Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[mark kennedy]

You seem determined to ignore not only the very topic of this thread, but the very obvious reason I wrote what I did about that % figure.
I know you need to ego gratification, but on this it is undeserved.

And I have read the research, just not for creation-saving out-of-context quotes.

I know exactly why you brought up the % figure and it's because you want to navigate around the known divergence. Calling Creationists liars is pure undiluted projection, admit the error and maybe we can salvage a real discussion of the known divergence from this mess.

 

[tas8831]

You didn't know what you were talking about then and the substance of your arguments have not improved. Really Tas, you should let it go when you refuted.

Projection - the creationist's most obvious tactic.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are out of your depth and desperate to save face.

I can't help you.

Move along.

Hardly, I'm well acquainted with the facts and you have been soundly refuted just swimming around on the surface. It's all too easy, obviously you don't know me or you wouldn't have given me such an easy barrel of fish to use my shot gun on. Your playing with sweaty dynamite and you have no clue because you haven't bothered to read any of the source material.

I am moving on, actually did years ago. Moving on to pointing out the obvious errors of the Darwinian proponents that neither know, nor care, about evolutionary biology.

You've been refuted, now you are descending into a downward spiral that will crash and burn in the pit of ad hominem taunts. I use to be irritated by it, now I just feel sorry for the band wagon Darwinians who have been sucked into that pit.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[tas8831]

I know exactly why you brought up the % figure and it's because you want to navigate around the known divergence.

So no, you still don't get it.
Wow, I mean I don't know how else I can get the truth into that skull.

That quote was used BY A CREATIONIST, and I simply pointed out how bad the creationist was at copying the citation, and then how the quote itself was out of context.

A waste of time, I suppose, but here it is, yet again, in the hopes that your ego can handle the facts:

quote-bomb-spammer presented this quote in response to an abstract I had presented that mentioned human-chimp % similarities:

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

That is verbatim. Googling the quote returned several hits - all only to places where the quote-bomber had spammed before. So I searched for the citation:

-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

Nothing. Well, except for the quote-bomber's footprint. Long story short, I finally found the source:


Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26; 109(Suppl 1): 10709–10716.
Todd M. Preuss

So you can see why it was so hard to find - misspelled name... erroneous title.... garbled citation...

And even the quote was not correct- a comma where a semi-colon belonged:

"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.

Wow - 2-4% = extensive! Who knew?​

Get it yet?

Nope, I suspect not. You are too committed to your fantasies that to admit error at this point would cause total meltdown.

Calling Creationists liars is pure undiluted projection, admit the error and maybe we can salvage a real discussion of the known divergence from this mess.

Show where I have lied, and you might have a point.

Until then, you are no better than this Tolkien spam-troll-plagiarizer.

And as I wrote to you weeks ago, I am not sure what there is to discuss - you think that all of the nucleotides in an indel count toward to the total mutational difference. You cannot grasp that this is a mere confusion factor. I know - I have read several of the threads in which these discussions occurred, many well before my time here. More than 1 person tried to explain this to you, on many occasions, and yet like the Energizer Bunny, you just keep dragging the same erroneous claims up year after year, as if the previous discussions had never occurred.

And you want to claim that I am projecting?

Amazing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Projection - the creationist's most obvious tactic.

The incredible shrinking ad hominem taunt, you succumbed so quickly. The I'm rubber your glue argument doesn't work on me or anyone actually paying attention to the fact, that you've abandoned the facts. Who you think you kidding?

 

[mark kennedy]

"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.

Wow - 2-4% = extensive! Who knew?​

Get it yet?

Nope, I suspect not. You are too committed to your fantasies that to admit error at this point would cause total meltdown.

You don't call someone a liar over a comma, you call them that over a lie. It is closer to 95% to 96% which is a valid point and flies in the face of nearly constant misrepresentations by Darwinians.

Show where I have lied, and you might have a point.

Ok, just tell us plainly, is it 98% or closer to 95%? Answer the question tas because I'm sick of you calling Creationists liars over this kind of semantical theatrics.

Until then, you are no better than this Tolkien spam-troll-plagiarizer.

More classic projection.

And as I wrote to you weeks ago, I am not sure what there is to discuss - you think that all of the nucleotides in an indel count toward to the total mutational difference. You cannot grasp that this is a mere confusion factor. I know - I have read several of the threads in which these discussions occurred, many well before my time here. More than 1 person tried to explain this to you, on many occasions, and yet like the Energizer Bunny, you just keep dragging the same erroneous claims up year after year, as if the previous discussions had never occurred.

And you want to claim that I am projecting?

Amazing.

Answer the question and lets be done with this 98% or 95% and some change? Just answer the question because by now you have read the quotes from the source material and stop with your incessant squirming away from the facts.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[tas8831]

Hardly, I'm well acquainted with the facts

Then why do you think the nucleotides in an indel should be counted individually?

and you have been soundly refuted just swimming around on the surface.

Not sure what I have been refuted on - can you be specific? Are you claiming that a garbled citation is accurate? That it was warranted to use this garbled quote as an argument when the paper itself hardly makes the point the creationist troll was trying to make?

It's all too easy, obviously you don't know me or you wouldn't have given me such an easy barrel of fish to use my shot gun on.

I've read a lot of your posts. A LOT of them. And the fact that you think so highly of your abilities is entertaining, to say the least.

Your playing with sweaty dynamite and you have no clue because you haven't bothered to read any of the source material.

You are referring to yourself as "sweaty dynamite"? Is it OK if I call you that?

I have not only read much of the source material, I own much of it. And have even contributed a bit to it, a few years back.
I know that creationists really went nuts when Britten published his paper in 2002 in which he referred to the number if individual nucleotide divergence and added in the amount of DNA in indels. Pity that creationists only read the title, and not any of the paper, for they might have seen:

"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge—by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison."

Which is what several of those that have corrected you over the years have pointed out.

I am not sure what significance you think this is - for to apply this methodology across all living things would result in more or less the exact same "problems" - ALL percent similarities would drop between ALL pairs of taxa. Yes, even those from the same "kinds."

Your entire argument on this point is rather silly.

I am moving on, actually did years ago. Moving on to pointing out the obvious errors of the Darwinian proponents that neither know, nor care, about evolutionary biology.

Yeah, good luck with that.

You've been refuted, now you are descending into a downward spiral that will crash and burn in the pit of ad hominem taunts. I use to be irritated by it, now I just feel sorry for the band wagon Darwinians who have been sucked into that pit.

Have a nice day
Mark

LOL!
Right, refuted by you, referring to something that was not the subject of this thread. Great job, Sweaty Dynamite!

 

[tas8831]

You don't call someone a liar over a comma, you call them that over a lie. It is closer to 95% to 96% which is a valid point and flies in the face of nearly constant misrepresentations by Darwinians.

Wow. you are too much.

Ok, just tell us plainly, is it 98% or closer to 95%? Answer the question tas because I'm sick of you calling Creationists liars over this kind of semantical theatrics.

You mean you don't think it is dishonest to present garbled citations and quotes in support of something?

You see, I understand that the exact similarities 1. depend on what you are looking at and 2. don't really matter as much as creationists need them to.

The fact is that humans and chimps have a greater '% similarity" than do humans and gorillas, or chimps and gorillas. And more importantly than that is their patterns of shared, unique mutations.
You want to (erroneously) attack me for focusing on a comma, yet you are stuck on this exact % similarity thing as if the specific amount even matters.

Answer the question and lets be done with this 98% or 95% and some change? Just answer the question because by now you have read the quotes from the source material and stop with your incessant squirming away from the facts.

Have a nice day
Mark

LOL!
Squirming...

Let me put it this way - if there are a pair of taxa that you truly believe are related via descent from a biblical "kind", if you insist on counting the nucleotides in indels in the % similarity figure, those 'Kind'-related taxa just had THEIR % similarity decrease, too. Will you now argue that all species were created individually?

Bye now!

Oh - Sweaty Dynamite? I note that you declined to show me where I had lied, so I will take that as an admission that you were just spouting off in anger. Thanks.

 

[mark kennedy]

Tyhen why do you think the nucleotides in an indel should be counted individually?

Genomic comparisons are typically measured in base pairs unless it's RNA dude.

Not sure what I have been refuted on - can you be specific? Are you claiming that a garbled citation is accurate? That it was warranted to use this garbled quote as an argument when the paper itself hardly makes the point the creationist troll was trying to make?

That's easy, is it 98% the same or 95% and some change? Answer the question and lets talk about something real.

I've read a lot of your posts. A LOT of them. And the fact that you think so highly of your abilities is entertaining, to say the least.

I'm glad you find my posts amusing, sorry I can't make my satire a little more searing but since you are unacquainted with actual facts it's kind of difficult.

You are referring to yourself as "sweaty dynamite"? Is it OK if I call you that?

I'm talking about the subject matter you are so carelessly handling. Your argument is sweaty dynamite and feel free to refer to it as exactly that.

I have not only read much of the source material, I own much of it. And have even contributed a bit to it, a few years back.

Stop, your scaring me.

I know that creationists really went nuts when Britten published his paper in 2002 in which he referred to the number if individual nucleotide divergence and added in the amount of DNA in indels. Pity that creationists only read the title, and not any of the paper, for they might have seen:

"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge—by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison."

Which is what several of those that have corrected you over the years have pointed out.

Oh yea, now you are equivocating events with base pairs, that's not how those ratios are generated. That just means the events can be millions of base pairs long, nothing more.

I am not sure what significance you think this is - for to apply this methodology across all living things would result in more or less the exact same "problems" - ALL percent similarities would drop between ALL pairs of taxa. Yes, even those from the same "kinds."

Your entire argument on this point is rather silly.


Yeah, good luck with that.


LOL!
Right, refuted by you, referring to something that was not the subject of this thread. Great job, Cowboy!

Your promoting a gross misrepresentation of the facts, plain and simple. Your calling Creationists liars over a comma without any reference to the actual facts. Repeatedly you show a gross misunderstanding of the most basic aspects of the topic and apparently don't know the difference between RNA and DNA.

Answer the question tas, is it 98% or 95% and some change?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow. you are too much.


You mean you don't think it is dishonest to present garbled citations and quotes in support of something?

You see, I understand that the exact similarities 1. depend on what you are looking at and 2. don't really matter as much as creationists need them to.

The fact is that humans and chimps have a greater '% similarity" than do humans and gorillas, or chimps and gorillas. And more importantly than that is their patterns of shared, unique mutations.
You want to (erroneously) attack me for focusing on a comma, yet you are stuck on this exact % similarity thing as if the specific amount even matters.



LOL!
Squirming...

Let me put it this way - if there are a pair of taxa that you truly believe are related via descent from a biblical "kind", if you insist on counting the nucleotides in indels in the % similarity figure, those 'Kind'-related taxa just had THEIR % similarity decrease, too. Will you now argue that all species were created individually?

Bye now!

Oh - Sweaty Dynamite? I note that you declined to show me where I had lied, so I will take that as an admission that you were just spouting off in anger. Thanks.

Let's cut to the chase because your back peddling is boring. Is it 98% or 95% the same?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[tas8831]

Genomic comparisons are typically measured in base pairs unless it's RNA dude.

You are too smart! Weird then that Roy Britten wrote this, when he was referring to DNA:


"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge—by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison. About 1,000 indels listed in Tables 2 and 3 compared with about 10,000 base substitution events in this comparison of 779,142 nt between chimp and human. Little can be said about the effect of these indel events. There were so few gene regions in this small sample that a statistical analysis of their occurrence did not seem worthwhile. That will have to wait until larger regions for comparison become available."


Wow. Must be Britten doesn't understand this stuff, either.

Not sure what I have been refuted on - can you be specific? Are you claiming that a garbled citation is accurate? That it was warranted to use this garbled quote as an argument when the paper itself hardly makes the point the creationist troll was trying to make?

That's easy, is it 98% the same or 95% and some change? Answer the question and lets talk about something real.

My answer is that the exact percentage depends on 1. what you are looking at and 2. doesn't really matter that much. So, I am not sure how you refuted anything.

I'm talking about the subject matter you are so carelessly handling.

For like the 20th time, this thread is about a creationist playing fast and loose with quote-bombs (among other things). If you want to be embarrassed yet again on your fixation with % similarities, start another thread. You are dragging yet another thread into an area that you erroneously think you can score some ego-gratification points with.

I know that creationists really went nuts when Britten published his paper in 2002 in which he referred to the number if individual nucleotide divergence and added in the amount of DNA in indels. Pity that creationists only read the title, and not any of the paper, for they might have seen:

"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge—by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison."

Which is what several of those that have corrected you over the years have pointed out.

Oh yea, now you are equivocating events with base pairs, that's not how those ratios are generated.

Then please explain the truth, O Sweaty Dynamite!
How are those "ratios" generated?

That just means the events can be millions of base pairs long, nothing more.

So, you just did the same "equivocation."

And yes, I know this, as has everyone that has tried to explain this to you over the years.

A mutation event that alters 1 bp counts as 1 nucleotide.

A mutation event that inserts or deletes (indel) 2 or more bps counts as 1 mutation.

If I carry 1 object in a bag, or I carry 10 objects in 1 bag, it is still just 1 bag, is it not?

I am not sure what significance you think this is - for to apply this methodology across all living things would result in more or less the exact same "problems" - ALL percent similarities would drop between ALL pairs of taxa. Yes, even those from the same "kinds."

Your promoting a gross misrepresentation of the facts, plain and simple.

Which facts, please.

Are you saying that if we compare pairs of created kinds that these counting methods apply differently?

Your calling Creationists liars over a comma without any reference to the actual facts.

You are misrepresenting the OP. I have pasted it for you 2 or 3 times now, and you are still misrepresenting it.

Repeatedly you show a gross misunderstanding of the most basic aspects of the topic and apparently don't know the difference between RNA and DNA.

Right, that is me.

Then, I am not the one claiming that raw nucleotide counts are more important than mutational events.

Answer the question tas, is it 98% or 95% and some change?

Already answered 3 times.

Answer the question, SD, does a 1 million bp indel count as 1 mutation or 1 million?[/quote][/quote]

 

[tas8831]

Let's cut to the chase because your back peddling is boring. Is it 98% or 95% the same?

Have a nice day
Mark

So now you employ an idiosyncratic definition of 'back peddling'. Awesome.

Do you think it is honest to claim textbooks say things that they do not? Do you think it is honest to present totally erroneous citations as part of an argument, for papers that one has clearly not read?

Because creationists do that. I documented it in the OP.

Also still waiting for you to show what you "refuted" me on.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are too smart! Weird then that Roy Britten wrote this, when he was referring to DNA:


"This is an observation of the major way in which the genomes of closely related primates diverge—by insertion/deletion. More nucleotides are included in insertion/deletion events (3.4%) than base substitutions (1.4%) by much more than a factor of two. However, the number of events is small in comparison. About 1,000 indels listed in Tables 2 and 3 compared with about 10,000 base substitution events in this comparison of 779,142 nt between chimp and human. Little can be said about the effect of these indel events. There were so few gene regions in this small sample that a statistical analysis of their occurrence did not seem worthwhile. That will have to wait until larger regions for comparison become available."


Wow. Must be Britten doesn't understand this stuff, either.

That's as obscure, pedantic and irrelevant but I guess I'm not surprised.

My answer is that the exact percentage depends on 1. what you are looking at and 2. doesn't really matter that much. So, I am not sure how you refuted anything.

It's whole genome comparisons and it doesn't really matter because you haven't answered the question.

For like the 20th time, this thread is about a creationist playing fast and loose with quote-bombs (among other things). If you want to be embarrassed yet again on your fixation with % similarities, start another thread. You are dragging yet another thread into an area that you erroneously think you can score some ego-gratification points with.

The quotes you used in the OP were about that % and I will post what I want where I please thank you.

Then please explain the truth, O Sweaty Dynamite!
How are those "ratios" generated?

Genomic comparisons, it's odd to have to explain such obvious facts.

So, you just did the same "equivocation."

No, the ratios are base pairs compared.

And yes, I know this, as has everyone that has tried to explain this to you over the years.

A mutation event that alters 1 bp counts as 1 nucleotide.

A mutation event that inserts or deletes (indel) 2 or more bps counts as 1 mutation.

If I carry 1 object in a bag, or I carry 10 objects in 1 bag, it is still just 1 bag, is it not?

Try reading the quote in context:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ∼90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ∼3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies63,64,65,66,67.(Nature 2005)

Which facts, please.

Your really spiraling out of control aren't you?

Are you saying that if we compare pairs of created kinds that these counting methods apply differently?

I'm saying the quotes in the OP are absolutely true and your characterization of them is disingenuous at best.

You are misrepresenting the OP. I have pasted it for you 2 or 3 times now, and you are still misrepresenting it.

No your misrepresenting the quotes you are calling lies, which is self refuting.

Right, that is me.

Then, I am not the one claiming that raw nucleotide counts are more important than mutational events.


Already answered 3 times.

whatever

Answer the question, SD, does a 1 million bp indel count as 1 mutation or 1 million?

Oh baloney, does one mutation a million base pairs count as one base pair? Because that's the only way you get 98%.

 

[juvenissun]

I don’t believe the earth is old . All the evidence points tonthe earth being old . Belief is for religion not science

You do not understand the detail of the evidences. You still "believe". You simply believe what others said. Because you can not reason it.

 

[mark kennedy]

So now you employ an idiosyncratic definition of 'back peddling'. Awesome.

Do you think it is honest to claim textbooks say things that they do not? Do you think it is honest to present totally erroneous citations as part of an argument, for papers that one has clearly not read?

Because creationists do that. I documented it in the OP.

Also still waiting for you to show what you "refuted" me on.

We haven't discussed anything from a text book and I'm well acquainted with the Chimpanzee Genome paper even though you obviously read none of it, including the quotes. You see when you call someone a liar your supposed to compare the lie to the truth, you compared nothing to nothing. You posted a random quote of a Creationist who said the 98% ratio is wrong, and promptly ignored the point of the statement. You called it hyperbole and the name of the thread called it a lie and your clearly and obviously wrong.

I called you on it, you failed to defend the inflammatory statement which is exactly how you were refuted.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

But you can't tell us which textbook it is? How is that?

I don't care which book. A book or some books. You search the internet, they are there.

 

[mark kennedy]

You do not understand the detail of the evidences. You still "believe". You simply believe what others said. Because you can not reason it.

The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

 

[sfs]

That's semantics Steve, it all adds up to 1.23 plus 3.

No, it adds up to 2.7%. We've been through this before. If each genome had 50% unique DNA and 50% identical DNA, we would not add 50% + 50% and conclude that they were 100% different. At least I wouldn't.

He's calling Creationists liars for making a straightforward statement that it's not 98%.

He was calling out a misleading quotation. He also quotes a value of 95%, so he's not being misleading.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it adds up to 2.7%. We've been through this before. If each genome had 50% unique DNA and 50% identical DNA, we would not add 50% + 50% and conclude that they were 100% different. At least I wouldn't.

He was calling out a misleading quotation. He also quotes a value of 95%, so he's not being misleading.

So these statements are wrong?

the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22 Nature 2004)

The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels. (Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels.)​

 

[Brightmoon]

You do not understand the detail of the evidences. You still "believe". You simply believe what others said. Because you can not reason it.

I’ve take college level geology courses. I know the earth is old . There is that better