Time article woefully inaccurate about evolution

[mark kennedy]

What Makes us Different?

If Time published this article on anything other then creationism they would have to print a retraction. If evolution is such a cut and dried scientific theory why do they lie about the facts with such disregard?

You don't have to be a biologist or an anthropologist to see how closely the great apes--gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans--resemble us. Even a child can see that their bodies are pretty much the same as ours, apart from some exaggerated proportions and extra body hair.

What they either don't know or don't want you to know is that biggest difference is that our brain is three times bigger then that of an ape. There bodies are not the same as ours and there is a long list of differences from head to toe and I do mean literally. I'll try to contain myself and move on before I tell you what I really think of that...statement.

"Apes have dexterous hands much like ours but unlike those of any other creature."

They have opposable thumbs and so do we but we have a precision grip, apes cannot grasp things and control them anything like human beings can.

"They make and use tools and teach those skills to their offspring."

They put thin sticks in their mouths to get it wet and stick it in termite hills, They pick up rocks to smash open nuts and occasionally pick up a stick and use it for a club. Oh yea, their offspring learn how to do it to probably from reading Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

"They prey on other animals and occasionally murder each other. "

Troglodytes do tend to be very territorial and violent particularly as they get older. Pygmy chimps on the other hand are lovers not fighters and have been known to even french kiss.

"Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. When it comes to DNA, a human is closer to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat."

This was conclusively disproven in May of 2005 with the publication of The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. The sequence identified 35 million single nucleotide substitutions, 5 million indels 95 million nucloetide in length and 20 million nucleotides worth of chromosomal rearrangements which comes to 145 million base pairs. The sequence identity comes to 96% and by my calculations 145 million divided by 3,000 million comes to over 20%.

Don't even get me started on the mouse rat thing I am still trying to contain myself.

"Yet tiny differences, sprinkled throughout the genome, have made all the difference"

Not only have researcher found the genetic basis for the evolution of the human brain elusive they have found dramatic differences in the genes involved in neural functions. it would literally have taken hundreds if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes. To date, modern genetics has never discovered a random mutation in a functionally biased gene involved in neural functions with a beneficial effect. Dispite that they insist that we believe that they happened almost constantly for almost 2 million years and then suddenly stopped.

"Just a year ago, geneticists announced that they had sequenced a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome, allowing the first side-by-side comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. "

That is the article I spoke of before and they are well aware of it, they may never have read it because they are either woefully ignorant of their report or lieing through their teeth.

"And when they compared the two species' proteins--the large molecules that cells construct according to blueprints embedded in the genes--they found that 29% of the proteins were identical (most of the proteins that aren't the same differ, on average, by only two amino-acid substitutions)."

Chimpanzee chromosome 22 diverges from human chromosome 21 in 83% of the protein coding genes with 15 gross stuctural differences. Do you have any idea how extraordinary it is for a nucloetide sequence to not only be changed but fixed?

"The region that changed most dramatically from chimps to humans, known as HAR1, turns out to be part of a gene that is active in fetal brain tissue only between the seventh and 19th weeks of gestation. Although the gene's precise function is unknown, that happens to be the period when a protein called reelin helps the human cerebral cortex develop its characteristic six-layer structure. "

This gene is 118 nucleotides long and there are 18 nucleotides that diverge between chimpanzees and humans. When comparing the same gene in chimps and chickens the differences come to 2 substitutions. Chimps and chickens have a common ancestor dating back 310 million years ago. That means that for some unbelievable twist of Darwinian fate 18 nucleotides, which comes to 6 entire amino acid sequences, in a gene involved in a crucial period of brain development were completly changed.

"The development of form, the increase in brain size, took place over a long period of time, maybe 50,000 generations. It's a pretty complicated genetic recipe."

I'll say it's complicated, the time span between Homo habilis and Homo erectus is virtuall nonexistant. At best you have about 300,000 years and in that time the cranial capacity went from 500cc-700cc to 900cc-1100cc. That was just under 2 million years ago and stayed virtually static until between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago. It was not sudden, it was the most dramatic evolutionary giant leap since the Cambriagn explosion.

"As scientists keep reminding us, evolution is a random process in which haphazard genetic changes interact with random environmental conditions to produce an organism somehow fitter than its fellows. After 3.5 billion years of such randomness, a creature emerged that could ponder its own origins--and revel in a Mozart adagio."

The theory of evolution may be random but the nucleotide sequence is not, nor can it sustain random haphazard genetic changes. The deleterious effects of random mutations in the protein coding genes makes to statistical likelyhood of human beings evolving from apes is absolutly astornomical.

"Within a few short years, we may finally understand precisely when and how that happened. "

Oh I promise you we are going to finally understand precisely when and how our ancestors happened. We are going to be standing face to face with the one who did it, in six literal days, and be called to give an account. Afterwards we will get to see Him do it again only the next time it will be perfect. Maranatha!

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[USincognito]

You know it's sad to see someone seep so much venom towards such wonderful beings all because you can't stand that you're related to them. Your non-comment on the tool use was particularly instructive. I really am starting to feel sorry you.

 

[mark kennedy]

You know it's sad to see someone seep so much venom towards such wonderful beings all because you can't stand that you're related to them. Your non-comment on the tool use was particularly instructive. I really am starting to feel sorry you.

I don't hate or even dislike apes and you never saw me make an unkind remark about them. I expect this kind of disingenuise misdirection on these forums but not in a publication like Time magazine. What I dispise is glaring errors by respected journalists who people will believe are reporting true and accurate facts.

Tell me something since you pity me so much. Is our DNA 98-99% the same as apes? I'll do one better then that, was I unfair in my criticism of Time magazine? If so, do tell.

I want to be accurate when I write their editors and tell them what a bunch of liars they are. Trust me when I tell you I would be happy to defend anything in the opening post.

 

[shernren]

This was conclusively disproven in May of 2005 with the publication of The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. The sequence identified 35 million single nucleotide substitutions, 5 million indels 95 million nucloetide in length and 20 million nucleotides worth of chromosomal rearrangements which comes to 145 million base pairs. The sequence identity comes to 96% and by my calculations 145 million divided by 3,000 million comes to over 20%.

I agree that the 98-99% comparison was pretty misleading without quantifying what was being compared - gene vs. gene or the whole sequence?

Having said that, I thought we've been through this:

Chimpanzee chromosome 22 diverges from human chromosome 21 in 83% of the protein coding genes with 15 gross stuctural differences. Do you have any idea how extraordinary it is for a nucloetide sequence to not only be changed but fixed?

before: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24830925&postcount=56 , we are talking about a difference of about 1430 nucleotides in coding sequences out of 33.3Mb sequenced. That's hardly extraordinary. The "83%" is the proportion of genes which are different between chimp and human, in most of these genes the modifications are on the order of a few bases, making for a very small cumulative difference.

 

[USincognito]

Tell me something since you pity me so much. Is our DNA 98-99% the same as apes? I'll do one better then that, was I unfair in my criticism of Time magazine? If so, do tell.

I think the title of molecular anthropologist Jonathan Marks' book, who made a pretty convincing case about our common ancestry got it right - What it means to be 98% Chimpanzee.

And I'd love to see if you get a response from the writers of the article or if your letter is published. I did some digging to see about their credentials and Michael Lemonick is the Science editor (IIRC, I looked it up a hour or so ago). I was a tad disappointed since I would love to see how a paleontologist or geneticist would react to you telling them you'd found the magic bullet that would kill chimp/human common ancestry once and for all.

As it stands, I'll await any response you get and look forward to reading it.

 

[shernren]

DNA is roughly CNOHP anyways, and that's the same whether we talk about chimp, human or mouse. So I can say that humans are 99% mouse, too, when it comes to DNA. While we're at it a case for 99% nematode worm might even be possible along those lines.

That's the problem, no suitable basis of comparison is given in the article along which chimpanzees are 98% similar to humans. I could compare just about anything between chimpanzees' and humans' DNA, from isotopic ratios to macromolecular structure to plain raw chromosome number. Even in terms of sequencing one can compare overall divergence, no. of genes different, SNPs, indels, ERVs , "junk" non-coding DNA, noncoding functional regions, etc. Supplying the comparison without the accompanying basis of comparison is pretty misleading.

 

[Tomk80]

I voted "a true and accurate report", because as more often with Mark's poll options, it lacks the necessary nuanced options.

The article is reasonably accurate, but some statements are not clear enough, such as the 98% to 99% comment already discussed. It's not that the comment is wrong, it's that it only applies to gene-gene comparisons. In a comparison of the complete stretch, indeed the difference is around 95%.

The problem is, of course, that the article is directed at a largely lay public. Explaining this difference to such a public would be extremely hard and probably add more confusion then it would give clarity. This becomes apparant from Mark's own OP, where it is immediately clear that he himself still doesn't understand the real difference between the two measurements and why the 98 - 99% figure is still correct. So the 98 - 99% figure is accurate enough for this article.

On the other comments, they contain more of Mark's handwaving, obfuscation, carelessness in stating what is actually researched and misunderstanding. The article itself is accurate enough for a lay public and captures the content of the debate quite well.

 

[USincognito]

I voted "a true and accurate report", because as more often with Mark's poll options, it lacks the necessary nuanced options.

What, you mean three seperate iterations of "a load of crap" and one for "100% utterly true and proven" isn't nuanced? I'm shocked!

Mark's denials about not seeping venom unfortunately rings hollow with me since so much of his rants and ramblings sounds like those voiced by racists who have no problem with people of other races as long as they aren't suggested to be related to them in any way.

He and lurkers can take that as they wish, but after all the times he's been shown to be wrong on the issues of genetics, incredulity (hey Mark, how about addressing my question about shews becoming whales in 110 million years while you just can't handle an existing organ like a brain growing in 7 million years) the fossil evidence, his continued insistance that he could not be related to a chimp makes me percieve of him turning away from that hairy face and brown eyes as many humans have done to fellow humans in the past.

**** Please note. I'm not accusing Mark of racism since I have seen nothing in any of his posts to indicate a single racist bone in his body. I'm just noting that his aversion to chimp/human ancestry strikes me as coming from the same attitude. ****

 

[XTE]

I don't hate or even dislike apes and you never saw me make an unkind remark about them. I expect this kind of disingenuise misdirection on these forums but not in a publication like Time magazine. What I dispise is glaring errors by respected journalists who people will believe are reporting true and accurate facts.

Tell me something since you pity me so much. Is our DNA 98-99% the same as apes? I'll do one better then that, was I unfair in my criticism of Time magazine? If so, do tell.

I want to be accurate when I write their editors and tell them what a bunch of liars they are. Trust me when I tell you I would be happy to defend anything in the opening post.

No doubt Mark you are one of the most respectable Creationist on the board here. I feel like you genuinely do care and have a framework of knowledge you deem and hold as logical. I can read you post and see that you live in a very logical world. I don't agree with a lot of it, but you are a nice guy and have respectful debate and when you make claims like you'd stand behind any of your arguments, I can't help but believe it from you.

I wish I could say TIME isn't waiting for a Creationist or 100,000 to write back and give them the bad news, but you know that.

 

[Split Rock]

What Makes us Different?

By the way, this is the October 9 issue.

What they either don't know or don't want you to know is that biggest difference is that our brain is three times bigger then that of an ape. There bodies are not the same as ours and there is a long list of differences from head to toe and I do mean literally. I'll try to contain myself and move on before I tell you what I really think of that...statement.

If there are so many differences, why do you only talk about our brain?

They have opposable thumbs and so do we but we have a precision grip, apes cannot grasp things and control them anything like human beings can.

Bingo Mark! That is what they were refering to... that only primates have opposable thumbs. Oh, but you are going to quip about "precision grip" because you only see the small differences that separate us from our cousins rather than all the similarities. Even Creationists like Linneaus could see how similar we are to other apes.

They put thin sticks in their mouths to get it wet and stick it in termite hills, They pick up rocks to smash open nuts and occasionally pick up a stick and use it for a club. Oh yea, their offspring learn how to do it to probably from reading Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

LOL Mark! You are soooo funny. Yes they do use tools and teach that tool use to their children.

Troglodytes do tend to be very territorial and violent particularly as they get older. Pygmy chimps on the other hand are lovers not fighters and have been known to even french kiss.

Wow... you have come up with another similarity between us and chimps, and it went right over your head.

This was conclusively disproven in May of 2005 with the publication of The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. The sequence identified 35 million single nucleotide substitutions, 5 million indels 95 million nucloetide in length and 20 million nucleotides worth of chromosomal rearrangements which comes to 145 million base pairs. The sequence identity comes to 96% and by my calculations 145 million divided by 3,000 million comes to over 20%.

This is one part that was misleading. They did not specify how they were making the comparison.

Not only have researcher found the genetic basis for the evolution of the human brain elusive they have found dramatic differences in the genes involved in neural functions. it would literally have taken hundreds if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes. To date, modern genetics has never discovered a random mutation in a functionally biased gene involved in neural functions with a beneficial effect. Dispite that they insist that we believe that they happened almost constantly for almost 2 million years and then suddenly stopped.

Nothing "suddenly stopped." Where did you get that from the article?

Chimpanzee chromosome 22 diverges from human chromosome 21 in 83% of the protein coding genes with 15 gross stuctural differences. Do you have any idea how extraordinary it is for a nucloetide sequence to not only be changed but fixed?

Very nice Mark. This doesn't change the Fact that 29% of our genes are Identical to chimp genes. How do you explain that?

This gene is 118 nucleotides long and there are 18 nucleotides that diverge between chimpanzees and humans. When comparing the same gene in chimps and chickens the differences come to 2 substitutions. Chimps and chickens have a common ancestor dating back 310 million years ago. That means that for some unbelievable twist of Darwinian fate 18 nucleotides, which comes to 6 entire amino acid sequences, in a gene involved in a crucial period of brain development were completly changed.

This is called selection. It is also a good example of how different genes can evolve at different rates.

I'll say it's complicated, the time span between Homo habilis and Homo erectus is virtuall nonexistant. At best you have about 300,000 years and in that time the cranial capacity went from 500cc-700cc to 900cc-1100cc. That was just under 2 million years ago and stayed virtually static until between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago. It was not sudden, it was the most dramatic evolutionary giant leap since the Cambriagn explosion.

Dramatic because you say so? Besides, you claimed in the other thread that there is no real leap at all from 800 cc to well over 1000cc anyway.

As scientists keep reminding us, evolution is a random process in which haphazard genetic changes interact with random environmental conditions to produce an organism somehow fitter than its fellows. After 3.5 billion years of such randomness, a creature emerged that could ponder its own origins--and revel in a Mozart adagio."

The theory of evolution may be random but the nucleotide sequence is not, nor can it sustain random haphazard genetic changes. The deleterious effects of random mutations in the protein coding genes makes to statistical likelyhood of human beings evolving from apes is absolutly astornomical.

This one statement I disagree with, because it repeats the creationist mistake of claiming evolution is completety random.

Oh I promise you we are going to finally understand precisely when and how our ancestors happened.

When we learn what genes were important in human evolution, what they do and how they changed our ancestors, will your tune change, Mark? I doubt it.

We are going to be standing face to face with the one who did it, in six literal days, and be called to give an account.

And here we have the Creationist Big Stick that we were all waiting for! It is in the end, the one honest Creationist response to the Theory of Evolution.

Afterwards we will get to see Him do it again only the next time it will be perfect. Maranatha!

Why didn't your Perfect God do it Perfectly in the first place? In any case, I thought the Creation was Perfect? Of course, Man has to be blamed for the fact that lions eat antelopes and mosquitos transmit disease... because you know your God would Never create something like that, right?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

thank you for the link. i don't customarily read TIME.

it is a popular article and should not be held to a more rigorous scientific scale of accuracy and speech. however even then there are a few problematic statements:

Agriculture, language, art, music, technology and philosophy--all the achievements that make us profoundly different from chimpanzees and make a chimp in a business suit seem so deeply ridiculous--are somehow encoded within minute fractions of our genetic code.

the fields themselves are not genetic, the ability to create and work in those fields are.

that of the chimp in just two locations out of a total of 715--an extraordinarily small change that may nevertheless explain the emergence of all aspects of human speech, from a baby's first words to a Robin Williams monologue. And indeed, humans with a defective FOXP2 gene have trouble articulating words and understanding grammar.
the logic is wrong, the mutation does not make the human FOXP2 gene more chimplike, nor does the highly conserved sequence say anything about the radicalness of the gene in human speech.

This shockingly small number made it clear to scientists that genes alone don't dictate the differences between species; the changes, they now know, also depend on molecular switches that tell genes when and where to turn on and off.

this doesn't follow, the solution can be in multiple reading frames, post translation modification of the proteins and post transcription modification with various different introns for the same piece of mRNA. the issues is that 1 gene does not equal one protein as thought 25 years ago. The regulation is a different issue.

And that's not the most startling finding. Reich's team also found that the entire human X chromosome diverged from the chimp's X chromosome about 1.2 million years later than the other chromosomes. One plausible explanation is that chimps and humans first split but later interbred from time to time before finally going their separate evolutionary ways. That could explain why some of the most ancient fossils now considered human ancestors have such striking mixtures of chimp and human traitssome could actually have been hybrids. Or they might have simply coexisted with, or even predated, the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.

appears to be logically wrong, more sensationalist than informative.

otherwise it is a nice article to recommend to less informed friends on the issues. again, thanks for the pointer to it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I sent a letter to Michael Lemonick from his website because for some reason my letter to the editor would not send, I have no idea why. This is a copy of the letter I sent:

The facts reported in your article are woefully . I would expect better from such a widely circulated and well respected publication like Time Magazine.

Your article on the differences in DNA between the chimpanzee and human genomes has a number of glaring errors. First of all the human brain is nearly three times the size of the chimpanzees and the genetic basis for this evolutionary giant leap remains unknown.

"The size of human brain tripled over a period of 2 million years (MY) that ended 0.2�0.4 MY ago. This evolutionary expansion is believed to be important to the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions, yet its genetic basis remains unknown." (Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size, Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003)

Secondly, your statement that "roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level
is flatly contradicted by the article of the 'Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome' that appeared in Nature in September of 2005. What the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium reported was 35 single nucleotide substitutions, 5 million indels (insertions/deletions) involving about 90 million base pairs and 9 major chromosomal rearrangements involving about 20 million base pairs. That comes to far more then the 1 or 2 percent of divergence between the respective genomes.

Finally discussion of the HAR1f regulatory gene involved in the development of the cerebral cortex watered down the actual differences between this gene in chimpanzees and humans. It is 118 nucleotides long with 18 nucleotides that diverge between chimps and humans. When comparing the same gene in chimps to chickens they found only 2 substitutions. The common ancestor of chimps and chickens would have been 310 million years ago. How such a huge alteration of a highly conserved gene involved in a crucial developmental stage for the brain is a complete mystery.

The facts reported in your article are woefully . I would expect better from such a widely circulated and well respected publication like Time Magazine.

Sincerly,
Mark Kennedy

If I get a response I'll be sure to post it here. I pointed to the two most obvious errors, the 98-99% figure is wrong based on sources they have read. Tell me something my scientifically oriented friends, what is 145/3,000?

I have done the math a couple of times and can't seem to get it to come out to 1% to 2%, what am I doing wrong?

 

[sfs]

I I was a tad disappointed since I would love to see how a paleontologist or geneticist would react to you telling them you'd found the magic bullet that would kill chimp/human common ancestry once and for all.

What, you want to see if other geneticists are less polite to Mark than I was, back when I was replying to him frequently?

 

[sfs]

The article is reasonably accurate, but some statements are not clear enough, such as the 98% to 99% comment already discussed. It's not that the comment is wrong, it's that it only applies to gene-gene comparisons. In a comparison of the complete stretch, indeed the difference is around 95%.

The 98-99% figure is the difference between bulk sequence, but counting only substitutions (single-base changes between the two species).

 

[mark kennedy]

Hello Steve,

I can tell you from personal experience that very few scientists would be as polite as you were. So what did you think of my letter to the Science editor of Time magazine. Better yet, what did you think of the article?

 

[Tomk80]

The 98-99% figure is the difference between bulk sequence, but counting only substitutions (single-base changes between the two species).

Show-off

 

[Dr.GH]

I sent a letter to Michael Lemonick from his website because for some reason my letter to the editor would not send, I have no idea why. This is a copy of the letter I sent:

Dangnabit Mark, you almost make it too easy.

The facts reported in your article are woefully . I would expect better from such a widely circulated and well respected publication like Time Magazine.

With the public relations machines operated by liars like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis, INC., you think that Time should be intimidated from finally telling the truth?

Your article on the differences in DNA between the chimpanzee and human genomes has a number of glaring errors. First of all the human brain is nearly three times the size of the chimpanzees and the genetic basis for this evolutionary giant leap remains unknown.

Mark, this isn't an AiG sort of stupid statement. I guess that you made this on up all on your own, right? The difference in Hominid brain size didn't happen in a "giant leap." Where have you been, poor boy?

"The size of human brain tripled over a period of 2 million years (MY) that ended 0.2?0.4 MY ago. This evolutionary expansion is believed to be important to the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions, yet its genetic basis remains unknown." (Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size, Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003)

Wow! You know when language emerged and "high level cognitive functions" were originally expressed? Why aren't you the most famous anthropologist of all time? Oh. Too bad. You are talking out your nether parts again.

Secondly, your statement that "roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level is flatly contradicted by the article of the 'Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome' that appeared in Nature in September of 2005.

See, Mark, a lot of people conceded this point to you because they maybe don't have a copy of the original articles. I do, and I call BS.

<clipped>

The facts reported in your article are woefully . I would expect better from such a widely circulated and well respected publication like Time Magazine.

I am sure they are heartbroke.

 

[nvxplorer]

So what did you think of my letter to the Science editor of Time magazine.

I think you forgot this, from your OP:

Oh I promise you we are going to finally understand precisely when and how our ancestors happened. We are going to be standing face to face with the one who did it, in six literal days, and be called to give an account. Afterwards we will get to see Him do it again only the next time it will be perfect. Maranatha!

 

[mark kennedy]

Dangnabit Mark, you almost make it too easy.

Ditto! Is the human brain three times the size of the chimpanzee's and do you consider that a dramatic difference?

With the public relations machines operated by liars like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis, INC., you think that Time should be intimidated from finally telling the truth?

With a definitive study like the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome I think they should accuratly report their findings. What does 145/3,300 come to? The truth is that 98-99% homology in the comparison of the human chimpanzee genomes has been finally and conclusivly proven to be false. Why don't you do the math, consider the science and call a spade a spade, they either lied or they are grossly incompetant.

Mark, this isn't an AiG sort of stupid statement. I guess that you made this on up all on your own, right? The difference in Hominid brain size didn't happen in a "giant leap." Where have you been, poor boy?

What was the cranial capacity of our ancestors 2 million years ago and what was it 1.7 million years ago? I only ask because it did not signifigantly change from KNM-ER 15000 untill about 400,000 years ago. In case you were wondering I do have real world scientific proof of this and would love to feed it to you if you have the nerve to actually answer those questions.

Wow! You know when language emerged and "high level cognitive functions" were originally expressed? Why aren't you the most famous anthropologist of all time? Oh. Too bad. You are talking out your nether parts again.

I know where the language center is and you are talking in circles.

See, Mark, a lot of people conceded this point to you because they maybe don't have a copy of the original articles. I do, and I call BS.

I will see your BS, I got 145,000,000 base pairs, what you got?

I am sure they are heartbroke.

I'm sure they know what the actual divergance is, I think they lied to please people like you.

 

[Tomk80]

See, Mark, a lot of people conceded this point to you because they maybe don't have a copy of the original articles.

They did? In my memory, almost everyone pointed out from the start that Mark started using this argument, that both figures showed different things. But that may be fuzzy memory from my side.