[Kalamata]

>>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

[BroJoeK]

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

You're still obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7, I see.

Kalamata: "You believe God made man in his image?"

Yes.

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

That is the scientific explanation.
I believe that whatever science may say, God was in charge of creation.

Kalamata: "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."

So now you've forgotten your own lies?
Do I have to go back & look it up for you?
You used Graur to claim ENCODE disproved evolution!
Then you trashed both Graur and ENCODE in favor of a Swiss Institute of Bioinfomatics study which you say claimed 95% of DNA is "influenced" by... what... what was it influenced by?
Yes, that's right, by evolution, you say!

So already you've forgotten?

Kalamata: "Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe?
You posted a picture of one of Graur's books... "

I never heard of Graur until you introduced him here.
I simply assume from your outrageous attacks on him that he's probably an honorable & reasonable person.

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

I'm just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted?
None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.
ENCODE's numbers were 5% to 10% "constrained" by evolution.

Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is "constrained" by evolution.
Those are your posts, not mine.

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

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

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #1 & #6.

Kalamata quoting Thompkins 2015: "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%"

Your quote uses the term "similarity" when it's clearly referring to the kind of identical DNA found among humans.
Similarity is a looser standard and it's how other researchers arrived at the ~98% similar number.

Kalamata on ancient material dating techniques: "Prove it. Show us the data."

This site has a listing of both relative (22) and absolute (25) dating techniques.
It does not even mention tree rings or ice cores, but this site does.

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

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "You are a habitual liar, Alinsky Joe."

Those are your quotes, go back & read them yourself.
Show us where ENCODE claims more than 5% to 10% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

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

You don't agree with your own data from ENCODE.

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

You are leaning, as always, toward Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "Funtional DNA is constrained:...
Therefore in 2012, at least 80% was constrained:...
That number is now about 95%.
In other words, Human evolution is a myth."

None of your quotes from ENCODE say 80% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.
This is your own quote, post #239:

"Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner.
The rest can be assaulted by random mutationh little effect.” [Wallis & Rhiannon, “Junk DNA, Bunk.” Synthetic Duo, Jan 24, 2016]"

So who is it that found 95%?

" “What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’”, says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study.
“This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes.
These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation.”
[”A Genome Under Influence: The faulty yardstick in genomics studies and how to cope with it.” Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, October 9, 2018]"

Note again what the Swiss (not ENCODE) are saying: 95% of DNA is "influenced" by "functional sites" which themselves are only 10% to 15% of DNA.
Nowhere in your quotes do the Swiss, or ENCODE, or Collins or Graur claim that more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.

This is your quote from Thompkins:

"It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection.
Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’’
Oops, so much for human evolution!…"
[Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]"

First of all, we need to notice that Thompkins here, like Kalamata, is trying to tell us that since supposedly 95% of DNA is "subject to..." evolution, that somehow proves there is no evolution!

Second, your quote from Pouyet does not say 95% is "constrained" by evolution, only that it is "influenced" by functional DNA.
No quote I've seen claims more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

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

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.

Kalamata: "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."

To set the record straight: Kalamata agrees with Graur when Graur said: for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be wrong.

To set the record straight: no quote from Kalamata shows ENCODE agreeing with claims that 80% or 95% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.

Kalamata: "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."

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.

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

The Bible does not even confirm Kalamata's theology, much less natural science.
What the Bible intends to show is God's creation of and mastery over the natural realm.

Kalamata: "Where is the cryptologist when you need him?"

I'll need another rule for that response, Rule #11: when your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance.
That makes "Declare Victory" rule #12.

Kalamata: "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?"

Neither.

Kalamata: "That is not how you come across."

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

That is Denier Rules #5, #6 & now #12 (Declare Victory).