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". ![]()
>>Kalamata: "Prove it. Show us the fossils. Not the models — the fossils."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Here is a listing of natural history museums, by state...
If fossil evidence for evolution actually existed, you wouldn't be trying to send us on wild-goose-chases.
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “This textbook was last updated in 2002, but should be a good start:
That is a book for fossil collectors, Alinsky Joe, not scientists:
"This book is intended to assist the collector by illustrating a broad range of fossils, from those most likely to be found, to some of the more spectacular, but less common. The fossils were chosen from the Natural History Museum, London, UK, one of the largest and most diverse collections in the world. Microscopic specimens have not been included." [Walker & Ward, "Fossils." Dorling Kindersley, 1992, Introduction, p.8]
As you can see, that book was not intended to be a science book. Perhaps it could be used in a survey course for non-science majors, but not as a science book.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "You are lying. Show us the observable evidence. Just-so stories don’t count."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “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.
It would be very easy to show us scientific evidence for evolution, if there was such a thing. It doesn't exist.
*******************
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."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “The archaeologic record is full of clues and gives evidence of civilizations in 3000 BC:
Archaeological dating, like evolutionism rock dating, is based on circular reasoning; in the case of archaeology, the Shoshenk=Shishak myth. There is no evidence for your 3,000 BC date: only just-so stories.
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "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."
The purpose of the population growth formula is to show the growth rate. It is a standard mathematical function. As I told you before, growth rates are not determined by what happens in between the beginning and ending dates, but rather the rate of change of the population over that time period.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "What does your chart full of skulls prove? "
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "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.
Baloney.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting [Roger] Lewin 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."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "And they may well prove correct -- the homo sapiens evolutionary tree seems to have several dead branches and considerable interbreeding among some branches.
There is no such thing as an evolutionary tree, Alinsky Joe, except in the imaginations of wishful thinkers. There are, however, lots of Diversity Bushes: one for each kind.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Leaky 1981: "The major gap, often referred to as the ‘fossil void’, is between eight and four million years ago."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "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.
Fossil dates are cherry-picked, fossils are manipulated to make them appear to be something they are not, and there is no evidence a human, or any other organism existed millions of years ago.
Jerry Coyne is a rabid evolutionist and anti-Christian. For him to write and publish what he did back in 2009, long before the ENCODE report was released, is in-your-face confirmation that the genetic data promoted by evolutionists was highly questionable.
*******************
>>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."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "There is literal tons of evidence and no evidence to support any other scientific theory."
Of course, all you have to back up your dogmatic assertion is that silly, fabricated skull chart
*******************
>>Kalamata: "Did you already forget, Alinsky Joe? Recent secular research backs up Behe’s research. Of course."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "But you can't "back up" lies with more lies.
Try to stay on topic, Alinsky Joe. Behe said animals could not "evolve" beyond the family level, and the secular research by the Swiss team that I linked confirmed Behe's conclusion, at least for humans, which cannot evolve.
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Surely, your word "secular" does not translate to "recognized scientifically".
The research by the aforementioned Swiss team was reported by the secular American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other mainstream secular science organizations and magazines.
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "What it doubtless means, oh, deceiving one, is "Creationists pretending at science"
You really are a lightweight, Alinsky Joe.
Mr. Kalamata