Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Journal of Creation papers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Loudmouth" data-source="post: 67540251" data-attributes="member: 11790"><p>I would agree with that assessment. This is commonly called the echo chamber effect. What I find interesting is when those same creationists are faced with papers from outside the echo chamber. When their only argument is that scientists are faking the data, the bias becomes apparent.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>After skimming a few sections of the article, this one section stood out as something to comment on immediately:</p><p> </p><p>". . . the entire 28,800 base GULO region in human (hg19; chr8:27417791-27446590), which contains the putative remnants of six exons and five introns, is only 84% identical compared to chimpanzee using the previously established technique of optimized sequence slices and the BLASTN algorithm (Tomkins 2013b). Even more interesting is the comparison with gorilla using the same technique, which yielded 87% identity. These similarities are clearly outside the evolutionary paradigm and gorilla is more similar to human in the GULO region than chimpanzee— negating the inferred order of phylogeny."</p><p> </p><p>As discussed in other threads, Tomkins' method is not a valid way of comparing these sequences.</p><p> </p><p>A more general comment is that the authors just blow by glaring evidence for evolution. They discuss how certain adaptations and genes are confined to taxonomic groups. This is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution is true.</p><p> </p><p>If I could make a suggestion, that paper would make for a great topic in a thread of its own.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Loudmouth, post: 67540251, member: 11790"] I would agree with that assessment. This is commonly called the echo chamber effect. What I find interesting is when those same creationists are faced with papers from outside the echo chamber. When their only argument is that scientists are faking the data, the bias becomes apparent. After skimming a few sections of the article, this one section stood out as something to comment on immediately: ". . . the entire 28,800 base GULO region in human (hg19; chr8:27417791-27446590), which contains the putative remnants of six exons and five introns, is only 84% identical compared to chimpanzee using the previously established technique of optimized sequence slices and the BLASTN algorithm (Tomkins 2013b). Even more interesting is the comparison with gorilla using the same technique, which yielded 87% identity. These similarities are clearly outside the evolutionary paradigm and gorilla is more similar to human in the GULO region than chimpanzee— negating the inferred order of phylogeny." As discussed in other threads, Tomkins' method is not a valid way of comparing these sequences. A more general comment is that the authors just blow by glaring evidence for evolution. They discuss how certain adaptations and genes are confined to taxonomic groups. This is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution is true. If I could make a suggestion, that paper would make for a great topic in a thread of its own. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Journal of Creation papers
Top
Bottom