>>Joey said: "All that information is readily available online, in museums, etc., if you actually wanted to find it, but you don't, of course. Instead, you want to close your good eyes and claim to see nothing.
I cannot find them, Joey. You made the claim that there are transitional fossils, so you show us the fossil evidence.
*****************
>>Joey said: "You can find annotated skulls here (and here, and here...).
Those are clay mockups, plus a long list of fossils posted by a Wikipedia scatterbrain. Enough of the fish heads, Joey. Show us a clear and distinct line of fossil evidence from ape to man, or admit you are a snake-oil salesman.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "I am bewildered by your continuous attempts to put your words into my mouth. I believe that is called, "deception"."
>>Joey said: "A weak reed argument since I never put words in your mouth, despite your frequently putting words in mine. In this case, you have indeed argued there's no "proof" ancient fossils had offspring.
You are lying again, Joey. I said, factually, that, "you don't know if any of those [fossils you claimed to be transitionals] had children." Quit lying.
*****************
>>Kalamata on transitional skulls: 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."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, but no, Dan, yours are lies, and if you'd ever use your good eyes, you'd quickly see through such weak reed arguments. In fact there are literal tons of evidence for the ages of those fossils."
That is sophistry, Joey. There is ZERO evidence for the age of any fossil touted by the evolutionism cultists.
*****************
>>Joey said "As for ancestry, there's no evidence anywhere that later populations were anything other than descendants of similar fossils which came earlier."
Joey has convinced himself that the absence of evidence for evolution is evidence for evolution. You cannot really blame Joey, personally, since that is what his handlers have brainwashed him into believing. But, then again, one of the principles on which our nation was founded is that every man is responsible for his own actions.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "No transitional fossils were found, Joe. There are ape fossils, and there are human fossils, and nothing in between."
>>Joey said "No, that's just more use of Denier Rule #1.
Child.
*****************
>>Joey said, "Here again is a more complete listing of pre-human transitional fossils."
Those are certainly fossils, Joey; but you have not presented any evidence of a solid transitional line, nor have you presented any evidence that any one of those listed is an ancestor of any other, nor can you.
*****************
>>Kalamata: ">>Joe said, "This listing of primate fossils includes hundreds, of which at least a third were discovered after 1981."
>>Kalamata: "Did you have a point?"
>>Joey said, "Yes, which you'd immediately see if you just used your good eyes: that the 1981 claim of few primate fossils was false then and even more false today after many more discoveries. Here again is that listing of hundreds of primate fossils."
Those are just a bunch of fossils, Joey. No one on earth can assemble a reasonable transitional line from ape to man, without cheating. Ape-to-man evolution is just as false today as it was in 1981, except in the minds of the wildly imaginative.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "50 years, and 50 PhD theses later, the Piltdown was exposed as a fraud.">> >>This timeline shows that a year after Piltdown was first presented in 1912, David Waterston found it to be fake. As recently as 2016, scientists were still working to reveal Dawson's forgery methods.
Accoding to your timeline, Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley exposed the hoax in 1953, over 40 years afterward. Like I said earlier, Evolutionism Icons Die Hard! If not for fraud and wild speculations, there would be nothing that could be hyped as evidence.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey said: "Accused of being fraudulent.
No, Joey. Fraudulent! In the image below, Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top, while real embryos are on the bottom:
No one could mistake those, Joey.
*****************
>>Joey said, "Haeckel himself corrected some drawings as better information became available and as recently as 2008 Robert Richards defended Haeckel on grounds that he did the best he could with information available to him."
No, Joey. Haeckel faked them. The vain attempt by historian Robert J. Richards to rehabilitate Haeckel's reputation proved futile in light of the actual embryonic photos taken by scientist's Michael Richardson et al. Only the blind and the brainwashed fail to see how far Haeckel strayed from reality in order to supplement the evolutionism hype of his day; though, admittedly, Haeckel did not act much differently than the hypesters of today, especially the charlatans pushing ape-to-man evolution.
Are you aware that Hitler adopted Haeckel's recapitulation theory?
"When Hitler opened the House of German Art in Munich, he portrayed modernist art as atavistic, stating, 'When we know today that the evolution of millions of years, compressed into a few decades, repeats itself in every individual, then this art, we realize, is not 'modern.' It is on the contrary to the highest degree 'archaic,' far older probably than the Stone Age.' This statement shows that Hitler not only believed in human evolution, but he also endorsed Haeckel's recapitulation theory, which claimed that each organism in its embryological development repeats earlier stages of evolutionary history." [Richard Weikart, "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany." Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p,79]
It is also worth nothing that Robert John Richards is a very poor historian who ignores boatloads of evidence that Hitler was a Darwinian.
*****************
>>Joey said, "Haeckel's basic idea, that embryos of very different creatures look surprisingly similar in their earliest development, that idea is absolutely valid.
No, again, Joey. Haeckel's fake drawings are shown below on the top, while the real embryos from Michael Richardson's 1997 science team are on the bottom:
No one could mistake the difference between Haeckels fraud on the top row, and the real embryos on the bottom, Joey.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey said, "I am totally unimpressed with the statistics used to "prove" evolution is impossible.
I imagine so! After all, your motto is, "Damn the scientific evidence against it: evolution is a fact!"
*****************
>>Joey said: "It's a case of both G.I.G.O. and "figures don't lie but liars can figure."
Have you ever taken a college level science course above the survey level, Joey? You seem absolutely clueless about how to respond to real scientific evidence. Perhaps the reason you mock Behe's book is because you do not possess the aptitude to read a book of that caliber, even though it is written for the layman scientist.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "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. "
>>Joey said: "Nonsense, it's simply that theologically their conclusions are agreeable to your beliefs. You'd dump them instantly if they found otherwise,
Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt are secular mathematicians at Cornell University who reject Intelligent Design, Joey.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Denier Rule #1."
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "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"."
>>Joey said: "And here we see Kalamata combining Denier Rules #1 & #12: Ignore Evidence, then Declare Total Victory.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Why would elephants live with dinosaurs?"
>>Joey said: "Why wouldn't they?
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Morphological similarity is a sign of intelligent design."
>>Joey said: "No, it's just the opposite, a sign of trial & error.
Morphological similarity is the result of Dumb Luck? LOL! You are really funny, Joey.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey said: "Both "abrupt appearance" and "disparity" are figments of word definitions, signifying nothing real. In reality, every well identified fossil can be traced back in time to earlier similar forms, just as evolution predicts.
You are living in a fantasy world, Joey. You should read a paleontology book, or two, before pretending to be an expert. Even Donald Prothero, Michael Shermer's side-kick, mentions the prevalence of stasis in his text books:
"The prevalence of the belief in phyletic gradualism among paleontologists prior to 1972 is a testament to how far they were out of touch with the current ideas in evolutionary biology. But punctuated equilibrium had far more implications than the simple idea that speciation is geologically rapid. The prevalence of stasis in species over millions of years was something that was not expected by Neo- Darwinists. Even though paleontologists had known for years that most fossil species are static through long periods of geologic time, they never emphasized this, since they were taught to look for gradual evolution. As Gould and Eldredge (1977) put it, 'Stasis is data.' When paleontology's 'dirty little secret' of the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record finally got out, it caused great problems for evolutionary theory." [Donald R. Prothero, "Bringing Fossils To Life: An Introduction To Paleobiology." McGraw-Hill, 2nd Ed, 2004, p.77]
Next paragraph:
"Conventional Neo-Darwinism had always treated species as infinitely flexible and responsive to the environment. But fossil species showed no change across long periods of geologic time when there were clearly many changes in the environment. In some cases, well-documented and sometimes extreme climatic changes led to no changes in the fossils (Jackson, 1992; Prothero, 1992; Prothero and Heaton, 1996). Some Neo-Darwinists attempted to dismiss this evidence as an example of stabilizing selection (Charlesworth et al., 1983; Levinton, 1983; Lande, 1985). But such conventional models are appropriate only on scales of a few generations, or at most a few thousand years. No environment is so constant that stabilizing selection can operate for millions of years. From this evidence, biologists have had to reconsider their concept of species and organisms. More and more, they are treating organisms as integrated wholes, with complex interactions between their various parts, so that they cannot change one part without disrupting the whole organism. The old idea that selection could act on one character at a time just by changing its gene frequencies has been discredited. Evolution is more than a 'change in gene frequencies through time.'" [Ibid.]
On a similar note, in another of his textbooks, Prothero attempts to explain away the absence of transitional fossils by focusing on the Gould/Eldredge allopatric speciation model which, in a nutshell, states that the absence of evidence is evidence (I kid you not!):
"If the allopatric speciation model applied to the fossil record, then we should not expect to see speciation in the fossils from the main population. Instead, speciation should occur in small, peripherally isolated populations that have little chance of being fossilized. In addition, all of the data from biology showed that this process of speciation typically takes place in tens to hundreds to thousands of years, which is a geologic instant as far as paleontologists are concerned. The age difference between two bedding planes is often many thousands of years. Thus we would not expect to see the gradual transitions between species preserved very often; instead, we expect to see new species when they immigrate back into the main population after their isolation and speciation events. In other words, they would suddenly appear in the fossil record. Once they were established, speciation theory would predict that the main population would remain stable and not change gradually through time but that new species would continually arise on the periphery and migrate back to the homeland. Eldredge and Gould (1972) called their idea punctuated equilibrium, because the fossil record seem to show species stability without change (equilibrium or stasis) except when it is punctuated by the arrival of new species from elsewhere (fig. 3.11B)." [Donald R. Prothero, "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters." Columbia University Press, 2nd Ed, 2017, p.77
LOL!
*****************
>>Kalamata: "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!"
>>Joey said: "Nonsense, it's a total nothing, Dan! "Disparity" and "Diversity" are functionally the same things -- as are shared synonyms like variation, variance, difference, distinction, dissimilitude, contrast, dissimilarity & unlikeness. Those are simply different words referring to the same types of things.
How can we carry on a reasonably discussion if you insist on making stuff up to cover up your ignorance, Joey? Perhaps this will help you understand:
"The abrupt first appearance of a multitude of animal fossils in early Cambrian rocks (Terreneuvian to Series 2; ca. 541–509 Ma) epitomizes one of the most significant evolutionary events in Earth’s history. This sudden burst of diversity and abundance across most eumetazoan (especially bilaterian) phyla over a relatively short geologic time span, and lack of obvious Precambrian precursors, poses a conundrum when attempting to reconcile the fossil record with the true tempo of early animal evolution... Despite ongoing debate over the true origins of animal phyla, our data, as well as the Ediacaran–Cambrian geochemical, body, and trace fossil records (1, 3, 9), indicate that a modern-style marine biosphere was fully established by Series 2, followed by broad-scale evolutionary stasis throughout the remainder of the Cambrian" [Paterson et al, "Trilobite evolutionary rates constrain the duration of the Cambrian explosion." National Academy of Sciences, Vol.116, No.10; March 5, 2019, pp. 4394, 4397]
*****************
>>Kalamata: "That is not true, Joe. You have been misled."
>>Joey said: "Sorry Dan, but your words are a lie, based on your slavish obedience to Denier Rule #1.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Nothing has or will come along, Joe; and you really should stop with the childish rules."
>>Joey said: "Billions of fossils representing hundreds of thousands of species is vastly more than "nothing", Dan. The fact that your good eyes refuse to see such evidence makes your claims very weak reeds to stand on.
No one denies there are many billions of fossils, Joey. They simply do not provide any support for Darwinian theory. None!
*****************
>>Joey said: "As for "childish rules", it's simply astonishing how childishly you obey them!
You must have had your way in discussions in the past, Child. Perhaps it spoiled you. How does it feel to have someone expose your deception and ignorance?
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you should write your own Paleontology text book, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Plenty of paleontologists have written their own books. I am certain that Gould never intended his words to provide ammunition for arguments of Young Earth Creationists.
LOL! Of course not. But data is data, and there are mountains of data that contradict evolution. Worse for the evolutionist, all of it thus far supports special creation and a single global flood.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Soft-bodied animals were fossilized in the Cambrian, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Sure, Dan, at Burgess and Yunnan, but elsewhere are far more hard bodied fossils. Studies at Burgess suggest that only 2% of species then had hard-bodies, but hard-bodied fossils represent far more than 2% of the species found.
The discussion was about disparity vs. diversity, Joey, not species.
*****************
>>Kalamata quoting Gould, 1989: "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]"
>>Kalamata: "Did you get that, Joe? There has been no new phyla in the past 500 million years since the Cambrian."
>>Joey said: "Actually, Dan, Gould didn't know that, and here's why: of the ~36 animal phyla living today, ~2/3 have never been found in any fossils anywhere. So, neither Gould, nor we, know for sure when those 18-24 phyla first appeared. Here is a very interesting related discussion:
You are still quoting Wikipedia and personal websites, Joey? You really should consider better sources. This 2016 paleontology book confirms there have been no new phyla since the Cambrian -- not one!
"One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995), thus the origin of metazoa phyla presents a singularity that is difficult to study scientifically as it represents an isolated case. Some paleontologists thought that Tullimonstrum gregarium represented a new phylum that appeared in the Carboniferous, but recent research suggests that it is in fact a bizarre vertebrate comparable to lampreys (McCoy et al. 2016). No one can (yet) create a new phylum in the laboratory. For the last half billion years nature has 'failed,' or, if we may extend the anthropomorphism, 'has been unwilling' to produce a single new phylum since the Cambrian." [Mark A. S. McMenamin, "Dynamic Paleontology: Using Quantification and Other Tools to Decipher the History of Life." Springer Geology, 2016, Chap.14, p.226]
*****************
>>Joey said: "Sorry, Dan, but that's still your Denier Rule #1, ignore the evidence.
Child.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Evolution -- diversification, speciation -- from the Cambrian's 600 genera to today's 200,000 is just the sort of thing Darwin predicted."
You don't understand what you are trying to defend, Joey. Darwin predicted diversity before disparity, and gradual appearance of species through evolution, rather than disparity before diversity and abrupt appearance followed by stasis. You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist, Joey.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Fossil evidence above shows three phyla first seen after the "Cambrian Explosion" five before it.
There have been no new phyla since the Cambrian, Joey. See the above statement by McManamim, quoting Valentine and McCoy.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You are hopelessly lost, Joe. I wish I could help, but I have said it every way I know how to say it."
>>Joey said: "Sorry Dan, but contrary to what they taught you in propaganda school, it doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies, they're still lies, always will be.
You have been magnificently brainwashed, Joey. You have no clue how ignorant you are.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "It was Gould's way of hiding the absence of evolution in the fossil record inside a new theory."
>>Joey said: "Unlike Kalamata, Gould's good eyes could see evolution in the fossil record, his question was: how fast or slowly do creatures evolve? The answer is: it depends on conditions, sometimes very slowly, sometimes relatively fast -- "punctuated equilibrium".
LOL! There you go again with, "the absence of evidence is evidence,"
*****************
>>Kalamata: "The lack of evidence is not evidence, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Says Dan, the man who wants us to have religious faith in "intelligent design".
The cell certainly appears to be designed, Joey. It is a mind-bogglingly complex, microscopic factory, complete with conveyor "belts," repair "technicians," ... the works:
Wonders of the Cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJj2Mw6GRak
*****************
>>Joey said: "Dan, you complain falsely that I put words in your mouth and yet you shamelessly put words in mine.That's Denier Rule #5.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "I am saying for the umteenth time, Joe, the lack of evidence is NOT evidence."
>>Joey said: "Right, Dan, you wish us to believe that prehistoric animals, including ancient whales, did not reproduce.
Lying Child.
*****************
>>Joey said: "I have said, truthfully, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The absense of evidence is not evidence, Joey, no matter how you spin it.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Every year hundreds of new fossil species are found and without exception they fill in "gaps" in the previous record. That reasonably suggests that a) there are many more species yet to be found and b) these new species will continue to fill in "gaps" in the current record.
I would call that a lie, but it is probably more appropriately labeled "wishful thinking". No gaps have been filled since Darwin, but some have become "unfilled":
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection." [Raup, David M., "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology." Field Museum of Natural History, Bulletin Vol. 50 No. 1, January, 1979, pp.22-23,25]
Cool, huh!
*****************
>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey said: "Nonsense, Dan, those ARE some of the "clues" from which they can well make reasonable projections."
Baloney, Joey. A real scientist does NOT pretend a few skull and jaw fragments, plus a couple of teeth, are evidence of a seal-like whale transitional animal, like the imaginary animal on the left:
Seriously, Joey; you have been living in La-La Land far too long.
*****************
>>Right, Denier Rule #1 -- don't let your good eyes see contradictory evidence.
Foolish child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "No, they have noses and nostrils, Joe:"
>>Joey said: "Proving, Dan, beyond reasonable doubt that animals don't need blow-holes to live aquatic or semi-aquatic lives. So whether that ancient pre-whale had a blow-hole or not is irrelevant.
You said they looked like blowholes, Joey. LOL! Clearly they do not.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "I am not sure what your point is."
>>Joey said: "Right, I'll add that to my growing list of Denier Rules, from my post #328: "when your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance. That makes "Declare Victory" rule #12."
Foolish child, still playing kindergarten games.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "It is not evidence until it can be observed, Joe."
>>Joey said: "But, Dan, you will never observe it because that would require you to break Denier Rule #1.
Your wild imagination is not evidence, Child.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Science, by contrast, carefully observes every new piece of evidence to identify, classify and see where it fits in the larger evolutionary scheme."
Science does no such thing. Scientists perform science when they evaluate evidence to prove or disprove hypotheses.
Well, that is true for real scientists. Evolutionists, like other pseudo-scientists, believe everything, real or imagined, is evidence for evolution.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "That is a very dumb statement, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, Dan, I'm going to call your response here a version of my new Denier Rule #11 -- play dumb, but in this case you've mixed it with Rule #5: accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.
Quit making stuff up, Child.
Mr. Kalamata
Danny Denier: "It is also worth nothing that Robert John Richards is a very poor historian who ignores boatloads of evidence that Hitler was a Darwinian."
Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2004: "When paleontology's 'dirty little secret' of the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record finally got out, it caused great problems for evolutionary theory."
Danny Denier: "There have been no new phyla since the Cambrian, Joey. 
Danny Denier: "You have been magnificently brainwashed, Joey.