>>Joe the Denier says, “I used [Shermer’s book “Denying History”] debating Holocaust deniers — it not only debunks their nonsense, but also provides brief biographies of then leading deniers.”
I am in my 70’s, well-traveled, and a long-time WWII History buff; and yet I have never met a holocaust denier. But I do know an arrogant, slanderous, know-nothing jackass when I read his posts.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I disagree with any effort to turn science into a religion.”
It is too late. Evolutionism is the established religion of the United States, thanks to the ACLU, the thugs at the NCSE, and a few tyrannical judges who thought nothing of usurping the power of free expression from the states and the people.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Science specifically rejects any appeal to supernatural or spiritual realities, which means that, by definition, science cannot be a religion.”
Science doesn’t reject anything.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Complete nonsense — people can & do “question Darwin” anywhere, any time.”
Not in the classroom, if they want to obtain tenure; and not in their research, if they want to get published. You need to get out more, Joe.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “The question in public schools is whether teachers should be required to present “alternate theories” in class. I think they should — in theology class, or western civ. But in science classes teachers should hold to traditional distinctions between what is, or is not, science.”
If evolutionism was not the established religion of the United States, it could be challenged in the classroom by other theories. But evolutionism has become the modern-day Church of England, which caused the colonists to flee England and come to America.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Ruse’s term, metaphysical is a key word and equates to “philosophical”, “ontological” and even sometimes “scientific” naturalism. They all mean the same thing — atheistic. So: metaphysical naturalism = atheism. ontological naturalism = atheism. philosophical naturalism = atheism. scientific naturalism = atheism.
All of those terms signify an atheist using science to bolster his/her theological views”
That is exactly how the orthodoxy promotes evolutionism — as theology.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “So atheist Huxley, lacking other religious beliefs, gloms onto “evolution as religion”.
I’d say, as a religion, Huxley’s “Evolutionary Humanism” is a rather pathetic substitute for the real thing.”
The orthodoxy liked him well enough to invite him to be the guest speaker at the 100th anniversary of Charlie’s silly book.
https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.DARWIN100
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Dated from 1981 — sorry, but I missed that “wave”, was busy elsewhere.”
You never missed it. Faith has been the prime mover of evolutionism from the beginning. You believe on sheer faith that someone out there has scientific evidence for evolution, and you have faith that the highly creative artwork that adorns many of your posts are based on something other than highly fragmentary fossils and vivid imaginations.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Religious people disliked [evolution] because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe- the existence of living matter.
Evolutionism doesn’t solve anything except for those who hate societal order and stability. Well, it did provide myriads of tax-payer funded jobs over the years to those desperately trying to prove Charlie right.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I hold to the original Enlightenment Era view of our Founders, among others: methodological naturalism does not “dispense with God”, but merely shows us some of the workings of His Creation.”
Darwinism is not natural.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “It turns out that Paine thought of himself as a Quaker — hardly “anti-Christian” — and wanted to be buried amongst his Quaker neighbors.”
Paine was not a Christian when he wrote this book:
“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism— a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the surf, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.” [Paine, Thomas, “The Age of Reason.” Citadel Press, 1988, pp.72-73]
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No, to repeat, they had no information, none, which would let them make informed decisions about such matters as the age of the earth.”
Nor does anyone, even today, except those of the faith of Newton, Faraday and Maxwell. Those three were able to make informed decisions, since they were not around to be corrupted by the fake geology of the lawyer Lyell.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Nothing in the Bible is natural-science as we understand the term. Nor is there any suggestion that the Bible even cares whether it matches to today’s science or not.”
Are you going to spend the rest of your life with your head in the sand. God’s Word is loaded with scientific gems. For example, at the beginning of creation he created plant and animal “kinds”, or “types” (if you will,) which eliminates the possibility of common descent, which we are only now finding out, 6000-7000 years later.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Sophistry is what Kalamata is here to sell. I stick to the facts & truth, as best I can.”
Says the arrogant Jackass who slandered me with his imaginary ability to read minds.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And they prove beyond reasonable doubt that your purposes here are entirely theological, not scientific.”
Your purposes here are theological, thinly disguised as science.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “In none of your quotes did Linnaeus use the term “family”. Was he trying to distance himself from God?”
He used the Latin Vulgate mis-translation of genera and species.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And you have a quote from the Bible which says as much?”
No. Only scientific observation. The Word of God implies as much, when 2 of each kind went aboard the ark with Noah; and when later God said to multiply AFTER their respective kinds.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As would Darwin — nothing in evolution theory requires any individual to suddenly jump from one “kind” to another. Every step is a small change from the one before it.”
Real science disputes Darwin’s extrapolation. There is not a shred of evidence for common descent — not in the fossil record, nor in the living record. If you were a scientist, you would know that.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Well... anybody can cast reckless aspersions.”
Casting aspersions is your bread and butter.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Yours are only recognized by others like you who hate science as we understand it.”
See what I mean?
Joe, I know you are going to deny this, but I made a good living in science; and in all those years, I never saw or heard of anyone using evolution for anything.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As of today, “intelligent design” is theology, not natural-science. That’s one reason why Paley is listed as a theologian.”
Intelligent design is the only possible solution to the mind-boggling complexity of the cell, the symbiotic nature of every living organism, both within and without, and the fine-tuning of the universe.
Evolutionism is pure theology.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Nonsense, of course they do, if that’s what the data suggests — it’s called a hypothesis.
Next step: confirm the hypothesis by attempting to falsify it. Evolution theory has never been seriously falsified.”
That is where you went astray from science. Evolutionism cannot be falsified, because it is not science. Evolutionists have been brainwashed into believing that the absence of evidence is evidence, making it impossible to falsify. You yourself are guilty of claiming, in this very thread, that the lack of evidence is evidence.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And the lies just keep on coming... Natural science, by definition, rejects ‘magic’.”
Evolutionism and big-bangism are based on magic.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “You seem not to know of some basics of western civilization.”
I did very well in western civilization courses, and it is still one of my favorite subjects. I have over 50 books in my libary on Western Civ, alone, not to mention all the books on U.S. History, WWII and World Civ. Therefore, you are talking to be talking.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And there’s a perfect example. Nobody with a basic western education would claim such a ludicrous idea (that there is nothing more natural than our creator).
Western civilization was founded on, and blessed by Christianity. The rejection of Christianity will destroy it.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No, evolution theory underlies all of DNA research and much of cutting-edge medicine. When you have your family’s DNA tested, the reports tell you where your ancestors came from, based on our understandings of mutations, a fact in evolution theory.”
Evolution has nothing to do with medicine, or DNA. Evolutionists have attempted to hijack the prestige of them, but their folly will not continue much longer.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No need, because your claims that the Bible condemns science are justified by nothing ore than your own “wild extrapolations of observable data”.
You are lying again, Joe. I would never claim the Bible condemns science. To the contrary. The Bible promotes science.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I’ll repeat: in none of your quotes does Linnaeus use the term “family”, much less define it as “kind”.
Why the misdirection? I showed you where Linnaeus grouped genera by “kind”. Let’s try it again. This time, I will capitalize those two words for clarity:
“The succulent plants are worthy of distinction; so are the largest GENERA, e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this KIND are: Haller’s Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the essential character distinguishes a GENUS from those of the same KIND included in the same natural order.” [Freer, Stephen, Translator, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica.” Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]
Pretty neat stuff, huh?
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Please, when they put Kalamata in charge of redefining the English language to suit your theological purposes, send me an invite to your coronation. Until then, I’ll assume that all such comments are just you puffing yourself up.
No, just being a scientific observer. I will say it again so everyone will know what were are talking about: evolutionary science is an oxymoron.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Michael J. Behe. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “
I see you learned how to use Wikipedia. Michael Behe is probably the most brilliant scientist on earth, except for perhaps the organic chemist James Tour. It is a tossup.
This is a segment of a recent interview of Behe discussing his most recent book, Darwin Devolves, followed by the full interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWxC4ncb5vc&list=PLrCQerz2L0IfFCguKDL1ohtlFFYskKCFJ&index=2
Behe is not only brilliant, but he is a genuinely nice and funny guy.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.”
That’s it. But his new book will propel him into history as the one who exposed the fraud called common descent.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was not science and was religious in nature.[3]”
It is always good to know there are lawyers and judges available who can tell everyone what science is.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe’s claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast ajority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe’s views and intelligent design.”
“Consensus is the refuge of the scoundrel.” — Crichton
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And yet another flat-out lie.”
You gotta stop lying, Joe. Every geneticist worth his salt knows that speciation is the result of breaking genes, not gaining new ones.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Like all of evolution, it’s a confirmed theory based on tons of evidence from fossil morphology & species DNA comparisons.”
You are severely scientifically-challenged, Joe. There is no evidence any of those handful of fragmented, fossilized land animal forms ever had babies, nor ever had any whale features. Gingrich and Thewissen made it all up, and Carl Werner exposed their charlantry. But evolution icons DIE HARD! We are still trying to ge rid of Haeckel’s Embryos, over a century after they were exposed as fraudulent. This is a short article on the whale fraud:
https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “If you actually talked to Thewissen, I’m certain he’d tell you, in his mind there were sufficient reasons why he included a blow-hole for Ambulocetus, and that new discoveries could yet prove him right.”
Are you really that dense? There is no blowhole. He imagined it!
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Consider a similar living creature, the Walrus: Looks like a blow-hole to me, goo goo g’joob.
It is a walrus, Joe, with two nostrils.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Evidence for which you presented where?”
I didn’t. It is mentioned here:
https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “In other words, it’s all just science doing what science does, nothing more.”
No, they are two sleazy scientists who were trying to make a name for themselves by fudging the data. There was no science involved.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Total nonsense which reveals Kalamata to be a man of propaganda, not science. No data was presented to justify such claims.”
That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel’s Embryos; and, now, fraudulent “whale evolution”.”
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “But the “observable evidence” is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.”
There you go again, pretending the absence of evidence is evidence.
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Disparity before diversity” makes perfect sence when viewed against mass extinctions:”
That occurred in the Cambrian, Joe, when all the major phyla, including Chordata, showed up all at once, with no transitional forms. This is Gould:
“Older textbooks proclaim that our phylum, the Chordata, did not appear until the subsequent Ordovician period, and that this later evolution must imply advanced status. But the Burgess Shale contains a chordate, the genus Pikaia, misidentified by Walcott as a polychaete annelid... Chen and colleagues’ discovery and description of a beautifully preserved and unambiguously identified chordate from the still earlier Chengjiang fauna now seals the fate of this misguided effort in asserting specialness for our ancestry. Chordates arose in the Cambrian Explosion... During the past decade, however, the discovery and development of another fauna of marvellously preserved soft-bodied Cambrian organisms at Chengjiang in China has proven that full diversity was reached within the explosion itself... Charles Darwin faced this challenge to his gradualistic preferences with characteristic honesty, writing in the first edition of the Origin of Species: “The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained” (1859, p.308).” [Stephen Jay Gould, “Of it, not above it.” Nature, 377, pages 681–682 (26 October), 1995]
*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “[A vivid imagination] is how science is supposed to work.
I am speechless.
Mr. Kalamata
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence
Kalamata:
"I am in my 70’s, well-traveled, and a long-time WWII History buff; and yet I have never met a holocaust denier.
But I do know an arrogant, slanderous, know-nothing jackass when I read his posts." Just as you never met me, yet we've debated now at some length.
From that I see that you're quite good at projecting your own nature onto others.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "It is too late.
Evolutionism is the established religion of the United States, thanks to the ACLU, the thugs at the NCSE, and a few tyrannical judges who thought nothing of usurping the power of free expression from the states and the people."
Naw, you call it "religion" because you disagree on religious grounds.
Strictly defined & taught, science is the opposite of any religion.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Science doesn’t reject anything."
Science absolutely rejects your anti-science ideas.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata on criticizing evolution: "Not in the classroom, if they want to obtain tenure; and not in their research, if they want to get published.
You need to get out more, Joe."
Sure they can, in classrooms on theology, philosophy, history of western civilization, etc.
As for research, what, exactly, was all that discussion of the 2012 ENCODE report?
Some people even claim ENCODE itself falsifies evolution, don't they?
As for who gets out more, it's why my time here is limited.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "If evolutionism was not the established religion of the United States, it could be challenged in the classroom by other theories.
But evolutionism has become the modern-day Church of England, which caused the colonists to flee England and come to America."
There is no other scientific theory.
By definition, Creationism and Intelligent Design are theology, not science.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That is exactly how the orthodoxy promotes evolutionism — as theology."
I agree that atheists searching for some kind of spiritual meaning may glom onto anything, including science.
But I strongly disagree that evolution is necessarily contextualized as a "substitute for religion".
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You never missed it.
Faith has been the prime mover of evolutionism from the beginning.
You believe on sheer faith that someone out there has scientific evidence for evolution, and you have faith that the highly creative artwork that adorns many of your posts are based on something other than
highly fragmentary fossils and vivid imaginations."
Billions of "highly fragmentary" fossils representing hundreds of thousands of identified species, together providing clear evidence of transitional forms, these, for example:
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionism doesn’t solve anything except for those who hate societal order and stability.
Well, it did provide myriads of tax-payer funded jobs over the years to those desperately trying to prove Charlie right."
Evolution answers many, but far from all, questions about natural history.
It supports and is supported by our understandings in biology, geology, cosmology, physics & medicine, among others.
As for Federal funding, you don't know what that is or was historically.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Darwinism is not natural."
Kalamata is not honest.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Paine was not a Christian when he wrote this book:"
Paine's father was a Quaker, his mother Anglican.
Paine wished to be buried in a Quaker cemetery.
Paine was decidedly deistic, but some of his criticisms of Christianity echoed those of other non-conformists Unitarians & Anabaptists.
Paine's contemporary, Edward Gibbon ("Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire") also wrote scathingly of the early Roman Catholic church, while maintaining his own Protestantism.
Bottom line: Paine was a man of his Enlightenment Era, who held far more in common with contemporaries like Jefferson or Adams than with 20th century atheists like Russell.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Nor does anyone, even today, except those of the faith of Newton, Faraday and Maxwell.
Those three were able to make informed decisions, since they were not around to be corrupted by the fake geology of the lawyer Lyell."
This site lists hundreds of historically famous geologists, none of whom would agree with denier Kalamata's description of their work as "fake".
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Are you going to spend the rest of your life with your head in the sand.
God’s Word is loaded with scientific gems.
For example, at the beginning of creation he created plant and animal “kinds”, or “types” (if you will,) which eliminates the possibility of common descent, which we are only now finding out, 6000-7000 years later."
There's nothing, zero, of natural-science in such "gems" as you call them.
They are the opposite of natural, they are creation by divine supernatural actions.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Says the arrogant Jackass who slandered me with his imaginary ability to read minds."
Says the denier whose entire argument is a slander on natural-science and even on the Bible he pretends to defend.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Your purposes here are theological, thinly disguised as science."
One cannot discuss Creationism without getting into theology.
My purpose is to defend both traditional theology and natural-science.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "He [Linnaeus] used the Latin Vulgate mis-translation of genera and species."
Neither of which translates to "family", and both of which mistranslate the Biblical work "kind".
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "The Word of God implies as much, when 2 of each kind went aboard the ark with Noah; and when later God said to multiply AFTER their respective kinds."
Which is nowhere defined in any scientific sense.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Real science disputes Darwin’s extrapolation.
There is not a shred of evidence for common descent — not in the fossil record, nor in the living record.
If you were a scientist, you would know that."
You don't speak for science or scientists.
You speak only for your own misunderstandings of the Bible.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Casting aspersions is your bread and butter."
You are here to cast aspersions on science and its defenders.
I am here to defend both science and the Bible, properly understood.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Joe, I know you are going to deny this, but I made a good living in science; and in all those years, I never saw or heard of anyone using evolution for anything."
Natural-science is a really big subject.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Intelligent design is the only possible solution to the mind-boggling complexity of the cell, the symbiotic nature of every living organism, both within and without, and the fine-tuning of the universe."
I think we agree that the Universe was designed intelligently.
The question on the table here is whether it was designed intelligently enough to, on its own, without further divine intervention, "grow" life from the "seeds" of organic matter?
The honest answer is: maybe, scientifically (as opposed to theologically) we don't know for sure.
But if the Universe was designed to create life on its own would that not be the ultimate in Intelligence and theological proof of God?
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionism cannot be falsified, because it is not science."
That's a total lie which, even if you repeat it endlessly, remains a lie.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionists have been brainwashed into believing that the absence of evidence is evidence, making it impossible to falsify."
There simply is no confirmed evidence falsifying evolution.
If there were, you'd present it here in a heartbeat.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You yourself are guilty of claiming, in this very thread, that the lack of evidence is evidence."
You yourself have lied endlessly on this point, no matter how often you've been corrected.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolutionism and big-bangism are based on magic."
You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you?
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "I did very well in western civilization courses, and it is still one of my favorite subjects.
I have over 50 books in my libary on Western Civ, alone, not to mention all the books on U.S. History, WWII and World Civ."
And yet you are amazingly ignorant of some basic ideas in Western Thought, such as the origins and definitions of natural-science concepts.
My guess is that whatever you did learn at some time in the past has been destroyed by some overwhelming new false anti-western construct that both is itself, and renders everything else, unintelligible.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Western civilization was founded on, and blessed by Christianity.
The rejection of Christianity will destroy it."
But neither the Bible nor any Christian thinker ever claimed that God was merely "natural".
I can't even think of famous heretics who claimed that.
So to my knowledge, yours is a heresy in a class by itself.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Evolution has nothing to do with medicine, or DNA.
Evolutionists have attempted to hijack the prestige of them, but their folly will not continue much longer."
Again you sound like those Holocaust deniers I debated almost 20 years ago, they loudly proclaiming the debate was over, their side won, the Holocaust was disappearing from history, even while they themselves, like the Wicked Witch of the East from Dorothy's water were rapidly melting away.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You are lying again, Joe.
I would never claim the Bible condemns science.
To the contrary.
The Bible promotes science."
And that is one of your biggest lies.
You can only pretend it's true by redefining such words to suit your own nefarious purposes.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Why the misdirection?
I showed you where Linnaeus grouped genera by “kind”.
Let’s try it again.
This time, I will capitalize those two words for clarity:"
Why the misdirection?
Nowhere did Linnaeus use or define the term "family".
Nowhere did Linnaeus equate "family" to "kind".
Nowhere did Linnaeus provide evidence as to where biological "barriers" might exist between different categories of life.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "No, just being a scientific observer.
I will say it again so everyone will know what were are talking about: evolutionary science is an oxymoron."
But you've observed nothing, zero.
Your "science" is theology, nothing else.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "I see you learned how to use Wikipedia.
Michael Behe is probably the most brilliant scientist on earth, except for perhaps the organic chemist James Tour.
It is a tossup."
So there are three (including you) who hate natural-science and wish to replace it with their own unique theology.
Wonderful.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That’s it.
But his [Behe's] new book will propel him into history as the one who exposed the fraud called common descent."
Or, more likely, toss his already tarnished reputation onto the trash-heap of history.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "It is always good to know there are lawyers and judges available who can tell everyone what science is."
Or, more precisely, what science is not.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You gotta stop lying, Joe.
Every geneticist worth his salt knows that speciation is the result of breaking genes, not gaining new ones."
You gotta stop lying, Danny.
Every geneticist worth his/her salt knows that speciation is the result of changes in DNA, not "gaining" or "breaking" genes.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "You are severely scientifically-challenged, Joe.
There is no evidence any of those handful of fragmented, fossilized land animal forms ever had babies, nor ever had any whale features.
Gingrich and Thewissen made it all up, and Carl Werner exposed their charlantry."
Your mind is severely corrupted if you suppose that pre-historical creatures didn't normally reproduce.
As for your alleged "handful of fragmented" fossils, there are far more than a handful, and the numbers grow every year.
As for whether those fossils were land or sea animals, which one is Ursus maritimus? -- 
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "Are you really that dense?
There is no blowhole.
He imagined it!"
The blow-hole is irrelevant because, for example, this animal has no defined blow-hole, but is also very much a sea creature:
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "It is a walrus, Joe, with two nostrils."
Regardless of whether you call them "nostrils" or "blow-holes", the walrus is still very much a sea-creature.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "No, they are two sleazy scientists who were trying to make a name for themselves by fudging the data.
There was no science involved."
Says our theologian in chief.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel’s Embryos; and, now, fraudulent “whale evolution”.”"
Science, by its very nature is supposed to be self correcting.
Your theology, by contrast, cannot ever correct itself since it insists it's perfect to begin with.
That explains why theologians like Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata don't see.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "There you go again, pretending the absence of evidence is evidence."
And there you go again with bald-faced lies.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "That occurred in the Cambrian, Joe, when all the major phyla, including Chordata, showed up all at once, with no transitional forms."
I can't see a useful distinction between the terms "diversity" and "disparity".
For practical purposes they seem to be the same thing, both the result of evolution.
Danny I-don't-see-no-stinkin'-evidence Kalamata: "I am speechless."
Of course, because contrary to your claims, you have no real clue as to how science-discovery works. ![]()