Replies

You are so totally dishonest, that is what boggles the mind.

Where, exactly, was I "so totally dishonest"? Be specific, or retract your false slander. Or heck, go ahead and let it stand, as a monument to your lack of honor.

The same argument you just used regarding Miami and Kansas City can also be applied to the relationship between chimp and man in the amino acid chain as well.

Sure, one *could* use your silly line of reasoning in that manner, but only if one wanted to be as dishonest as you were when you used a ludicrously invalid "method" to come up with your false and moronic claim that "there is only a 3% difference between a man and an ear of corn"... (Speaking of which, when *are* you going to retract that goofy assertion, or at least admit you erred?)

But biologists aren't as incompetent/dishonest as the average anti-evolutionist, and thus they use straightforward and *valid* methods like DIRECT COMPARISON to determine the level of DNA similarity between chimp and man, not by the sort of goofy sleight-of-hand *you* used to make your FALSE claim about man and corn.

To claim such a kinship between man and chimp is as far fetched as claiming a kinship between man and and ear of corn.

...only to people too grossly ignorant of DNA comparison methods to understand how the comparisons are actually done, and how its findings overwhelmingly support "such a kinship between man and chimp", in multiple independently cross-validating ways...

To deny that these percentages cause huge differences between funi, plant, animal, is just more flim flam.

Where in the hell did you hallucinate that anyone had claimed that DNA differences aren't the cause of the huge differences between "funi [sic], plant, animal"? Mistake your fantasies for reality much? You've certainly done it a lot on *this* thread, anyway.

I guess I will retract it when you admit that using the enzyme rather than the nucleotide number is very dishonest in accessing the difference between man and chimp.

Or perhaps when scientist learn the definition of fact to the rest of us means "absolute certainty" rather than, "NOT with absolute certainty".

When the word "fact" is thrown out regarding the workings of evolution, what is meant is that, if you have a quarter and flip it 50 times the chance of tails coming up is 20 in 50, but "Not with absolute certainty".

I suppose there were more than a few guys who flew out to Vegas this weekend who had the same idea. "If I play 50 hands of black jack, the chances of me winning X number of games is .....".

No wonder you guys feel there is a revolution against evolution with all the word and number games being played by the proponents of the evolution only theory.

One thing is an "absolute certainty", the question won't be settled here.