- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 3,999
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is true in general. Obviously you can do a good job and still get fired as well.
Doing a bad job and not getting fired? Those organizations don't tend to last very long.
We are talking about science and scientific research.
But yes, generally, in private companies as well, it will be kind of hard to keep your job if you are bad at it.
That literally has nothing to do with the point at hand.
I don't know or care what you get up to in other subforums but spare us your homophobia.
So, you cannot even bring yourself to draw a conclusion when the facts are pretty plain to see. Got it.
I am not trying to fool anyone.
As I have written on here before - I have read your previous forays on this '1.23' issue and you are impervious to reason, so I am not going to take your bait.
it is just sad that you cannot admit that a creationist, either due to ignorance or malice, misrepresented a straightforward statement to support her religious beliefs.
Facts have alluded your argument. Let's see how you stand up to your own criteria:
You mean your not going to apply your own standard to yourself:
the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome:
So 1.23% plus 3% comes to 4.23% which means the two genomes are 96% the same. So given those unambiguous numbers that require only the most basic math, did Talk Origins lie about the divergence here?
- Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
- 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. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
Creationist Claim CB 104: For years, evolutionists have hailed the chimpanzee as "our closest living relative" and have pointed out that the DNA is 98 to 99 percent identical between the two. Scientists now say the difference is 4 percent, double what they have been claiming for years. Source: DeWitt, David A. 2005. Chimp genome sequence very different from man. Chimp Genome Sequence Very Different From Man
Response: The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate. (Talk Origins Claim CB144).
The divergence is measured in base pairs, not events, the statement is obviously wrong, did they lie?
Chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. (What Makes Us Different. Not very much, when you look at our DNA. But those few tiny changes made all the difference in the world. Time Oct. 2006)Time was aware of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, they would mention it a couple of paragraphs later. The number they are clearly wrong, is this a lie?
This one is from the announcement by Nature Magazine Web Focus, specifically of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. Again the number they use is clearly and obviously wrong:
What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. (The Chimpanzee Genome. Nature.com)
So did they lie? This isn't some obscure speculation about fossil anatomy. This is a complete Chimpanzee genome compared to a complete Human genome. The comparison cites 5 previous research papers that had already confirmed the level of divergence in no uncertain terms.
By your own statement it is sad you cannot admit that 1.23% plus 3% is 4.23% because you either due to 'ignorance or malice, misrepresented a straightforward'. Not one of you has managed to even acknowledge the indels, some 90 million base pairs, some millions of base pairs long.
Which means you refuse to a knowledge the sum of 3 plus 1.23. This isn't a mystery, it's basic math. It can come out 1 or 2, it will always be over 4. So you take an obscure point and make big dramatic performance out of it but when it comes to the blatantly obvious you resolutely ignore vital facts. If I can't trust you to comprehend basic math why would I ever trust you to comprehend the obscure.I already said that I was not going to go down this dopey rabbit hole, for your naivete on this issue was explained to you ad nauseum by several people each time you make the exact same arguments.
I will accept your concession regarding Mitchell and move on.
Which means you refuse to a knowledge the sum of 3 plus 1.23. This isn't a mystery, it's basic math. It can come out 1 or 2, it will always be over 4. So you take an obscure point and make big dramatic performance out of it but when it comes to the blatantly obvious you resolutely ignore vital facts. If I can't trust you to comprehend basic math why would I ever trust you to comprehend the obscure.
Very true.Obama certainly didn't.
Medical doctor Elizabeth Mitchell writes, in an essay on the 'Answers in Genesis' site in a caption of a Tiktaalik artistic rendition (note the bolding and/or italics I added for emphasis in both quotes):
In fact, the evolutionary imagination accords this fish’s hind-parts so much power, they believe it was ready for “pelvic-propelled locomotion”1 across the terrestrial world and up the evolutionary tree.
The 1 links to this article:
N. Shubin et al., “Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (13 January 2014)
wherein one finds this passage - the only passage in which one finds the word "propelled":
Tiktaalik reveals that features contributing to the trend toward pelvic-propelled locomotion in the tetrapodomorph stem began emerging in finned taxa before being enhanced in more derived digited forms. Indeed, this trend has deep roots or parallel trajectories: diverse lungfish, both fossil
and extant, have pectoral and pelvic girdles that are subequal in size (17).
Why do professional creationists lie like this? Is it because they have brainwashed their target audiences into bowing to their perceived authority so it doesn't matter?
Or are most of them just incompetent and don't know any better?
This is not, sadly, a rarity. YEC Dr.David Menton had written commentary on the pelvic bones of Tiktaalik, declaring them insufficient for land-based locomotion. Problem - at the time he wrote the article, the pelvic bones had not yet been discovered.
YEC Dr. Jeff Tomkins wrote an essay declaring that humans and chimps are really only about 70% similar, and thus could not have a shared ancestry. It was soon discovered that he had done 2 things - that he had used a version of BLASTn with known problems, and that he had constrained the program to return only sequence matches of prescribed lengths that were 100% matches - so if the program found a sequence in human that matched chimp in 9 out of 10 bases, it would come back as 0% identical, virtually guaranteeing that what he found would have a lower % identity than other analyses. When confronted with these problems, Tomkins doubled down and called his critics names (this played out on Reddit, not sure I want to link to it).
There are many other examples - but one has to wonder why, if they are so sure that they are correct, why do they engage in these acts of dishonesty?
And if they are acts of incompetence, why should their followers trust them?
I'd be interested to know what funding pressures affect, say, university or government research as opposed to say, creationist funded 'research'... science is of no use and progress is not possible in secular land if the research isn't done honestly, remember that all walks of life and religions engage in this 'secular evolutionary' science - Creationists who have a mandate before entering the lab are a very different story. They even announce their bias proudly beforehand.
Rubbish, Scientists start with "Where does the Evidence go" and follows it to its conclusion, no matter where it goes. Unless you think scientists thought the Government wanted to get the bad news that anthropomorphic climate change is real?What creationist do is no different than what secularist do. Bot start with an agenda. Creationists start with "God did it all," Secularists start with God did not do any of it."
And your ignorance is a badge of honour, it seems... I wouldn't be so proud of it if I were you.Creationist show where evolution is not based on science. Secularist start with evolution is based on science but can't offer any scientific evidence to support their unscientific opinions.
Wow. Just Wow. How short is your memory?? From a near identical question you asked on page 238 of "Proving evolution as just a theory" thread:Prove me wrong and post the scientific evidence for "natural selection," a standard doctrine of the TOE. That should be easier than proving a dog-like land animal surviving very well on land, eventually became a whale by wading in the sea eating fish.
and then, same post:....like these?:
Comparing Patterns of Natural Selection across Species Using Selective Signatures
Darwinian natural selection: its enduring explanatory power
Perhaps you should just read some books? Any books? (except that creationists tripe, of course)
Do you even hang around for the answer? Anyone would think you weren't honest, or something because you sure as heck never hung around and addressed that material in any significant way (or even at all?)...http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.or.11.pdf
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises
Transition of Eocene Whales from Land to Sea: Evidence from Bone Microstructure
The evolution of whales
....Okay, that last one is a laypeople article.... I figured you won't understand the science in these other peer reviewed studies of Whale Evolution from a land animal so threw it in the mix for you. No, no, don't thank me, I don't mind helping you google your education material for you...
Rubbish, Scientists start with "Where does the Evidence go" and follows it to its conclusion, no matter where it goes. Unless you think scientists thought the Government wanted to get the bad news that anthropomorphic climate change is real?
your ignorance is a badge of honour, it seems... I wouldn't be so proud of it if I were you.<<
What a stupid remark. Ignorance cant be a badge of honor. I have said there no evidence for natural selection and for whale evolution. Prove me wrong or admit you are the one ignorant of real science.
Wow. Just Wow. How short is your memory?? From a near identical question you asked on page 238 of "Proving evolution as just a theory" thread:
and then, same post:
Do you even hang around for the answer? Anyone would think you weren't honest, or something because you sure as heck never hung around and addressed that material in any significant way (or even at all?)...
I never ignore a post to me. If I did not respond it is because I missed it. If you will post the evidence that post presented, I will show you it was not based on real science.
I think the best answer is they are more qualified than you are and you accept by faith alone the doctrines of evolution for which you have no evidence.
Natural selection and a land animal being in the evolutionary line of whales for example. Why do evolutionists engage in this type of scientific dishonesty?
You've missed it Twice then already...That simply isn't true. They accept "natural selection" and whale evolution not only with no evidence, but with proven genetics facts.
What a stupid remark. Ignorance cant be a badge of honor. I have said there no evidence for natural selection and for whale evolution. Prove me wrong or admit you are the one ignorant of real science.
I never ignore a post to me. If I did not respond it is because I missed it. If you will post the evidence that post presented, I will show you it was not based on real science.
....like these?:
Comparing Patterns of Natural Selection across Species Using Selective Signatures
Darwinian natural selection: its enduring explanatory power
Perhaps you should just read some books? Any books? (except that creationists tripe, of course)
Because of the evidence that the stories in the Qur'An are fact?
What's the scientific definition of "kind" then?
What about the Snow Leopard, it can't be crossbred with any of the other cats, is it of its own kind? Why/why not? I'm not after examples, I want to know a framework by which we can objectively identify what a "kind" is. If your definition is just that it can reproduce, then a Snow Leopard (and millions more species like it) are actually their own kind, meaning the Ark immediately becomes a non-starter just on the numbers of species against that criteria alone. Of course, then there's ring species, how do they work? Are the ends of these ring species different kinds?? If not, then what happens if the middle of this ring species is wiped out or separates permanently? Are they their own kind then?
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.or.11.pdf
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises
Transition of Eocene Whales from Land to Sea: Evidence from Bone Microstructure
The evolution of whales
....Okay, that last one is a laypeople article.... I figured you won't understand the science in these other peer reviewed studies of Whale Evolution from a land animal so threw it in the mix for you. No, no, don't thank me, I don't mind helping you google your education material for you...
You've missed it Twice then already...
So, for the Third Time!! Here it is (included it in its entirety, just in case you have trouble seeing it...):
What is that saying - 'None so blind as those that refuse to see'....
Are you even Serious after this post??:We can't demonstrate what has not been presented.Present the evidence for natural selection and I will show you where it is not scientific evidence.
Let's try for number 4!:You've missed it Twice then already...
So, for the Third Time!! Here it is (included it in its entirety, just in case you have trouble seeing it...):
....like these?:
Comparing Patterns of Natural Selection across Species Using Selective Signatures
Darwinian natural selection: its enduring explanatory power
Perhaps you should just read some books? Any books? (except that creationists tripe, of course)
Because of the evidence that the stories in the Qur'An are fact?
What's the scientific definition of "kind" then?
What about the Snow Leopard, it can't be crossbred with any of the other cats, is it of its own kind? Why/why not? I'm not after examples, I want to know a framework by which we can objectively identify what a "kind" is. If your definition is just that it can reproduce, then a Snow Leopard (and millions more species like it) are actually their own kind, meaning the Ark immediately becomes a non-starter just on the numbers of species against that criteria alone. Of course, then there's ring species, how do they work? Are the ends of these ring species different kinds?? If not, then what happens if the middle of this ring species is wiped out or separates permanently? Are they their own kind then?
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.or.11.pdf
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises
Transition of Eocene Whales from Land to Sea: Evidence from Bone Microstructure
The evolution of whales
....Okay, that last one is a laypeople article.... I figured you won't understand the science in these other peer reviewed studies of Whale Evolution from a land animal so threw it in the mix for you. No, no, don't thank me, I don't mind helping you google your education material for you...
LOL! It gets even Better! He just rolled for Round 4!
No, that's not it. This is not a cosmic struggle between theists and atheists--there are too many thiests on what you call the "secularist" side. What it is, is a conflict between a Protestant minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theist and atheist alike.What creationist do is no different than what secularist do. Bot start with an agenda. Creationists start with "God did it all," Secularists start with God did not do any of it."
This will take time given I'll have to include much of it for you to read - but sure, give me a day or so to write it up for you. Challenge for you in return will be to refute with actual evidence and reasoned argument, not magic handwaves. I doubt you'll be able to.Your links did not provide any evidence for whale evolution.
Not only do you not understand genetics, you still think opinions are evidence.
Proved me wrong by cutting and pasting the evidence in you links. Then we can see if you actually understand what constitutes evidence.
This will take time given I'll have to include much of it for you to read - but sure, give me a day or so to write it up for you. Challenge for you in return will be to refute with actual evidence and reasoned argument, not magic handwaves. I doubt you'll be able to.
No, that's not it. This is not a cosmic struggle between theists and atheists--there are too many thiests on what you call the "secularist" side. What it is, is a conflict between a Protestant minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theist and atheist alike.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?