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: " [Joey posted the same non-annotated chart of human and ape skulls he showed before]:"
>>Joe said: The annotations are readily available, but you wouldn't even see them because they violate your Rule #1.
Show us the annotations, Joe; but with the fossils, not the mockups. The rule of thumb for scientists is never trust an artistic rendition or computer simulation of data, until you have seen the data up close and personal.
*********************
>>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."
>>Joe said: Still mostly Rule #1, though I confess to being bewildered by your wish to deny prehistoric creatures normally had offspring.
I am bewildered by your continuous attempts to put your words into my mouth. I believe that is called, "deception".
*********************
>>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:"
>>Joe said: "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 [Chart]:
My response:
1) There is no evidence that any of those fossils are more than, say, 5,000 thousand years old.
2) There is no evidence that any of those is an ancestor or descendent of any other.
That is the truth, and the only truth. Joe. Everything you say, or reference, is pure speculation based on no evidence.
*********************
>>Kalamata quoting J&E 1981: "At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were."
>>Joe said: "As it were", meaning fewer fossils were found.
No transitional fossils were found, Joe. There are ape fossils, and there are human fossils, and nothing in between.
*********************
>>Joe said, "This listing of primate fossils includes hundreds, of which at least a third were discovered after 1981.
Did you have a point?
*********************
>>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?' "
>>Joe said, "Presumably Lewin is talking about Piltdown. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Piltdown was suspected by scientists almost from the very beginning.
50 years, and 50 PhD theses later, the Piltdown was exposed as a fraud.
Hey, that is better than we are faring with Haeckel's embryos. They are still in our children's textbooks more than a century after they were exposed as fraudulent.
*********************
>>Kalamata quoting Gauger 2012: "Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process?"
>>Joe said, "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.
Actually, it would be statistically impossible. Natural selection doesn't work like you are presenting it. Read Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves" if you want to know what is really going on.
*********************
>>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."
>>Joe said, "G.I.G.O. calculation."
I agree that most secular research is "Garbage In, Garbage Out"; but Ann is a pretty thorough reviewer, so Durrett & Smith's research's is probably real science. This is their paper:
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution
*********************
>>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."
>>Joe said, "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.
I know you want to believe that, but evolution never existed. It is all a big game of , "I don't have the evidence, but I am sure someone does".
*********************
>>Kalamata on falsifying evolution: "You are lying again, but in this case out of ignorance."
>>Joe said, "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.
Why would elephants live with dinosaurs?
*********************
>>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:"
>>Joe said, "I would call fossils "indirect", a category which includes: comparative fossil morphology.
Morphological similarity is a sign of intelligent design.
Joe, nothing in your list can overcome two crucial characteristics of the fossil record:
1) Abrupt appearance, and then stasis.
2) Disparity before diversity.
Those are the opposite of what evolution predicts.
*********************
>>Kalamata: "However, the fossil record reveals disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis, both of which falsify evolution."
>>Joe said, "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.
That is a very dumb statement, Joe. First of all, it is not "my phrase", but a phrase that expresses a common characteristic of the fossil record known by all paleontologists. That is a very big deal, Joe!
*********************
>>Joe said, "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.
That is not true, Joe. You have been misled.
*********************
>>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."
>>Joe said, "No, every day "something comes along" and yet Rules #1 & #9 dominate your mind so you literally cannot see it.
Nothing has or will come along, Joe; and you really should stop with the childish rules.
*********************
>>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."
>>Joe said, "Sure, I "get" that, but it's still a meaningless distinction.
Perhaps you should write your own Paleontology text book, Joe.
*********************
>>Joe said, "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.
Soft-bodied animals were fossilized in the Cambrian, Joe.
Oldest Soft-Bodied Marine Fossils Discovered
The secret is rapid burial by highly-mineralized sediment to prevent deterioration.
*********************
>>Joe said, "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".
You really should fall back and regroup, Joe. Think about it this way:
"In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]
Did you get that, Joe? There has been no new phyla in the past 500 million years since the Cambrian.
*********************
>>Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "The current earth may hold more species than ever before, but most are iterations upon a few basic anatomical designs."
>>Joe said, "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.
You still don't get it, Joe. All basic anatomical designs appeared in the beginning. There have been no new phyla -- no new body plans -- no evolution.
*********************
>>Joe said, "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.
You are hopelessly lost, Joe. I wish I could help, but I have said it every way I know how to say it.
*********************
>>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)."
>>Joe said, "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.
It was Gould's way of hiding the absence of evolution in the fossil record inside a new theory.
*********************
>>Gould: "I take pride in one success relevant to Cordelia's dilemma: our theory has brought stasis out of the conceptual closet."
>>Joe said, "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?
The lack of evidence is not evidence, Joe.
*********************
>>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]"
>>Joe said, "And here again Kalamata looks the truth straight in the face and lies bald-faced about it.
LOL!
*********************
>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joe said, "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?
I am saying for the umteenth time, Joe, the lack of evidence is NOT evidence.
*********************
>>Kalamata: "The one on the left was the original imaginary creature."
>>Joe said, "Right, an example of scientists doing what science does. New data or fresh eyes can lead to a better explanation.
That is not science, Joe. A scientist would have said, we have a few fragments of the skull and jaw, and a tooth or two; but we have no clue what the animal looked like.
*********************
>>Kalamata: "Why the misdirection, Alinsky Joe? Bears are members of the bear kind, nothing else."
>>Joe said, "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.
LOL!
*********************
>>Kalamata: "That is a seal, dummy, not a whale."
>>Joe said, "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.
No, they have noses and nostrils, Joe:
*********************
>>Kalamata: "Yes, and it is called a Walrus, not a whale."
>>Joe said, "Polar bears, seals & walrus are all examples of semi or fully aquatic mammals similar to the fossils found of ancient whales.
I am not sure what your point is.
*********************
>>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."
>>Joe said, "And yet again you look my words straight in the face and, bald-faced, lie about them.
Are you saying you didn't say what you said?
*********************
>>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."
>>Joe said, "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.
It is not evidence until it can be observed, Joe.
*********************
>>Joe said, "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?
That is a very dumb statement, Joe.
Mr. Kalamata