Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
The last thread I participated in had an Opening Post that was passing off the same of propaganda of humans and chimps being '98% the same'. What was revealing about that is that not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus. It has been conclusively demonstrated that this is wrong but those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts. The 98% homology rule holds since most of the differences are in non-coding regions. The truth is slowly coming out, this isn't true either:
ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2006) — Approximately 6 percent of human and chimp genes are unique to those species, report scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions. The new estimate, reported in the inaugural issue of Public Library of Science ONE (Dec. 2006), takes into account something other measures of genetic difference do not -- the genes that aren't there...
...The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes) and lost 86 genes since diverging from their most recent common ancestor with chimps. Including the 729 genes chimps appear to have lost since their divergence, the total gene differences between humans and chimps was estimated to be about 6 percent. Human-chimp Difference May Be Bigger
Think I'll keep a running total this time, usually the first few posts are simple ad hominem attacks. These are then followed by rhetorical questions (basically asking questions that go in circles). There will always be one troll who continually bombards the creationist with as much rudeness and contradiction as the forum rules will allow.
One of the mainstays of this forum is finding an error, usually by creating one through semantics or twisting statements.
Ad hominems
Rhetorical devices
Error Fabrication
Now when we get past all of that the benign scientific type will enter, inquire of the resident trolls what the trouble is and proceed to reinforce their arguments no matter how fallacious.
Other then that, anyone who has something substantive to contribute to the thread I'd be interested in whatever you have for me.
Have a nice day
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 16th April 2009 at 11:46 AM.
The last thread I participated in had an Opening Post that was passing off the same of propaganda of humans and chimps being '98% the same'. What was revealing about that is that not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus. It has been conclusively demonstrated that this is wrong but those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts. The 98% homology rule holds since most of the differences are in non-coding regions. The truth is slowly coming out, this isn't true either:
ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2006) — Approximately 6 percent of human and chimp genes are unique to those species, report scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions. The new estimate, reported in the inaugural issue of Public Library of Science ONE (Dec. 2006), takes into account something other measures of genetic difference do not -- the genes that aren't there...
...The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes) and lost 86 genes since diverging from their most recent common ancestor with chimps. Including the 729 genes chimps appear to have lost since their divergence, the total gene differences between humans and chimps was estimated to be about 6 percent. Human-chimp Difference May Be Bigger
Think I'll keep a running total this time, usually the first few posts are simple ad hominem attacks. These are then followed by rhetorical questions (basically asking questions that go in circles). There will always be one troll who continually bombards the creationist with as much rudeness and contradiction as the forum rules will allow.
One of the mainstays of this forum is finding an error, usually by creating one through semantics or twisting statements.
Ad hominems
Rhetorical devices
Error Fabrication
Now when we get past all of that the benign scientific type will enter, inquire of the resident trolls what the trouble is and proceed to reinforce their arguments no matter how fallacious.
Other then that, anyone who has something substantive to contribute to the thread I'd be interested in whatever you have for me.
Have a nice day
Mark
Looks like the running total on ad homs is 4, so far. Did I miss one?
1. not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus.
2. those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts.
3. always be one troll who continually bombards the creationist with as much rudeness and contradiction as the forum rules will allow.
4. resident trolls what the trouble is and proceed to reinforce their arguments no matter how fallacious.
Last edited by Hespera; 16th April 2009 at 12:50 PM.
The last thread I participated in had an Opening Post that was passing off the same of propaganda of humans and chimps being '98% the same'. What was revealing about that is that not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus. It has been conclusively demonstrated that this is wrong but those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts. The 98% homology rule holds since most of the differences are in non-coding regions. The truth is slowly coming out, this isn't true either:
ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2006) — Approximately 6 percent of human and chimp genes are unique to those species, report scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions. The new estimate, reported in the inaugural issue of Public Library of Science ONE (Dec. 2006), takes into account something other measures of genetic difference do not -- the genes that aren't there...
*thweet* 10 yard penalty; Unnecessary use of the Ellipsis.
ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2006) — Approximately 6 percent of human and chimp genes are unique to those species, report scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions. The new estimate, reported in the inaugural issue of Public Library of Science ONE (Dec. 2006), takes into account something other measures of genetic difference do not -- the genes that aren't there.
That isn't to say the commonly reported 1.5 percent nucleotide-by-nucleotide difference between humans and chimps is wrong, said IUB computational biologist Matthew Hahn, who led the research. IUB postdoctoral researcher Jeffery Demuth is the paper's lead author.
"Both estimates are correct in their own way," Hahn said. "It depends on what you're asking. There isn't a single, standard estimate of variation that incorporates all the ways humans, chimps and other animals can be genetically different from each other."
Bold emphasis mine. Thanks for the article, Mark. It's own content refutes your assertions, saving us the effort.
Looks like the running total on ad homs is 4, so far. Did I miss one?
1. not one evolutionist corrected it and most of the regulars knew it was bogus.
When Time and Nature Web Focus said that we are 98% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA, is that a true or false statement?
2. those who peddle this, flawed homology argument, always have one refuge from the facts.
With that omission you managed to surgically remove the whole point, the 6% difference is in the genes. So that's one ad hominem and one rhetorical device.
3. always be one troll who continually bombards the creationist with as much rudeness and contradiction as the forum rules will allow.
It would appear that you have point on that.
4. resident trolls what the trouble is and proceed to reinforce their arguments no matter how fallacious.
So far I'm three for four and that's from the first response.
Ad hominems- 2
Rhetorical devices- 1
Error Fabrication
Do notice that the content of the quote, article and paper is utterly ignored and her attack is stickily ad hominem or 'to the man'.
Have a nice day
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Just to put this in context we originally were thought to have 30,000 genes, now it's less the 20 k. At one time estimates of how many genes absent in the chimpanzee and present in the human genome was around 50, now it's in the hundreds.
That's why I keep coming back, you guys make it so easy. The first one is a sly but empty attempt at error fabrication, the second one was clearly a rhetorical device meant to dismiss the point of the OP without a hearing. Both are fallacious and so far not a single substantive response, you usually don't start getting those until at least the second page.
Ad hominems- 2
Rhetorical devices- 1
Error Fabrication-1
Initial Resident Bombarder - Hespera
All we are missing is the benign scientific type who comes in and reinforces your fallacious attacks.
Have a nice day
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 16th April 2009 at 03:06 PM.
Mr. Kennedy, you seem to have ignored atomweaver's post...
Anyway, the reason for the differences in the two measurements (98% and 94%) is because they are effectively different scales. See, the 98% measurement is in reference to each nucleotide that makes up the gene. So out of all the bases in ours and an ape's genetic code, only 2% are different.
However
The 96% measurement is referring to the whole genes, not the individual nucleotides. From what I've gathered, (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the differences in nucleotides are spread out across different genes. In other words: a small amount of different nucleotides can make a gene different. This gives the difference in the two measurements. They are both correct. Arguing this would be like me trying to argue that a shrub is one yard high, and you saying that is incorrect because the shrub is actually three feet high. Or if you're in Europe, 1,000 meters and not 1 kilometer.
__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2 + 2 = 5
Just to put this in context we originally were thought to have 30,000 genes, now it's less the 20 k. At one time estimates of how many genes absent in the chimpanzee and present in the human genome was around 50, now it's in the hundreds.
That's why I keep coming back, you guys make it so easy. The first one is a sly but empty attempt at error fabrication, the second one was clearly a rhetorical device meant to dismiss the point of the OP without a hearing. Both are fallacious and so far not a single substantive response, you usually don't start getting those until at least the second page.
Ad hominems- 2
Rhetorical devices- 1
Error Fabrication-1
Initial Resident Bombarder - Hespera
All we are missing is the benign scientific type who comes in and reinforces your fallacious attacks.
Have a nice day
Mark
It is not an ad hom to quote what you said. Review the dictionary.
Are you going to keep a running count of all the name calling you do?
How about if you just start over, with some data, should you have some, and not start out with all the personal stuff?
When Time and Nature Web Focus said that we are 98% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA, is that a true or false statement?
With that omission you managed to surgically remove the whole point, the 6% difference is in the genes. So that's one ad hominem and one rhetorical device.
It would appear that you have point on that.
So far I'm three for four and that's from the first response.
Ad hominems- 2
Rhetorical devices- 1
Error Fabrication
Do notice that the content of the quote, article and paper is utterly ignored and her attack is stickily ad hominem or 'to the man'.
Have a nice day
Mark
What is wrong with addressing a major portion of your post which was made up of an ad hom attack complaining of ad homs and rhetorical devices? It certainly had me checking my irony meter for damage.
You actually had two replies, one from hespera commenting on your ad hom ad homs, and a second reply from atomweaver deaing with the rest the post. Sound to me like your whole post was covered between the two. Why complain that hespera only dealt with one part?
The researchers paid special attention to gene number changes between humans and chimps. Using a statistical method they devised, the scientists inferred humans have gained 689 genes (through the duplication of existing genes)
So these 698 genes come from duplicates of existing genes we share with chimps? Doesn't that mean each of these genes is only a small pecentage different from the chimp version?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mr. Kennedy, you seem to have ignored atomweaver's post...
No I haven't, the first one was a joke and the second he just bolded a couple of sections. In response I quoted the article in context that specifically identifies how their approach is different.
Anyway, the reason for the differences in the two measurements (98% and 94%) is because they are effectively different scales. See, the 98% measurement is in reference to each nucleotide that makes up the gene. So out of all the bases in ours and an ape's genetic code, only 2% are different.
I think you need to read the paper because they are talking about birth and death rates for genes. For instance:
Of particular note is the gain of nine genes in the centaurin gamma family (humans have 15 copies, none of the other mammals has more than 7). (Cited and linked above)
However
The 96% measurement is referring to the whole genes, not the individual nucleotides. From what I've gathered, (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the differences in nucleotides are spread out across different genes. In other words: a small amount of different nucleotides can make a gene different. This gives the difference in the two measurements. They are both correct. Arguing this would be like me trying to argue that a shrub is one yard high, and you saying that is incorrect because the shrub is actually three feet high. Or if you're in Europe, 1,000 meters and not 1 kilometer.
What we have here is not two kinds of measurements, this is a clear error fabrication. The 96% has been known since at least 2005, if you add up single nucleotide (or base pair) differences the, '98% the same holds'. When you add in the gaps (erroneously called indels because they are thought to have resulted from them) it jumps another 2% to 3% and dwarfs the single base substitutions.
Now when looking just at the genes that are lost or gained they come up with 96%. Of course the highest gain/loss is in the lineage leading from the LCA of chimpanzees and humans.
Ad hominems- 2
Rhetorical devices- 1
Error Fabrication-2
Initial Resident Bombarder - Hespera
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Linear Mode
