The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Well, you ought to.

And I plan on it. I'll squeeze the time to research it somewhere in between maintaining a home, running a business, raising a child, volunteer work, spending time with friends and family, doing yard work, exercising, and wasting time of the computer.

reply to post by AshleyD


Hey, Ash!
You know, just about EVERY university has on-line lab results for I.D.
Just google it!

Originally posted by Clearskies
You know, just about EVERY university has on-line lab results for I.D.

If that was directed at me, put it this way: You as a proponent of ID, should know better which reports are compelling reads for someone who has no clue where to begin about their research. Therefore you should give the one unschooled in that field a few pointers in the right direction.

If you have done any research using Google Scholar, you ought to know it's not as easy as "googling it". Signal to noise ratio is high; most times you'll find something unrelated or completely opposite of what you are looking for. For example while doing research on contrails and weather, I had to sift through over three dozen unrelated article abstracts to find a handful of the ones that I could use for my contrail thread.

Ball is in your court.

Edit: clarity

[edit on 4/3/2008 by Beachcoma]

reply to post by idle_rocker


Since many of the ID scientist aren't Christian. Some are agnostic. and others, other religions. Your quote is rendered ridiculous and nothing more
then scare tactics, form the materialist establishment.

Originally posted by RANT
Howie, you had me at the FreeRepublic link. It must be true.
********************************************************
They didn't originate the article. It is in scientific journals. You must subscribe to read it on those sites. www.the-scientist.com... -Howie
**********************************************
Every news source, Founding Father and higher institution of learning and person with half a brain is in on the biggest scam ever.
*************************************************************
Most people will just go along with the scams, so their little lives won't be
threatened. Did you forget what forum your posting on; as well as
all history?- Howie
********************************************************

Don't let them fool you.
*******************************************************
It is you that is fooled and Gullible! Did you forget what thread you are
posting too? - Howie
***********************************************************
Man came a few thousand years after the Pyramids and we're related, but not to monkeys. Howdy Cousin In-Bred!!!

God is just running the funniest reality show ever, and we're the punchline looking at Dinosaur bones in "museums." I mean we just got here and we're the center of it all, sitting on 5 pillars, right? The Earth is flat and we're held up from Jesus' basement by 5 pillars.

It's like a giant ant farm, only dumb people believe in Zeus poking us with sticks. "God" did this, and some guy named Jesus was his Son that Emperor Constantine exhaulted a hundred years after he died saying we didn't have to follow Jewish law or Roman law anymore... he just made up his own!

Amen.

And Happy Easter!

Originally posted by Howie47
From Science Mag. Original article," The Myth of 1%" you must register to read it. www.sciencemag.org...://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5833/1836

I like how you missed the full title...

'Relative differences: the myth of 1%'

So, what the article shows is that there is 1% (1.23%) differences between the chimp and human genomes, that's for base substitutions. But there is also 3% for indels. If we assess proteins, then 29% are identical.

So, that's why the 'relative' part is important. Because it depends on what metric you use what the similarities/differences are.

And to Howie above: I'd like to see the evidence for the split of christian vs. other for ID scientists. Not from a critical point of view, just that it would be interesting if you do have such information.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by Clearskies
You know, just about EVERY university has on-line lab results for I.D.

You as a proponent of ID, should know better which reports are compelling reads for someone who has no clue where to begin about their research.

Ze bible?

The funny thing is that IDers haven't even been publishing research in their own journal since 2005. The evil scientists with their wicked biased peer-review even extend to an ID friendly journal, roflcopter.

Originally posted by melatonin
Ze bible?

That would contradict Bigwhammy's claim of ID not being religious.

Another matter: ID has it's own journal?

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Howie47
From Science Mag. Original article," The Myth of 1%" you must register to read it. www.sciencemag.org...://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5833/1836

I like how you missed the full title..
*******************************************************
Seeing how I provided a link to the article. What possible difference does it make if I didn't type out the who'll title? Please! -Howie
***********************************************************

'Relative differences: the myth of 1%'

So, what the article shows is that there is 1% (1.23%) differences between the chimp and human genomes, that's for base substitutions. But there is also 3% for indels. If we assess proteins, then 29% are identical.

So, that's why the 'relative' part is important. Because it depends on what metric you use what the similarities/differences are.

And to Howie above: I'd like to see the evidence for the split of christian vs. other for ID scientists. Not from a critical point of view, just that it would be interesting if you do have such information.
****************************************************
I'm sure you would. But that information is personnel, and not my
place to divulge. Now is it! -Howie
*******************************************************
No what the article shows is this. "1% Genetic Difference Between Humans and Chimps a “Myth”
Last July, David Tyler wrote an insightful post at ARN stating,

For over 30 years, the public have been led to believe that human and chimpanzee genetics differ by mere 1%. This 'fact' of science has been used on innumerable occasions to silence anyone who offered the thought that humans are special among the animal kingdom. ‘Today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.’ However, this ‘given’ is about to be discarded.
Tyler was quoting a Science news article entitled “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” which reported that “human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%.” The statistic of an alleged 1% difference between human and chimp DNA is thus quickly becoming a thing of the past. A recent post at Scientific American’s blog states, “humans may have as little as 99% of their genes in common with one another, and, by the same analysis, as little as 95% of their genes in common with chimpanzees.” Thus, according to the article, “Humans turn out to be as genetically different from one another as it was previously thought they were different from chimps.” (emphasis added).
The implications of these differences remain to be sorted out by biologists, but those seeking to understand evolution and genetics should realize that the 99% similarity statistic between humans and chimps is now admitted to be a “myth.”
But nice attempt at obscurring what was revieled. The 1% DNA comparison between Chimps and men "is a myth".

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Howie47

*******************************************************
Seeing how I provided a link to the article. What possible difference does it make if I didn't type out the who'll title? Please! -Howie
***********************************************************

Well, most people won't even click through to see the article. The 'myth of 1%' would be the only take home message.

****************************************************
I'm sure you would. But that information is personnel, and not my
place to divulge. Now is it! -Howie
*******************************************************

OK. Just asking. So it can essentially be ignored then?

But nice attempt at obscurring what was revieled. The 1% DNA comparison between Chimps and men "is a myth".

Again, it depends on the metric you use. That's why it's called 'relative differences'. There is a 1%ish difference in human-chimp DNA. But that's just for base substitutions/genes.

If you measure another metric, you get a different result. The actual Cohen article in Science ends:

Could researchers combine all of what's known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? "I don't think there's any way to calculate a number," says geneticist Svante Pääbo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "In the end, it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences."

So, essentially it is a relative value. We decide on which number is most relevant.

What did Cohen have to say about little Casey Luskin's article?:

From: Jon Cohen [snip]

Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:05 PM

To: Casey Luskin

Cc: [Snip]

Subject: Errors in your posting

Mr. Luskin,

I wrote the Science news article that you refer to in your recent posting on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views.”

Given that “misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason” for that site, which complains that “much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased,” I wanted to point out that your own post contains several errors and apparent misunderstandings. I realize that you are largely reporting what others have written, but you do it selectively and out of context–and you also fail to scrutinize what the original reports said.

As I wrote in my article, chimps and humans do differ genetically by more than 1%, but our genes–in contrast to what the Scientific American posting states–are only 1.23% different...[fisking of Luskin continued]

pandasthumb.org...

Oh noes!

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
That would contradict Bigwhammy's claim of ID not being religious.

Oh well. Dembski hisself said:

"intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" (Dembski, 1999, p84).

More evidence of the theological shell-game.

Another matter: ID has it's own journal?

Yeah, it was called Progress in Complexity, Information and Design (PCID).

'Progress' stopped in November 2005.

Can you guess what happened at that time?

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Howie47

*******************************************************
Seeing how I provided a link to the article. What possible difference does it make if I didn't type out the who'll title? Please! -Howie
***********************************************************

[/Well, most people won't even click through to see the article. The 'myth of 1%' would be the only take home message.]
And of course, that is the conclusion of the article! - howie

****************************************************
I'm sure you would. But that information is personnel, and not my
place to divulge. Now is it! -Howie
*******************************************************

[/OK. Just asking. So it can essentially be ignored then?]
Only if ignorance is your thing! -Howie

But nice attempt at obscuring what was reveled. The 1% DNA comparison between Chimps and men "is a myth".

Again, it depends on the metric you use. That's why it's called 'relative differences'. There is a 1%ish difference in human-chimp DNA. But that's just for base substitutions/genes.

[/If you measure another metric, you get a different result. The actual Cohen article in Science ends:

Could researchers combine all of what's known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? "I don't think there's any way to calculate a number," says geneticist Svante Pääbo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "In the end, it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences."

So, essentially it is a relative value. We decide on which number is most relevant.]
Man, you are really something else! If, "I don't think there's any way to calculate a number," says geneticist Svante Pääbo; that means the 1% number is a myth. Plain and simple! If you decide to chose a number, then it isn't because of scientific reason, it is because of; "In the end, it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences."
So you all are just using the !% figure because of your world view and religious view. Not because it has anything basis in Science. Again, your just trying to obscure the facts!


What did Cohen have to say about little Casey Luskin's article?:

From: Jon Cohen [snip]

Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:05 PM

To: Casey Luskin

Cc: [Snip]

Subject: Errors in your posting

Mr. Luskin,

I wrote the Science news article that you refer to in your recent posting on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views.”

Given that “misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason” for that site, which complains that “much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased,” I wanted to point out that your own post contains several errors and apparent misunderstandings. I realize that you are largely reporting what others have written, but you do it selectively and out of context–and you also fail to scrutinize what the original reports said.

As I wrote in my article, chimps and humans do differ genetically by more than 1%, but our genes–in contrast to what the Scientific American posting states–are only 1.23% different...[fisking of Luskin continued]

pandasthumb.org...

Oh noes!

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

You might want to fix the formatting, it's awful to have to decipher.

Originally posted by Howie47
So you all are just using the !% figure because of your world view and religious view. Not because it has anything basis in Science. Again, your just trying to obscure the facts!

The fact is that the genes of human and chimps differ by 1.23%. However, if we use a different metric of genomic comparison, we can get another number.

Given that important evolution happens at the level of genes, it is a relevant number. But a lot of the genome isn't genes. So, if we measure something like indels, which underlie some nasty conditions like cystic fibrosis, we get a different number (3%).

Unless you can show that genes aren't a crucial factor for evolution, then the 1.23% number will be very relevant.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
You might want to fix the formatting, it's awful to have to decipher.

Originally posted by Howie47
So you all are just using the !% figure because of your world view and religious view. Not because it has anything basis in Science. Again, your just trying to obscure the facts!

The fact is that the genes of human and chimps differ by 1.23%. However, if we use a different metric of genomic comparison, we can get another number.

Given that important evolution happens at the level of genes, it is a relevant number. But a lot of the genome isn't genes. So, if we measure something like indels, which underlie some nasty conditions like cystic fibrosis, we get a different number (3%).

Unless you can show that genes aren't a crucial factor for evolution, then the 1.23% number will be very relevant.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Sorry about the formetting. I just started posting here. Still learning.


So your saying you disagree with the article and the authors, conclusion. That no percentage number can be arrived at scientifically!
That (any) number is (only) based on, "In the end, it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences."

Originally posted by Howie47
Sorry about the formetting. I just started posting here. Still learning.

No worries, Howie. Just makes it hard to figure out where I end and you begin.

So your saying you disagree with the article and the authors, conclusion. That no percentage number can be arrived at scientifically!
That (any) number is (only) based on, "In the end, it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences."

No, I actually agree with the author. He actually explains the situation more in the link I gave above. Thus, he says there is a 1.23% difference between chimp-human genes, but if we look at the genome in different ways we get different values.

We obviously look at all these comparisons and determine, depending on context etc, what we view as most relevant in that situation.

So, if we are in the context of genes, then 1.23% is very relevant, but for the whole genome, not so much. If we are interested in indels, then 3% is relevant, but 1.23% is not.

The difference is relative, rather than absolute.

Hey Ash,

I just skimmed to the end of the thread after reading through the first 5 or so pages and I think the posters have totally validated what you point was in the original question. It seems to be impossible to question any part of evolution with out being branded as a close minded bible thumper.

I was hoping that your question would have lead to some actual conversation instead of the brute squad that it ended up.

-Lou

reply to post by Lou2You


Thanks for joining us, Lou. HERE is a website that was just sent to me in U2U by another member a few minutes ago. It basically debates the information found in the NAS. Don't have a lot of time to read it as I need to get going but it looks pretty interesting.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Howie47
Sorry about the formetting. I just started posting here. Still learning.

No worries, Howie. Just makes it hard to figure out where I end and you begin.

So your saying you disagree with the article and the authors, conclusion. That no percentage number can be arrived at scientifically!
That (any) number is (only) based on, "In the end, it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences."

No, I actually agree with the author. He actually explains the situation more in the link I gave above. Thus, he says there is a 1.23% difference between chimp-human genes, but if we look at the genome in different ways we get different values.

We obviously look at all these comparisons and determine, depending on context etc, what we view as most relevant in that situation.

So, if we are in the context of genes, then 1.23% is very relevant, but for the whole genome, not so much. If we are interested in indels, then 3% is relevant, but 1.23% is not.

The difference is relative, rather than absolute.

So when the author concludes his article with. "Could researchers combine all of what's known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? "I don't think there's any way to calculate a number," says geneticist Svante Pääbo," What exactly does he mean. If he doesn't mean what he says?

Heh, right on the front page the canards begin.

"mutations do not lead to beneficial characteristics"
www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com...

Takes me 30 seconds to find an article to refute it.

PNAS | September 25, 2001 | vol. 98 | no. 20 | 11388-11393

Evolution
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
(G×E interaction / GEI / phenotypic plasticity / fitness / evolution)

Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski

...A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.

www.pnas.org...

And I could find multiple studies that do so. But I kinda can't be bothered, not like it's gonna make much difference.

And then we also have the claim that if people disagree, the thesis is proved, and of course, if people agree, the thesis is proved. The logic is stunning.



[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

what experiments has evolution proven as observable FACT which support the tenets of evolutions suppositions relating to natuaral selection and negative mutation being the vehicle for our current arrival in our current form.

This makes me question your education. Put two bacteria in different environments with different food supply and watch.

Let me ask you, what is Evolutions Primary directive?

Evolution is not a thing, but a model that explain genetic progress. There is no prime directive.

are their any influences in the testability of empirical data that has or could have such a sweeping domino effect on the entire theory as to destroy it?

Proof that genetic change can be predicted when the genome is designed, regardless of the environment would be enough. We will be able to test this soon, but its a foregone conclusion.

Are you saying there are NO pre-conceived notions in our thought processes? Are you Mr. Spock?

Yes.

Oh I can't for the same reason YOU can't for YOUR model. Do you have any idea what that is? Ill assume you over looked the difference you conveniently leave out on your model but added to the second model.

Please point out what I overlooked.

Your first Model DOESN'T HAVE A "God + finger snap” in fact your model

You don't seem to understand that evolution says nothing of who or what created the universe, or allowed/faked evolution.

Or you need to explain where life started from absolutely NOTHING. If you can't do that then the rest is all accepted by faith NOT in a designer but in an inventor an Atheist Named Darwin. It's that or you got some magic explaining to do yourself.

Explained. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It just explains genetic progress and thus speciation.
There are models for the theory of the origin of the universe (and thus life), but they tread close to what I believe is not science. This is not what we are debating.

I guess his having as much a passion to prove he doesn't believe in God had nothing to do with creating a mechanism that’s as a fake science to disprove the religion he always questioned as a kid has no bearing at all on it? I guess that same Science that got its launch to join the Science Community as an add-on to biology a Science along with Zoology had no ulterior intention or any un-religious motives?

Who says I don't believe in a creator? Belief in evolution does not tell me what or who created the universe.

I guess that when you consider the expert witness testimony of evolutions credibility as a Science to overthrow Religions Genesis account, was predicated on Piltdown man and that later Piltdown was a found to be a complete "Mistake" and should have never been admitted as evidence, would have the scopes trial over turned as a miss trial.

Some scientists are just as anti-religion as some religious people are anti-science. So what? There are fundamentalists on both sides. Religion has always tried to supress and crush science, and now the ball is in our court as the evidence mounts. I do not see the two as incompatible though.

We all know how we feel About O.J. but this was worse a bad case of evidence tampering. I am in the process of making a stronger case using 1500 updated "mistakes" that albeit were noted mistakes some being established as facts for 30-40 years but are still being taught. Worse then that is many had been used in other peer reviews to substantiate l

Please stay on topic. O.J has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, hopefully!