

That is what the Bible says, and Linnaeus confirmed. You don't expect me to take your word for it, do you?

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

>>Joey said: "But taxonomically there are many more categories above "family" than below it -- Kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder, infraorder, parvorder, superfamilies etc., all before you get down to the level of "family"."

That is classification. Nothing else. Genetic research, the fossil record, and observations of the living, support the theory that the family level contains the genetic barrier that no species can cross.

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

>>Joey said: "Among living & extinct whales there are many different categories of superfamily, parvorder, infraorder, & suborder before reaching the levels of family, genus & species."

Whales are always whales. Nothing else.

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

>>Joey said: "And there's no evidence -- none -- that any of these categories appeared through any process other than evolution."

There is no evidence at all for evolution: not in observation of the living, not in the fossil record, and not in the genome.

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

>>Kalamata: "I believed that too, Joey, for most of my long life, until I realized there is no supporting evidence."
>>Joey said: "Naw, you just closed your eyes pretending not to see what is clearly there.

I will agree that you are closed-minded. That is so obvious I cannot deny it.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey, wrong analogy. When serious paleontologists look at the fossil record, about all they see is stasis. A more creative one may imagine a whale transition line from 4 or 5 fragmented skeletons; but no serious scientist would go that route."
>>Joey said: "The numbers are about 600 whale species discovered so far, about 100 still living, 500 extinct, some of the extinct species with dozens of individuals."

Yes, there are many variations of the whale kind.

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

>>Joey said: "Fossils can be lined up by age and taxonomic category to show many transitional forms."

There are no transitional lines of fossils except in the imaginations of men, in museum mockups, and in our children's textbooks.

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

>>Kalamata: "Statis is not about speciation or adaptation, but rather the absence of common descent -- the absence of transitions containing new body parts."
>>Joey said: "Only in your own warped anti-science dictionary."

No, the word "stasis" is a scientific term used by evolutionary paleontologists:

"Definition: Stasis: equilibrium, inactivity or stoppage; in biology, the view that nature and all of its organisms are unchanging (e.g. held by Linnaeus c. 1758); recently, the hypothesis that species exist for relatively long periods without morphological change, then evolve rapidly for short periods in response to environmental pressure. Cf. punctuated equilibrium.
"Definition: Species Stasis: apparent lack of change in the morphology of a species during its history."
[Mai et al, "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution." 2005, p.499, 503]
"The prevalence of the belief in phyletic gradualism among paleontologists prior to 1972 is a testament to how far they were out of touch with the current ideas in evolutionary biology. But punctuated equilibrium had far more implications than the simple idea that speciation is geologically rapid. The prevalence of stasis in species over millions of years was something that was not expected by Neo- Darwinists. Even though paleontologists had known for years that most fossil species are static through long periods of geologic time, they never emphasized this, since they were taught to look for gradual evolution. As Gould and Eldredge (1977) put it, 'Stasis is data.' When paleontology's 'dirty little secret' of the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record finally got out, it caused great problems for evolutionary theory." [Donald R. Prothero, "Bringing Fossils To Life: An Introduction To Paleobiology." McGraw-Hill, 2nd Ed, 2004, p.77]

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

>>Joey said: "In real science there are numerous transitional forms, notably these: Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls."

Those are skulls of apes and humans, Joey. Any notions of transitional lines are strictly imaginary.

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

>>Kalamata: "No. Evolution is a myth. Prothero is attempting to explain it away. Essentially what is he saying is there is no evidence of common descent, which he alluded to in the first sentence of this quote, and in the other book I quoted:"
>>Joey said: "I "get" that you dislike Prothero, and so, given your own nature, cannot report honestly or accurately on his words."

Other than Prothero being a rude, nasty, Far-Left, Climate-Change promoting, anti-Christian bigot, he is probably okay. I never misquote, except by the rare accident, which I immediately correct when notified.

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

>>Kalamata on "punctuated equilibrium": "Of course it does, since you believe the absence of evidence is evidence. It does make for a nice story, doesn't it? It is too bad for the evolutionist that it is not science."
>>Joey said: "Complete nonsense, since "punctuated equilibrium" is a scientific hypothesis which well explains the observed facts. And, as it happens, there is no other scientific theory for those particular facts."

Of course there is, but you reject it because it doesn't fit inside your narrow little box that has been fashioned and approved by atheists.

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

>>Kalamata: "You claimed that disparity and diversity are functionally the same, Joey, under the pretense that they are synonyms. They are not."
>>Joey said: "Of course they are, in the same sense that "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" refer to the same processes over different time periods, shorter-term and longer-term."

That may be the most scientifically illiterate statement you have made on this thread.

For the rest of you, Joey doesn't understand the scientific concepts of disparity and diversity.

For the record, evolution has never occurred, so micro- and macro-evolution are meaningless terms.

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

>>Kalamata: "Fossils of all major phyla designs are found in the Cambrian, Joey."
>>Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]"
>>Joey said: "Sorry, but regardless of what Gould said in 1989 the fact is that only 10 of 36 living phyla are first identified in the Cambrian Explosion circa 541 million years ago. See my post #529 for more details."

Joey doesn't understand the concept of Phyla. That is unsurprising since he also is clueless about disparity vs. diversity. This is the highly-respected invertebrate paleontologist, James Valentine explaining how many phyla appeared after the Cambrian Explosion:

On the Origin of the Phyla

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

>>Kalamata: "The number of species is not a critical issue for evolutionists. The critical level is the family."
>>Joey said: "No, taxonomic "family" is only critical to anti-evolutionists who wish to tie that word to Biblical "kinds" and so defeat natural science with bogus Biblical theology."

That makes no sense, Joey. Secular scientists mention the genetic barrier:

"In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans...Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?... another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said." [Marlowe Hood, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." Phys.Org, May 28, 2017, pp.3-4]

Other researchers have determined the genetic barrier to be at the family (or, "kind") level, which is exactly what we observe in real life, and what God commanded.

For example, these are some of the member of the Canidae (dog) family:

No one has ever observed any member of the Canidae family stray genetically outside its family.

These are members of the Felidae (cat) family:

No one has ever observed any member of the Felidae family stray genetically outside its family.

In other words, the biblical concept of the created kind has never been falsified.

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey, rather than insinuate I am a holocaust denier if I don't believe in your nutty religion of evolutionism, why not simply provide some solid evidence for it in the way of common descent? That would instantly put this matter to rest."
>>Joey said: "Danny baby boy, why do you always lie about this? The real truth is not that hard and you could easily say it if there was an honest bone in your body. The truth is I compare you to Holocaust deniers because you use the same tactics they did -- you close your eyes, pretend not to see the evidence and then claim repeatedly -- claims accompanied by great volumes of bluster, insults & mockery -- that no evidence exists. That's how they did it, it's how you do it and I conclude it's a general rule for deniers of all stripes."

I ask for evidence of evolution, and Joey equivocates. What does that tell you about his confidence in the theory of evolution?

Okay, Joey, I'll make it easier on you. Tell me one thing about evolution that is true. No opinions, please.

In 1981, the late British paleontologist Colin Patterson ask several groups of scientists that same question, and no one could answer it, sorta:

"Well, this time that isn't true. I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either of them. One or the reasons I started taking this antievolutionary view, or let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization that for over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. Then one morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.
"So either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
"The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.'" [Colin Patterson, "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson." American Museum of Natural History, Nov 5, 1981, p.3]

I agree with the only person who answered.

Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? Transcript.
Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? Audio.

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

>>Kalamata: "I have been an evolution denier for only 7 or 8 years, Joey; before that I never questioned evolution. I have been a climate change denier for much longer, though previously it was called global cooling (in the 70's,) and then global warming. How long have you been a science denier, Joey?"
>>Joey said: "Even Holocaust deniers never referred to themselves as "deniers".

Neither do science deniers.

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

>>Joey said: "Crude & vulgar as some of them were, they at least understood that "denial" is a pathological condition, implying knowing disregard for obvious evidence."

It appears Joey is taking time-out to self-analyze. That seems to be what progressives SJW's do when they need to let off steam.

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

>>Joey said: "So I'll take your referral to yourself as a "denier" here is simply a function of late-at-night fatigue, more than self-revealing Freudian slip. As for science denial, that's what you do, Danny boy, and yes, it is a pathological condition."

I never deny science, Joey; only the words of bad scientists and pseudoscientists, like your words.

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolution is not science, so it is not falsifiable. Only science deniers believe in evolution."
>>Joey said: "And that is just more of Danny boy's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #2, #5 & #6.

Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

Post #459 cont. 3
Kalamata: "The fossil record provides evidence for both special creation and at least one global flood, Joey."

Only in the eyes of phony-baloney theologians pretending at science.
What real science sees is any number of local & regional floods, plus occasional epeiric seas, i.e., over central North America.
Science also notices evidence of four ancient global ice ages, sometimes called "snowball earth" beginning around 775 mya and ending just before the Cambrian Explosion around 550 mya.

Kalamata: "The highly sorted geological strata, along with unbroken folding in the mountainous regions, are ample evidence for a single global flood.
Those evidences only scratch the surface."

All a complete fantasy untouched by any real science.
Your claims are clear and convincing evidence that some people are willing, even eager, to lie their heads off in the name of phony-baloney theology.

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
Disparity refers to body plans.
Diversity refers to variations within basic body plans.
Darwin predicted boat loads of diversity before new body plans evolved.
The opposite occurred."

No, if the word "disparity" has any real meaning, it refers to phyla while "diversity" to all taxonomic categories below phyla.
Of about 36 living phyla, 10 are first found in the Cambrian Explosion, 8 others are found before or after and 18 have never been found -- see my post #529.

So clearly the Cambrian Explosion is important in life's evolution, but it was neither the beginning nor the end of those events.
Here is a study which disputes your basic assumptions, Danny boy:

"We attempt to quantify animal “bodyplans” and their variation within Metazoa.
Our results challenge the view that maximum variation was achieved early in animal evolutionary history by nonuniformitarian mechanisms.
Rather, they are compatible with the view that the capacity for fundamental innovation is not limited to the early evolutionary history of clades.
We perform quantitative tests of the principal hypotheses of the molecular mechanisms underpinning the establishment of animal bodyplans and corroborate the hypothesis that animal evolution has been permitted or driven by gene regulatory evolution."

There are a good many "money quotes" in that 2018 study and they all boil down to this: "Disparity before diversity ain't necessarily so."

Kalamata: "Are you talking to yourself?"

That's Denier Rule #11, pretend ignorance.

Kalamata: "Gould explained it in my earlier quotes in #310 and #355.
You can also find it earlier in this post.
But just in case you read right past it, here it is again:

Kalamata: "Gould plainly states that no new phyla have been produced (e.g., evolved) since the Cambrian."

And so yet again we see Kalamata's "appeal to authority" when the authority's words can be twisted to agree with Kalamata.
But in no other sense does Kalamata accept the authority of Gould's scientific outlook regarding, for examples, Old Earth and evolution.

It happens that in this particular case, in 1989 Gould was simply wrong and not all living phyla first developed in the Cambrian Explosion circa 541 mya.
Fossils of ten out of 36 living phyla are first found in the Cambrian, but that does not "prove" they first developed then.
Fossils of the other 26 phyla are either never found or found in times other than Cambrian Explosion.

Further, more recent studies suggest that all that alleged Cambrian "disparity" was not quite as disparate as originally claimed.

Kalamata: "I must admit, your silly rules allow you a clever way to shut down debate, or avoid it.
But avoiding debate only adds to the size of your label which reads, "You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist.""

First of all, what you call "debate" in many cases is nothing more than Kalamata's name-calling.
When your "arguments" amount to nothing more than denier tactics, my goal here is to shut those down and respond only to more serious debate.

Second, I've long noted that no self-respecting scientist would mud-wrestle with propaganda-liars like yourself, Kalamata, and that's why such work falls to fools like me (see i.e., 1 Corinthians 4:10, 2 Corinthians 12:11).

Kalamata: "Disparity is simply a modern term for [significant] difference.
Darwin's tree of life denoted increasing diversity, followed by increasing disparity:"

No, liar, Darwin said nothing about alleged "disparity" versus "diversity".
You have simply constructed a strawman fantasy to beat up on.

Kalamata: "What should we be looking for in that paper by Briggs & Fortney, Joey?"

First, notice the date of this article is 2016, compared to your quotes from circa 1994.
These 2016 words, for starters:

"Since 1989 cladistic analyses have accommodated most of the problematic Cambrian taxa as stem groups of living taxa.
Morphological disparity has been shown to be similar in Cambrian times as now.
Konservat-Lagerstätten other than the Burgess Shale have yielded important new discoveries, particularly of arthropods and chordates, which have extended the range of recognized major clades still further back in time. "

So the whole "disparity" versus "diversity" meme is just more nonsense.

Kalamata: "In the meantime, Briggs co-authored a book on the Burgess Shale in which he mentioned disparity, but in Darwin's language for his day and age:"

No, not "in the meantime", that was in 1994 -- 25 years ago!
Notice how their tune has changed in 2016.

Kalamata: "I am quoting evolutionary paleontologists, Joey.
Why would they lie?
This is the book I am quoting from:"

You are misusing quotes to make points their authors never intended, or points that have been refuted by more recent research, as in the example above.

Kalamata: "McManamim, an evolutionary paleontologist, is quoting James W. Valentine, another evolutionary paleontologist.
I checked Valentine's paper, and McManamim is quoting him accurately.
This is a link to Valentine's paper:"

None of those authors support your Young Earth anti-evolution theology, and yet you use their words to lie about them.

Kalamata: "You are acting sorta goofy, Joey.
Are you getting enough sleep?"

That's Denier Rule #7.

Kalamata: "Foolish Child."

More of Denier Rule #7.

Kalamata: "Either way, cells are intelligently designed, Joey."

Right, but only one way is a natural-science explanation, the other requires non-scientific supernatural interventions -- a "God of the gaps" theology.

Kalamata: "Quit lying and I will quit calling you a liar."

Says our master liar denier Danny boy.

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
I rely on physical, verifiable evidence; not on dumb luck."

No, Danny boy, you rely 100% on seeing only what you wish to see and ignoring everything else.

Kalamata: "I am a scientist, so I always quote in context."

No, Danny boy, you're not a scientist, you're a lying propagandist who can't pass even the most basic tests of honesty.
You consistently hijack quotes from people who would never support your own Young Earth Creationism in order to suggest they somehow do.
Seriously, what you do here is so despicable I've tried to codify it into standardized "Rules for Deniers", see my post #420.

Kalamata: "You can download (for free) the bulletin containing the full article by Raup, here:"

First, it appears that Raup's article is dated 1979, meaning it's now 40 years old.
Second, Raup confirms that (as of 1979) 250,000 discovered fossil species must represent barely 1% of total species which lived, meaning 99% of transitional forms are still missing.
Third, it's not clear what points Raup is making applicable to this discussion, but...
Fourth, there's no suggestion I could find that Raup was in any way a Young Earth Creationist, meaning your use of his words for your own nefarious purposes is not legitimate.

Kalamata: "Raup was referring to the highly-touted "horse evolution," which had to be abandoned when more information, in the way of fossils, became available."

New data can modify old theories, but horse evolution was never "abandoned".

Kalamata: "He would be utterly dishonest if he said what you have been saying about the fossil record."

I've said nothing that Raup would disagree with today.

Kalamata: "You are abusing Raup's words."

Denier Rule #5.

Kalamata: "That would be true if someone found evidence for common descent."

Here is one summary.

Kalamata: "There are a gazillion trilobite fossils, Joey, but they are still trilobites.
How are whales any different?"

Of the circa 600 living and extinct whale species, many are classified taxonomically in different superfamily, parvorders, infraorders & suborders before reaching the lower levels of family, genus & species.

Kalamata: "That is story-telling, Joey, not scientific evidence."

The scientific evidence is available for anyone who wants to see it.

Kalamata: "Foolish Child."

More of your own slavish obedience to Denier Rule #7.

Kalamata: "When Joey gets caught making stupid statements, he brings out the old rule book to distract you."

Kalamata, you absolutely cannot free yourself from slavish obedience to Denier Rules.
You are so practiced and fluid in them I have to conclude you were a denier long before you became anti-evolutionist.
So tell us where you first learned your denier trade-craft.

Kalamata: "I am certain those reading this thread would be most interested in you exposing any lies I have made.
Please do."

I have and will.

Kalamata: "Evolution is not science, so it cannot be falsified."

Now there's a lie as big as any I can imagine.

Kalamata: "Please point out my lies for all to see, Joey.
Be specific.
Lying Joey!"

Sure, but yet again you have it exactly backwards.
That's because pretty much every word you post is a lie, so my task would be to carefully sort out your occasional screw-ups in posting something truthful.

End of post #459.

from post #460
Kalamata: " It is a certainty that Linnaeus used the terms found in the Vulgate, but they were corrupted from the original meaning.
Linnaeus simply used them to identify two of the lowest classification levels, as I explained in earlier posts:"

Right, according to your own posts, Linnaeus simply borrowed words from what you tell is a mistranslation of the Bible and used those words for his own arbitrary classifications.
In other words, there's nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- from Linnaeus which provides any kind of authoritative scientific definition of the Bible's word "kind".

Kalamata quoting Linnaeus on variations: "...but always ones that are similar to themselves."

Right, which is exactly what evolution theory also says.
Even hybrids, which can be quite different from their parents, they are also still similar.
So far as we know, no parents of the same species ever produced viable offspring of a different species.

What happens instead is that two isolated populations of the same species can sometimes drift apart genetically until over geological time periods they cannot or won't interbreed.

Kalamata: "The Latin Vulgate erroneously translated the created kind as either species or genus.
When Linnaeus adopted his classification scheme, he included both words, with the genus rank just above the species:""

Right, meaning there's no direct connection between Linnaeus' terms and the Biblical word "kinds".

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

And yet Linnaeus' "kind" is not the Vulgate Bible's mistranslations of the Hebrew word for "kind", instead, it's simply equivalent to our word, for example, "type", meaning no specific definition.
Anyway, let's see if I "get" your point here -- you're saying that evolution (or some similar term) operates "below" the "kind" level, which in Linnaeus's scheme of things works out to our taxonomic "family" level?

I'd have no serious problem with that, except that then you fantasize some kind of "barrier" which somehow prevents evolution in higher taxonomic orders, right?
And yet there are many higher orders all of which branch & radiate just as do the lower families, genera, species & breeds.
There's no sign of a "barrier" to prevent evolution at any level, only increasingly long time-periods required for major natural changes.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, there is a genetic barrier at the family, e.g., "kind" level, which has been known for some time.
That is exactly what the Bible predicts.
No species can stray outside its own family."

And that is another flat-out lie, since, to cite just one example: fossils & DNA analyses suggest the Great Ape family began the "stray" outside it's Primate Order about 40 million years ago.
See my post #585 on this.

Kalamata: "Speciation occurs only within the family.
Whether species within a family can interbreed, or not, is irrelevant.
The genetic barrier is at the family level.
There have been no transitions from one family to another, nor into a new family."

Those are absolute lies, from beginning to end.
The real truth is there are many thousands of taxonomic families, of which 156 are mammal families.
And every one, without exception, can be shown from fossils and DNA to have evolved within earlier taxonomic orders, classes & phyla.

Kalamata: "Joey hears what he wants to hear, and denies the rest."

All lies & jest, claims our master liar-denier Danny-good-eyes Kalamata.

Kalamata: "The truth is, papers by secular researchers routinely support the creation model.
The evolutionism orthodoxy is scared silly that they are losing their power over the minds of the people and their "right" to continually feed at the taxpayer trough.
Worse, they must rely on corrupt federal judges to keep opposing viewpoints out of the classrooms.
Science can stand on its own, but not evolutionism."

The truth is those are total lies which tell us, among other things, there's nothing honest going on in Kalamata's mind.

Denier Rule #13 among others.

Kalamata: "Evolutionism cannot be falsified because it is not science. "

More lies, Denier Rules #2 & #5 especially.

Kalamata: "However, it would become instantly accepted by everyone if there was even a shred of evidence for common descent.
Without that evidence, the living and the fossil records better fits the creation model."

Danny Sgt. Schultz Kalamata:

And yet again, just like the most despicable of Holocaust deniers, Kalamata looks straight at the evidence and sees...

Kalamata: "There is no need to get all hysterical on us, Joey?
I was simply exposing Hubble as an anti-God bigot."

"Anti-God bigot" is it?
And who else was called "anti-God"?
Wasn't that Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler?
And who called them that, was it other scientists?
No, it was theologians like Kalamata who condemned scientists for reporting on things contrary to their own unique Bible interpretations.

Kalamata: "Did you not bother to even read what Hubble wrote?"

I read that Hubble was raised a Christian and later in life had doubts.

"One morning, while driving north with Grace after the failed eclipse expedition of 1923, he broached Whitehead's idea of a God who might have chosen from a great many possibilities to make a different universe, but He made this one.
By contemplating the universe, one might approximate some idea of its Creator.
As time passed, however, he seemed even less certain: 'We do not know why we are born into the world, but we can try to find out what sort of a world it is — at least in its physical aspects.'
His life was dedicated to science and the objective world of phenomena.
The world of pure values is one which science cannot enter, and science is unconcerned with the transcendent, however, compelling a private revelation or individual moment of ecstasy.
He pulled no punches when a deeply depressed friend asked him about his belief: 'The whole thing is so much bigger than I am, and I can't understand it, so I just trust myself to it, and forget about it.' "

I wouldn't call that "anti-God" or "bigotry".

Kalamata: "I see that astrophysics is not one of your strong suits.
The last thing the big bang theory would predict would be deep space, fully mature, galactic clusters, like the Hubble scope found. "

And I see that you lie about astronomy just as you lie about everything else.
In this particular case, the further out in space you look, the further back in time you see and so you would expect to see galaxies clustered closer together than they are now.

Kalamata: "The space telescope bearing Hubble's name proved him wrong."

Today Hubble is credited with contributing to the Big Bang theory -- i.e., Hubble's Law -- but it seems he also held contrary views, at least earlier in life.

Kalamata: "I feel like I am debating a child."

Naw, you're trying to debate an honest man by throwing lies & insults at him.
It'll never work.

Kalamata: "That is evolutionism window dressing.
There is no evidence that any species has speciated out of one family and into another."

Wrong again, because the fossil & DNA evidence shows that all species, without exception, evolved from earlier species in different taxonomic categories.
For example, the Family of Great Apes evolved through many intermediate steps, from the Order of Primates.

Kalamata: "Is that a red herring or a straw man?"

Neither, since you were trying to weaponize Biblical "kinds" against Linnaean taxonomic categories.

>>Kalamata: "The fossil record provides evidence for both special creation and at least one global flood, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Only in the eyes of phony-baloney theologians pretending at science. What real science sees is any number of local & regional floods, plus occasional epeiric seas, i.e., over central North America."

Real science sees marine (ocean) clams, many in the closed position, buried world-wide in the uppermost sedimentary layers. That puts the big question mark on your arrogant claim.

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

>>Joey said: "Science also notices evidence of four ancient global ice ages, sometimes called "snowball earth" beginning around 775 mya and ending just before the Cambrian Explosion around 550 mya."

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for multiple ice ages. It is another just-so story.

A good theory is the (only) ice age occurred immediately after the flood. During the flood, and at the end, there were massive geological disturbances (volcanoes, earthquakes, plate collisions, etc.) that heated up the oceans. That resulted in extensive evaporation as the oceans cooled.

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

>>Kalamata: "The highly sorted geological strata, along with unbroken folding in the mountainous regions, are ample evidence for a single global flood. Those evidences only scratch the surface."
>>Joey said: "All a complete fantasy untouched by any real science. Your claims are clear and convincing evidence that some people are willing, even eager, to lie their heads off in the name of phony-baloney theology."

You can always count on the progressive politician Joey to avoid providing any evidence for his wild claims.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. Disparity refers to basic body plans. Diversity refers to variations within basic body plans. Darwin predicted boat loads of diversity before new body plans evolved. The opposite occurred."
>>Joey said: "No, if the word "disparity" has any real meaning, it refers to phyla while "diversity" to all taxonomic categories below phyla."

Joey is severely scientifically-challenged on this subject, but he seems to sincerely believe he knows more about paleontology that those with graduate degrees who have researched the fossil record their entire careers. Is that condition called delusions of grandeur? I forget.

Let's try a reference that doesn't use the fancy word disparity, and see if Joey can figure out what they are talking about. This paper is by Douglas H. Erwin, James W. Valentine, and J. John Sepkoski Jr.:

"In the earlier case, the radiation produced large numbers of phyla, classes, and orders-morphologically distinct animal clades of the highest ranks-while in the later case it produced much less morphological novelty. Although the per taxon rate of family diversification was considerably higher during the earlier radiation, there are no indications that the evolutionary activity at the family level was driving the origination of higher-level taxa. In fact, there are clues suggesting that just the reverse was true-that most higher taxa were built from the top down rather than bottom up. The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families. This is not to say that higher taxa originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa. Instead, the lower taxa appear to be exploiting the potentialities of the novel body plans recognized as higher taxa in the relatively empty adaptive space of the Early Cambrian." [Erwin et al, "A Comparative Study Of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus The Mesozoic." Evolution, Vol.41, Iss.6; November, 1987, p.1183]

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

>>Joey said: "Of about 36 living phyla, 10 are first found in the Cambrian Explosion, 8 others are found before or after and 18 have never been found -- see my post #529.

Evolutionists are always seeking more disparity in the "younger" layers, but it just isn't there.

Your source, "The Fossil Museum," is not a reliable source, Joey. It is no more reliable that the left-wing rag, Wikipedia. I recommend you cite the experts, if you expect to be taken seriously.

There is some variation among the experts, and some really wild stuff by the dreamers. This quote is from a book by Dr. James Valentine, a highly-respected paleontologist and co-author of the paper quoted above:

"Organisms with the characteristic bodyplans that we identify as living phyla appear abruptly in the fossil record, many within a narrow window of geologic time—perhaps 5 to 10 million years, beginning about 530 Ma (chap.5). Nearly all of these are stem taxa. Some fossils are known that may represent extinct phyla, and these appear chiefly during this same window. It is consistent with the fossil record that all of the characteristic animal bodyplans had evolved by the close of this period, hut none of them can be traced through fossil intermediates to an ancestral group. The organisms belonging to many of the phyla can he further subdivided into distinctive morphological groups that possess characteristic body subplans. In no case is a morphological continuum found across a broad range of bodyplan morphologies, nor do phyla resemble each other more closely during their early fossil histories. It is possible to aggregate the organisms within each phylum into a hierarchy of morphologically based subdivisions. At less inclusive subdivisions—lower taxa—intermediate morphologies are commonly found. The Linnean hierarchy employs the subdivisions as nominal taxa. Phyla are thus taxa representing a high-level sub division or rank within the animal kingdom, and they are conceptually polytheric." [James W. Valentine, "On the Origin of Phyla." University of Chicago Press, 2004, p.37]

This is Dr. Valentine, in person. Listen to at least the 1:41 mark:

On the Origin of Phyla

That is a solid, scientific interpretation of the origin of the phyla, from an evolutionary standpoint.

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

>>Joey said: "So clearly the Cambrian Explosion is important in life's evolution, but it was neither the beginning nor the end of those events. Here is a study which disputes your basic assumptions, Danny boy: >>Joey quoting Deline et al: "We attempt to quantify animal “bodyplans” and their variation within Metazoa. Our results challenge the view that maximum variation was achieved early in animal evolutionary history by nonuniformitarian mechanisms. Rather, they are compatible with the view that the capacity for fundamental innovation is not limited to the early evolutionary history of clades. We perform quantitative tests of the principal hypotheses of the molecular mechanisms underpinning the establishment of animal bodyplans and corroborate the hypothesis that animal evolution has been permitted or driven by gene regulatory evolution."
>>Joey said: "There are a good many "money quotes" in that 2018 study and they all boil down to this: "Disparity before diversity ain't necessarily so."

Money quotes? I would like to see some of those! LOL! You should have ran away from that paper the instant you realized Neil Shubin was the editor. This paper is just another in a long line Cambrian Explosion rescue devices by the evolution-is-god crowd who have convinced themselves that evolution is true, so there must be evidence somewhere. Previous rescue devices have included the oxygen theory, cancer theory, slime theory, and the tipping-point theory, among others.

The last statement in Joey's quote is telling. There cannot be new body plans without new DNA code (plans) for the design of new proteins! These are quotes by some of the paper's researchers promoting the paper:

"We did this by collecting data on the different genomes, proteins, and regulatory genes, that living animal groups possess. The differences in anatomical designs correlate with regulatory gene sets, but not the type or diversity of proteins. This indicates that that precipitated the evolution of animal biodiversity.'" [Deline et al, "Evolutionary origins of animal biodiversity: promotion of 'Evolution of metazoan morphological disparity'." University of Bristol, Sept 3, 2018]

I would like to see that happen (the highlighted part,) but it is only pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. That is contradicted by an earlier study that same year by Paps and Holland:

"Contrary to the prevailing view, this uncovers an unprecedented increase in the extent of genomic novelty during the origin of metazoans, and identifies 25 groups of metazoanspecific genes that are essential across the Animal Kingdom. We argue that internal genomic changes were as important as external factors in the emergence of animals." [Paps & Holland, "Reconstruction of the ancestral metazoan genome reveals an increase in genomic novelty." 2018, p.1]

Paps & Holland didn't rule out a role for the gene regulatory network, but it certainly was not the sole mechanism (if it happened at all):

"We stress the present study focusses on protein-coding genes, and it is possible that the evolution of noncoding genes, regulatory regions, and epigenetic mechanisms also played major roles in this transition" [Ibid. p.6]

However, Eric Davidson, who has spent virtually his entire career on developmental gene regulatory neworks (dGRN's,) wrote:

"There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." [Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary bioscience as regulatory systems biology." Developmental Biology, Vol.357, Iss.1; Sept 1, 2011, p.40]

I would tend to rule out the evolution of the dGRN. Back to the promotion article:

"Animals evolved from unicellular ancestors, diversifying into thirty or forty distinct anatomical designs. When and how these designs emerged has been the focus of debate, both on the speed of evolutionary change, and the mechanisms by which fundamental evolutionary change occurs. Did animal body plans emerge over eons of gradual evolutionary change, as Darwin suggested, or did these designs emerge in an explosive diversification episode during the Cambrian Period, about half a billion years ago?" [Deline et al, "Evolutionary origins of animal biodiversity: promotion of 'Evolution of metazoan morphological disparity'." University of Bristol, Sept 3, 2018]

Okay, tell us how the authors know the "Animals evolved from unicellular ancestors, diversifying into thirty or forty distinct anatomical designs"? There is no evidence of that. The researchers assumed evolution to be true, and used that assumption to infer proof of evolution. That is classical circular reasoning. Next:

"Our results show that fundamental evolutionary change was not limited to an early burst of evolutionary experimentation. Animal designs have continued to evolve to the present day – not gradually as Darwin predicted – but in fits and starts, episodically through their evolutionary history." [Ibid.]

That is what is called a "wild imagination."

"Fits and starts?" I'll have to remember that one. I wonder if that is the same as "punctuated equilibria," or a "hopeful monster"?

Did you notice they threw Charlie Darwin under the bus?

This is the link:

The promotional interview

It gets better. This is from the actual research paper:

"The 'clumpiness' of morphospace occupation by living clades is a consequence of the extinction of phylogenetic intermediates, indicating that the original distribution of morphologies was more homogeneous" [Deline et al, "Evolution of metazoan morphological disparity." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018, p.8109]

So, if there were intermediates (a big 'IF',) they are extinct. I guess that means, if you are an evolutionist. it is okay to imagine their existence. More:

"Coding these fossil taxa was potentially problematic in that most of the characters (54.1%) are not preserved, and therefore unknown." [Ibid. p.8910]

So what do you do when so much of the data is missing? You make it up!

"An alternative approach to including fossil species exploits their known phylogenetic position among living and fossil relatives to infer character states that are lost during fossilization. There are obviously assumptions inherent in inferring missing data, including missing secondary reversals in soft tissues, the potential of differential evolutionary rates between preservable and nonpreservable characters, or limiting the coded fossil autapomorphies to preservable characteristics." [Ibid.]

No kidding! But, no matter how much imaginary data is inserted to get the desired results, you can always make it appear legit with the proper closing statement, provided it is at least as mystifying as the paper itself:

"Our results also suggest that debate on whether early animal evolution has been underpinned by uniformitarian or nonuniformitarian processes has been misplaced. Animal evolutionary history does not appear to have been characterized by a uniform rate and scale of change but rather by a high frequency of small changes and low frequency of changes of large magnitude within the context of intrinsic genetic and developmental variation and extrinsic environmental change. Such patterns are readily open to modeling in the same manner as nucleotide and amino acid substitution frequencies. Future research in this direction will inform understanding of the nature of phenotypic evolution, its relation to molecular evolution, underpinning the development of phylogenetic methods. However, it will also provide for a more precise characterization of the tempo of metazoan diversification and the processes that underpinned the establishment of animal bodyplans." [Ibid. p.8917]

Does not appear? To whom? LOL!

Thanks, but no thanks, Joey. I will stick with Professor Valentine's empirically-derived interpretations. He may be an evolutionist, but he doesn't let his imagination run wild.

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

>>Kalamata: "Are you talking to yourself?"
>>Joey said: "That's Denier Rule #11, pretend ignorance."

Silly Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Gould explained it in my earlier quotes in #310 and #355. You can also find it earlier in this post. But just in case you read right past it, here it is again: >>Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64] >>Kalamata: "Gould plainly states that no new phyla have been produced (e.g., evolved) since the Cambrian."
>>Joey said: "And so yet again we see Kalamata's "appeal to authority" when the authority's words can be twisted to agree with Kalamata. But in no other sense does Kalamata accept the authority of Gould's scientific outlook regarding, for examples, Old Earth and evolution."

I believe you misunderstand the use of the phrase "appeal to authority," Joey. The late Havard Professor Stephen Jay Gould's work is an authority on paleontology. So is James Valentine's life-long work which confirms this area of Gould's observations, some of which is mentioned earlier in this post.

The logical fallacy of "appeals to authority" would be like, "the consensus of scientists say," which is frequently used to prop up the pseudosciences of climate-change and evolutionism; or appealing to an ignorant judge who tells us what science is and is not.

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

>>Joey said: "It happens that in this particular case, in 1989 Gould was simply wrong and not all living phyla first developed in the Cambrian Explosion circa 541 mya.

James Valentine in 2004, and again in 2014, confirmed Gould's observations. Plus, there are many researchers out there trying to prove their observations wrong with one wild scheme after another, the latest of which you referenced previously in this post. If it was so cut and dried, there would be nothing left to prove.

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

>>Joey said: "Fossils of ten out of 36 living phyla are first found in the Cambrian, but that does not "prove" they first developed then. Fossils of the other 26 phyla are either never found or found in times other than Cambrian Explosion."

That depends on how phyla is defined, Joey. Obviously, those who see the Cambrian Explosion as the threat to evolutionism that it truly is, will tend to downplay it; but not all. The late great Ernst Mayr also agreed there were no new phyla after the Cambrian:

"The diversity of the living world takes many forms. It may express itself purely quantitatively as in the large colonies of ants and termites, or in the number of species in a family, like the weevils among the beetles (and the order of beetles as a whole), and of course in the enormous biomass of prokaryotes. But diversity may also express itself in the degrees of difference, the number of strikingly different types of organisms. And here evolution has produced a real surprise. In the rise of the metazoans (animals), one would expect that soon after their appearance in the fossil record they would consist of a series of rather similar orders that would become increasingly more dissimilar to each other in the course of time. Yet the facts are astonishingly different from this assumption!When the metazoans appeared as fossils about 550 million years ago (admittedly they must have already existed for ca. 200 million years), they included four to seven bizarre body plans that soon became extinct. All the other Cambrian phyla survived, and what is quite unexpected, without a major revolution of the basic body plan. If we look at individual phyla, the same situation is encountered. The living classes of arthropods are already found in the Cambrian with the same body plans. But again there are a handful of strange types of arthropods in the Cambrian that do not exist today. I agree with those who conclude from this evidence that the variety of realized body plans was greater in the Cambrian than it is now. Furthermore, no fundamentally new body plan has originated in the 500 million years since the Cambrian." [Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution Is." Basic Books, 2001, Chap 10, pp.230-31]

Mayr says what the others have said, and are saying, that no "fundamentally new body plan" has showed up since the Cambrian. Roger Lewin said virtually the same thing:

"It is easy to explain why the Cambrian explosion was unprecedented in producing a great array of novel body forms: it was close to the origin of multicellular organisms, and so there could have been little previous opportunity. (The rate at which it happened is, however, impressive.) But why has this burst of evolutionary invention never again been equaled? Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?... there appeared to have been the opportunity in the wake of the Permian extinction to replay quantitatively and qualitatively the events of the Cambrian explosion. But it did not happen. Both bursts of diversification generated about 450 new families, making the two periods quantitatively similar. However, as one goes up the genealogical hierarchy—from orders to classes to phyla—there is a rapidly increasing bias toward origination in the first of the two great diversifications. Clearly, the two periods were distinctly different qualitatively: the first produced many new themes, the second variations upon established themes." [Roger Lewin, "A Lopsided Look at Evolution." Science, Vol.241, Iss.4863; July 15, 1988, p,291, 292]

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

>>Joey said: "Further, more recent studies suggest that all that alleged Cambrian "disparity" was not quite as disparate as originally claimed."

People can say anything, Joey, like Charlie Darwin did; and his rhetoric "sent" generations of minds-full-of-mush on a gigantic wild-goose chase.

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

>>"Kalamata: "I must admit, your silly rules allow you a clever way to shut down debate, or avoid it. But avoiding debate only adds to the size of your label which reads, "You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist."
>>Joey said: First of all, what you call "debate" in many cases is nothing more than Kalamata's name-calling. When your "arguments" amount to nothing more than denier tactics, my goal here is to shut those down and respond only to more serious debate."

Like I said earlier, Joey, I am a counter-puncher. If you don't like being called names, then don't name-call.

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

>>Joey said: "Second, I've long noted that no self-respecting scientist would mud-wrestle with propaganda-liars like yourself, Kalamata, and that's why such work falls to fools like me (see i.e., 1 Corinthians 4:10, 2 Corinthians 12:11)."

You are not a scientist, Joey. How do you know what a self-respecting scientist would do or not do?

I see you named-dropped the Bible, like a good-little progressive politician. Let's look at them:

"We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised." -- 1Cor 4:10 KJV
"I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." -- 2Cor 12:11 KJV

No doubt that Bible-believing creationists are despised by the atheist/evolutionist establishment, as Paul was by the establishment of his day, and Galileo in his day. Are you familiar with this verse?

"And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully." -- 2Tim 2:5 KJV

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

>>Kalamata: "Disparity is simply a modern term for [significant] difference. Darwin's tree of life denoted increasing diversity, followed by increasing disparity:"
>>Joey said: "No, liar, Darwin said nothing about alleged "disparity" versus "diversity". You have simply constructed a strawman fantasy to beat up on."

I am telling you the truth, Joey. You are simply too ignorant (or too brainwashed) to understand it.

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

>>Kalamata: "What should we be looking for in that paper by Briggs & Fortney, Joey?"
>>Joey said: "First, notice the date of this article is 2016, compared to your quotes from circa 1994."

So what? Evolutionary scientists perform research and write papers almost continually, if they want to keep their funding. That doesn't mean their work is reliable or pertinent.

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

>>Joey said: "These 2016 words, for starters: "Since 1989 cladistic analyses have accommodated most of the problematic Cambrian taxa as stem groups of living taxa. Morphological disparity has been shown to be similar in Cambrian times as now. Konservat-Lagerstätten other than the Burgess Shale have yielded important new discoveries, particularly of arthropods and chordates, which have extended the range of recognized major clades still further back in time."
>>Joey said: "So the whole "disparity" versus "diversity" meme is just more nonsense.

What? LOL! You have no idea what you quoted, or why. That paper is from 2005; it was published on-line in 2016. You appear to wildly throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks. This is also from that paper:

"Budd and Jensen (2000) reduced the significance of the Cambrian ''explosion'' not by making more time available for evolution in the Precambrian (the cryptic fossil record implied by some molecular clock estimates), nor by diminishing the amount of evolution required (by quantifying and comparing morphological separation among sample taxa), but by arguing that much of the morphological evolution required to give rise to the modern phyla actually took place later than is normally acknowledged, during the Phanerozoic. On the other hand, the more new Cambrian arthropods that are discovered, the more (morphologic) evolution seems to have happened already by the early Cambrian." [Briggs & Fortey, "Wonderful Strife: systematics, stem groups, and the phylogenetic signal of the Cambrian radiation." Paleobiology, Vol.31, Iss.2, 2005, p.100]

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

>>Kalamata: "In the meantime, Briggs co-authored a book on the Burgess Shale in which he mentioned disparity, but in Darwin's language for his day and age:"
>>Joey said: "No, not "in the meantime", that was in 1994 -- 25 years ago! Notice how their tune has changed in 2016."

No, his tune didn't change, Joey; he simply worded it differently. And, again, that paper you are touting as a 2016 publication, was actually published in 2005.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am quoting evolutionary paleontologists, Joey. Why would they lie? This is the book I am quoting from:"
>>Joey said: "You are misusing quotes to make points their authors never intended, or points that have been refuted by more recent research, as in the example above."

I don't do that, Joey. I always quote in context. The fact that your buds at Wikipedia and Talkorigins misuse quotes, doesn't mean everyone does.

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

>>Kalamata: "McManamim, an evolutionary paleontologist, is quoting James W. Valentine, another evolutionary paleontologist. I checked Valentine's paper, and McManamim is quoting him accurately. This is a link to Valentine's paper:"
>>Joey said: "None of those authors support your Young Earth anti-evolution theology, and yet you use their words to lie about them."

Of course they don't support my understanding! They are evolutionists! But the fact remains that they are mystified about why the Cambrian data doesn't support their evolutionary worldview.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are acting sorta goofy, Joey. Are you getting enough sleep?"
>>Joey said: "That's Denier Rule #7.

Foolish Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Either way, cells are intelligently designed, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Right, but only one way is a natural-science explanation, the other requires non-scientific supernatural interventions -- a "God of the gaps" theology."

Scientists follow the data wherever it leads, Joey. Ideologues force the data to "fit" their worldview; and if they cannot, they discard it.

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit lying and I will quit calling you a liar."
>>Joey said: "Says our master liar denier Danny boy.

Deceitful Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. I rely on physical, verifiable evidence; not on dumb luck."
>>Joey said: "No, Danny boy, you rely 100% on seeing only what you wish to see and ignoring everything else."

That is what evolutionists do, Joey. They only want to see methodological naturalism, and nothing else, even it it means ignoring the obvious, and accepting the absurd:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." [Lewontin, Richard C., "Billions and Billions of Demons: Review of Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'." New York Review of Books, 1997]

As you can see, it is not about science, but ideology, and that is ideology at its "finest" on display.

His statement would have been more accurate if he had substituted "methodological naturalism" for "science."

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

>>Kalamata: "I am a scientist, so I always quote in context."
>>Joey said: "No, Danny boy, you're not a scientist, you're a lying propagandist who can't pass even the most basic tests of honesty. You consistently hijack quotes from people who would never support your own Young Earth Creationism in order to suggest they somehow do. Seriously, what you do here is so despicable I've tried to codify it into standardized "Rules for Deniers", see my post #420."

I don't hijack their quotes, Joey. That is a strawman that evolutionism apologists use when they are cornered by facts they cannot weasel out of. As any normal person can see, all I have been doing is demonstrating the contradictions between theory and the data as discovered in research by evolutionary scientists. They are the ones publishing the contradictions. I am merely quoting them. Perhaps you should ask the thugs at the NCSE to clamp down on those 'heretics." LOL!

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

>>Kalamata: "You can download (for free) the bulletin containing the full article by Raup, here:"
>>Joey said: "First, it appears that Raup's article is dated 1979, meaning it's now 40 years old."

So what? I am in my 70's, and I am still kicking. :)

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

>>Joey said: "Second, Raup confirms that (as of 1979) 250,000 discovered fossil species must represent barely 1% of total species which lived, meaning 99% of transitional forms are still missing."

Species, when used in that context, is not the same as transitional forms, Joey. Besides, there is a growing trend in papers that implies the fossil record is complete.

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

>>Joey said: "Third, it's not clear what points Raup is making applicable to this discussion, but..."

I thought he expressed himself very well. He simply said that a previously claimed transitional line (horse evolution) had been discarded. The only two remaining, human and whale evolution, are hanging on by imaginary threads (e.g., there is no empirical evidence.)

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

>>Joey said: "Fourth, there's no suggestion I could find that Raup was in any way a Young Earth Creationist, meaning your use of his words for your own nefarious purposes is not legitimate."

No, Raup is an evolutionist. I typically quote evolutionists. Occasionally I quote ID'ers. I rarely quote creationists. But, no matter who I quote I expect you to whine about it because I am attacking your religion.

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

>>Kalamata: "Raup was referring to the highly-touted "horse evolution," which had to be abandoned when more information, in the way of fossils, became available."
>>Joey said: "New data can modify old theories, but horse evolution was never "abandoned".

There are always die-hards, especially among the Far Left. Look at how long it took for the evolutionism community to drop Haeckel's "embryos": over a century after being exposed as frauds. Even now there are a few hard-core ideologues (mostly Leftists) who defend them.

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

>>Kalamata: "He would be utterly dishonest if he said what you have been saying about the fossil record."
>>Joey said: "I've said nothing that Raup would disagree with today.

There is some truth in that. He would probably dismiss you as a raging blowhard.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are abusing Raup's words."
>>Joey said: "Denier Rule #5."

Silly Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "That would be true if someone found evidence for common descent."
>>Joey said: "Here is one summary."

There is no evidence for evolution on that left-wing Wikipedia page, Joey. It is comprised of nothing but just-so stories.

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

>>Kalamata: "There are a gazillion trilobite fossils, Joey, but they are still trilobites. How are whales any different?"
>>Joey said: "Of the circa 600 living and extinct whale species, many are classified taxonomically in different superfamily, parvorders, infraorders & suborders before reaching the lower levels of family, genus & species."

No matter how mere men classify them, Joey; they are still whales -- another miraculous wonder of God's creation.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is story-telling, Joey, not scientific evidence."
>>Joey said: "The scientific evidence is available for anyone who wants to see it."

I want to see it, but there is no evidence to see.

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

>>Kalamata: "Foolish Child."
>>Joey said: "More of your own slavish obedience to Denier Rule #7.

Foolish Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "When Joey gets caught making stupid statements, he brings out the old rule book to distract you."

No comment?

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

>>Kalamata, you absolutely cannot free yourself from slavish obedience to Denier Rules. >>Joey said: "You are so practiced and fluid in them I have to conclude you were a denier long before you became anti-evolutionist. So tell us where you first learned your denier trade-craft."

Those are your rules, Joey, not mine. I did notice they seem to match the rule book of the Climate-Change propagandists. Is that where you got them, from your Leftist buds?

I just read that Twitter is banning any tweet that questions Climate Change. Twitter probably learned that trick from the thugs in the evolutionism establishment, maybe the NCSE.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am certain those reading this thread would be most interested in you exposing any lies I have made. Please do."
>>Joey said: "I have and will."

We are still waiting. . .

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolution is not science, so it cannot be falsified."
>>Joey said: "Now there's a lie as big as any I can imagine."

No, I told the truth, Joey. Show me the evidence that evolution is possible, and I will admit I am wrong.

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

>>Kalamata: "Please point out my lies for all to see, Joey. Be specific. Lying Joey!"
>>Joey said: "Sure, but yet again you have it exactly backwards. That's because pretty much every word you post is a lie, so my task would be to carefully sort out your occasional screw-ups in posting something truthful."

Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: "It is a certainty that Linnaeus used the terms found in the Vulgate, but they were corrupted from the original meaning. Linnaeus simply used them to identify two of the lowest classification levels, as I explained in earlier posts:"
>>Joey wrote: "Right, according to your own posts, Linnaeus simply borrowed words from what you tell is a mistranslation of the Bible and used those words for his own arbitrary classifications. In other words, there's nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- from Linnaeus which provides any kind of authoritative scientific definition of the Bible's word "kind"."

There is, but you can't see it because you don't want to see it.

This was my statement from #196, which demonstrates that the ancient Hebrew Bible has a single Hebrew word for "kind", while the Latin Vulgate translates it to two words, "genus" and "species," thus corrupting the original text with modern words:

"The Hebrew word "miyn" is used ONLY to classify plants and animals (Gen 1:11-12, 1:21, 1:24, 6:20, 7:14; Lev 11:14, 11:19, 11:22, 11:29; Deu 14:13, 14:18; Eze 47:10), and for nothing else. The word was translated to "kind" in the English versions. Linnaeus used the Latin Vulgate translation of genus and species, the meaning of which has been corrupted."

Linnaeus was also a creationist, so he recognized the created "kind" as the category containing the genus (which is typically, but not allways the "family" in modern times.) In my quote from #243, Linnaeus specifically indicates the "kind" in question -- the succulents -- has multiple genera, as follows:

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

The Linnaeus classification system doesn't contain a "family" rank. The next rank above the genus is the "order," which includes the primates. However, he considered the genus and species as the "natural order," and the higher classifications (order and class) as arbitrary. His lumping together the multiple genera as a "kind" was what he considered to be the natural order.

The Linnaean hierarchy was far more authoritative than Joey realizes:

"A century after Linnaeus supplied what became the foundation of zoological nomenclature, Darwin (1859) proposed that the diversity of life had arisen through evolutionary processes, a hypothesis that was thoroughly tested and corroborated in the following century. Organisms are related to one another and can be arranged in a genealogy of life, as humans can he arranged in family trees. Darwin himself produced a treelike diagram of the relations among some hypothetical species (fig. 1.1), and Haeckel (1866) produced a number of trees of lift, many complete with bark and gnarled branches (fig. 1.2). Once it was accepted that we owe the diversity of life to evolution, the Linnean hierarchy became a way of expressing relatedness as well as morphological similarity per se. Today it is accepted that each taxon should be monophyletic—that it contains only species that have a common ancestor that is the founding member of that taxon (fig. 1.3). Despite the acceptance of a tree of life, svstematists continued to employ the Linnean hierarchy. Until the second half of the twentieth century, phyla were nearly always regarded as composing a hierarchical rank that represented a principal subdivision of the animal kingdom, whether or not they were represented in a tree." [James W. Valentine, "On the Origin of Phyla." University of Chicago Press, 2004, p.8]

Gould wrote this about him:

"The name of our species, using both parts of the binomial designation, is Homo sapiens, not sapiens. We regard the 1758 version of Systema Naturae as the founding document of modern animal taxonomy because in this edition and for the first time, Linnaeus used the binomial system in complete consistency and without exception. (Previous editions had delineated some species binomially and others by a genus name followed by several descriptive words.)" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Linnaeus's Luck?". Natural History, September, 2000, p.22]
"I will advocate a position between these two extremes of exemplary observational skill in an objective world and pure good luck in a world structured by theoretical preferences. Linnaeus was, no doubt, both the premier observer and one of the smartest scientists of his (or any) age. But following my central claim that taxonomies must be judged for their intrinsic mixture of accurate observation and fruitful theory, I will argue that Linnaeus has endured because he combined the best observational skills of his time with a theoretical conception of organic relationships that happens to mirror--but not by pure accident--the topology of evolutionary systems, even though Linnaeus himself interpreted his organizing principle in creationist terms." [Ibid. p.23]

Perhaps Linnaeus got it right because his eyes were open.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Linnaeus on variations: "...but always ones that are similar to themselves."
>>Joey wrote: "Right, which is exactly what evolution theory also says. Even hybrids, which can be quite different from their parents, they are also still similar. So far as we know, no parents of the same species ever produced viable offspring of a different species."

Assuming evolution actually occurred, somewhere along the line a species had to cross the genetic barrier from one kind to another. There is no evidence of that.

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

>>Joey wrote: "What happens instead is that two isolated populations of the same species can sometimes drift apart genetically until over geological time periods they cannot or won't interbreed."

They are still the same kind, regardless of whether they can still breed with other members of the kind, or not. Isolation also causes devolution, which renders them more genetically "brittle."

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

>>Kalamata: "The Latin Vulgate erroneously translated the created kind as either species or genus. When Linnaeus adopted his classification scheme, he included both words, with the genus rank just above the species:"
>>Joey wrote: "Right, meaning there's no direct connection between Linnaeus' terms and the Biblical word "kinds".

Yes there is. Explained above.

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

Kalamata: "In this statement, Linnaeus seems to be saying there can be multiple genera within a single kind, distinguishable by their "essential character"."
>>Joey wrote: "And yet Linnaeus' "kind" is not the Vulgate Bible's mistranslations of the Hebrew word for "kind", instead, it's simply equivalent to our word, for example, "type", meaning no specific definition."

Linnaeus knew exactly what the biblical word "kind" meant, and he used it appropriately.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Anyway, let's see if I "get" your point here -- you're saying that evolution (or some similar term) operates "below" the "kind" level, which in Linnaeus's scheme of things works out to our taxonomic "family" level?"

That is what we observe: in the fossil record, in real life, and now in the genome. The biblical kinds are "fixed." They never evolve (nor does anything else.)

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

>>Joey wrote: "I'd have no serious problem with that, except that then you fantasize some kind of "barrier" which somehow prevents evolution in higher taxonomic orders, right?"

You have it backwards, Joey. I used to fantasize that evolution was true; but now I know the truth -- that it is a fantasy. However, I must admit I was pleasantly surprised that the ENCODE project and subsequent research have mostly 'confirmed' the "fixity of the species" in my lifetime.

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

>>Joey wrote: "And yet there are many higher orders all of which branch & radiate just as do the lower families, genera, species & breeds."

The higher-orders are man-imagined (Linnaeus: "artificial") constructs. Every organism on earth is a species. Apparently that is a misunderstood concept because Erwin, Valentine and Sepkoski made a point of emphasizing it in this peer-reviewed paper:

"The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families. This is not to say that higher taxa originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa. Instead, the lower taxa appear to be exploiting the potentialities of the novel body plans recognized as higher taxa in the relatively empty adaptive space of the Early Cambrian." [Erwin et al, "A Comparative Study Of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus The Mesozoic." Evolution, Vol.41, Iss.6; November, 1987, p.1183]

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

>>Joey wrote: "There's no sign of a "barrier" to prevent evolution at any level, only increasingly long time-periods required for major natural changes."

There is no evidence of that, nor is it mathematically possible.

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

>>Kalamata: "The bottom line is, there is a genetic barrier at the family, e.g., "kind" level, which has been known for some time. That is exactly what the Bible predicts. No species can stray outside its own family."
>>Joey wrote: "And that is another flat-out lie, since, to cite just one example: fossils & DNA analyses suggest the Great Ape family began the "stray" outside it's Primate Order about 40 million years ago. See my post #585 on this."

LOL! You have been conned. So was I.

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

>>Kalamata: "Speciation occurs only within the family. Whether species within a family can interbreed, or not, is irrelevant. The genetic barrier is at the family level. There have been no transitions from one family to another, nor into a new family."
>>Joey wrote: "Those are absolute lies, from beginning to end. The real truth is there are many thousands of taxonomic families, of which 156 are mammal families. And every one, without exception, can be shown from fossils and DNA to have evolved within earlier taxonomic orders, classes & phyla."

Baloney. I will agree there are many mammalian families; but they are unrelated except they had a common designer.

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey hears what he wants to hear, and denies the rest."
>>Joey wrote: "All lies & jest, claims our master liar-denier Danny-good-eyes Kalamata."

You gotta start paying attention, Joey, if you ever expect to climb out of that pseudo-science hole you fell into.

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

>>Kalamata: "The truth is, papers by secular researchers routinely support the creation model. The evolutionism orthodoxy is scared silly that they are losing their power over the minds of the people and their "right" to continually feed at the taxpayer trough. Worse, they must rely on corrupt federal judges to keep opposing viewpoints out of the classrooms. Science can stand on its own, but not evolutionism."
>>Joey wrote: "The truth is those are total lies which tell us, among other things, there's nothing honest going on in Kalamata's mind. Denier Rule #13 among others."

LOL! Ignorant Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Evolutionism cannot be falsified because it is not science. "
>>Joey wrote: "More lies, Denier Rules #2 & #5 especially.

Linus Joey's silly rules are his security blanket. LOL!

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

>>Kalamata: "However, it would become instantly accepted by everyone if there was even a shred of evidence for common descent. Without that evidence, the living and the fossil records better fits the creation model."
>>Joey wrote: "Danny Sgt. Schultz Kalamata: And yet again, just like the most despicable of Holocaust deniers, Kalamata looks straight at the evidence and sees..."

Joey is one of the most scientifically-challenged people I have debated. He wouldn't know evidence if it whopped him upside the head.

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

>>Kalamata: "There is no need to get all hysterical on us, Joey? I was simply exposing Hubble as an anti-God bigot."
>>Joey wrote: "Anti-God bigot" is it?"

Yep.

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

>>Joey wrote: "And who else was called "anti-God"? Wasn't that Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler? And who called them that, was it other scientists?"

Possibly. But unlike Hubble, they were Christian creationists, not anti-God bigots.

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

>>Joey wrote: "No, it was theologians like Kalamata who condemned scientists for reporting on things contrary to their own unique Bible interpretations."

I haven't condemned anyone, Joey. That is not my role. The words of Christ will judge them, whether they have been good, or whether they have been evil.

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

>>Kalamata: "Did you not bother to even read what Hubble wrote?"
>>Joey wrote: "I read that Hubble was raised a Christian and later in life had doubts."

That is what Darwin's Snake Oil does to people.

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

>>Joey wrote: "His life was dedicated to science and the objective world of phenomena. The world of pure values is one which science cannot enter, and science is unconcerned with the transcendent, however, compelling a private revelation or individual moment of ecstasy."

His anti-God bigotry damaged his scientific reasoning.

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

>>Joey wrote: "He pulled no punches when a deeply depressed friend asked him about his belief: 'The whole thing is so much bigger than I am, and I can't understand it, so I just trust myself to it, and forget about it.' " I wouldn't call that "anti-God" or "bigotry"."

He certainly played the bigot role in that paper I quoted.

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

>>Kalamata: "I see that astrophysics is not one of your strong suits. The last thing the big bang theory would predict would be deep space, fully mature, galactic clusters, like the Hubble scope found."
>>Joey wrote: "And I see that you lie about astronomy just as you lie about everything else. In this particular case, the further out in space you look, the further back in time you see and so you would expect to see galaxies clustered closer together than they are now."

You are being sarcastic, aren't you? You can't be that dumb! LOL!

At least now I know that you don't have a clue abouy how to interpret the Hubble paper I quoted. Let's break it down. This is the first part Hubble's 2nd quote:

"The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position."

When something explodes, as in the big bang, the number of particles decrease with distance. Hubble observed the opposite, which confounded him, leaving him with the scary realization that our area of the Universe is the center. He couldn't possibly accept the concept of a divine being, even though he saw it with his own eyes. Besides, the big bang theory, like Darwin's theory, is sancrosanct:

"Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity"

So, to escape the nightmarish thought of a higher power than himself, Hubble did the same thing the evolutionism cultists do -- modify the theory.

"Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."

That is what passes for science in the godless world of "methodological naturalism." LOL!

It is not rocket science, Joey. Did I tell you I have been an amateur astronomer for over 50 years?

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

>>Kalamata: "The space telescope bearing Hubble's name proved him wrong."
>>Joey wrote: "Today Hubble is credited with contributing to the Big Bang theory -- i.e., Hubble's Law -- but it seems he also held contrary views, at least earlier in life."

He legacy is, he refused to believe his own eyes because of his bigotry. Modern science is revealing that the observer really is in a unique position (the center.)

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

>>Kalamata: "I feel like I am debating a child."
>>Joey wrote: "Naw, you're trying to debate an honest man by throwing lies & insults at him. It'll never work."

If you were honest, you wouldn't lie every time you touch the keyboard.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is evolutionism window dressing. There is no evidence that any species has speciated out of one family and into another."
>>Joey wrote: "Wrong again, because the fossil & DNA evidence shows that all species, without exception, evolved from earlier species in different taxonomic categories. For example, the Family of Great Apes evolved through many intermediate steps, from the Order of Primates."

You have been brainwashed by fairy tales, Joey

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

>>Kalamata: "Is that a red herring or a straw man?"
>>Joey wrote: "Neither, since you were trying to weaponize Biblical "kinds" against Linnaean taxonomic categories.

Where is that translator when you need him?

Mr. Kalamata

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.