Gene Number Changes Between Humans and Chimps

[Split Rock]

Well, let's see --- how about we treat it like scientists do when they do the same thing:

1. Vote on it, like they did to correct Tombaugh's Folly (Pluto)?
2. Blame it on the government, like they did Vioxx and Thalidomide?
3. Defend it as science-in-progress, like they did Aristotle's Folly?
4. Blame it on the weather, like they did the Challenger disaster?
5. Just say, 'oops', like they do when a Satan Bug escapes a laboratory?
6. Blame it on faulty written procedures, like they did Chernobyl or TMI?
7. Blame it on 'pilot error' when a pilot relies on his instruments to fly a plane into the Andes Mts.?

Pick one, so we can learn to be as honest as scientists are.

So, any time anyone does anything wrong, it is the scientists' fault??

Engineering error?-- blame "scientists."
Human error? -- blame "scientists."
Bureaucratic error? -- blame "scientists."
Pharmaceutical error? -- blame "scientists."
Medical error? -- blame "scientists."

But, let's not blame any "True Christian" here for:
Slavery
Racism
The Inquisition
Witch Hunting
The Crusades
Colonialism, etc.

 

[theFijian]

The nature of reality is of interest to me.

Rather, you're interested in your own predisposed philosophical assumptions about reality.

 

[gaara4158]

Rather, you're interested in your own predisposed philosophical assumptions about reality.

The only assumption we make is that there is nothing to assume without having evidence. Anyone assuming otherwise is as baseless as we are in our presupposition.

 

[SLP]

So, any time anyone does anything wrong, it is the scientists' fault??

Engineering error?-- blame "scientists."
Human error? -- blame "scientists."
Bureaucratic error? -- blame "scientists."
Pharmaceutical error? -- blame "scientists."
Medical error? -- blame "scientists."

But, let's not blame any "True Christian" here for:
Slavery
Racism
The Inquisition
Witch Hunting
The Crusades
Colonialism, etc.

Oh no - for those, you must blame the 'evo', even if the issue in question occurred before evolution was known of...

 

[theFijian]

The only assumption we make is that there is nothing to assume without having evidence. Anyone assuming otherwise is as baseless as we are in our presupposition.

Hey we all have assumptions which we can't prove, I wasn't suggesting that i'm any different from you.

 

[LightHorseman]

When did a "satan bug" ever escape a laboratory?

Who blamed Challenger on the weather? i thought it was a faulty O ring?

But you know what? Scientists making mistakes MAY have been 100% of fault for the Challenger disaster. For the sake of argument lets agree and say it was all down to scientific incompetence that Challenger blew up. So thats a bad day for science. But even on its best day, how many orbital payloads has religious based Creationism delivered?

 

[Hespera]

Rather, you're interested in your own predisposed philosophical assumptions about reality.

Oh right, like you know that. Or this :

"Hey we all have assumptions which we can't prove, I wasn't suggesting that i'm any different from you. "QUOTE

You are way different. You assume that Christianity is reality based.

If you want to talk about how YOU have predisposed assumptions then just talk about yourself leave me out of your psychoanalyses.

 

[Hespera]

When did a "satan bug" ever escape a laboratory?

Who blamed Challenger on the weather? i thought it was a faulty O ring?

But you know what? Scientists making mistakes MAY have been 100% of fault for the Challenger disaster. For the sake of argument lets agree and say it was all down to scientific incompetence that Challenger blew up. So thats a bad day for science. But even on its best day, how many orbital payloads has religious based Creationism delivered?

Its hard for me to tell what the point of this is supposed to be, but I THINK it is to ad hom science for not taking responsibility for what it does.

Which i guess by contrast Christianity does take responsibility? For every thing that any preacher anywhere does or says?

Im not sure what a geologist is supposed to do exactly if engineers at morton thiocald make a mistake in the O rings. Or a plant geneticist in India. What should she do about the Challenger? I guess maybe every time any scientist anywhere makes a mistake all everywhere should do penance? Perthaps AV can say what form this taking responsibility is to take.

 

[LightHorseman]

Its hard for me to tell what the point of this is supposed to be, but I THINK it is to ad hom science for not taking responsibility for what it does.

Which i guess by contrast Christianity does take responsibility? For every thing that any preacher anywhere does or says?

Im not sure what a geologist is supposed to do exactly if engineers at morton thiocald make a mistake in the O rings. Or a plant geneticist in India. What should she do about the Challenger? I guess maybe every time any scientist anywhere makes a mistake all everywhere should do penance? Perthaps AV can say what form this taking responsibility is to take.

Creationists seem to have difficulty with the concept of science NOT being a homogenous, directed hierarchical organisation like a church. Just like they have difficulty grasping the fact that what a scientist said in 1932 may not be regarded as the most accurate information available anymore, since their information never improves in accuracy.

 

[Hespera]

Creationists seem to have difficulty with the concept of science NOT being a homogenous, directed hierarchical organisation like a church. Just like they have difficulty grasping the fact that what a scientist said in 1932 may not be regarded as the most accurate information available anymore, since their information never improves in accuracy.

Actually it effectively does. All sorts of things seem to get more real as the date of the supposed event gets more inaccessable. Anyone hanging around the Red Sea at the time would say they never saw it part. People would have laughed at the story. Now tho, it is established historical fact, accurate as can be.

 

[theFijian]

Oh right, like you know that. Or this :

"Hey we all have assumptions which we can't prove, I wasn't suggesting that i'm any different from you. "QUOTE

You are way different. You assume that Christianity is reality based.

If you want to talk about how YOU have predisposed assumptions then just talk about yourself leave me out of your psychoanalyses.

You may think that your worldview is based purely 100% upon empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence, your worldview may be that reality is defined purely by emirical, scientifically verifiable evidence. But then that would be a philosophical position based in some part on unprovable philosophical assumptions. We aren't all that different.

 

[Hespera]

You may think that your worldview is based purely 100% upon empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence, your worldview may be that reality is defined purely by emirical, scientifically verifiable evidence. But then that would be a philosophical position based in some part on unprovable philosophical assumptions. We aren't all that different.

And you may think you know how / what I think. I think the main similarity is (unverified assumption) that you have two legs, same as I do.

 

[Assyrian]

I've seen the wedding photos...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You may think that your worldview is based purely 100% upon empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence, your worldview may be that reality is defined purely by emirical, scientifically verifiable evidence. But then that would be a philosophical position based in some part on unprovable philosophical assumptions. We aren't all that different.

It true that every single worldview has to start with some sort of philosophy. Even science, to be meaningful, requires basic philosophical assumptions about the nature of the universe (i.e. it exists and is objective).

 

[theFijian]

It true that every single worldview has to start with some sort of philosophy. Even science, to be meaningful, requires basic philosophical assumptions about the nature of the universe (i.e. it exists and is objective).

Couldn't agree more. That's the only point I was trying to make.

 

[SLP]

You may think that your worldview is based purely 100% upon empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence, your worldview may be that reality is defined purely by emirical, scientifically verifiable evidence. But then that would be a philosophical position based in some part on unprovable philosophical assumptions. We aren't all that different.

Philosophical arguments are for people with no evidence on their side.

 

[SLP]

It depends on which portions of DNA you are comparing.


It says even more when a person continues making the exact same argument for going on 6 years despite the fact that multiple, well qualified individuals have taken the time to explain how your claims are in error.


It is religious fanatics and ignoramuses that try to stir up controversies where none exist.

The weakness is a lack of complete knowledge. The strengths are the anatomical, genomic, and biogeographic evidence.

Well, at least we do not just outright ignore posts that respond directly and completely to our claims and then protest that nobody will respond.

I've seen your 'debates' here and elsewhere. You never produce anything in them that you haven't been producing for the last several years - a few misinterpreted quotes, a few instances of a rather simplisitc "understanding" of evidence, multiple attempts at intellectual martyrdom,oodles of personal disbelief, wash rinse repeat, and in the end, regardless of what information your opponant presents (which has already been opresented to you dozens if not hundreds of times), you engage in these whiny rants about how mean everyone is and how you won.

What is the point other than to help you stroke your ego, protected as it is by a shield of invincible ignorance?
Mean? Maybe - ad hom? Not at all. The truth is not ad hominem. Example - It is a fact that despite the fact that it has been explained to you by at least two practicing geneticists and a molecular phylogeneticist (and who knows how many biologists) that indels are one-time events and it is ludicrous to insist that all of the nucleoitdes involved in an indel be added to the overall mutation rate that you still insist that they should be and use this foolish proposition as the basis for your "it is a lie to claim that humans and chimps are 98/99% identical" mantra.

That is invincible ignorance, and you've been displaying on that and other issues for over 5 years.



What - like the bible is literally true?

Hello?

Mark?

Surely, you are not going to ignore my posts that respond directly to your characteristically underinformed accusations, are you?

 

[theFijian]

Philosophical arguments are for people with no evidence on their side.

Is that why you just made a philosophical argument? (cos it ain't a scientific one)

 

[SLP]

Is that why you just made a philosophical argument? (cos it ain't a scientific one)

Amazingly, it was not my intent to make any argument whatsoever. It was just an observation.

 

[Hespera]

Amazingly, it was not my intent to make any argument whatsoever. It was just an observation.

Aint too amazing if someone is trying to make a petty argument out of everything