Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

Boogieman: "Species that evolutionists tell us are ancestors of other species have different numbers of chromosomes than their ostensible descendants, some quite radically different."

I know that argument, but it doesn't hold water.
Consider this example of Zebras -- Plains, Mountain, Grevy's:

Look at these three Zebra photos -- all obviously Zebra's, meaning all the same "kind" or "family" -- Equidae -- the same genus -- Equus.
But they are different species and not only that, they have different numbers of chromosomes:

Plains Zebras -- 44 chromosomes
Mountain Zebras -- 32 chromosomes
Grevy's Zebras -- 46 chromosomes

Can different Zebras with different chromosomes interbreed?
Answer: no, yes, maybe if.

No -- not normally.
Yes -- sometimes if forced in captivity.
Maybe if the male has fewer chromosomes than the female.

"Nature dictates that when crossbreeding takes place, the male must have the smaller number of chromosomes."

I can't verify that, but does seem unlikely somebody would just make such a thing up.

Boogieman: "You are not gaining or losing a chromosome in “baby steps”, it is an all or nothing proposal, and when it happens, that is going to be a quite insurmountable barrier to breeding with members of the “ancestral” population, therefore, it would be an evolutionary dead end."

I don't know if anybody fully understands how or why it happens, but it clearly does happen and not so infrequently as you might suppose.
The Zebras example is just one I picked at random.

From that we know that interbreeding, while problematic, is far from impossible.

Boogieman: "Yet, evolution requires that somehow, millions of times, some miracle happened to allow such a dead end to breed and continue to pass on their genes."

All of life is a miracle of God, which science ultimately can neither understand nor explain.
So science sticks to natural explanations, and there the fossil record shows many, many such "dead ends", which we cannot know how or why they died off.

Boogieman on "missing" fossil species: "Pure speculation.
If you haven’t found them, then they are simply figments of your imagination, and slapping a percentage sign on how many species you imagine might exist does not make it any more scientific."

No, more than just speculation.
Fossil species are predicted by evolution theory and many, many thousands have been found over the past 150+ years.

Further, the scientific term "species" is a matter of definition -- when are two populations of, say, Zebras the same "species" and when are they different?
It's a matter of how to define "species" and at what rate species DNA changes.
Again, take Zebras -- fossils show the first Zebras around 4 million years ago, since which time three living and six extinct species evolved -- 9 species in 4 million years, that we know of.
Using that same rate of speciation for other known families & genera produces estimates of staggering numbers of species which evolved but left no fossil records.
And how many Zebra species left no fossils?

So, based on what we know, there must have been huge numbers of species in the distant past whose fossils have not been found.

Boogieman: "It’s really more deceptive than important.
Ape skulls and human skulls have a few similarities, but that doesn’t prove common ancestry."

Of course, nothing in the distant past can be observed and so "proved".
And no fossil outside a human cemetery is likely to be the direct ancestor of any other.
But there's no reason to suppose that each fossil does not represent species that preceded and ultimately produced some of those who came after.
This chart is an example of current thinking on ancient pre-humans.
I like it because it also shows how many individuals are represented in the fossil record of their species:

Boogieman: "...even in the same layer in the same location, as in this find in Georgia, where four morphologically different hominid skulls dated to 1.8 million years old were found in close proximity, showing they all lived in the same place at the same time:"

Those skulls are all listed as the same species, Home Erectus.
They are among some 150 individuals of the same species discovered in many places:

Boogieman: "That doesn’t suggest a progression through different species, it suggests a natural variation of one species, that scientists have misrepresented to fit their preferred narrative."

It's true that all Homo Erectus individuals found share many common features, but they also share features which distinguish them from all other pre-human species.

>>Kalamata: quoting Shermer: "Prothero noticed that global warming skeptics and climate deniers employed the same tactics as creationists: focusing on minor anomalies in the data, interpreting normal scientific debates as indications that mainstream science is flawed, and quote mining experts to make it sound as if they were saying something in support of their denialist cause."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I never heard of Prothero, but his point here is the same as mine: deniers use the same tactics. I do know how Holocaust deniers think because I debated some of them for many months, in a format similar to this one. I see those same tactics coming from Kalamata, so I know something is fishy here.

That quote was by your hero, Michael Shermer, who wrote the forward to a recent book written by his side-kick, Donald Prothero. Prothero is another one of those promoting the holocaust-enabling ideology of evolutionisn, as well as other far-left ideologies and scams, such as "climate-change". This is a link to a debate between Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg vs Donald Prothero and Michael Shermer. Prothero is the really goofy and nasty one:

Has Evolution Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "In Kalamata's defense, seriously: Holocaust deniers were vulgar, hate-filled people, insulting beyond anything allowable on Free Republic. In no way does Kalamata personally compare to them. But his tactics are the same, including personal disparagements. Nor do I find any rigorous honesty in Kalamata's own responses. When faced with the choice of a weak-but-honest answer, versus a strong-but-dishonest one, Kalamata invariably choses the latter. That makes you a propagandist, FRiend.

I have never personally met a holocaust denier; but it is hard to imagine anyone more nasty and vulgar than the evolutionism cult that posts on Youtube. It is possible some of them are also holocaust deniers, since they rabidly support the holocaust-enabling religion of evolutionism, like, you. They also lie like you, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "You have some mighty strange heroes, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Speaking of Alinsky, there's another name I don't remember hearing as recently as 20 years ago. Alinsky became much better known along with the rising political ambitions of his most famous disciple, Mrs. Clinton. But I don't remember mentioning "rules for radicals" to Holocaust deniers, though in hind-sight they seemingly "got it".

You should be very familiar with Alinsky. You use his tactics when your world-view is challenged.

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

>>Kalamata: "In that context, let's see if we can observe from Kalamata and others the basic "Rules for Deniers"? >>Joe the Science Denier says, "In that context, let's see if we can observe from Kalamata and others the basic "Rules for Deniers"?

>>Science Denier Rule#1: "First, foremost & always: ignore all data which contradicts your own claims.

Narrative: Science deniers, like Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott, ignore contradictory data, at first. But if the contradictory data doesn't go away, they recruit the Sword of the government to help suppress it. So, if the data will not go away, after repeated attempts at ignoring it, call in the federal troops.

>>Science Denier Rule#2: "Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific."

Narrative: Science deniers must continually reshuffle their vocabulary to stay "in business". For example, "divergent evolution" has morphed into "convergent evolution", "parallel evolution", "preadaptive evolution", and "reductive evolution" (and perhaps a few others), so that, no matter what happens, evolution is ALWAYS true.

>>Science Denier Rule#3: "Begin your presentation with a large collection of quotes & references -- some meticulously sourced, others mis-quotes, out of context & dubious provenance."

Narrative: The more accomplished science deniers use a large collection of quotes and references, like Michael Shermer in his books and lectures. The less accomplished resort to artistic renditions of "evidence", such as pictures and models of imaginary whale, horse, and embryo evolution.

>>Science Denier Rule#4: "Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments."

Narrative: If that fails -- if your opponent has no scientific weaknesses -- smear, slander, and accuse him of the most vile thing imaginable.

>>Science Denier Rule#5: "Equate defeat on his weakest points to defeat on every point -- "wrong on one = wrong on all."

Narrative: If he has no weaknesses, resort to the solution in Rule 6.

>>Science Denier Rule#6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

Narrative: Be careful. If you support the ideology that led to the holocaust, and there is no way anyone would believe his ideology led to the holocaust, if might be better to accuse him of something else, such as being a holocaust denier.

>>Science Denier Rule#7: "For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc."

Narrative: Again, be careful. This tactic worked well on all Creation and Intelligent Design scientists until recently; but now, with new discoveries in the genome, and with no supporting discoveries in the fossil record from the time of Darwin until now, the more accomplished scientists can legitimately throw that back in your face. Choose your targets wisely.

>>Science Denier Rule#8: "If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down. OK to personally insult, disparage & malign."

Narrative: If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own.

>>Science Denier Rule#9: "Guilt by association: if your opponent knows somebody who was wrong about something, then he is wrong about everything!

Narrative: This works well if used properly, but be certain the person he knows was actually wrong about something. If this fails, resort to Rule 8.

>>Science Denier Rule#10: "When all else fails, remember rule #1.

Narrative: Resort to the part about calling in the federal troops.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I admit, this may not be the complete list, but it's as good as I can do for right now. Near as I can tell, our propagandist Kalamata slavishly follows all these rules here.

LOL! They are not my rules. They are yours!

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

>>Kalamata: "Suppose you tell why any private entity would fund Origin of Life research?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Miller-Urey was done at the University of Chicago, 1952, and California.

Who paid for it?

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "In October 2018, researchers at McMaster University announced the development of a new technology, called a Planet Simulator, to help study the origin of life on planet Earth and beyond.[117][118][119][120] It consists of a sophisticated climate chamber to study how the building blocks of life were assembled and how these prebiotic molecules transitioned into self-replicating RNA molecules.[117] "

Assuming the so-called prebiotic molecules magically organized into self-replicating RNA, how does the RNA replication occur without the assistance of protein polymerases?

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

>>Kalamata: "I am not buying for a minute that Alinsky Joe has ever debated a holocaust denier. He is a proven liar, not to mention being a rabid evolutionist. >>Joe the Science Denier says, "Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the “’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove."

Actually, I found that in another rule book, written up in a newspaper editorial, titled, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One":

"15. As it is not to be expected that the change of a republic into a monarchy, with the rapidity desired can be carried through without occasional suspicions and alarms, it will be necessary to be prepared for such events. The best general rule on the subject is to be taken from the example of crying "Stop thief" first - neither lungs nor pens must be spared in charging every man who whispers, or even thinks, that the revolution on foot is meditated, with being himself an enemy to the established government and meaning to overturn it. Let the charge be reiterated and reverberated till at last such confusion and uncertainty be produced that the people, being not able to find out where the truth lies, withdraw their attention from the contest." [Philiip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]

That is more than appropriate to explain today's usurpations and left-wing fanaticism. Those trying to destroy our nation and culture with the religions of evolutionism and socialism, frequently use the "Stop thief" first deception, as you do.

By the way, that newspaper was owned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

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

>>Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe lives in the world of the logical gutter; and his hatred of Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews is undeniable."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Gutter" -- now there's a word from the lexicon of Holocaust deniers. The rest is a total lie, I serve such people every day.

The word "gutter" appropriately identifies the filthy, foul-mouthed trash on Youtube and in other open forums who rabidly defend their religions of evolutionism and socialism (the religions that led to the holocaust and killing fields) with the most vile language and slander imaginable. Alinsky Joe uses all of those tactics, except for the filthy language, so far.

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

>>Kalamata: "His heros, the devout atheists, climate change propagandists, and abortion advocates, Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, have taught him well how to become an expert in the use of slander and ad hominems against anyone who speaks out against his warped view of what is and what is not science.": >>Joe the Science Denier says, "More lies and from someone who pretends to defend the Bible, bearing false witness. Kalamata is obviously the trained propagandist here.

We know those fellows are devout atheists. We know both promote the climate-change scam. We know both condemn those who are anti-abortion. And we know that Alinsky Joe uses slander against those who oppose his world view. So where are the lies, Alinsky Joe?

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

>>Kalamata: "Substitute the phrase “holocaust denier” for “creationism denier” or “intelligent design denier” in the belligerant rants of any Darwin-hugging bigot, and you will see there is no difference in tactics: same insults, same slander, same nonsense."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Again we see Rule #5 above.

I think he intended to say, Rule #6.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God? It sounds like that is what you are saying."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I don't doubt God's Word, but I don't believe some of what you claim it means.

No doubt about that. But what about my question? Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?

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

>>Kalamata: "I don’t see anything in the bible, or in observational science, that points to man evolving from an ape, or a frog. "
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Genesis tells us that God began with dirt, does not say how He got to man.

God most certainly tells us how he did it, but in general terms any child can understand. First he tells us that he created man in his own image:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Gen 1:27 KJV

Later, he tells us that Jesus is the image of God:

"[Jesus,] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" -- Col 1:15 KJV

So, man was first created in the image of Jesus, and THEN God breathed the breath of life into his NOSTRILS:

"And the Lord God formed MAN of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his NOSTRILS the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Gen 2:7 KJV

You can pretend the little microorganism your religion claims to be the first life was equipped with nostrils to receive that first breath, but nostrils on a microorganism is way too silly for any rational person to believe.

LOL! Evolution has to be the nuttiest theory ever imagined.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "Joe the Science Denier says..."

Rule for Deniers #5, post #272.

Kalamata: "You cannot be serious.
That page is not helpful. "

Not helpful to science-deniers like Kalamata.
And that is very serious.

Kalamata quoting Rupke 1983: "These Scottish writers argued that geology and the Bible ought to be kept apart; that physical inquiry came under the aegis of science, and that only the moral destiny of man was the proper subject of the Bible; that therefore the biblical deluge was a subject of inquiry, not for geology, but for theology and ancient history.
This argument for the separation of science and the Bible was facilitated by the Edinburgh University system in which science had, for a considerable time, enjoyed an academic status independent of the humanities.
The separation was not inspired by lack of faith, but was backed by serious, exegetical arguments..."

The time period for this quote is apparently early 1800s, which is still within influence by Age of Enlightenment thinkers.
Note specifically the reason for separation of science & scripture is not lack of faith.

Kalamata: "Make note of the part that explains the foolish "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham was still in the developmental stage in the late 1700's and early 1800's.
It is a Johnny-Come-Lately sham that has corrupted rather than advanced science."

I disagree with your words of disparagement, but agree that this is perhaps a critical point at which natural-science and religion parted ways.
But it was very far from the first or only time -- see Galileo in 1633.

Indeed, the ancient Church Fathers themselves well understood that there are limits to which the Bible can be applied scientifically.
Here is St. Augustine of Hippo, circa 400 AD in words sounding like they were written just yesterday:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men....

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (pp. 42-43)"

Kalamata: " am very familiar with how the atheists hijacked the definition of science from real scientists."

They were, according to your own quote, not "atheists" and theologians never claimed to be "real scientists".
In fact scientists then were like our Enlightenment Era Founding Fathers -- Christian believers, some leaning towards deism, but none were atheists.

Kalamata: "It is your atheistic religion of evolutionism that is destroying western civilization.
In the meantime, it has led to the holocaust, eugenics, abortion, virulent racism, and 4 of the most blood-thirsty dictators in the history of the world."

"Destroying" Western Civilization since the time of our Founding Fathers?
And you wish to return us to which pre-Enlightenment era?

As for blood-thirsty tyrants, there've been plenty throughout history, and no scientific theory was ever needed to push them into evil.

Kalamata: "Why did you say that I claimed God was "merely 'natural'"?
What's the matter with you?
Don't you know how to tell the truth?"

So now you're going to lie your way out of your lies by telling more lies?
How does that even work?

You claimed God is natural, I called you on it and now you wish to lie your way out of it.
God, by traditional Western definition is supernatural -- He created the natural, but it is not Him.
I think the analogy of a house-as-nature is perfectly acceptable: God designed & built the house, God lives in the house but He is not the house.
The house has heat & A/C which comes on automatically but God can override those controls when it suits Him.
Indeed, if or when the time comes God can modify or destroy the old house and build Himself another.

Science studies the house and it's controls but knows nothing of Him who built & lives here.

Kalamata: "The so-called "Age of Enlightenment" turned out to be more of a darkening."

We are children of the Enlightenment.
Our Founding Fathers were the Enlightenment Era's leading political figures, the jewel it its crown, our Declaration and Constitution are two of the era's greatest documents.

We on Free Republic are the conservatives here to preserve, as best we can, their ideals, their visions, their Constitution and their Christian faith.
We think those are important as both the origin of our nation and the only possible hope to preserve it United.
If we fail, the nation fails and if the United States fails then the human race will have lost something vital to our existence, imho.

So don't trash the Enlightenment because it is who we are, always were and hopefully always will be.

Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says..."

Still rules #5 & #6, post #272.

Kalamata: "We know what God told us.
He had his scribes write it down for us so we would have no excuse."

Exactly right, your opinions are theology, not science.

Kalamata: "I have been seeking those answers that you claim to be "out there" for 7 or 8 years, but all I get are generalities, like the one you just spewed.
No one seems to know where to find the evidence for evolution, or any scientific use for evolution.
But the fanatics are "certain" someone else knows."

Here are two sites which address your search for evolution uses directly:

Kalamata: "You are so brainwashed you don't even know what science is.
Here, learn from a genius:
Feynman 1999: 'Learn from science that you must doubt the experts...' "

Seting aside your use of Rules #5, #6 & #7, Feynman is correct on this point.

Kalamata: "Now that I look back, I think it might have been you who claimed the Bible rejected science, or marginalized it.
Let's see, you wrote:"

Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.
The Bible is all about God's rule over nature and His power to overrule it.
The Bible doesn't care about natural laws except to show God's control of them.

Kalamata: "It seems you cannot keep track of your own lies, Alinsky Joe."

Still more of Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 .

Kalamata: "I am not an evolutionist, so quit accusing me of being one."

Rule #2.

Kalamata: "I am not a theologian, but thanks for the promotion, anyway.
In a meantime I will continue to expose the faith-based religion disguised as science, called evolutionism."

Rules #1, #2 & #6.

Kalamata claiming Creation events were "natural": "Of course they are. Jesus created everything, including ocean currents..."

Rule #2.

Kalamata: "Only a fool would ignore the science in the Bible."

The Bible is full of good advise for us.
But it also insists that God rules nature and can overrule it.

Kalamata: "Quit lying.
I love natural science.
That is why I despise the religions of evolutionism and uniformitarian "geology" which have corrupted natural science."

Rules #1, #2 .

Kalamata on "theology disguised as science": "That would be you, and all of your fellow evolutionist-faithful."

Rule #5.

Kalamata: "Your fanaticism is to slander those who believe the words of Moses, while parading the religion of evolutionism around as if it were real science."

Rules #2, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "This may come as a surprise to you, but Christians have no choice but to believe the words of Moses: from the creation narrative, to the flood narrative, and forward:"

First, those words do not mean what you claim.
Second, they are not science.

Kalamata: "I speak for real scientists, not evolutionists."

Rules #2 & #6.

Kalamata: "I am here to defend science from the corruption of the religion of evolutionism."

Rules #2 & #6.

Kalamata: "How can you defend something you don't understand?"

As best as I understand.

Kalamata: "But, within this decade, I was encouraged by a friend to take a close look at the strata.
I soon realized there was no way there could be millions of years, or even years between those layers -- between any of them: a few months maybe, but not years.
Once you see it, you cannot unsee it!"

Rules #1, #2, #6 & #9.

Kalamata: "Now, without the baggage of "millions of years" and "common descent," the science of life and earth geology is crystal clear."

Rules #1, #2, #6 & #9.

“Can different Zebras with different chromosomes interbreed?
Answer: no, yes, maybe if.”

The real answer is, “if they can interbreed, they only produce sterile hybrid offspring, which are indeed an evolutionary dead end”.

“So science sticks to natural explanations, and there the fossil record shows many, many such “dead ends”, which we cannot know how or why they died off.”

The question isn’t how extinct species died off, but how a creature that is an entirely new species, unable to produce fertile offspring with its parent species, could ever pass on its genes to continue this process that Darwin dreamed up. Nobody has ever offered a satisfactory answer to that question. The only real conceivable solution is if by a miracle two creature, male and female, living in close enough proximity to each other, received exactly the same type of mutations at the same time, so that they could form a breeding pair of this new species. Of course that just multiplies by a large degree the unlikelihood of every significant step that would be required for evolution to work, making something that is already statistically impossible even more impossible.

“I don’t know if anybody fully understands how or why it happens, but it clearly does happen and not so infrequently as you might suppose.”

You haven’t demonstrated that. Just showing us animals that have different chromosome counts does not tell us how one can gain or lose chromosomes in “baby steps” so that the new species can somehow breed with the parent species and produce fertile, non-hybrid offspring of the child species.

“Fossil species are predicted by evolution theory and many, many thousands have been found over the past 150+ years.”

That fossils have been found is not evidence that other fossils which have not been found actually exist. That is just poor logic. One cannot assume facts not in evidence.

“Further, the scientific term “species” is a matter of definition — when are two populations of, say, Zebras the same “species” and when are they different?”

I agree, and the current definition of species if far too loose to be of much use in these types of discussions, but that is by design. Darwin himself argued in “Origin” for more fluid definition of the term, perhaps because he realized that such a definition muddies the waters and helps to hide some of the obvious flaws in his hypothesis.

“Using that same rate of speciation for other known families & genera produces estimates of staggering numbers of species which evolved but left no fossil records.
And how many Zebra species left no fossils?

So, based on what we know, there must have been huge numbers of species in the distant past whose fossils have not been found.”

There are an awful lot of assumptions in that line of reasoning that we have no good evidence to support. You assume you can deduce a “rate of speciation” base on how many species might have existed in the past versus now, based on what you admit is probably an incomplete fossil record. You assume those species are all correctly classified, without some who are members of the same species having been misidentified, despite the fact that the definition of species is imprecise and those types of errors happen frequently. You assume, of course, that any of those species even have a common ancestry in the first place, which has still never been demonstrated. You assume that the rate of speciation you deduce would be uniform over long periods of time, even though you are simply deriving it through a backdoor method rather than understanding the mechanisms that might cause it, in order to understand how those mechanisms might be affecting by changing conditions that would alter the rate. You assume that the “new species” of zebras we see after your starting point are actually new and didn’t simply exist all the time but were not preserved, or have not been found yet, in the fossil record.

I could go on, but that should suffice to show that this type of methodology is composed mostly of speculation rather than anything reliable.

“But there’s no reason to suppose that each fossil does not represent species that preceded and ultimately produced some of those who came after.”

There’s “no reason to suppose” if you have already taken common ancestry as a fundamental assumption of your hypothesis, as Darwin did, and have never attempted to critically challenge that assumption that the entire theory is built on. However, if you are doing real science, there is always a reason to look critically at fundamental, undemonstrable assumptions that a whole house of cards of other assumptions have been heaped upon.

“This chart is an example of current thinking on ancient pre-humans.”

Yes, and notice that chart has a huge gulf between the left side, which clearly exhibit human physical characteristics and distinctly human habits, some fossils of which can be found in close proximity to each other and even in the same layers in the same location, and the right side, which are clearly ape-like animals that at best exhibit the kind of tool use that we already witness with modern apes. That hypothetical dotted line between australopithecus and the homos is the graphical representation of the lack of actual evidence that any of these apelike creatures ever “evolved” into humans.

“Those skulls are all listed as the same species, Home Erectus.”

Of course they are classed in the same species, since being found in the same place, in the same layers, that can’t be denied. The point is that they are so morphologically different, if they had not been found in such proximity, they probably would have been classified differently. That is why the discoverer commented that this find calls into question the classification of previous finds.

“It’s true that all Homo Erectus individuals found share many common features, but they also share features which distinguish them from all other pre-human species.”

Of course, because Erectus were human and your “pre-human species” are simply extinct apes.

=====================
Holocaust Denial
=====================

>>Kalamata: "There are boatloads of evidence for the holocaust, dummy. None for evolutionism."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, just like a Holocaust denier can spend all day in a Holocaust museum and never see a shred of evidence. It's amazing, really.

See Science Denier Rule #6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

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

>>Kalamata: "As an aside, Dr. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute, an “evolutionism denier” and therefore a “holocaust denier” by association, according to the dark mind of Alinsky Joe, came from Jewish parents who fled the Nazi’s... "
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "So here's one example where Kalamata could easily tell the truth but chose to lie instead. The truth is, any comparison of different groups of deniers is in the tactics they use to deny, not necessarily any similarity in beliefs.

See Science Denier Rule #6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

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

>>Kalamata: "I asked for scientific evidence, Alinsky Joe, not just-so stories and fake lineages."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, just like Holocaust deniers see no evidence in a Holocaust museum.

See Science Denier Rule #6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

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

>>Kalamata: "Get a hold of yourself, Alinsky Joe. There is plenty of evidence for the holocaust in a holocaust museum. Go look for yourself! On the other hand, there is no evidence for evolution in a natural history museum."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, Kalamata will not back down, even though he must realize that he's using the same deniers' tactics. I still maintain that Kalamata, however insulting he seems here, is nowhere near the vulgarians of Holocaust denial.

See Science Denier Rule #8: "If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own."

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

>>Kalamata: "You can tell the lies of Alinsky Joe are being exposed when he throws out the “Holocaust Card”.
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "In my experience, deniers use the same tactics regardless of their subject."

Alinsky Joe also lies about his experience.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are the one using the same debating tactics with the same religious fervor as holocaust deniers?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "That is Rule #5, post #272.

He meant to say, see Science Denier Rule#6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."

Narrative: But be careful. If you support the ideology that led to the holocaust, and there is no way anyone would believe his ideology led to the holocaust, if might be better accuse him of something else, such as being a holocaust denier.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are more naive than even I thought."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "That's rule #7.

He finally got one right.

Science Denier Rule#7: "For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc."

Narrative: "Again, be careful. This tactic worked well on all Creation and Intelligent Design scientists until recently; but now, with new discoveries in the genome, and with no supporting discoveries in the fossil record from the time of Darwin until now, the more accomplished scientists can legitimately throw that back in your face. Choose your targets wisely."

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

>>Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe became completely unhinged when I asked him for scientific evidence for evolutionism, rather than the typical just-so stories, imaginary tree diagrams, and the wildly imaginative museum mockups that the evolutionism cult typically feeds the unwashed masses."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, ""Unhinged" describes our deniers' responses to actual evidence -- "that's not evidence!" they claim.

See Science Denier Rule #8: "If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own."

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit denying the fact that there is no evidence for your religion, Alinsky Joe. Either that, or point us to EMPIRICAL, OBSERVABLE, SCIENTIFIC evidence."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "My religion is Christianity, for which there is lot's of evidence."

Jesus said this:

"He that is not with me is against me." -- Luk 11:23 KJV

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." -- John 3:36 KJV

Therefore, can I assume you believe these Words of Jesus?

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" -- Mat 19:4-5 KJV

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." -- Luk 16:31 KJ

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." -- Mat 24:38-39 KJV

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." -- Luk 17:26-27 KJV

"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." -- Luk 17:28-30 KJV

There is a lot of detail in those statements. Do you really believe them?

Mr. Kalamata

==========================
Paleontology
==========================

>>Kalamata: "He found the fossils in museum and museum drawers that came from dinosar dig sites:"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Right, so their provenances & in situ conditions are completely unknown. In short, they are worthless as evidence falsifying evolution theory.

You really are paleontology-challenged, Alinsky Joe. Museum fossils are well-documented.

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

>>Kalamata: "The geologic column and fossil record supports world-wide catastrophe, not uniformitarian gradualism."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Multiple catastrophes as illustrated here:

I suppose it is possible for there to have been many global floods, with each flood piling a series of thick, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary layers on top of the previous ones. But what about the sedimentary rock folding? How did all of those sedimentary rock layers remain pliable until the geological upheavals occurred? That would be a pretty neat trick!

Nah, it has to be a single, catastrophic, global flood -- not multiples. Perhaps God's Word was right after all:

"And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh." -- Gen 9:15 KJV

David repeated that promise is this flood narrative:

"You covered it with the deep [e.g., the sea] as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." -- Ps 104:6-9 ESV

That matches the geological evidence, perfectly.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Ager, 1993: "In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes. However, it seems to me that the stratigraphical record is full of examples of processes that are far from ‘normal’ in the usual sense of the word. In particular we must conclude that sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid indeed and very spasmodic."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "The geological record is fully recognized as including any number of catastrophic events, as graphed above.

That chart is based on just-so stories, Alinsky Joe; not observable evidence. Mass extinction theories abound, but there is no evidence for any, except for a single, global catastrophe.

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

>>Kalamata: "So? Where are the dinosaur transitions?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "You can see the fossils in any natural history museum, any textbook will explain what we know & think.

No, you cannot. There are no dinosaur transitional fossil lines to be seen anywhere on earth.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "These are from 2018 &1016"

They don't prove anything, except the authors have vivid imaginations. For example, Steve Brusatte imagines this ancient scenerio:

"WHAT HAPPENED ON that day—when the Cretaceous ended with a bang and the dinosaurs' death warrant was signed—was a catastrophe of unimaginable scale that, thankfully, humankind has never experienced. A comet or an asteroid—we aren't sure which—collided with the Earth, hitting what is now the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. It was about six miles (ten kilometers) wide, or about the size of Mount Everest. It was probably moving at a speed of around 67,000 miles per hour (108,000 kilometers per hour), more than a hundred times faster than a jet airliner. When it slammed into our planet, it hit with the force of over 100 trillion tons of TNT, somewhere in the vicinity of a billion nuclear bombs' worth of energy. It plowed some twenty-five miles (forty kilometers) through the crust and into the mantle, leaving a crater that was over 100 miles (160 kilometers) wide." [Steve Brusatte, "The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs - A New History of a Lost World." HarperCollins, 2018, Chap.9, p.312]

Stevie writes good science fiction. So doe Pim:

"In fact, it was this huge volume of debris clouding the sky that scientists consider a prime cause of the dinosaurs' extinction. The air hung thick and heavy with dust particles, which blocked much of the sunlight and left the world cold and dark. Plants need sunlight in order to photosynthesise; without it they wilted and died, spelling trouble for herbivorous dinosaurs, which needed to eat huge quantities of vegetation every day to survive. A domino effect through the food-chain imperilled the carnivores that preyed on the herbivores. Dinosaurs failed to adapt to the cold new world with sufficient speed and relatively soon – perhaps within a few thousand years – they became extinct. They were not the only ones to die out at this time: for example, shellfish such as ammonites and belemnites, the pterosaurs and marine plesiosaurs suffered the same fate, among many other species. In all it is thought that 60 per cent of life-forms on Earth disappeared in the Cretaceous–Pal aeogene extinction event." [Dinosaur Extinction, in Kieron Pim, "Dinosaurs - The Grand Tour: Everything Worth Knowing About Dinosaurs from Aardonyx to Zuniceratops." The Experiment, 2014]

Within all that dogmatism – that air of certainty -- there never seems to be a reasonable explanation for why so many plants and animals that should have much more vulnerable that dinosaurs, survived intact, appearing today as they appeared in the dinosaur fossil layers. Pim presents the typical just-so story.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Scientific evidence for evolution can be observed in any natural history museum, while explanations of evolution theory can be found in any book on the subject."

Museums contain many mockups and drawings, but not a single one is based on anything other than conjecture and extrapolation. So-called ape-to-human evolution includes ape-like mockups with imaginary human-like eyes -- imaginary because no one knows how the eyes actually looked.

I have thousands of books on evolution, including every major author in every field of evolutionary "science," and there is not one iota of scientific evidence for evolution in any of them. There is a lot of dogmatic story-telling, but no evidence. Some mention the evidence of intelligent design in living organisms, in one manner or another, but all reject it on religious grounds -- their religious grounds. Why should they believe their own eyes, when their religious doctrine of evolutionism says otherwise? These statements are the most recognizable design observations/rejections:

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. . . We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying, swimming, seeing, eating, reproducing, or more generally promoting the survival and replication of the organism's genes." [Good Design, in Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker." W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, Chap 2, p.21]

"At first sight the biological sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if.' As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one. However, this at least implies prospective significance. Natural selection operates in relation to the future—the future survival of the individual and the species. And its products, in the shape of actual animals and plants, are correspondingly oriented toward the future, in their structure, their mode of working, and their behavior. A few of the later products of evolution, notably the higher mammals, do show true purpose, in the sense of the awareness of a goal. But the purpose is confined to individuals and their actions. It does not enter into the basic machinery of the evolutionary process, although it helps the realization of its results. Evolution in the biological phase is still impelled from behind; but the process is now structured so as to be directed forward." [Julian Huxley, "Evolution In Action." Harper & Brothers, 1st Ed, 1953, Chap 1, p.7]

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." [Crick, Francis, "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery." Basic Books, 1988, Chap 13, pp.138-39]

"I suspect that some people also dislike the idea that natural selection has no foresight. The process itself, in effect, does not know where to go. It is the 'environment' that provides the direction, and over the long run its effects are largely unpredictable in detail. Yet organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this. The statistical aspects of the process and the vast numbers of possible organisms, far too many for all but a tiny fraction of them to have existed at all, are hard to grasp. But the process clearly works." [Crick, Francis, "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery." Basic Books, 1988, Chap 3, p.30]

The bottom line is, evolutionism is a historical "science," which is impossible to prove:

"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]

The paleontologist who contributed to the 2nd book you paraded out, Jack Horner, also said this:

"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 was being kind by labeling your religion of evolutionism as a "historical science". It is not science by any stretch of the imagination.

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

>>Kalamata: "The evolution cult has had 160 years to find evidence to support Charlie Darwin’s lame-brain theory, and there was even less evidence 40 years ago, than there was in Charlie’s day, according to this fellow:'We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much.' "
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Remember that number from 40 years ago: 250,000 fossil species, and yet like a true propagandist, our author claims "the situation hasn't changed much"! That's pure nonsense -- in fact 250,000 species in total means there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of species in any major sequence.

The fossil record reveals the opposite of evolution. All Phyla appeared abruptly in the Cambrian, as mentioned by this evolutionary biologist during a rare candid moment:

"The appearance of abundant, diverse forms of invertebrates marks the beginning of the Cambrian period (about 590 Myr B.P.). During the Cambrian, all the animal phyla that have fossilizable skeletons appear, many in profusion... The Burgess Shale also includes the earliest known chordate {Pikaia)... It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one phylum to another. Thus our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships among the phyla, which are a matter of some dispute, is based on inferences from their anatomy and embryology. The rapid origin of the animal phyla, apparently transpiring in the 100 Myr between the Ediacara and Burgess Shale faunas, has been considered one of the great problems of evolution." [Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology." Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2nd Ed, 1986, pp.325,328]

Alinsky Joe doesn't understand this concept, but the sudden appearance of all Phyla in the earliest rock formations reveals disparity before diversity. Evolutionary theory predicts diversity first, that is, a single phyla should have diversified and THEN evolved into other phyla, as explained here.

"The reason why this controversy has not been fully settled is because there seems to be an astonishing conflict between theory and observation. According to Darwinian theory, evolution is a populational phenomenon and should therefore be gradual and continuous. This should be true not only for microevolution but also for macroevolution and for the transition between the two. Alas, this seems to be in conflict with observation. Wherever we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. Among living taxa there is no intermediacy between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and either birds or mammals. All 30 phyla of animals are separated from each other by a gap. There seems to be a large gap between the flowering plants (angiosperms) and their nearest relatives. The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. Indeed there are rather few cases of continuous series of gradually evolving species." [Mayr, Ernst, "What Evolution Is." Basic Books, 2001, Chap 10, p.208]

Mayr was rather generous with the phrasing of his last sentence, e.g., "there are rather FEW cases". The truth is, there are NONE!

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

>>Kalamata: "And yet the quote claims fossil sequences are still more "jerky" and evolution more "complex" than he'd like.Well, sorry, it is what it is, and estimates are still that 99%+ of all species which ever lived have never been found. So regardless of how many dozens we do have in any sequence, there are still hundreds or thousands more yet to be found.

There you go again! You have NO CLUE how many species have not been found. It could be 1% for all we know, or even 0.1 %, or LESS!. The "absence of evidence" seems to be the only evidence you have, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "There is even less today, now that the whale evolution myth has been exposed, and Haeckel’s fake embryos have been removed from most of our children’s textbooks. Haeckel’s embryos have been retained only in books written by a few die-hard fanatics, such as the atheist and antichristian bigot, Donald Prothero, one of Alinsky Joe’s heroes."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "And yet another example where Kalamata could easily have chosen to tell the truth -- truth would not have damaged his argument at all -- but he chose to lie instead, why? The truth is I never heard of Prothero before Kalamata introduced him, and yet Kalamata falsely declares Prothero a "hero". I conclude from this that Kalamata himself hates the truth and loves lies, loves lying, seemingly just for the thrill of it."

Did you notice that Alinsky Joe never addressed my arguments, resorting instead to misdirection? Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero are like two peas in a pod. They are regular debating partners. Shermer mentions Prothero by name in most of his books, he has introduced Prothero in at least one Youtube lecture, and Shermer wrote the Forward for several of Prothero's books.

Almost forgot, both are resident listed as authors of articles on the Skeptic Blog:

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/authors/

I guess it may be possible that Alinsky Joe has never heard of the best friend and sidekick of his hero, Michael Shermer, but that is highly unlikely.

My statement about whale evolution and Haeckel's embryo's still stand. Imaginary and/or fake evidence, and the myth of Junk DNA, is all the evolutionism cult has.

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

>>Kalamata: "Facts are facts, Alinsky Joe. >>Joe the Science Denier says, "The fact that you don’t have any facts supporting your cult demonstrates that it is founded on religion, not science. The fact that you can spend all day in a natural history museum and not see any evidence of evolution demonstrates that you are a denier, based on your religious beliefs.

Enough of the sophistry, Alinsky Joe. I believed those imaginary mockups, drawings, and clever positionings were based on facts for most of my life. Yes, I was once as naive about evolutionism as you are now.

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

>>Kalamata: "I see that geology and paleontology are not your strong suits, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I see that anti-geology and anti-paleontology are your strong suits, FRiend.

LOL! That is funny.

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

>>Kalamata: "It is your deceptive link, Alinsky Joe. Show us the evidence from it. Pick one."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Step 1: click the link. Step 2: read the page. Step 3: respond if you wish.

Alinsky Joe knows that any one he picks can be ripped to shreds with the facts, which reminds me of another Science Denier Rule, which we shall substitute for former Science Denier Rule #10:

"If you cannot fool them with fake "evidence", send them on a wild goose chase"

Note: The former Science Denier Rule #10 is now Science Denier Rule#11.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Everything you say is a lie, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "From Denier Rules #1 & #7, post #272.

He meant to say, Science Denier Rule#8: "If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down. OK to personally insult, disparage & malign." Narrative: If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own.

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

>>Kalamata: "There is only evidence in the world-wide strata for a global flood; no asteroid strikes. That is evidence for a global flood; nothing else."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Again, From Denier Rule #1.

He meant to say, Science Denier Rule#8:

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

>>Kalamata: "I never dispute evidence of any kind."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "A total lie (denier rules #2 & #6) since you dispute all evidence which contradicts your religious beliefs.

He meant to say, Science Denier Rule#7: "For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc."

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

>>Kalamata: "When I finally saw the evidence (the geological column) I realized we have been conned."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I'm certain you're lying to claim you'd never seen the geological column, since it's in any textbook on the subject and you can see it yourself on any highway cut through mountains. So doubtless what changed was not the facts, but your perspective on them.

You made my point, not intentionally, of course. All observable world-wide strata is composed of flat, mostly uncontamined layers: carbonates are mostly carbonate, chalk is mostly chalk, shale is mostly shale, sand is mostly sand, and etc.. Almost all contain marine (ocean) fossils, even the top most layers. Let that sink in.

Another key piece of evidence for a global flood is the limited cracking of sedimentary layers in areas of geological uplift and buckling:

Images of folded rock strata.

Mountain ranges were formed by geological buckling when tectonic plates, topped with pliable (unhardened) sedimentary layers, rapidly collided:

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

>> Kalamata: "That is enough lies out of you for one day, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "That is rule #7.

He got that one right. Science Denier Rule#7: "For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc."

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: “You are a shameless liar, Alinsky Joe.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “No, I’m a shameless truth-teller, but you have yet to violate even one of my discovered “Rules for Deniers”, post #272 above.

Those are your rules, Alinsky Joe, and right now you are resorting to Science Denier Rule#6: “Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you’re most guilty. Narrative: Be careful. If you support the ideology that led to the holocaust, and there is no way anyone would believe his ideology led to the holocaust, if might be better to accuse him of something else, such as being a holocaust denier.”

****************
>>Kalamata: “I now know why you brought it up.
I could not understand why someone claiming to be a Freeper would stoop as low as a CNN anchor, so I did a little background research from the works of those you admire — well-known bigots such as Dawkins, Shermer, Prothero, et al..”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Calling atheists “bigots” is a bit rich, setting that aside”

Calling a bigot a bigot is a perfectly normal thing to do, Alinsky Joe.

****************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Prothero”: never heard of before you named him.

Yea, sure.

****************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Dawkins”: did hear of, never read, from what I know, Dawkins is an atheist whose theological views I disagree with.

You should take time to get to know him. His religious views are very similar to yours. Evolutionism is his religion, and everything else is wicked!

****************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Shermer”: have read, liked & used his book opposing Holocaust deniers, nothing else.”

Yet, he continues to endorse the religion of evolutionism that led to the holocaust, as do you. That seems hypocritical, don’t you think? How about his upfront attack on Christians by his Foreword-er, Arthur Hertzberg?

“The arguments were now with Christian theologians and prelates, who wanted to establish, above all, that the Hebrew Bible predicted the events that were recorded in the New Testament and that the only proper way to read the Hebrew Bible was as the preamble to Christianity. In answering the Christian contention, Jews were much less free than they had been in Hellenistic times. Anything in Jewish texts that could be read as an attack on the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation was ordered removed by church and civil authorities, and the texts themselves were often burned as purveyors of blasphemous teachings. On occasion during the Middle Ages, representative Jews were forced to appear at disputations with Christian clergy. These dramas were always dangerous. If the Jews made their arguments too gentle, in order to avoid danger, they were likely to be pushed toward immediate conversion to Christianity. If they made them too strong and incisive, these debaters might be punished for lack of respect for the ‘true faith.’ Nonetheless, Jewish refutations of Christianity did appear during the Middle Ages. The books that were written in Christian countries were more than somewhat guarded, but the authors who wrote in the diasporas in Muslim lands were free to say what they liked about Christianity.” [Arthur Hertzberg, in Shermer & Grobman, “Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It.” University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, Foreword, pp.xi-xii]

Hertzberg somehow failed to mention that Christians, many of which were Jews, were literally running for their lives until Constantine came along in the 4th century.

****************
>>Kalamata: “I soon learned that the act of applying the label of “holocaust denier” to those who reject the foolishness of evolutionism/atheism was the easiest way of dehumanizing them. That is, by marginalizing or dehumanizing those who believe in the creation narrative of Moses, athiests have been successful in suppressing opposition to the alternate creation narrative given to them by their prophet, Charlie Darwin.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Here’s what I know for certain: nearly 20 years ago, when I debated at length Holocaust deniers, they were vastly more vulgar than Kalamata, but that aside, the rest of their tactics, techniques & patterns were the same as yours. FRiend.”

Impossible. Holocaust deniers lie about the holocaust. Scientists tell the truth about the dangerous religion of evolutionism. Big difference!

Admit it, Alinsky Joe, you are projecting your warped sense of what is not evidence onto those who criticize your religion of evolutionism, like Shermer and Prothero do.

****************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “In post #272 above I tried to boil down those similarities into a set of practices I’m calling, “Rules for Deniers”.”

I corrected your logical mistakes in my reply:

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=282#282

****************
>>Kalamata: “That is exactly the same tactic the radical left uses against conservatives when they play the Race Card or the Nazi Card; and that is exactly the same tactic the Nazis used against the Jews. You will find a lot of holocaust deniers in that mix, but they are okay with Joe as long as they do not criticize Darwin.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “I’m saying this: as long as you follow my “Rules for Deniers”, you’re a denier, period.

Those are your rules, Alinsky Joe, written for you to follow.

My corrections to your rules are written to expose Science Deniers, like you:

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=282#282

****************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Do you want to stop being a denier?? Then break my “rules”! Tell the truth! Stop substituting insults for data.”

See Science Denier Rule#6: “Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you’re most guilty.”

That is Alinsky Joe’s chief tactic against any who criticize his religion of evolutionism.

****************
>>Kalamata: “When you get tired of trying to dehumanizing me, perhaps you will take the time to show us some scientific evidence for evolutionism.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “You can find evidence in any natural-history museum. You can find explanations in any text book on the subject.

Blah, blah, blah . . . ask for evidence, and all you get is a wild-goose chase.

Mr. Kalamata.

Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says...

Still rules #5 & #6, post #272.

Kalamata: " [Joey posted the same non-annotated chart of human and ape skulls he showed before]:"

Rules #1 & #7.

The annotations are readily available, but you wouldn't even see them because they violate your Rule #1.

Kalamata: "I was once fooled by those, like you are.
But I now realize there is no way you can tie those together.
In fact, you don't know if any of those had children."

Still mostly Rule #1, though I confess to being bewildered by your wish to deny prehistoric creatures normally had offspring.

Kalamata: "There may be a few apes mixed in to make it appear they are transitionals; but in reality it would take an enormous number of transitions to honestly identify a transitional line from an ape to a man.
It has always been like that, according these anthropologists:"

Rules #1 & #2.
Those skulls are in sequence from oldest (B = 2.6 million years, upper left) to newest (N=modern, lower right), with "A" a modern chimpanzee for comparison.
Here again is the overall timeline of fossils starting 5 million years ago:

Kalamata quoting J&E 1981: "At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were."

"As it were", meaning fewer fossils were found.
This listing of primate fossils includes hundreds, of which at least a third were discovered after 1981.

Kalamata quoting Lewin 1997: "[T]he real story of it all has been somewhat obscured: 'namely, what could have led so many eminent scientists to embrace such a forgery?' "

Presumably Lewin is talking about Piltdown.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Piltdown was suspected by scientists almost from the very beginning.

Kalamata: "In any case, there are simply too many changes required to go from one to the other, as Ann Gauger is quoted as saying in this article:"

From the timeline above it's not clear which if any of the fossils listed was Erectus' ancestors.

Kalamata quoting Gauger 2012: "Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process?"

Nobody knows how exactly, but I'd suggest that a feature which worked well would be quickly passed around not only within a species, but also between closely related species which may themselves have evolutionary improvements to share in return.

Kalamata quoting Gauger 2012: "You don't have to take my word for it.
In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years."

G.I.G.O. calculation.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, it doesn't really matter how you look at it, or in what field, there is no scientific support for evolution.
It is all based in imaginitive story-telling."

No, your quotes tell us that some people (who may or may not be recognized in evolution studies) have found ways to criticize evolution theory and Kalamata sees no reason to dispute them.

Rule #1.

Kalamata on falsifying evolution: "You are lying again, but in this case out of ignorance."

Evolution could easily be falsified, in any of thousands of ways, one I mentioned before: scientifically confirm that dinosaurs & elephants lived together, same time, same place.

Kalamata: "I have, but you reject it by pretending the absence of evidence is evidence.
The fossil record, according to Steven Stanley, is the ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE for evolution:"

I would call fossils "indirect", a category which includes:

comparative fossil morphology.
comparing living species with each other and with fossils.
comparing development of embryos.
comparing DNA of living & extinct species (ie., Neanderthals).
Observations of short-term "micro" evolution, including bacteria through domesticated plants & animals.

All of these render evolution a reasonable and confirmed scientific theory, your theological disparagements notwithstanding.

Kalamata: "However, the fossil record reveals disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis, both of which falsify evolution."

Neither of which "falsify evolution!
First of all, "disparity" and "diversity" are functionally the same thing, so your phrase "disparity before diversity" means nothing except a mass extinction is followed by diversification among surviving species.

Second, "abrupt appearance" is a function of how many fossils we have and in the case of pre-humans we have hundreds over millions of years, in dozens of species and they show nothing like "abrupt appearance", but rather precisely the slow transitions you anti-science people deny can happen.

Kalamata: "Yet, you and other evolutionists reject those falsifications under the umbrella of "sooner or later something will come along," because "WE KNOW evolution is true!"
That is not science, but religion."

No, every day "something comes along" and yet Rules #1 & #9 dominate your mind so you literally cannot see it.

Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "Several of my colleagues (Jaanusson, 1981; Runnegar, 1987) have suggested that we eliminate the confusion about diversity by restricting this vernacular term to the first sense-number of species.
The second sense-difference in body plans-should then be called disparity."

Sure, I "get" that, but it's still a meaningless distinction.
Gould claims there was more "disparity" and less "diversity" in the Cambrian.
Here's what's been found: a maximum of 600 genera alive at any one time during the Cambrian explosion ~530 million years ago.
Those were simply critters who learned a new trick: hard body shells.
Shells preserved better as fossils and so "suddenly" we see many more of them.
What were those 600 genera?
A lot were trilobites, of which about 17,000 species total have been found before the mass extinction 255 million years ago.

So, 600 genera which Gould calls "disparity".
How many genera today? Among animals, about 200,000 genera.
And Gould wished to call those "diversity" as distinguished from "disparity" -- why? It's meaningless distinction.

600 genera then compared to 200,000 today does not make one "disparate" and the other "diverse".

Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "The current earth may hold more species than ever before, but most are iterations upon a few basic anatomical designs." "

Well... 600 maximum genera in the Cambrian, ~200,000 genera today.
Even if every one of those Cambrian genera was also a taxonomic family (aka alleged "kind") that still compares to some 20,000 families today, about 6,000 of them animals.

Finally, there's no real way today to know how closely related those different Cambrian genera were -- like different dogs today, they might well show a lot of "disparity" without being really very different inside.

Kalamata quoting Gould 1993: "Before Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972, the stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged...
"Evolution was defined as gradual transformation in extended fossil sequences, and the overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution)."

Just so we're clear, I have no problem with Gould's "punctuated equilibrium", it's a fine idea which Gould himself admitted might prove wrong.

"I take pride in one success relevant to Cordelia's dilemma: our theory has brought stasis out of the conceptual closet."

Fine, but consider: the idea of "lengthy geological lifespans" is totally a function of our definitions of words like "species" and "genus" and our abilities to tease out separate "species" within a sequence of "genus" fossils.
It's said a species can live maybe 2 million years so its genus could survive 10 to 20 million years.
During that time any number of species could appear & disappear and yet we are to believe these have nothing to do with evolution?

Kalamata: "You made the claim, so you are the liar.
Of course, you made such claims under the cloak of story-telling, as follows:

'But the “observable evidence” is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.' [Joey]" And here again Kalamata looks the truth straight in the face and lies bald-faced about it.

Kalamata: "Quit lying.
I didn't say that pre-historical creatures didn't normally reproduce.
I said there is no evidence the handful of so-called "whale-transition" animals ever reproduced."

And that's a worthless point unless you intend by it to imply that the lack of evidence of reproduction is evidence of non-reproduction.
Surely, surely, surely to Goodness that's not what you're hoping to imply, is it?

Kalamata: "You are lying.
The evidence for whale transitional animals is no more observable today than when Phil Gingrich imagined the scheme in the early 1980's with this unscientific paper:"

Rules #1, #6, #7 & #9.

Kalamata: "The one on the left was the original imaginary creature."

Right, an example of scientists doing what science does.
New data or fresh eyes can lead to a better explanation.

Kalamata: "Why the misdirection, Alinsky Joe?
Bears are members of the bear kind, nothing else."

That's Rule #7.
Polar Bears go by the name Ursus Maritimus because, why?
Because they spend a lot of time in the water -- semi-aquatic.
That is just the condition suggested for early whale ancestors.

Kalamata: "That is a seal, dummy, not a whale."

More of Rules #1 and #7.
Seals are considered fully aquatic, even though they spend a lot of time on land.
Their nose, along with the walrus, looks more like a blow-hole.

Kalamata: "Yes, and it is called a Walrus, not a whale."

Polar bears, seals & walrus are all examples of semi or fully aquatic mammals similar to the fossils found of ancient whales.

Kalamata: "Says Joe "I don't know no stinkin' evidence""

Rule #5.

Kalamata on science: "It is also loaded with dishonest religious fanatics, such as Darwin, Lyell, Haeckel, Gingrich, Thewissen, Dawkins and Shermer, whose theology trumps science."

Rules #1, #5, #6, #7, #8 & #9.

Kalamata: "You said it, and now you deny it?
That is what I have come to expect from the evolutionism cult.
These are your words:

"But the "observable evidence" is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing." [Alinsky Joe]" And yet again you look my words straight in the face and, bald-faced, lie about them.

Kalamata: "As everyone can see, Alinsky Joe disputed my previous statement by imagining there is missing evidence -- 99% missing, in fact -- with the implication that the proof would be found in the missing evidence.
You are a shameless liar, Alinsky Joe."

That covers just about all 9 Rules for Deniers.

The fact is, deny it if you wish, that more "missing evidence" is discovered every year, at least hundreds of new species, since we're told the total so far is circa 250,000 fossil species discovered.
The estimate of 99% is a calculation based on observed rates of speciation and observed dates of fossils found.

As for "implication" of "proof": you inferred, I did not imply.
Everyone knows you can't "prove", but new evidence can support or confirm and that is not just a reasonable expectation, it's also what's happened for over 150 years.
And yet you wish us to believe it will never happen again? Why?

Kalamata: "I am speechless about the extent to which you have been brainwashed."

Rules #5, #6 & #7.

>>Kalamata: "Joe the God Denier says..."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “I have never denied God, though have not always agreed with those who claim to speak for Him."

You believe God made man in his image?

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." -- 1Cor 11:7 KJV

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." -- Rom 1:22-23 KJV

I am surprised. I though you believed in apes-to-man evolution.

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit lying. The (not so) “Wise Geek” report is fake news, based on old inferences."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “That report is accurate and reasonably up-to-date.

It was never up to date, but it did fit the fake evolutionism narrative from before the 2012 ENCODE release.

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit lying. I never suggested the ENCODE researchers were anti-evolution."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “But you agree with Draur -- and proclaimed it here -- that if ENCODE is right, then evolution must be wrong.

You are delusional, Joe. I have quoted Graur from time to time, but I have not agreed with him on anything since I learned the truth about evolutionism.

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

>>Kalamata: "It was your buddy, the sociopath Dan Graur, who suggested they were anti-evolution."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “I never before heard of Draur, but you have used his words to support your own anti-evolution theology. So, is Graur your "buddy"?

Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe? You posted a picture of one of Graur's books, he was the one of the primary interviewee of the 2017 New Scientist article you linked, and you have mentioned him on more than one occasion? In post #260 there was this exchange:

[Me] "I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium.”
[You] "Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur’s remarks."

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit lying. The 5% number was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report. The later 2012 report, which released Dan Graur’s rage against ENCODE, was 80% and counting."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “But ENCODE never claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" by evolution. ENCODE's number -- according to your own quotes, should I doubt them? -- ENCODE's number is in the 5% to 10% range."

You are dishonestly substituting the number based on the old myth for the new data. ENCODE's number is 80% and counting.

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

>>Kalamata: "Earlier you falsely claimed that I said the ENCODE researchers were “anti-evolution”. Do you lie so much you can’t keep track of all of your lies?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Hmmmmm… when it suits Kalamata's purposes you claim to agree with Draur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be wrong.

Alinsky Joe is experiencing the problem all habitual liars eventually face: they cannot remember all of their lies.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, “I took that to mean you were claiming ENCODE is anti-evolution, but I see now there is huge subtilty in your argument."

I am surprised you owned up, even under the cover of equivocation?

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

>>Kalamata: "You are being deceptive about DNA. Darwin knew nothing about DNA."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Sure, Darwin new nothing about DNA, so he based his theory on comparative morphologies and observed species modifications in domesticated plants & animals. DNA came later and confirmed what Darwin first proposed.

DNA research (and the fossil record) has shown Darwin to be a wild extrapolator of observable data into the mythical.

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

>>Kalamata: Modern evolutionism theory is based on lies, such as the human and chimpanzee having 98.5% similar DNA."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “No lies, but there are several legitimate ways to count & calculate DNA comparisons. 99.5% of human DNA is identical. That calculation is 20 million base pairs out of 3.4 billion total. 96% to 98% similar, or analogous, humans to chimp DNA -- a looser standard than "identical". 90% cats similar to humans. And so on... Sure, different methods of calculating will give different results, but the overall picture remains the same: fossils, morphology and DNA confirm evolution theory. "

No matter how you do it, if you are honest you will get a number of about 70%, or maybe less. This is an honest researcher:

"Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. " [Tomkins, Jeffrey P., "Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%." Answers in Genesis, 2015]

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are lying about the fossil record, which shows nothing but a bunch of minealized dead things, none of which have a time stamp."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “No, in fact, there are dozens of different time stamps, sometimes several for one site. Worldwide they are consistent in showing the ages of geological strata & fossils.

Prove it. Show us the data.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "You are lying. I have never misquoted Graur, nor Li."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “But on nearly any matter in which I myself know the truth, you've not told it.

Let me rephrase my statement: you are a habitual liar.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are lying. That quote, and the 5% number, was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report, not the 2012 report."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “But ENCODE never disputed or significantly changed that number, according to your own quotes.

You are a habitual liar, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are being deceitful. Collins has always been a evolutionist, as far as I know, and I have never disputed it. I was an evolutionist for most of my long life, so there is still hope for him."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “You have on this thread used evolutionist Collins and ENCODE's report to argue against evolution, even enlisting Draur's critique for that purpose. None of those people agree with you.

The data agrees me. Consensus is the "refuge of scoundrels" (Cricthton, 2003).

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

>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you are simply scientifically-challenged, or you cannot read. Or perhaps you believe your own lies."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Those words clearly tell us you have no reasonable argument, so you've resorted to insults."

That would be you, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are being deceitful. That statement was from a New York Times article about Collins and ENCODE."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Which I reported accurately.

No, you equivocated, or you simply do not know what you are talking about. I am leaning toward the latter.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are being deceitful. No where in the ENCODE report does it say anything like that."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Nowhere in any ENCODE report you've quoted does it say more than 10% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution, oh, deceitful one.

Funtional DNA is constrained:

"Functional DNA sequences should be conserved over time and shared among closely related species, whereas nonfunctional or neutral sequences are free to change. This approach has been particularly useful for identifying protein coding sequences within a genome and will hopefully be as useful in identifying functional noncoding sequences." [Fay & Wu, "Sequence divergence, functional constraint and selection in protein evolution." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Vol.4; September, 2003, pp.213-214]

Therefore in 2012, at least 80% was constrained:

"This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. “I don’t think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance,” says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes. These results are going “to change the way a lot of [genomics] concepts are written about and presented in textbooks,” Stamatoyannopoulos predicts." [Elizabeth Pennisi, "ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA." Science, Vol. 337, Iss. 6099, Sept 7, 2012, p.1159]

That number is now about 95%. In other words, Human evolution is a myth.

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

>>Kalamata: "How do you respond to a nut who believes that, if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “So... how do I respond to Kalamata? Answer: as truthfully and as kindly as possible, under the circumstances.

It is about time. We shall see . . .

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

>>Kalamata: "Perhaps I should re-label you, “Joe the Science Denier”."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Coming from Kalamata that would be an honor similar to "deplorable" and "irredeemable".

Deplorables are not Science Deniers, Alinsky Joe. Maybe you can grab the coattails of the holocaust deniers.

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

>>Kalamata: "The definitions haven’t changed. Human evolution is a myth, and has always been a myth. The latter number was from a report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on a research paper by a Swiss team."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Right, that 95% number is not from ENCODE, and so far as Kalamata has quoted, not responded to by ENCODE.So, to summarize, Kalamata uses Draur to claim ENCODE disproves evolution (even though ENCODE would deny it) and then trashes both Draur and ENCODE in favor of a European report which increases the percent of DNA "influenced" by evolution from 5% to 95%."

We are going to need a cryptologist to unravel that bewildering mess.

To set the record straight, I have agreed with ENCODE's data since I first read about it. I disagree with Graur on everything he says about ENCODE.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, “All of which, according to Kalamata shows there's no evolution."

That what the data says. Common sense, too!

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

>>Kalamata: "Whenever evolution is falsified, it is a simple matter to repackage it using brand-new imaginary “proofs”, and call it . . . [drum roll] . . . “EVOLUTION!” In other words, it cannot be falsified. The orthodoxy will not let it be falsified."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Nonsense, but there is hugely more granularity in our understandings today about how evolution works than Darwin could even imagine. That's one reason the term "Darwinism" is not normally used outside its historical context. As for falsifications, it's a simple matter of confirming scientifically that elephants and dinosaurs roamed together, side by side."

You have been hanging around with the wrong crowd, Alinsky Joe. Evolutionism is a dead religion, propped up only by the deceptions of the high priesthood.

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

>>Kalamata: "Much has already been “presented”; but nothing will be accepted by the orthodoxy unless the presenter kisses the ring of Charlie Darwin."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Anyone who wishes to "disprove" Darwin scientifically will need to begin by explaining exactly what they understand of Darwin and agree with, then point by point scientifically, where & why they disagree, and what they think the "truth" of each point is."

Says the character who lives in La-La Land.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, “If your arguments against Darwin include, "the Bible tells me so", then we know you are talking theology, not natural-science."

This may be a difficult concept for you, Alinsky Joe, but the Bible merely confirms the data.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are being deceptive, again! That blog post was based in part on “research” by the sociopath, Dan Graur."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “So, Kalamata uses Graur to show that "constrained" = "restrained" but then you trash Graur for reporting that only 5% of DNA is strongly "constrained" = "restrained". And you claim that's not deceptive?

Where is the cryptologist when you need him?

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

>>Kalamata: "I see you are still pushing the deception that, “the absence of evidence IS evidence” (for “evolution”, that is)."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “I see you still can't control your overwhelming urge to lie."

Are you admitting that you believe the absence of evidence is evidence, or are you admitting you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about?

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

>>Kalamata: "If you are not lying or being deceptive, you are sleeping. Frankly, I really believe you are a “Science Denier”."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “So, it seems you have no hesitancy to lie and call me a "God denier", but "Science Denier" seems a bit more difficult for you to lie about. Curious.

It wasn't difficult, at all. You are what you are.

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

>>Kalamata: "What difference does that make to a Science Denier like you?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “So, seriously, if your only answer is to insult me, it means you have no real idea what you're talking about."

Where is that cryptologist?

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

>>Kalamata: "Not according to YOUR definition of “honesty”, which is, “it is okay to lie to defend the religion of evolutionism."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Nonsense, dishonesty & lies are not acceptable in any legitimate defense of our ideals."

Of course it is. Perhaps you will tell us the history of the frauds that have been used to prop up evolutionism over the years, beginning with Haeckel's embryos.

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

>>Kalamata: "Says the liar and deceiver, but I repeat myself."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “No human can claim to be perfectly truthful, because objectively, none of us know the whole truth. The best we can do is work to be faithful to our ideals and reality, as best we understand them.

That is not how you come across.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, “So I would not hold Kalamata morally culpable for many of your misstatements here, and for much of the rest, I'd set those aside as just sins of passion -- 2nd degree rather than premeditated cold blooded lying. The balance I'd overlook. But I'd never pretend that any of it is true or even necessarily honest, FRiend

Now, if we can only get Alinsky Joe to admit that he is scientifically-challenged, we can put this hoax of his to rest.

Mr. Kalamata

>>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

Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says..."

Still Rules #5, #6 & #7, post #272.

Kalamata: "Fools will. The wise know that it is God that gives life."

All of natural science then are "fools", for wishing to learn how God does what He does.

Kalamata: "If the schools and parents object to having the religion of evolution rammed down the children's throats, you can always send in the federal troops."

But in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District it was the school board which tried to ram Creationism down the students' throats and the result was voters voted out the school board.

Kalamata: "I seem to recall that "scientists" who clung to the pagan philosophies of Ptolemy and Aristotle in the days of Galileo, also required the assistance of the sword of the State to "stay in business"."

Isn't it odd how memory plays tricks on you?
Galileo was the scientist who discovered things the Church said the Bible didn't approve of.
So it was the Bible-believing Church who tried & convicted the scientist Galileo, and yet, somehow in Kalamata's mind it was the other way around.

How remarkable.

Kalamata: "I always question the motives of fanatical antichristian bigots, as well as fanatical promoters of atheism.
In the case of Shermer, he is both."

So, do you think Shermer was wrong to debunk Holocaust deniers?

Kalamata: "Shermer is wrong in the way he abuses the memory of the holocaust victims to promote his wicked agenda? You, likewise."

So, are you saying, because Shermer agrees with evolution he has no right to debunk Holocaust deniers?

Kalamata: "For example, in Shermer's book, he marginalized the memory of the holocaust victims by attempting to conflate holocaust deniers with those who are attempting to expose the evil of the very theory that helped precipitate the holocaust in the first place.
That, in itself, is a valid reason to question his motives, if not to denounce them."

I have Shermer's year 2000 book debunking Holocaust deniers and it says nothing -- zero, nada -- about other types of deniers.
So I see no reason to question Shermer's motives in attacking Holocaust deniers, do you?

Kalamata: "It is much more likely the holocaust would have never happened, if not for Charlie Darwin's books.
It was Darwin who marginalized humans with his insane ape-to-man myth: the same humans who in western civilization almost universally believed to have been made in the image of God, until Charlie came along."

Sadly, it's not true that Nazis invented anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism has been with us for a very long time, in one form or another.
Nazis were far from the first people to murder Jews just for their religious beliefs, what Nazis did was simply apply concepts of mass production to mass destruction of Jews.

In that sense, the Holocaust owed far more to, for example, Henry Ford than to Charles Darwin.

Kalamata quoting Weikart 2013: "Therein Graf combated Lamarckism and promoted Darwinian evolution through natural selection.
He claimed that knowing about human evolution is important, because it shows that humans are not special among organisms.
He also argued that evolution substantiates human inequality."

I agree that Nazis and Communists used Darwin to help dehumanize classes of people they wished to destroy.
But in Stalin's case especially, he was far more influenced by Darwin's atheist contemporary -- Marx's ideas on class warfare.
Hitler too had no need of Darwin to support his own ideas of "herrenvolk" and "untermenschen".
Indeed, Hitler's propaganda was all about ancient Teutonic myths, Wagner & Nietszche, not Darwin's scientific theory.

Kalamata: "It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over. "

Your point here is not entirely untrue, but there is more to this story.
I'll repeat, Nazis didn't need Darwin to justify their ideas of racial superiority because they had a much better example they could easily see and carefully study -- of just how "herrenvolk" should treat their despised "untermenschen".
It was the United States 1920s era South, of course.

Kalamata: "It is past time the world is freed from the evil religion of evolutionism."

I think any science, not just evolution, in the hands of evil people can become a weapon of evil.
As conservatives must constantly remind opponents of the 2nd Amendment: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Darwin's theory itself killed nobody.

============================
GEOLOGY
============================

>>Kalamata: "There is no way to date the layers. But the evidence is overwhelming that the layers were deposited rapidly, on top of each other. The flatness and purity of the layers is evidence of hydrologic sorting:"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "There are dozens of different methods to date geological strata, all of which produce consistent ancient-earth results.

I don't trust you enough to take your word for it. Explain those dating methods to us, and show us how they are calibrated. Explain why we should trust them.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "As for "flatness and purity", you yourself have posted a photo of layers which are anything but."

I don't recall posting any such picture. Perhaps you mistook vertical shear for horizontal erosion. Please repost that picture so I can see what you are talking about.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Finally, this whole suggestion of "hydrologic sorting" is pure fantasy, precisely the kind of conjecturing you claim science is not supposed to do, right?"

Sorting of transported sediment occurs in every flood. It never fails. In the global flood, in which the earth was spinning about 1000 mph inside a giant ball of water, there was planar (flat) sediment layering, the evidence of which we observe world-wide. This explains the physics:

"As the velocity increases to a Froude number of 1 the dunes are smoothed out and the bed form assumes a planar surface. This stage is termed shooting flow. Sand is still being transported. Now, however, sand may be deposited in horizontal beds with the grains aligned parallel to the current." [Richard C. Selley, "Applied Sedimentology." Academic Press, 2nd Ed, 2000, pp.95-96]

There was additional sorting by liquifaction due to the massive tides (resulting from the absence of land obstructions.) The overall effect was that sediment, plants and animals were sorted by density, which is how the earth became covered with thick, relatively pure layers of chalk, sandstone, shale, etc., embedded with highly sorted plants and animals, including the vegetation that gave us the coal seams (which was most likely tree bark.)

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

>>Kalamata: "Similar flatness and purity can be found in the coal layers:"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "And yet, in no conceivable way can coal layers be explained by alleged "hydrologic sorting".

That is the only way, unless you can figure out how we ended up with flat coal seams a few inches apart, separated by thin, flat layers of sedimentary rock or soil, Such as these:

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

>>Kalamata: "A bench is a sedimentary rock layer between coal seams. Some benches are only a few inches thick, which rules out the "swamp" theory of coal formation."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Complete rubbish, since swamps can quickly come & go, as water levels rise & fall.

LOL! That is funny! I see you haven't thought this through. Check these out:

Coal seams are typically flat, top and bottom, and are devoid of roots, which means, there is no evidence they were formed in swamps. The swamp theory is another "just-so" story -- a unverifiable story based on absolutely no evidence.

Upright, rootless, fossilized trees, supposedly spanning many thousands of years of sediment according to the evolutionism timeline, with some piercing multiple coal layers, are rather common, indicating the coal seams formed quickly. Derek Ager explains:

"Broadhurst and Loring (1970 and earlier papers by Fred Broadhurst) recorded standing trees up to 10 m high in the Lancashire coalfield of north-west England. They showed that rapid sedimentation had alter¬ nated with slow, rather like ballroom dancing - 'slow, slow, quick quick, slow'. Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. David Smith of BP did an instant calculation when 1 had talked about these things, as to what this meant in terms of rates of sedimentation (personal communication 1988). 1 later did my own calculation and it proved even more surprising. If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous. Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10,000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous." [Derek V. Ager, "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History." Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 42019 9, 1993, Chap 4, p.49]

Derek Ager was a devout evolutionist who served as a professor Geology and as President of the British Geological Association; yet, he rejected uniformitarianism, generally. However, you can "see" him kiss the ring of Charles Lyell in the last sentence in order to keep the evolutionism fundamentalists off his back.

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

>>Kalamata: "Another problem with the uniformitarian theory is missing layers. Approximately 100 million years of layering is missing between the Muav and Temple Butte limestone in the Grand Canyon."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Wait, 100 million years missing from a young earth?"

100 million years to an evolutionist is as a day to a young earth creationist. LOL!

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "No, that's only inexplicable to your fantasy "hydrologic sorting". In real geology it simply represents a geological period without deposits at that particular site."

For 100 million years? With very little erosion? 100 million years is a long time to sit around and look pretty while waiting to be covered with sediment:

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

>>Kalamata: "Strata are typically flat (e.g., the same thickness, everywhere), yet they should show extensive erosion over long periods of time. There is also virtually non-existent bioturbation (from soil-boring critters), which should be common in these sedimentary layers."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Strata are typically laid down flat but often then folded into synclines & anticlines, which do erode considerably."

Explain the lack of erosion between the flat strata, this time without equivocation.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, ""Bioturbation" is sometimes found in fossils, here are two examples -- Stromatilites and Planolite:

Very funny. Now show us a photo of bioturbation that destroyed the lamination in a thick layer, this time without equivocation.

For the rest of you, bioturbation is the mixing of sediment by boring animals, such as worms, clams, etc.. Typically within a year after a hurricane drops a load of sand in front of a beach, the lamination of the layering disappears. This is an example unbioturbated lamination:

Evolutionists have labeled fine laminated layers as "varves". This laminated layer was folded or "bent" due a slight uplift and/or side compression before it completely hardened:

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

>>Kalamata: "There are also marine (ocean) fossils in almost every sedimentary layer, including the top ones. That in itself is evidence of a global flood."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "It's evidence that those layers were under water when formed.

Better said, it is evidence that the entire world was under sea water. God's Word says it was from a single flood that began "in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month". God also said that he would never again send a flood to destroy the earth. Yet, you say multiple floods. Who should I believe: you or God?

BTW, the presence of fossilized closed clams is evidence of rapid sedimentary deposition, world-wide.

Mr. Kalamata

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.