Kalamata post #448 cont. 2:
"You really should read Professor Behe's books, Joey."
I have been reading my copyright 1989, 1993 (sixth printing 2005) 2nd edition "Of Pandas and People".
Contributors include Davis, Kenyon, Thaxton, Hartwig and Meyer.
Behe is not mentioned in the Book, that I can find, but iirc he was prominent at the trial.
So this may be as good a place as any to list some general comments on it:
- The book is roughly 30 years out of date, meaning some of its questions have been answered, others have "moved on" to other grounds of contention based on new discoveries, for example: "junk DNA".
- The book notices that "some people" disagree with Old Earth timelines, but makes no attempts to review or adjudicate the question.
Generally it seems to have no problems with Old Earth geology.
- There is no mention I could find of Noah's flood.
- Unlike Kalamata, the book is reasonably respectful of science and scientists -- there is no mocking derision, no insults or name-calling, no redefining science as "religion" (though hints in that direction), no harping on alleged "frauds", no blaming of Darwin for the Holocaust, etc.
- The arguments seem to me all standard Creationism under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" and boil down to a few short phrases:
- "Science doesn't know everything."
- "Science can get it wrong."
- "No transitional forms."
- "No common descent".
- "No complexification."
- "Irreducible complexity."
Therefore, they say, "Intelligent Design".
There may be more, so will save that for later.
Kalamata: "Then, as I have been saying all along, evolution is not science.
The great journalist Melanie Phillips [from 2010] explained it in more scholarly terms: "But by seeking to colonize another sphere of thinking altogether, the Darwinists have overreached themselves with disastrous results.
Trying to use science to prove that religion is irrational, they have instead made science irrational by making grandiose claims for evolution that are not backed up by evidence..."
Complete rubbish!
In fact, evolution theory is the only entirely natural explanation, making it the only one which is truly scientific.
Every other suggestion (i.e., "Intelligent Design") requires supernatural interventions and those by definition are not natural-science.
Kalamata: "That is a red herring: more of "the absence of evidence is evidence" pseudoscience.
Animals tend to segregate, even today.
Besides, fossilization only proves that plants and animals were quickly buried by sediment, which is deposited during flooding.
During global flooding, hydrologically sorting of plants, animals and sediment would occur."
And so you explain the "sorting" of dinosaurs from elephants, whales from plesiosaurs and Alley Oop from Pterosaurs how, exactly?
Kalamata: "How about a Coelacanth, Joey?
Fossils of those large fish are found below and within the dinosaur layers, but not in the layers above.
According to your logic, the Coelacanth should be extinct!
But it is alive and well in the Indian Ocean, 65 million years after supposedly becoming extinct!"
So let's see if I understand your logic here?
You say 65 million years of lack of fossil evidence for Coelacanths is evidence they should be considered non-extinct, even if no "living fossils" were ever found?
"Another important discovery made from the genome sequencing is that the coelacanths are still evolving today (but at a relatively slow rate).
While they were initially thought to be a prehistoric species that remained unchanged over millions of years, the discovery that they are still evolving, albeit slowly, causes some to question whether "living fossil" is an appropriate descriptor.[41] "
Kalamata:
"How do you explain blood, soft tissue, and possibly even DNA being found in dinosaur bones, Joey?
How do you explain the many dinosaur bones that have been tested and found to contain significant amounts of Carbon 14?"No dino-DNA has yet been identified in fossils, but some "soft tissue" (i.e., collagen) can survive long periods if specially preserved.
Life can be hardy, for example, in some salt mines dated as hundreds of millions of years old they found dead bacteria in the salt which, when water was added, came back to life, swimming & reproducing happily, possibly the oldest living things on Earth.
As for alleged carbon-14, unless proven otherwise, I'd suppose that was some form of contamination.
Kalamata: "Your religion of evolution claims that all creatures are products of common descent.
Show us evidence of common descent."
Well... first, here are some definitions of "religion":
- Oxford: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
- Webster: "(1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance "
- Dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the "
- Wikipedia: "Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. "
ID/Creationism is, by definition, religion, natural science is not.
As for evidence of common descent: the entire collected fossil record, including innumerable "transitional forms", plus the entire DNA data base of global species, including innumerable shared & similar alleles, are evidences suggesting common descent.
Here is a short but useful video on this very question.
Kalamata: "More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey?
Is that all you have?"
Handwaving & mockery, is that all you have Danny boy?
Kalamata: "No, Joey.
I simply want to see evidence for common descent.
There is none, Joey.
It is a fairy tale."
Right, in exactly the same sense that a Holocaust denier can find "no evidence" of the Holocaust, even in a Holocaust museum!
I know just how you people work, it's denial on the grandest of scales, to look evidence straight on and still claim it's not there.
Kalamata: "LOL! In this very post you prove what I wrote, Joey. You said:
[Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period."
Which is also how any dictionary defines evolution -- see my post #585 above.
Your problem is that you hate it so badly, like any Lefitst, you busy-beaver yourself redefining terms and changing rules until your "reality" more suits your own desires for it.
Kalamata quoting Patterson 1999: "Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression.
This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England.
This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. "
That's a total lie which, if true, would prevent Crime Scene Investigation from presenting evidence in court to convict perpetrators "beyond reasonable doubt".
Defense lawyers would only have to claim: "it's not science, can't prove it".
Kalamata: "One other point, Joey: adaptation is not evolution."
Only in your own fantasy world of lies & make-believe.
In the real world evolution begins at the point of descent with modifications and natural (or directed) selection.
End of post #448. ![]()
>>Kalamata post #448 cont. 2: "You really should read Professor Behe's books, Joey." I have been reading my copyright 1989, 1993 (sixth printing 2005) 2nd edition "Of Pandas and People". >>Joey said: "Contributors include Davis, Kenyon, Thaxton, Hartwig and Meyer. Behe is not mentioned in the Book, that I can find, but iirc he was prominent at the trial."
Dr. Michael Behe was one of the many critical reviewers listed under "Acknowledgements" on page iii.
Now that you mentioned him, Dr. Charles Thaxton, PhD Chemistry, is co-author of "Mystery of Life's Origin", with a Foreword by Dr. Dean Kenyon. Dr. Stephen Meyer mentioned Thaxton in this short segment:
What did Dr. Charles Thaxton Contribute to the Origin of Life Debate?
***************
>>Joey said: "So this may be as good a place as any to list some general comments on it: The book is roughly 30 years out of date, meaning some of its questions have been answered, others have "moved on" to other grounds of contention based on new discoveries, for example: "junk DNA"."
What does it say about Junk DNA, Joey?
***************
>>Joey said: "The book notices that "some people" disagree with Old Earth timelines, but makes no attempts to review or adjudicate the question. Generally it seems to have no problems with Old Earth geology. There is no mention I could find of Noah's flood."
The book "Of Pandas and People" is about Intelligent Design vs Common Descent.
***************
>>Joey said: "Unlike Kalamata, the book is reasonably respectful of science and scientists -- there is no mocking derision, no insults or name-calling, no redefining science as "religion" (though hints in that direction), no harping on alleged "frauds", no blaming of Darwin for the Holocaust, etc."
Joey should not be whining about insults or name-calling by others. That is his stock-in-trade.
Unlike Joey, and atheistic evolutionists generally, the book is respectful of science and scientists -- there is no mocking and insulting traditional creationists, no redefining science as "methodological materialism," no labeling those who reject evolutionism as holocaust deniers, no patronizing just-so stories, ..., no Joey tactics.
It is difficult to pick up a book by an evolutionist, including text books, that does not mock real scientists who trust the Genesis foundation of the scripture. It is rare to find a good high-school level science book, like "Of Pandas and People," that treats real scientists fairly.
For a good video on Smithsonian ape-to-man fakery, try this one that shows how the mockups are highly embellished to make them appear to be transitional:
Smithsonian's Fake Hominids
It is absolutely criminal that no evolutionist of any stature has called out the Smithsonian and other museums on their fakery. The author of the video, Dr. Stephen Blume, wrote this about another video on so-called apes-to-man evolution:
"So much fun making cartoons about how man evolved from apes. That’s the only evidence that that happened: cartoons. Mankind had to increase their brain size from 40 billion neurons to 100 billion neurons, plus add tens of thousands of dendrite connections to each neuron in 500,000 years or so. So let’s do the math: evolution had to add about 500,000 neurons per generation from 700,000 years ago to make the brain of modern man. Plus about 2.4 billion dendrite connections. Plus add 500,000 glial cells, cells that support brain neurons. Plus add thousands of miles of blood vessels, plus…And then when the human brain was just the right size, evolution had to come to a dead stop. Oh, it also had to add intelligence and human consciousness. . . Reality is we have no idea what our source is. And we probably never will. But we can sure make up some incredible fables."
[From the comments of: How to Tell Ape from Human Bones]
Stephen has written three books on evolution: The DNA Delusion, Evo-Illusion, and the Evo-Illusion of Man:
Books by Stephen Blume
I have DNA Delusion in my library, and it is quite good.
For the record, Stephen is definitely not a creationist. It appears he is agnostic.
***************
>>Joey said: "The arguments seem to me all standard Creationism under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" and boil down to a few short phrases: "Science doesn't know everything." "Science can get it wrong." "No transitional forms." "No common descent". "No complexification." "Irreducible complexity."
All of those are true, Joey. Do you have trouble with the truth?
I do not believe you are being candid. If you were, you would be providing page numbers and quotes, like this one:
"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." [Davis & Kenyon, "Of Pandas and People: the central question of biological origins." Haughton Publishing Company, 2nd Ed, 1993, p.161]
I get it! In your protected snowflake bubble there can be no criticism of Darwin's Dumb Luck theory, or your kind will call in the federal troops to suppress free speech and free exercise of religion.
***************
>>Joey said: "Therefore, they say, "Intelligent Design"."
. . . as opposed to "mind-bogglingly-complex life forms evolved by Dumb Luck," which the evolutionism thugs force-feeds out children under the pretense of science.
This is a short video segment on the astonishing operations within the Cell:
Unlocking the Mystery of Life
***************
>>Kalamata: "Then, as I have been saying all along, evolution is not science. The great journalist Melanie Phillips [from 2010] explained it in more scholarly terms:
>>Kalamata quoting Philips: "But by seeking to colonize another sphere of thinking altogether, the Darwinists have overreached themselves with disastrous results. Trying to use science to prove that religion is irrational, they have instead made science irrational by making grandiose claims for evolution that are not backed up by evidence..."
>>Joey said: "Complete rubbish! In fact, evolution theory is the only entirely natural explanation, making it the only one which is truly scientific. Every other suggestion (i.e., "Intelligent Design") requires supernatural interventions and those by definition are not natural-science.
There is nothing scientific about Dumb Luck; yet Dumb Luck is the sum total of "science" in Charlie Darwin's nutty theory. The rest is imaginary over-extrapolation of observable science, which is not science, but pseudoscience. Of course, so is Dumb Luck.
It would be nice if there was some solid evidence for common descent, but there is none to be found on earth. Without "common descent," the remaining claims about evolution -- adaptation, speciation, etc.. -- are the same as those for Special Creation.
The bottom line is, Charlie hijacked Special Creation by pretending he was smarter than God, while knowing there was a large reservoir of useful idiots that would believe him, instead of God's Word.
***************
>>Kalamata: "That is a red herring: more of "the absence of evidence is evidence" pseudoscience. Animals tend to segregate, even today. Besides, fossilization only proves that plants and animals were quickly buried by sediment, which is deposited during flooding. During global flooding, hydrologically sorting of plants, animals and sediment would occur."
>>Joey said: "And so you explain the "sorting" of dinosaurs from elephants, whales from plesiosaurs and Alley Oop from Pterosaurs how, exactly?"
I am not sure about the Alley Oop part. Cartoons are your specialty. But it is a scientific/engineering fact that everything loose -- everything not attached -- will hydrodynamically sort during a flood. During a gravitational/tidal flood, there will also be a certain degree of liquifaction, which enhances sorting dynamics.
This is one experiment that you will never hear about in an atheist geology class:
Evolution - Fact or Belief - Geology - Stratification - Sedimentary Layering
It is highly recommended you watch the entire video. When you do, you will understand why I rejected uniformitarianism and evolution based on a first-time analysis of the geologic column.
This is the lab experiment portion of the video:
Fundamental Experiments in Stratification
The lab scientist, Dr. Pierre Julien, has written a highly-technical graduate-level text book on this subject called "Erosion and Sedimentation."
This is a detailed paper by Guy Berthault on sedimentology:
Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data
***************
>>Kalamata: "How about a Coelacanth, Joey? Fossils of those large fish are found below and within the dinosaur layers, but not in the layers above. According to your logic, the Coelacanth should be extinct! But it is alive and well in the Indian Ocean, 65 million years after supposedly becoming extinct!"
>>Joey said: "So let's see if I understand your logic here? You say 65 million years of lack of fossil evidence for Coelacanths is evidence they should be considered non-extinct, even if no "living fossils" were ever found?"
My point is, according to the evolutionist, everything is evidence of evolution. If fossils are found, that is evidence of evolution. If fossils are not found, that is evidence of evolution. If the Pope is Catholic, that is evidence of evolution. And so forth . . .
***************
>>Joey said: "Another important discovery made from the genome sequencing is that the coelacanths are still evolving today (but at a relatively slow rate). While they were initially thought to be a prehistoric species that remained unchanged over millions of years, the discovery that they are still evolving, albeit slowly, causes some to question whether "living fossil" is an appropriate descriptor.[41] "
Joey is right-on-time with another just-so story! LOL!
All individuals within a species are different from every other individual within the species. But they will never "stray" from their family -- there will be no "cross-overs" from one family (or, "kind") to another. That is the way God designed the genome, and that is what real scientists observe.
***************
>>Kalamata: "How do you explain blood, soft tissue, and possibly even DNA being found in dinosaur bones, Joey? How do you explain the many dinosaur bones that have been tested and found to contain significant amounts of Carbon 14?"
>>Joey said: "No dino-DNA has yet been identified in fossils, but some "soft tissue" (i.e., collagen) can survive long periods if specially preserved."
You forgot to mention that proteins such as hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin have also been found. Nor did you mention that DNA was found, but not verified as dinosaur DNA. However, in 2012, Mary Schweitzer et al. found DNA, and was reasonably sure she ruled-out contamination by microbial DNA:
"Evidence for DNA: Extant osteocytes contain DNA, required for production of proteins involved in bone maintenance. We have shown localized binding of antibodies to DNA, and positive reactivity to PI and DAPI, two histochemical stains for DNA, to internal regions of 'cells' from each dinosaur, though signal is greatly reduced from that seen in extant cells. More importantly, antibodies to DNA bind dinosaur 'cells' in an identical pattern to the histochemical stains, and completely different from antibodies to actin, tubulin and PHEX. Antibody and histochemical staining indicate the presence of material within dinosaur 'cells' that is chemically and structurally consistent with DNA. That this is eukaryotic DNA is supported by recovery of histone H4 sequence (Table 1 and Supplemental Fig. S3D–H), and the binding of antibodies to histone H4 in the same pattern as DNA antibodies and histochemical stains (Supplemental Fig. S5). This DNA-binding protein is not found in microbes, thus a microbial source for these microstructures is not supported. It is highly doubtful that contaminant DNA from exogenous sources would localize to a single point inside these cell-like microstructures, and not in other regions." [Schweitzer et al, "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Elsevier, Bone 52 (2013), 2012, p.421]
The rearchers covered their evolutionary behinds by adding this:
"These data are not sufficient to support the claim that DNA visualized in these cells is dinosaurian in origin; only sequence data can testify to its source. However, these data suggest that affinity purification using antibodies may provide a means of recovering and concentrating sufficient amounts of DNA to be useful for next generation genomic sequencing. Because only about 15%–20% of cells from the dinosaurs reacted positively, and because reactivity that was observed was minimal relative to extant cells, there may be insufficient DNA present to validate its origin by current sequencing technology." [Schweitzer et al, "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Elsevier, Bone 52 (2013), 2012, p.421]
The fact remains, there was DNA present inside fossilized Dino bones.
***************
>>Joey said: "Life can be hardy, for example, in some salt mines dated as hundreds of millions of years old they found dead bacteria in the salt which, when water was added, came back to life, swimming & reproducing happily, possibly the oldest living things on Earth."
There are no millions-of-years-old salt mines. The millions-of-years narrative is a myth.
***************
>>Joey said: "As for alleged carbon-14, unless proven otherwise, I'd suppose that was some form of contamination."
Contamination? Inside diamonds? LOL! The truth is, the presence of C-14 in diamonds and fossils is well known, but is dismissed by evolutionists under the false pretense of "contamination," every time!
***************
>>Kalamata: "Your religion of evolution claims that all creatures are products of common descent. Show us evidence of common descent."
>>Joey said: "Well... first, here are some definitions of "religion": Oxford: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." blah, blah, blah.
Evolution is a faith-based religion. Even devout evolutionists have claimed it is a religion. This is philosopher of science Michael Ruse:
"I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things... it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may... evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there." [Michael Ruse, "Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, AAAS Annual Meeting." 1993]
"Was the progressivist coloring of Wrights theory a deep embarrassment to these American supporters of the synthetic theory of evolution (as they labeled their project)? Had progress become a phylogenetic relic in science, like the appendix? Absolutely not. To a person, all of the new, professional, American evolutionists were ardent progressionists, and for most of them that was precisely why they had been attracted to evolutionary studies in the first place. Like Cuvier over a hundred years before, they realized that for professional reasons they had to play the game of being culture-value-free, otherwise there would be no grants, no prestigious university posts, no students, no respect. Evolution was their profession. But evolutionism was their obsession." [Ruse, Michael, "The Evolution–Creation Struggle." Harvard University Press, 2005, Chap 9, p.187]
"After Darwin, the claim could no longer be made that (absolute) biological progress is value- neutral, something that one can simply read from the evolutionary picture, justified by theory. Rather, progress was a value that humans added. And in the adding, they shifted from a scientific theory of evolution to a quasi-religious commitment to evolutionism. Those who made this shift were not fringe figures, with no standing or respect in the evolutionary profession. To the contrary, there are no more honored names in the field than William D. Hamilton and Edward O. Wilson. The outstanding leaders of the discipline are among those people who promote social and ethical programs on the basis of their evolutionary commitment."
"This holds true in England and even more so in America. In this sense, evolutionary biology— Darwinian evolutionary biology—continues to function as a kind of secular religion. It offers a story of origins. It provides a privileged place at the top for humans. It exhorts humans to action, on the basis of evolutionary principles. It opposes other solutions to questions of social behavior and morality. And it points to a brighter future if all is done as it should be done, in accordance with evolutionary theory. Wilson may be right that he has shucked the literal apocalyptic commitments of his childhood, but if he is not committed to a postmillennial theology, I do not know who is." [Ibid. Chap 10, pp.212-213]
This is paleontologist Colin Patterson comparing evolutionism to creationism by the evolutionist appeal to mystery:
"There are two points. to be made there. The first concerns another of the parallels between evolutionism and creationism. Back in 1974, Mayr appealed to the genotype as the holder to true knowledge. At that time the genotype was still very much a mystery. Now that we have samples of a genotype from a wide variety of organisms it's no longer quite so mysterious, its dropped and a new mystery is proposed, Broca's center and that long list of unspecified autapomorphies of man. It seems that just like creationists, evolutionists are liable to appeal to mystery." [Patterson, Colin, "Speech at the American Museum of Natural History New York." American Museum of Natural History, 1981]
Physicist Henry Lipson likened evolution to a faith-based scientific religion:
"Religious people disliked [evolution] because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe- the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." [Lipson, Henry S., "A Physicist Looks At Evolution, A Physicist Looks At Evolution." Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May, 1980, p.138]
This is Julian Huxley on evolution as a religion:
"I find myself inevitably driven to use the language of religion. For the fact is that all this does add up to something in the nature of a religion: perhaps one might call it Evolutionary Humanism. The word 'religion' is often used restrictively to mean belief in gods; but I am not using it in this sense—I certainly do not want to see man erected into the position of a god, as happened with many individual human beings in the past and is happening still today. I am using it in a broader sense, to denote an overall relation between man and his destiny, and one involving his deepest feelings, including his sense of what is sacred. In this broad sense, evolutionary humanism, it seems to me, is capable of becoming the germ of a new religion, not necessarily supplanting existing religions but supplementing them. " [The Human Phase, in, Huxley, Julian, "Evolution In Action." Harper & Brothers, 1st Ed, 1953, Chap 6, pp.171-172]
Philosopher Paul Feyerbend labels science, itself, as a religious institution, and asserts that a "separation of science and state" is in order:
"Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized." [Paul Feyerabend, "Against Method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge." The Thetford Press Ltd, 1978, p.295]
***************
>>Joey said: "ID/Creationism is, by definition, religion, natural science is not."
Evolution has its own supernatural creation story, Joey. It is called Magic!
***************
>>Joey said: "As for evidence of common descent: the entire collected fossil record, including innumerable "transitional forms", plus the entire DNA data base of global species, including innumerable shared & similar alleles, are evidences suggesting common descent."
No, Joey. In none of those you will find so much as a whisper of common descent. For that reason you must resort to generalities to trick the naive into believing you.
***************
>>Joey said: "Here is a short but useful video on this very question."
That video is based on just-so stories, Joey. There is not a shred of evidence for common descent to be found in it. In fact, in the first minute the narrator told this shamless lie:
"All modern organisms are descended from one original species; and while in its simplest form there's a genetic linear progression that branches and forms a tree like pattern, common descent is not restricted to this linear pattern." ["Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent." Youtube, Feb 15, 2010, time = 0:16]
There are data points ONLY at the nodes and branches. Everything else is inference. Read it from an expert:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks."
[The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change (Reprinted from Natural History 86:5, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace', May 1977, p.14), in Stephen Jay Gould, "The Panda's Thumb." W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, Chap.17, p.181]
Make note of Gould's obligatory kiss of Charlie Darwin's ring in the next to the last sentence.
The most shameless lie, among a myriad of lies in the video, is probably this one:
"If it is to be called science, it must be testable; and for almost 150 years the research community has done every test imaginable to examine evolution and common descent; and for 150 years not a single test has ever failed to validate that all life on Earth comes from one common ancestor." ["Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent." Youtube, Feb 15, 2010, time = 1:35]
That is mockery of science. All it proves is: indoctrination trumps science and logic.
***************
>>Kalamata: "More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey? Is that all you have?"
>>Joey said: "Handwaving & mockery, is that all you have Danny boy?
I don't have to hand-wave, Joey. Evidence for special creation is overwhelming: in life itself, in the fossil record, in the geologic column, and in DNA. I have identified each of those evidences in this thread, and you either mocked them, resorted to hand-waving, or simply dismissed them outright.
***************
>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. I simply want to see evidence for common descent. There is none, Joey. It is a fairy tale."
>>Joey said: "Right, in exactly the same sense that a Holocaust denier can find "no evidence" of the Holocaust, even in a Holocaust museum!"
There you go again! I ask for evidence, and Joey slanders me with innuendo. Deceptive little fellow, isn't he?
***************
>>Joey said: "I know just how you people work, it's denial on the grandest of scales, to look evidence straight on and still claim it's not there."
I have never denied scientific evidence, Joey. If I had never seen evidence contradicting uniformitarianism and an old-earth, I will still be an evolutionist.
***************
>>Kalamata: "LOL! In this very post you prove what I wrote, Joey. You said: [Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period."
>>Joey said: "Which is also how any dictionary defines evolution -- see my post #585 above."
Okay, let's look. This is Joey quoting Webster's definition of evolution in #585:
"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..."
Where does that say evolution is "any change"?
That is an accurate definition, Joey, because it includes common descent. If you leave out common descent, you are left with Special Creation, no matter what you call it.
Another trade secret of evolution is the watering-down of the definition of evolution over the years due to the absence of evidence for common descent. For example, this is Collins Dictionary from Joey's list in #585:
"Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics. ...the evolution of plants and animals."
Creationists have no problem with that definition, except for the word "evolution" itself. There is no such thing as evolution, only gene pool stasis and devolution. We object to false claims by evolutionists of common descent. That would require an increase in genetic information, which is theoretically impossible, many times over.
***************
>>Joey said: "Your problem is that you hate it so badly, like any Lefitst, you busy-beaver yourself redefining terms and changing rules until your "reality" more suits your own desires for it."
I had no problem with evolution for most of my long life, Joey, until I learned it was based on a lie.
***************
>>Kalamata quoting Patterson 1999: "Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."
>>Joey said: "That's a total lie which, if true, would prevent Crime Scene Investigation from presenting evidence in court to convict perpetrators "beyond reasonable doubt". Defense lawyers would only have to claim: "it's not science, can't prove it"."
Joey must think he is the smartest person on earth; or at least he thinks he is smarter than every PhD evolutionary scientist I have quoted in this thread. The late Colin Patterson was a famous British paleontologist. This the full quote from the 1st edition of his book, "Evolution":
"The difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist is, in Popper's view, that the first will look for the most severe tests of his theories, and will not take evasive action if they fail those tests, while the pseudoscientist will look for evidence confirming his ideas and, if he feels his theory is threatened, may avoid refutation by erecting subsidiary, defensive theories around it... If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical).... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Historians cannot predict the future (or are deluded when they try to), and they cannot explain the past, but only interpret it. And there is no decisive way of testing their alternative interpretations. For the same reasons, evolutionary biologists can make no predictions about the future evolution of any particular species, and they cannot explain past evolution, but only produce interpretations, or stories, about it." [Colin Patterson, "Evolution." Comstock Publishing Associates, 1999, Chap 12, pp. 145-146]
***************
>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "One other point, Joey: adaptation is not evolution."
>>Joey said: "Only in your own fantasy world of lies & make-believe. In the real world evolution begins at the point of descent with modifications and natural (or directed) selection."
There is no such thing as evolution, Joey. It is a "fairy tale for grownups."
Mr. Kalamata