Kalamata:
"Linnaeus, like everyone else in the world before Darwin, observed natural barriers that kept the animal families (kinds) distinct.
It is not rocket science." No, according to Kalamata, Linnaeus used a mistranslation of the Biblical word "kind" to name two biological categories: genus & species.
It turns out, the genus "barrier" is pretty strong -- though still sometimes "broken", as in the case of beefalo (buffalo cattle hybrid).
But the species "barrier" not much of a barrier at all, even in cases where species have different numbers of chromosomes, i.e., zebra.
So Linnaeus swings and misses twice with Kind=species and Kind=genus.
Now, Linnaeus never said Kind=family, but here Kalamata seems pretty certain that if Linnaeus had said Kind=family, then he'd be right.
But, but... what if it turns out that certain "kinds" (i.e., lions & tigers) can indeed effectively interbreed?
Kalamata: "Evolutionism is already on its last breath, Joe."
That would be the new Denier Rule #12, Dan: whenever totally defeated, Declare Total Victory.
Kalamata: "I can tell you never really cared much about science."
I care about theologians pretending at science.
I'm agin' it.
Kalamata: "If not for quibbling, Joe, you wouldn’t have much to say."
Here you use a version of Denier Rule #11, Pretend Ignorance, but in this case, having been defeated on a key point (definition of "kind"), you pretend it's of no consequence.
I may have to add that as a separate new Rule #12: no matter how major, minimize your many defeats as of no consequence, and no matter how minor your few victories, trumpet them as of ultimate importance.
Kalamata: ">>Kalamata quoting Behe: “Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin’s vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos.
But no, nothing.”"
Kalamata: "LOL! Behe was simply repeating what Gould and other paleontologists have observed in the fossil record."
Regardless, the claim is ludicrous.
Galapagos began to erupt about 20 million years ago, with various forms of life arriving since.
Today the Galapagos have dozens of endemic species plus the occasional endemic genus.
By contrast, Madagascar split from India circa 90 million years ago and today has thousands of endemic species, hundreds of unique genera, and a dozen isolated biological families (sometimes called "kinds").
This is exactly what evolution theory predicts.
Kalamata: "You have an unnatural hatred for a great scientist and a genuinely nice guy.
I have never been a religious fanatic, so I don’t know exactly what you are going through."
Total rubbish, just more of Denier Rule #5.
Regardless of how "nice" he seems, Behe is a shameless propagandist for a theologically motivated Big Lie.
Kalamata: "I couldn’t and wouldn’t; but Behe could do as good a job as anyone else.
Probably better than most, since he has a better understanding of the molecular side of the issue than most."
So, do I understand your words to claim that Behe, even as we speak now, is working on a new, revised biological classification system, one which will both define and list exactly what the word "kind" means?
And this new classification system will be carefully crafted to match exactly what the Bible says about "kinds"?
OOOOOOOh Kay.
![]()
>>Kalamata: "Linnaeus, like everyone else in the world before Darwin, observed natural barriers that kept the animal families (kinds) distinct. It is not rocket science."
>>Joey said: "No, according to Kalamata, Linnaeus used a mistranslation of the Biblical word "kind" to name two biological categories: genus & species.
I posted this before, mayby twice, where Linnaeus identifies the genus level directly below the kind level:
"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." [Stephen Freer, "Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica." Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]
You are either lying, Joey, or you are too dumb to understand what Linnaeus wrote. Pick your poison.
*****************
>>Joey said: "It turns out, the genus "barrier" is pretty strong -- though still sometimes "broken", as in the case of beefalo (buffalo cattle hybrid)."
Now you are talking like a creationist. Welcome aboard.
*****************
>>Joey said: "But the species "barrier" not much of a barrier at all, even in cases where species have different numbers of chromosomes, i.e., zebra."
No one -- not the most devout evolutionist, nor the ID'er, nor the YEC'er -- has claimed there is a barrier at the species or the genus level. Are you talking to be talking, Joey? Are you trying to sound "smart"? It is not working.
*****************
>>Joey said: "So Linnaeus swings and misses twice with Kind=species and Kind=genus.
Only in your dreams, Joey. LOL!
*****************
>>Joey said: "Now, Linnaeus never said Kind=family, but here Kalamata seems pretty certain that if Linnaeus had said Kind=family, then he'd be right.
I must hand it to Joey: he is a master quibbler.
*****************
>>Joey said: "But, but... what if it turns out that certain "kinds" (i.e., lions & tigers) can indeed effectively interbreed?
Lions and tigers are of the same kind, Joey, known universally as the Felidae family (is this clown Joey for real?)
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Evolutionism is already on its last breath, Joe."
>>Joey said: "That would be the new Denier Rule #12, Dan: whenever totally defeated, Declare Total Victory.
Child. A serious discussion of the inadequacy of evolutionary theory began no later than 2014, as outlined in this Nature article:
https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
*****************
>>Kalamata: "I can tell you never really cared much about science."
>>Joey said: "I care about theologians pretending at science. I'm agin' it.
If you were being honest, you would be denouncing the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism. The anti-science religion of evolutionism goes back a long way. It was entrenched as early as Hubble's days. Read what that religious bigot wrote:
"The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance , symmetrically in all directions.Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance ." [Possible Worlds: The Law of Nebular Distribution when Red-Shifts are not interpreted as Velocity-Shifts, in Hubble, Edwin, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology." Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1937, Chap. III, p.40]
"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. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. 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." [Ibid. p.46]
Remarkable, huh? Ironically, a giant space telescope bearing Hubble's name, with its discovery of deep space galactic clusters, showed the world that the density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance, not to mention that Hubble was a bigot! God definitely has a sense of humor.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "If not for quibbling, Joe, you wouldn’t have much to say."
>>Joey said: "Here you use a version of Denier Rule #11, Pretend Ignorance, but in this case, having been defeated on a key point (definition of "kind"), you pretend it's of no consequence.
Child.
*****************
>>Joey said: "I may have to add that as a separate new Rule #12: no matter how major, minimize your many defeats as of no consequence, and no matter how minor your few victories, trumpet them as of ultimate importance.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata quoting Behe: “Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin’s vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos. But no, nothing.”"
>>Kalamata: "LOL! Behe was simply repeating what Gould and other paleontologists have observed in the fossil record."
>>Joey said: "Regardless, the claim is ludicrous. Galapagos began to erupt about 20 million years ago, with various forms of life arriving since. Today the Galapagos have dozens of endemic species plus the occasional endemic genus. By contrast, Madagascar split from India circa 90 million years ago and today has thousands of endemic species, hundreds of unique genera, and a dozen isolated biological families (sometimes called "kinds"). This is exactly what evolution theory predicts.
Are you really that ignorant, Joey? You present such an exalted sanctimonious attitude that I am still finding it difficult to believe I am debating a scientifically-challenged blowhard.
Species are the bottom of the taxonomic ladder, Joey, where the most diversity occurs. Phyla are at the top, where disparity occurs:
The family (or "kind") level is the barrier. Many genera can arise from the genepool of a kind, and many species can arise from the genepool of a genus; but everything stops (is fixed) at the kind, or family level.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You have an unnatural hatred for a great scientist and a genuinely nice guy. I have never been a religious fanatic, so I don’t know exactly what you are going through."
>>Joey said: "Total rubbish, just more of Denier Rule #5.
Child.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Regardless of how "nice" he seems, Behe is a shameless propagandist for a theologically motivated Big Lie.
The only propagandist in this discussion is you, Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "I couldn’t and wouldn’t; but Behe could do as good a job as anyone else. Probably better than most, since he has a better understanding of the molecular side of the issue than most."
>>Joey said: "So, do I understand your words to claim that Behe, even as we speak now, is working on a new, revised biological classification system, one which will both define and list exactly what the word "kind" means? And this new classification system will be carefully crafted to match exactly what the Bible says about "kinds"? OOOOOOOh Kay.
No, Child. Behe, like me, is more than happy with the current classification system. My only dissent might be the never-ending quest of God-haters to remove all biblical references from science, such as the created "kind". Removing the "kind" from the dialogue is just one more nail in the coffin of freedom of religion and liberty.
Mr. Kalamata