Actually his understanding of the genomic science was not bad. When he wrote:
“Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task.”
He is absolutely right. True for any genomic comparisons, with greater non-triviality with increasing size and complexity.
And whereas I agree with you that “DNA science” does not disprove evolution, your argument was mainly one of authority.
“Determining DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees isn’t a trivial task.”
He is absolutely right. True for any genomic comparisons, with greater non-triviality with increasing size and complexity.
He left out a lot of very pertinent details--that is, he cherry-picked which facts to include and which to omit. That is not scientific. One of the very pertinent facts he "forgot" to mention is the difference between coding and non-coding DNA. If you compare regions of non-coding DNA between any two species or even sub-species, you will find far more divergence than if you compare the coding regions between the same two species. That is because there is little to no selective pressure to maintain the DNA sequences of non-coding regions. If the only purpose of that stretch of DNA is to fill space, it does not matter much what the sequence is. Thus, any mutations within that region have no effect on survival. On the other hand, the coding regions of DNA are far less tolerant of changes in bases. Some mutations within the coding region will have little effect: for instance, TAA, TGA, and TAG all mean "Stop" (as in, that is the end of the protein molecule). Thus, an A to G or G to A mutation in those sequences has little effect. But a change in that T to anything else would have an effect, because the stop would be lost, and the protein coded there would be unusually long--with potentially lethal result. So, if I were looking for the degree of genetic similarity between two organisms, I would look at the coding regions, and at the redundancy within the code when.
By "coding" and "non-coding" DNA, I mean DNA which contains a template to make a protein, vs. DNA that contains no such template.
And whereas I agree with you that “DNA science” does not disprove evolution, your argument was mainly one of authority.
An argument of authority is not necessarily an invalid argument. If the person arguing from authority happens to be a subject matter expert on the topic being argued, then they are using their authority, i.e., their expertise on the subject, to make a valid argument. I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology, meaning that I have studied and worked in this field for decades and am very much a subject matter expert.
On the other hand, an argument of authority *is* invalid if the person claims knowledge they don't have, or uses legitimate knowledge in a deceptive manner. Clearly, the author of this screed is, in fact, arguing from authority in a very deceptive manner. He is only relaying those scientific facts that support his agenda--and he is counting on his target audience not having a sufficient level of scientific expertise to be able to spot where he is omitting essential facts that undermine his agenda.