Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

a reply to: TerraLiga

I do find the parallels with geocentrism interesting though, take the current visual model for instance... it looks oddly familiar to this image published in 1245 AD.

It's like we're going around in circles (pun intended)



Hey check out that dude sitting outside the model out there in the meta.



Cool stuff...

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton


The eye is completely consistent with evolution.

www.newscientist.com...

I see the storyline involving "light-sensitive cells" hasn't changed. See the remarks made in response to this storyline from 9:18 - 12:49 below:

Coming back to something I shared on page 13:

originally posted by: whereislogic

...

“You must know,” I replied, “that to give this neat picture, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.”

“They only simplify it to avoid confusion,” the student said.

I replied: “To avoid confusion they conceal the evidence, and in simplifying they oversimplify to the point of falsification.”

Indeed, that is just what Simpson says, that ‘the oversimplification of the horse fossil record amounts to falsification.’ ...

Source: Do I Have to Believe Evolution? (Awake!—1974)

The same can be said about the oversimplification of the storyline regarding the evolution of the eye.

A key point below at 2:44:

If the human eye was designed it certainly wasn't intelligently.

thehumanevolutionblog.com...

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Religion.

The stupidest thing to have ever been created by man.

2nd line

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Religion.

The stupidest thing to have ever been created by man.

2nd line

It appears evolution made dumb people who created multiple gods.

They still argue about whose God is the real one.

We know the earth isn't a few thousand years old dont we.

How do you know the believers in ancient gods weren't right and people have been worshiping false gods ever since. No one knows if jesus was real and if he did exist he wasn't called jesus as that is a relatively modern name.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

If the human eye was designed it certainly wasn't intelligently.

thehumanevolutionblog.com...

That argument and accompanying claims in the link you shared was already responded to in the 2nd video you ignored, yet still responded to (at least my comment, not anything that is said in the video that shows that argument and the accompanying claims to be bogus). Starting at 3:45, right after the first key point I mentioned in my previous comment.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

It appears evolution made dumb people who created multiple gods.

It's actually the people who worshipped multiple gods that made up evolutionary philosophies and myths to begin with:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Also quite a few pantheists (those who believe that everything is god, the universe is god, Mother Nature) and Gaia (Mother Earth) worshippers amongst those religious philosophers promoting evolutionary mythology.

a reply to: iamthevirus

The Earth is the center of the observable universe, because that is where we happen to be looking at the universe from.

If you were on a planet in a galaxy millions of lightyears away, that would be the center of the observable universe. The universe itself likely has no central point. Though that is an assumption and not something that is known.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: whereislogic


Do you find it odd that everything has a relationship with each other? The closer lifeforms are to each other the more there is a relationship like the chimp is to man.

Where you see an evolutionary relationship I see similarities. But besides that, my analysis of the numbers given for a certain % similarity between 2 different genomes, such as that between chimps and humans, has led me to the conlusion that these numbers are not reliable, and based on cherry-picking what one chooses to compare and what to ignore and fiddling around with the data* until one gets approx. the desired number. And in the past, 90% was deemed enough to make the argument you made at the end there. An honest comparison would result in quite different numbers, and then suddenly, that argument you made at the end doesn't work anymore. Just as it doesn't work anymore if they went back to 90% for chimp-human DNA similarity (given the other claims now regarding other organisms being more than 90% similar).

*: Human-Chimp Similarity: What Does It Mean? | Evolution News

...

The old statistic that we are about 99 percent or 98 percent similar to chimps pertains only to alignable protein-coding sequences. In fact the statistic first originated based upon similarity between humans and chimps in just one single gene! But many non-coding sequences are highly dissimilar, and there are sequences of the human and chimp genomes that are so different that they can’t be aligned for comparison. For example, there are some parts of our genome, such as the human y chromosome, that are radically different from the chimp genome.

... However, one criticism I’ve heard of all current estimates is that they are based upon versions of the chimp genome that used the human genome as a “scaffolding,” potentially making certain sections of the chimp genome more humanlike than they ought to be. This could also artificially inflate the degree of human-chimp similarity.

...

Is the case for common ancestry, based upon the degree of similarity, an objective or rigorous argument that’s capable of being falsified? For example, if a 1 percent genetic difference implies common ancestry, but then that statistic turns out to be wrong, then does a 4 percent genetic difference mean common ancestry is false? How about 7 percent or 10 percent genetic difference? 25 percent? At what point does the comparison cease to support common ancestry? Why does the percent genetic similarity even matter? It’s not clear that there is an objective standard for falsification here, any identifiable reason why a particular percentage of genetic similarity should be taken to indicate common ancestry.

Indeed, Dennis Venema even seems to acknowledge this point, writing in 2018:

No one is more interested in the “% genome identity” thing than folks trying to cast doubt on common ancestry. It’s just not a precise value that scientists are interested in, because it doesn’t answer interesting scientific questions in the way other values do… (emphasis added)

That’s quite a bold quote from Professor Venema when earlier he was seen emphasizing how humans are a mere genetic “hand-breadth” away from chimps, as part of a case for common ancestry. This is in keeping with numerous other evolution apologists over the years who have cited the “1%” statistic in favor of human-chimp common ancestry. They are the ones who invented and promoted this fallacious argument, and we are simply responding to it. Yet somehow us Darwin-skeptics get blamed for spreading a fallacious argument.

Perhaps Dr. Venema has changed his mind about the import of the statistic—which he is fully entitled to do. Whatever the case, we agree with his point here that the “% genome identity” provides no rigorous argument for common ancestry and does not answer very many interesting questions within this particular debate.

The case for human-chimp common ancestry is further significantly weakened once one realizes that there are other potential explanations for functional similarities: notably, design based upon a common blueprint.

...

originally posted by: whereislogic

That argument and accompanying claims in the link you shared was already responded to in the 2nd video you ignored

Well when the title is Be Grateful for intelligent Design I suspect some bias there...lol

The big point you are missing is eyes are only good enough for what each species needs. If you wanted to talk about as close to prefect as an eye can get then just read up on the octopus eyes, as they are crazy good compared to ours. The mole can't really see, but have a keen sense of smell and touch, and you think God said I'm going to give moles crappy eyes because they spend most of their time underground? geez, God sucks then... There are fish that ended up trapped in caves and evolved into having no eyes at all. A big part of that was scarcity of food/O2 and no need for eyes, so with each generation the ones who would survive on less needs continued to reproduce to a point the eyes were gone and that removed a huge amount of energy wasted for something not needed anymore.

If human eyes were a TV then the power cord would go right through the front of the picture tube, think about looking at a TV with the power cord in the middle of the tube instead of the back. WTF was God thinking then when even little humans can get it right...lol

There are so many WTF was God thinking we could spend all day on it, but evolution only needs "just good enough" and not perfection as one would think God would create. There is also the other side of this that we share designs with other creatures like fish that might be great for them, but kind of sucks for us, so why did God add fish designs to us when they are really crappy for land creatures. This topic can go on and on, but at the end of the day there is no reason for God to do these things, but makes prefect sense for evolution.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: ScepticScot

If the human eye was designed it certainly wasn't intelligently.

thehumanevolutionblog.com...

That argument and accompanying claims in the link you shared was already responded to in the 2nd video you ignored, yet still responded to (at least my comment, not anything that is said in the video that shows that argument and the accompanying claims to be bogus). Starting at 3:45, right after the first key point I mentioned in my previous comment.

I didnt watch the full videos because why would i waste my life like that.

What I did watch seemed full of usual creationist lies and misdirection.

For example trilobite fossils are about 500 millions years old, however there was about 3 billion years of evolution prior to that.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Where you see an evolutionary relationship I see similarities. But besides that, my analysis of the numbers given for a certain % similarity between 2 different genomes, such as that between chimps and humans, has led me to the conlusion that these numbers are not reliable, and based on cherry-picking what one chooses to compare and what to ignore and fiddling around with the data* until one gets approx. the desired number. And in the past, 90% was deemed enough to make the argument you made at the end there. An honest comparison would result in quite different numbers, and then suddenly, that argument you made at the end doesn't work anymore. Just as it doesn't work anymore if they went back to 90% for chimp-human DNA similarity (given the other claims now regarding other organisms being more than 90% similar).

Similarities that do add up... Chimps are the most similar, other animals not so much. There are more similarities between Chimps and humans than Orangutans and humans as example. One is 8 million years removed and the other is 15 million years removed. Even with intelligent design I still see evolution as the tool used in that process.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: iamthevirus

The Earth is the center of the observable universe, because that is where we happen to be looking at the universe from.

If you were on a planet in a galaxy millions of lightyears away, that would be the center of the observable universe. The universe itself likely has no central point. Though that is an assumption and not something that is known.

Yes I realize that... but what would the CMB look like at the particle horizon?

The questions and physics behind it all are really deep and despite all we have learned regardless we're stuck in this type of geocentric mode of thinking and it is scalable.

Pretty odd some monk in 1245 like invented what we would call the Multiverse though.

There's nothing new under the sun so they say.

But all that's another topic I guess, separate from the boring Darwinian-Marxist-Nazi biology stuff called Evolution that they're discussing in this thread.

a reply to: Ohanka

It would make for an excellent topic though in the science and tech section...

The CMB / Big Bang / Particle Horizon Problem.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=The%20horizon%20problem%20describes%20the,contact%20to%20establish%20thermal%20equilibrium.

link 2

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
Religion.

The stupidest thing to have ever been created by man.

2nd line

It appears evolution made dumb people who created multiple gods.

They still argue about whose God is the real one.

We know the earth isn't a few thousand years old dont we.

How do you know the believers in ancient gods weren't right and people have been worshiping false gods ever since. No one knows if jesus was real and if he did exist he wasn't called jesus as that is a relatively modern name.

Let's just say Evolution is a "theory" theories are just that, they're not "fact"

I'll leave that at that...

Evolution doesn't even fit into the category of our science such as classical physics. Evolution has taken us nowhere in the short time it has been on the stage except into Social Darwinism and the Politics of war.

Is that science? How does it advance us?

If you believe you're an animal so be it, then you can be treated like an animal and treat others around you like animals.

It's narrow stuff, pure scientific biology is interesting yes which predates Evolution by quite some time... but Evolution itself, what is it good for? It certainly hasn't taken us to space or taken our minds outside our cosmic realm such as theoretical physics.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

It appears evolution made dumb people who created multiple gods.

It's actually the people who worshipped multiple gods that made up evolutionary philosophies and myths to begin with:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Also quite a few pantheists (those who believe that everything is god, the universe is god, Mother Nature) and Gaia (Mother Earth) worshippers amongst those religious philosophers promoting evolutionary mythology.

I think just maybe we have all Evolved since the last time we were Tabula Rasa, back then before we got all Cromagged out lol.

We've found some Neandethal graves apparently in which they actually buried their dead and supposedly with objects... little controversy surround that last time I checked.

But it doesn't tell us anything about their belief in a God(s) or if they were even able to reason on a higher level.

It is interesting though the last time we were all born atheists and carried it into adulthood we were somewhere lower on the evolutionary ladder.

Kind of like my meme, that's what we looked like when we were all atheists.

originally posted by: whereislogic
... But besides that, my analysis of the numbers given for a certain % similarity between 2 different genomes, such as that between chimps and humans, has led me to the conlusion that these numbers are not reliable, and based on cherry-picking what one chooses to compare and what to ignore and fiddling around with the data* until one gets approx. the desired number. ...

For those interested in learning more about that subject (especially how the 'fiddling around with the data' works, making the chimp genome appear more humanlike for example):

Comparison of 18,000 De Novo Assembled Chimpanzee Contigs to the Human Genome Yields Average BLASTN Alignment Identities of 84%

In the article above they seem to give the impression that the panTro6 version of the chimpanzee genome is fairly reliable or accurate, but I have my doubts about that as well cause you're relying on the work of the same types of people who deliberately "humanized" the panTro4 and PanTro5 versions for the purpose of marketing the accompanying evolutionary storyline (quoting "humanized" from the article, I described it in slightly more detail before). So I have no reason to believe that their behaviour and attitudes as to how to approach this project of getting an accurate chimp genome has changed.

Sequences are the best way to consider this. When have you ever seen anything thats just fully complete without anything happening before that?

If there is sand and you know sand is made from ground up rocks....how long would it take water to do that to rocks? the answer is ...really #ing long.

So if you now imagine before the materials that are the earth....formed into an earth and you imagine obviously there is no life on the earth....how did ...lifeless energy ....form into the sequence? That sequence is called "evolution". Its quite simple fella's, to deny there was a sequence of events when you can literally see someone give birth, you can see a spider give birth, you can see a tree "give birth".

if you want you can see they're all made of practically the same things because....the dna is ultimately the same basic thing, you can watch something rot down into juices...that stuff doesnt just vanish...it becomes something else.

This process is never ending by the way, in totality...for sure "this" sequence can "end" as in, energy can become so disorganised you could say this sequence has ended but ...energy itself can never ever stop. There was a "universe" prior to this one....it was made of the energy that is now ..this universe because there is ONLY this energy.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
... There are more similarities between Chimps and humans than Orangutans and humans as example. ...

A bogus claim based on dodgy numbers and unreliable inaccurate Chimp and Orangutan genomes (assembled by using the human genome as a "scaffolding" reference explained in more detail in the last article I linked that talks about the 84% number, a number that is based on a version of the chimp genome where they didn't use the human genome as a "scaffolding" reference, i.e. "de novo" as they call it in the title there; mind you, this number is also not based on comparing the whole genome without fiddling with the raw data to help with lining it up to the human genome for comparison, or taking into account all the differences, including overall sizes of the genomes compared and unalignable regions even with the previously mentioned fiddling around; if those and other ignored differences are taken into account, the number for overall DNA similarity would be even lower than 84% with the PanTro6 dataset, "significantly lower" as the article below puts it, I'll bold it).

From that article concerning the practice of using the human genome as a reference scaffold ('humanizing' that version of the chimp genome, as they call it; such as was done with the "panTro4 version of the chimpanzee genome"). My commentary is in between brackets:

Abstract

... Results from this study not only negate the concept of the 98.5% DNA similarity myth, but highlight the extremely flawed and humanized nature of the panTro4 version of the chimpanzee genome and its predecessors that are widely used to support the human evolution paradigm.

Introduction

One of the chief problems with all versions of the chimpanzee genome prior to PanTro6, is that they were not constructed through the use of an accurate integrated physical-genetic map and its corresponding genomic resources in a systematic fashion like the human genome and other key model animal genomes (Tomkins 2011). Instead, short DNA sequences generated by the sequencing machinery (known as trace reads) largely produced through a whole genome shotgun approach were assembled onto the human genome using it as a reference scaffold (Mikkelsen et al. 2005; Prado-Martinez et al. 2013; Tomkins 2011). This was done not only out of convenience and a lack of available resources, but the dogmatic evolutionary presupposition that humans evolved from apes and shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about 3 to 6 million years ago.

Another serious potential problem with earlier versions of the chimpanzee genome is the distinct possibility of human DNA contamination that would also contribute to the development of a more humanized assembly. ...

While the problem of human DNA contamination in the chimpanzee genome has never been addressed by the secular community, researchers have recently openly acknowledged sequence assembly problems stating, “the higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes” and “This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies” (Kronenberg et al. 2018). Even with a more recent version of the chimpanzee genome (PanTro5) that used a hybrid approach of next generation sequencing technologies, including PacBio long reads, the resulting contiguous pieces of de novo assembled DNA sequence were still oriented and aligned onto the human genome as a reference (Kronenberg et al. 2018; Kuderna et al. 2017).

At the time of this publication, a new version of the chimpanzee genome has been announced (PanTro6) that was assembled completely de novo without the use of a human as a reference scaffold (Kronenberg et al. 2018). [whereislogic: Well, that's the claim at least; whether it can be appropiately referred to as "de novo" or the assembly of this version of the chimp genome being thought of as not having been influenced by using data from the human genome at all, is not always entirely clear. I've noticed in an article about genetic assembly techniques some well hidden techniques where the human genome still somehow affects the endresult being spit out by assemblers working on the chimp genome for example. With the way these were hidden and justified in that article, I would not be surprised that the author of this article, Tomkins, would overlook those subtle techniques to 'humanize' the assembly process and final endresult in such versions of the chimp genome as PanTro6.] According to correspondence with UCSC genome browser staff at the time of this report, “The panTro6 assembly has not yet been reviewed by our Quality Assurance team” and is not available for public download. [whereislogic: so no way to check for what I just mentioned. Anyway...] However, LASTZ alignments with the human genome have been performed and are available for download (hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu...). LASTZ is a large-scale genome alignment tool that can efficiently align chromosomal or genomic sequences millions of nucleotides in length. [whereislogic: but it does so by fiddling around with the data to help with alignment and comparisons.]

Queen Mary University of London evolutionary geneticist, Richard Buggs, recently performed an analysis of the UCSC LASTZ results and reported, “The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” (Buggs 2018). Not only do these LASTZ PanTro6 results fit well with a previous report by Tomkins (2016) in which it was determined that the chimpanzee genome could be no more than 85% similar to human, but these results also match closely with data described below in this present study.

Interestingly, Buggs also calculated the amount of sequence that was unalignable between human and chimpanzee stating, “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.” Assuming that the genome sizes between human and chimpanzee are similar [whereislogic: they aren't the same, but this is never really counted as a basic % difference to begin with, even though it should at least be counted as a difference somehow], when the non-alignable sequence data is combined with the alignment data (Buggs 2018), the current level of overall human-chimpanzee genome similarity can now be estimated at about 80%. [whereislogic: yeah, whatever, that's not the right number either, for the reasons I explained so far regarding the reliability of the PanTro6 version, my remark about 'fiddling' concerning alignment tools as well as my remark about genome sizes just now ( regarding the topic of alignment, there's more to be considered in the paragraph below where I bolded something at the end; the "gap extension parameters" are something to fiddle around with to make the genomes compared appear more similar, i.e. get a higher % number for your comparison). But whatever, these numbers are already nowhere close to your 99.6%. So these numbers also don't work for the orangutan-chimp-human argument I'm responding to in this comment. And PanTro6 does appear less humanized than earlier versions with which the higher % numbers for DNA similarity are associated as well as the argument you used concerning Orangutans.]

Despite the recent improvements with the PanTro5 and PanTro6 versions of the chimpanzee genomes, no objective reassessment of human chimpanzee genome similarity has been forthcoming from the secular research community outside of the recent internet post by Buggs (2018), which at the time of this report, has received no credible challenge or rebuttal.

In an attempt to get around the bias presented by the humanized chimpanzee genome assembly issue, in a previous study, I sampled 25,000 unassembled trace reads at random from each of the 101 Sanger-style trace read data sets that provided the foundation for the initial versions of the chimpanzee genome (Tomkins 2016). As a follow-up to this previous research, and in an attempt to use higher quality, less contaminated (with human DNA), and longer sequences, 18,000 publicly available de novo assembled contigs combining Sanger-style reads, Illumina short reads, and PacBio long reads were queried against the human genome using the BLASTN algorithm with gap extension.

...

Comparison to Human

The main finding of significance to the issue of alleged common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees is the fact that the average alignment identity was only 84% (table 1). Despite the gap extension parameters being quite liberal, the average mean alignment length was only 10,509 bases as a result of the algorithm hitting a gap that was too large for it to traverse. Thus, only about one-third of each chimpanzee contig on average could be aligned to the human genome as the best hit. These data obviously exclude the less alignable portions of the contigs as well as those regions that would be completely unalignable. Thus, the overall identity of the chimpanzee genome compared to human would actually be significantly lower than 84%.

Comparison to PanTro4

The PanTro4 assembly of the chimpanzee genome has been the version most commonly used in recent years to support an alleged common ancestry with human. However, both this author (Tomkins 2011, 2016) and more recently, authors of the new de novo assembled PanTro6 version of the chimpanzee genome have asserted that past versions of the chimpanzee genome have been “humanized” (Kronenberg et al. 2018). This is especially true for the PanTro4 version and its predecessors.

The main finding of significance to the issue of humanization of the chimpanzee genome is the fact that the average mean alignment identity of the de novo assembled chimpanzee contigs was only 91% when queried against the PanTro4 assembly, not 100% as would be expected if the chimpanzee genome was an accurate representation (table 1). In fact, some regions had alignment identities lower than 70% with a minimum as low as 66%. The alignments were so poor that the average mean alignment length of only 10,699 bases was not much better than that achieved using human as a target database. Thus, only about one-third of each chimpanzee contig on average could be aligned to the PanTro4 version of the chimpanzee genome as the best hit. These poor alignments indicate that the humanization of the chimpanzee genome was extremely severe and heavily biased towards an evolutionary outcome.

Comparison to PanTro5

...

originally posted by: whereislogic

... Assuming that the genome sizes between human and chimpanzee are similar [whereislogic: they aren't the same, but this is never really counted as a basic % difference to begin with, even though it should at least be counted as a difference somehow], ...

edit: I meant "base %", not "basic". I think there's only 1 word for it in Dutch, which confused me.

Also keep in mind that he human genome wasn't completely sequenced until recently (Nurk, S., et al. 2022, the final 8% wasn't sequenced when they published their supposed finished sequence of the human genome in 2004, which was only 92% complete). So comparisons before that, such as Buggs' and Tomkins' in 2018 (those discussed in the article), were done between an incomplete human genome and a possibly unreliable chimp genome.

Completion of Human Genome Reveals Anti-Evolutionary Surprises (APRIL 14, 2022)

Most people would be surprised to know that, until recently, the human genome was not entirely sequenced where all the DNA letters it contains are deciphered. With the use of new DNA sequencing technologies, a complete version of the human genome has now been produced (except for the Y chromosome).1 The startling discovery surrounding this novel achievement is that the previously unsequenced regions were once thought to be mostly evolutionary junk, but are actually full of important genes and other DNA sequences required for life.

...

Let's do some math again, if you only compare 1% of the human and chimp genomes (for example only protein-coding sequences as in most comparisons with the high ballpark numbers, 95%+), and point to these sequences being 99.6% similar, how much whole genome similarity, i.e. overall DNA similarity, have you pointed at? Is it not 99.6% of 1% of the whole genome that you''re pointing at as being similar then? Which is 0.996% overall DNA similarity being pointed out. You might want to have a look at the rest of the genomes as well for a more useful comparison, rather than not saying much about it and giving people the impression that your publication shows that they're 99.6% chimp (or keeping quiet when that's what people take away from it). But to do that in any sort of useful manner, you need 2 fully complete and accurately sequenced and assembled genomes to compare.

Now consider what's mentioned in this paragraph from the previous article:

The main finding of significance to the issue of alleged common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees is the fact that the average alignment identity was only 84% (table 1). Despite the gap extension parameters being quite liberal, the average mean alignment length was only 10,509 bases as a result of the algorithm hitting a gap that was too large for it to traverse. Thus, only about one-third of each chimpanzee contig on average could be aligned to the human genome as the best hit. These data obviously exclude the less alignable portions of the contigs as well as those regions that would be completely unalignable. Thus, the overall identity of the chimpanzee genome compared to human would actually be significantly lower than 84%.

So first the alignment tool mentioned previously helps you align only a portion of the PanTro6 dataset to the human genome, and only then does it come up with the 84% number? So that 84% number only pertains to a portion of the PanTro6 data. So you're only looking at 84% similarity out of ..%* of the entire original PanTro6 data (*: it's not exactly one-third because of the other things mentioned there and they're talking about averages of each individual contig, but that mentioned one-third is a key factor for this percentage that I left blank here, from this data I can't calculate the exact % of original PanTro6 data the 84% number is based on, i.e. what's left of it after the alignment tool has done its fiddling around thingy and the comparison begins).

a reply to: whereislogic

Very well said. I hope they actually read everything you're saying and consider that we've been misled by the "experts". Misrepresenting data to make the results look more astounding is a common tactic to enhance notoriety and grant money.