Blackjack and Design

[Subduction Zone]

i really don't know what to tell you.
i will not divulge this source on the open board.

if you don't want to believe what i've posted that's fine.
you should also consider the fact your assumptions about the piece are most likely wrong.

the piece itself names quite a few people.
i'm quite sure this little debacle can be verified with a little research.
have fun.

All that will happen is that people will point out that the odds are enormous that you are using some sort of bogus source. The point of debating is convincing others that you are correct. If you can't name your sources then there is no reason to believe them and you simply waste your time and the time of others.

 

[whois]

You have to protect an Italian ornithological website?

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction

[Birds - Oiseaux] SCRICCIOLO: Italian Ornithological Web Site by Alberto Masi since 1996

yes, this is the gist of the post, but it isn't where i got my material.

any comments on it?

 

[whois]

All that will happen is that people will point out that the odds are enormous that you are using some sort of bogus source.

those "enormous odds" of yours seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

now, do you wish to address the post?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, this is the gist of the post, but it isn't where i got my material.

any comments on it?

I found the same source

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction

It seems to have no author. The name at the very bottom of the page is that of an Italian soccer player.

Not too convincing, a site that was not peer reviewed in any way at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

those "enormous odds" of yours seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

now, do you wish to address the post?

What point do you want me to address?

 

[crjmurray]

The last source of yours I saw was a creationist website. So this skepticism of your sources is healthy. I can't find this story anywhere else other than two Italian sites. Frankly I'm tired of researching your sources for you.

 

[whois]

I found the same source

The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: Introduction

It seems to have no author. The name at the very bottom of the page is that of an Italian soccer player.

Not too convincing, a site that was not peer reviewed in any way at all.

like i told crjmurray, this isn't where i got my material.
it does however seem to present the material verbatum from the original source.

only someone that is willfully blind would refuse to acknowledge this little debacle.

so, you can believe it's "creationist" or believe i dug it up on the moon, or whatever else.
the people and the the charade involved are very real.

unbelievable.
and you wonder why people mistrust science, especially evolution.

any man of science would be thoroughly crabbed at this.
and probably are.
ridicule and the fear of losing their careers.
the "unbiased" nature of the peer review process, what a joke.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, this is the gist of the post, but it isn't where i got my material.

any comments on it?

The claims are moot since we have the actual DNA sequences from birds, apes, and humans. If the DNA hybridization technique is not accurate, or if the results from certain labs were fudged, it really doesn't matter since none of the data we use today comes from those studies.

 

[DerelictJunction]

like i told crjmurray, this isn't where i got my material.
it does however seem to present the material verbatum from the original source.

only someone that is willfully blind would refuse to acknowledge this little debacle.

so, you can believe it's "creationist" or believe i dug it up on the moon, or whatever else.
the people and the the charade involved are very real.

unbelievable.
and you wonder why people mistrust science, especially evolution.

any man of science would be thoroughly crabbed at this.
and probably are.
ridicule and the fear of losing their careers.
the "unbiased" nature of the peer review process, what a joke.

Is this method the only evidence of chimp-human DNA relatedness? It seems rather dated in light of the fact that both the human, chimpanzee and gorilla genomes have been sequenced and compared.

 

[whois]

The claims are moot since we have the actual DNA sequences from birds, apes, and humans. If the DNA hybridization technique is not accurate, or if the results from certain labs were fudged, it really doesn't matter since none of the data we use today comes from those studies.

the piece was posted for 2 reasons.
to show that the "proof" of a human-ape connection is wrong, it shows no such proof.

and to show the corruptible nature of the peer review process.
from the article:
Britten felt the ms. should not be published because it was critical, but when I asked him whether anthropologists had the right to know that a widely-cited work was undocumentable, which he would certainly not stand for in his field of physical chemistry, he agreed they had the right to know, but still appeared unswayed.

these scientists uncovered shady dealings of their fellow scientists.
the reviewer chooses NOT to publish that fact.

i especially like your statement of "fudging the data".
it happens, we all do it one time or another.
but when the review process exposes this sort of thing, then it needs to be addressed, not merely swept away like it never happened.

these scientists used deliberately altered data to "prove" a human-chimp connection.
this was pointed out to the reviewer and he chose to ignore it.

don't ever think "it can't happen here" because it can, and it does, and will continue to do so until someone blows this thing wide open.

 

[DerelictJunction]

the piece was posted for 2 reasons.
to show that the "proof" of a human-ape connection is wrong, it shows no such proof.

and to show the corruptible nature of the peer review process.
from the article:
Britten felt the ms. should not be published because it was critical, but when I asked him whether anthropologists had the right to know that a widely-cited work was undocumentable, which he would certainly not stand for in his field of physical chemistry, he agreed they had the right to know, but still appeared unswayed.

these scientists uncovered shady dealings of their fellow scientists.
the reviewer chooses NOT to publish that fact.

i especially like your statement of "fudging the data".
it happens, we all do it one time or another.
but when the review process exposes this sort of thing, then it needs to be addressed, not merely swept away like it never happened.

these scientists used deliberately altered data to "prove" a human-chimp connection.
this was pointed out to the reviewer and he chose to ignore it.

don't ever think "it can't happen here" because it can, and it does, and will continue to do so until someone blows this thing wide open.

The claim of altering data is from an anonymous website with no references.

The DNA hybridization technique is not the proof of the human-ape connection. It never was. It was used to determine which ape's DNA was closest to human in order to build an accurate "tree".
Mapping of the gorilla, human and chimpanzee genomes has shown the results of Dr. Sibley's work to be accurate.

 

[whois]

Is this method the only evidence of chimp-human DNA relatedness? It seems rather dated in light of the fact that both the human, chimpanzee and gorilla genomes have been sequenced and compared.

uh huh, they have been "proving" the human-chimp connection for the past 50 years.
unfortunately i've posted material that sheds serious doubt on the validity of those claims.

 

[crjmurray]

the piece was posted for 2 reasons.
to show that the "proof" of a human-ape connection is wrong, it shows no such proof.

and to show the corruptible nature of the peer review process.
from the article:
Britten felt the ms. should not be published because it was critical, but when I asked him whether anthropologists had the right to know that a widely-cited work was undocumentable, which he would certainly not stand for in his field of physical chemistry, he agreed they had the right to know, but still appeared unswayed.

these scientists uncovered shady dealings of their fellow scientists.
the reviewer chooses NOT to publish that fact.

i especially like your statement of "fudging the data".
it happens, we all do it one time or another.
but when the review process exposes this sort of thing, then it needs to be addressed, not merely swept away like it never happened.

these scientists used deliberately altered data to "prove" a human-chimp connection.
this was pointed out to the reviewer and he chose to ignore it.

don't ever think "it can't happen here" because it can, and it does, and will continue to do so until someone blows this thing wide open.

It's not gonna be someone that uses creationist websites, throws around false accusations, and refuses to share sources.

 

[crjmurray]

uh huh, they have been "proving" the human-chimp connection for the past 50 years.
unfortunately i've posted material that sheds serious doubt on the validity of those claims.

You posted an article from an Italian ornithological website. No serious doubt has been shed. Except on your credibility of course.

 

[DerelictJunction]

uh huh, they have been "proving" the human-chimp connection for the past 50 years.
unfortunately i've posted material that sheds serious doubt on the validity of those claims.

Then you consider the genome mapping of the gorilla, chimpanzee and human species to be invalid?
On what evidence do you base this claim?

 

[whois]

It's not gonna be someone that uses creationist websites, throws around false accusations, and refuses to share sources.

i have no problem with divulging my source to any moderator on the board.
and it isn't creationist.
the source YOU posted was creationist.

the names of the people involved are included.
are these scientists "creationists" too?

 

[bhsmte]

uh huh, they have been "proving" the human-chimp connection for the past 50 years.
unfortunately i've posted material that sheds serious doubt on the validity of those claims.

No doubt, you have put science, on it's ear.

 

[crjmurray]

i have no problem with divulging my source to any moderator on the board.
and it isn't creationist.
the source YOU posted was creationist.

the names of the people involved are included.
are these scientists "creationists" too?

I've done no such thing.
You posted a link to revolution against evolution yesterday. A creationist website. Try to keep up.

And I don't care about you revealing your source to a moderator. If you won't share it in the thread then it's worthless. I can find no other evidence of the scandal you're referring to other than the two obscure Italian websites I've mentioned.

 

[whois]

I've done no such thing.
You posted a link to revolution against evolution yesterday. A creationist website. Try to keep up.

yes, i did.

And I don't care about you revealing your source to a moderator. If you won't share it in the thread then it's worthless. I can find no other evidence of the scandal you're referring to other than the two obscure Italian websites I've mentioned.

are you saying this little debacle never happened?
all of the players are named.
you will find it difficult indeed to defend your position.

 

[crjmurray]

yes, i did.

are you saying this little debacle never happened?
all of the players are named.
you will find it difficult indeed to defend your position.

I'm saying I'd like a better source than a foreign website that looks like it was made in 1994 with no references.