[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: "I see you are still playing childish games instead of debating."
>>Joey said: "I appreciate that you've knocked-off some of the nonsense, and will appreciate even more when you knock off the rest, FRiend.

Try not to make stuff up as you go, and refrain from your childish "Rules" game, and the debate will go much smoother.

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

>>Kalamata: "I believe it is safe to assume that you are naturally obnoxious."
>>Joey said: "See what I mean? A clear case of your obedience to Denier Rule #5.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata on research into DNA & evolution: "If you claim it does, you are either deceiving or have been deceived. Evolution is a historical "science"."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, but that's just bunk, the talk of theologians pretending at science, Denier Rule #6.

Child, those quotes I posted claiming evolution is a historical science are by evolutionism theologians, not Christians. Pay attention.

The late Ernst Mayr is a world-famous Evolutionary Biologist:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." [Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought." Scientific American, Nov 24, 2009]

That article by Scientific American is from a September 23, 1999 lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. He died in 2005.

Jack Horner is a world-famous paleontologist and evolutionist. The paleontologist in Jurassic Park was modeled after him. Horner was also a major contributor to one of the books you cited earlier. This is Horner:

"There is no equivalent in paleontology to the law of gravity, no equations that apply to the behavior of one kind of dinosaur under one set of circumstances, still less to all kinds under all circumstances, no mathematical procedures for predicting exactly where or how fossils will be deposited. Moreover, unlike botany or zoology, which also concern living things, paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard-and-fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals, points beyond which no further debate or research would be necessary. These days it's easy to go to school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive. But in fact paleontology is closer in spirit to the traditional definition of science—a method rather than a set of principles, a form of systematic doubt, a way of testing ideas." [Horner & Dobb, "Dinosaur Lives - Unearthing An Evolutionary Saga." Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997, Chap.2, p.19]

Horner explained why you may be confused, with this statement:

"These days it's easy to go to school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive."

Of course, you probably never took a real science course, so that wouldn't affect you one way or another.

Another avenue of confusion may come from evolutionion apologetic websites, that intentionally attempt to confuse the issue. The bottom line is, evolution cannot be observed. It is no more observable than the historical events listed in the Bible. The application of the "historical science" label is simply a way to distinguish evolution from observable or "operational" science. However, that fact doesn't hinder attempts to conflate the two, as this geologist pretends to do:

"Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained." [Carol E. Cleland, "Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method." Geology, Vol.29, No.11; November 1, 2001, Abstract, p.987]

The NCSE (affectionally known as the National Center for Science Eradication) pretends likewise.

"Philosophers of science draw a distinction between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred. They do not claim, however, that the line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly, and certainly do not agree that historical claims are any less empirically verifiable than other sorts of claims." [Josh Rosenau, "Historical science vs. experimental science." National Center for Science Education, Sept 24, 2008]

As does your hero, Michael Shermer, when he is not believing weird things:

"Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science." [Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things; Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." Henry Holt and Company, 2002, p.142]

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

>>Kalamata: "Gibberish. Devolution is the opposite of evolution, by definition:
>>Kalamata: "Definition of devolution: retrogression from a derived to a primitive or less differentiated state; the reverse of evolution." [Mai et al, "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution." 2005, p.142]"
>>Joey said: "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification". In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways. It's all evolution. . . "

You just confirmed one my previous points that evolution is NOT falsifiable because EVERYTHING IS EVOLUTION! LOL! This is hilarious!

The term "devolution" implies the breaking or loss of genes, Joey. That will never be evolution, no matter how loudly and passionately the evolutionism apologist whines.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Behe: "It seems, then, that the magnificent Ursus maritimus has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed. Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving." [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.1]"

Can we assume Professor Behe left you speechless by revealing that the Polar Bear didn't evolve its unique traits?

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit playing games."
>>Joey said: "Quit posting nonsense. Evolution is defined as:
>>Joey quoting Wikipedia, again: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]" or "1.the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." or " descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations" or "Adaptation, in evolutionary terms, is the process that species go through in order to become accustomed to an environment."
>>Joey said:" It's all evolution / adaptation whether it "complexifies", "simplifies" or just changes sideways."

That is what I previously explained, Joey, that evolution cannot be falsified, no matter what happens, because evolution is always true, that is, in the mind of the evolutionism cultist. Evolution is such a "great theory" to the evolutionist that it can explain everything. That is not science, but a faith-based religion, with evolution as god.

Popper explained the dilemma of the devout evolutionist in this manner:

"I believe I have taken the theory almost at its best—almost in its most testable form. One might say that it 'almost predicts' a great variety of forms of life. In other fields, its predictive or explanatory power is still more disappointing. Take 'adaptation'. At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does; but hardly in a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological. Indeed we use the terms 'adaptation' and 'selection' in such a way that we can say that, if the species were not adapted, it would have been eliminated by natural selection. Similarly, if a species has been eliminated it must have been ill adapted to the conditions. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this." [Popper, Karl R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography." Routledge, 2002, 37, p.199]

Feeble, it is.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata post #346: "Try not to make stuff up as you go, and refrain from your childish "Rules" game, and the debate will go much smoother."

But you must understand, the only real issue here is not evolution or even science itself, rather it's Kalamata's innate dishonesty, as illustrated in your slavish obedience to my derived Denier Rules.
I cannot confirm a single case where you consciously disobeyed even one of those "rules".
Why is that?

Now I will entertain the suggestion that you do consciously disobey my rule #3, which refers to your large collection of quotes.
That rule is not intended to criticize your quotes, per say, because quotes are good.
Rather it refers to the fact that some deniers promisquisly mix together fake quotes, or out-of-context quotes, with genuine quotes to make it seem like some famous people support their ideas.

I haven't seen that yet from Kalamata -- your quotes, so far as I can tell, all seem genuine.
I'm especially impressed by the fact that some of your quotes actually support my positions, and that's my problem -- how can that be?
How can someone as normally denier-prone as Kalamata knowingly post data which contradicts his own claims?

My best guess is, you don't, not knowingly.
And this leads me to a definition of "we" by which Kalamata sometimes refers to himself.
I'm guessing now that "we" includes a, shall I say, "research assistant" who looks up and provides provenance for your quotes, and in the process sometimes slips in contradictory words.
I attribute such words to your honest research assistant because I've never yet seen an example of Kalamata yourself honestly acknowledging their meaning & importance.

A typical example is the collection of great quotes on "historical sciences" here in your post #346.
All are totally reasonable explanations of the term, and also begin to suggest why I object to it.

One problem with the term "historical sciences" is it too easily allows deniers like Kalamata to equate them to the "historical Bible."
Both, you say, are "historical" so both equally valid scientifically and both can be believed, or not, according to you faith in one religion or the other, so you tell us.

But the reality is, "historical sciences" are historical in the same sense as Crime Scene Investigators forensic analysis is historical.
They all start with evidence to hypothesize a possible "theory of the crime", then continue to look for more evidence to confirm or falsify various hypotheses.
Such "historical science" has no comparison to using the Bible as your starting point for "investigation."

So, my answer to the question of how someone as innately dishonest as Kalamata can post such lengthy quotes which, so far as I can tell, are accurate and even balanced -- my best guess is: you don't, somebody else is doing that work for you, someone likely more interesting than Danny Liar-Denier Kalamata.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #346: "You just confirmed one my previous points that evolution is NOT falsifiable because EVERYTHING IS EVOLUTION!
LOL! This is hilarious!
The term "devolution" implies the breaking or loss of genes, Joey.
That will never be evolution, no matter how loudly and passionately the evolutionism apologist whines."

Sorry, but your sense of humor, like so much else, is a bit... off.

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] "

Evolution by definition is any change, period.
Complexification, devolution, or something as simple as a moth changing colors -- sideways evolution.
It's all evolution/adaptation, regardless of how much you hate it and wish it to go away.

Danny Denier: "Can we assume Professor Behe left you speechless by revealing that the Polar Bear didn't evolve its unique traits?"

By definition, evolution is change, period, regardless of how much you hate it, lie about it and wish it would go away.
It is what it is.

Danny Denier: "That is what I previously explained, Joey, that evolution cannot be falsified, no matter what happens, because evolution is always true, that is, in the mind of the evolutionism cultist."

Nonsense, evolution theory could easily be falsified by confirming evidence which contradicts it.
Elephants living with dinosaurs or big whales & plesiosaurs frolicking together, come to mind.
Alley Oop flying pterosaurs... that would do it.

What else?
How about an obvious copyright written into our DNA codes by the Intelligence Who designed it?
Here is a long discussion on the subject of evolution's falsifiability.

But let's cut to the chase, shall we?
You wish desperately to redefine the word "evolution" such that every new fossil or DNA discovery "falsifies" it, as if the theory was carved-in-stone gospel to be broken by any new fact.
And it frustrates you to tears that every new fact, instead of falsifying is said to confirm evolution's predictions.

Sorry about that.

Danny Denier "Evolution is such a "great theory" to the evolutionist that it can explain everything.
That is not science, but a faith-based religion, with evolution as god."

Total lies & rubbish.

Danny Denier quoting Popper: "Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.""

Feeble?
More nonsense, such ideas are "tested" everywhere environments change and life-forms are required to adapt or die.
Often they die out but sometimes they adapt, occasionally even in the very short term.