>>Kalamata: “You are confounding imaginative mockups based on fragmentary fossils with observable scientific evidence. That is a no, no.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “That is a lie, lie.
You are the liar. Prove it. Show us the fossils. Not the models — the fossils.
*******************
>>Kalamata: “There is not a shred of observable scientific evidence for evolutionism. It is a myth,”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Another lie, lie.
You are lying. Show us the observable evidence. Just-so stories don’t count.,
*******************
>>Kalamata: “The evolutionism model is fake, since there is no data before the flood; but it does reveal the population flattens out before 3,000 BC, which is about the time of the flood.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Complete nonsense. The graph shows that your mathematical equation is rubbish.
You are lying. The inventors of your model have no clue how many people were living before 3,000 B.C. The only historical record we have of those living about 3,000 B.C. are the 8 that were on the Ark.
*******************
>>Kalamata: “Evidence of common descent doesn’t exist in the fossil record — certainly not in any of the many paleontological books in my library. The fossils show the opposite of common descent.”
>>Joe the Science Denier posted a chart of skulls
What does your chart full of skulls prove? Nothing, except they are dead. Check these out:
“Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo — large brain, tool making and so on — has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry.” [Lewin, Roger, “Bones of Contention.” University of Chicago Press, 2Ed Ed, 1997, Chap.1, pp.17-18]
“Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as the ‘fossil void’, is between eight and four million years ago.” [Leakey, Richard E., “The Making of Mankind.” 1981, Chap.3, p.43]
Hard-core evolutionists Jerry Coyne questioned the numbers, even before the new numbers came out:
“That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps. … Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving a human from an apelike ancestor probably required substantial genetic change.” [Jerry A. Coyne, “Why Evolution is True.” Oxford University Press, 2009, Chap 8, pp.230-31]
There is no evidence that apes evolved into man — not in the fossil record, not from observation of the living, and not from DNA.
Ann Gauger at the Discovery Institute wrote a great article on the Ape-to-Human myth:
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/ann_gauger_in_s_1/
This is the Bramble & Lieberman “Nature” article that Ann referenced:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052
*******************
>>Kalamata: “Michael Behe’s research reveals there is no common descent to the found in the DNA. Animals cannot evolve past the genetic boundary at the family level; and below that it is no genetic change, or devolution.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Fixed it. No “research” could support such claims.
Did you already forget, Alinsky Joe? Recent secular research backs up Behe’s research. Of course.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
"You are the liar.
Prove it.
Show us the fossils.
Not the models — the fossils."Here is a listing of natural history museums, by state.
This textbook was last updated in 2002, but should be a good start:
Kalamata: "You are lying.
Show us the observable evidence.
Just-so stories don’t count."
You can see evidence whenever you wish.
As for "just so", of course those count, since you'll define anything which doesn't match your theology as "just so".
Science has a different definition.
Kalamata: "You are lying.
The inventors of your model have no clue how many people were living before 3,000 B.C.
The only historical record we have of those living about 3,000 B.C. are the 8 that were on the Ark."
The archaeologic record is full of clues and gives evidence of civilizations in 3000 BC:
But regardless of how many people you claim were alive in 3000 BC -- even if that number is essentially zero -- your mathematical formula does not accurately describe total population growth from then to now.
Kalamata: "What does your chart full of skulls prove? "
It shows very gradual transition forms -- from pre-humans ~3 million years ago, to modern humans.
In other words, it shows exactly what you claim doesn't exist.
Kalamata quoting Lewis 1997: "Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo — large brain, tool making and so on — has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years.
And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry."
And they may well prove correct -- the homo sapiens evolutionary tree seems to have several dead branches and considerable interbreeding among some branches.
Kalamata quoting Leaky 1981: "The major gap, often referred to as the ‘fossil void’, is between eight and four million years ago."
Since 1981 there have been at least a dozen new discoveries in that "fossil void", three million years and older.
The chart above shows 161 individuals represented in three species.
At the link above I count 17 species older than "Lucy", 3.2 million years ago.
Kalamata quoting Jerry Coyne, 2009: "That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees."
Again, all depending on what you count and how you calculate.
The fact remains that regardless of how you count or calculate, according to DNA, chimps & bonobos are humans closest living relatives.
Kalamata: "There is no evidence that apes evolved into man — not in the fossil record, not from observation of the living, and not from DNA."
There is literal tons of evidence and no evidence to support any other scientific theory.
Kalamata: "Did you already forget, Alinsky Joe?
Recent secular research backs up Behe’s research.
Of course."
But you can't "back up" lies with more lies.
Surely, your word "secular" does not translate to "recognized scientifically".
What it doubtless means, oh, deceiving one, is "Creationists pretending at science". ![]()