Posted on 07/10/2007 10:17:24 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Indeed. I personally like to save the firepower for the biggest targets. But that’s just me.
Indeed it was. However it was exposed as a result of evolutionary interpolation. IE it didn’t fit.
Right
Glad you agree.
I have yet to see any proof that they fabricated evidence and engaged in a deliberate deception. Why would a botanist have been involved in, or otherwise have personal knowlege about the research and the researchers involved? Does he really know this, or is this just idle speculation taken out of context?
Good. Now run along and play.
Yes, I know. Scientists are the heroes for exposing a fraud that a scientist perpetrated and other scientists let go for over forty years. I’ve heard that song before.
All that demonstrates is that evolutionists and some in the scientific community want their theory to be right so bad, that they are willing to create and perpetrate a fraud for so long. They want to believe it so much, they’re willing to fabricate and lie for over FORTY years.
The fact that it took over forty years for someone with enough integrity to expose it doesn’t speak well for the scientific community in general.
“No way I am getting out of here so I will pick the cutest one!”
“No way I am getting out of here so I will pick the cutest one!”
You wouldn't, obviously, since you won't acknowledge that one's own admission that they lied isn't enough.
Plugging your ears and singing *La, la,la, la, laaaa,....* isn't going to work.
The guy admitted it. There's something about *...it served our purposes...* that just doesn't ring true.
But I forgot, science isn't about truth anyway, or so I hear....
One question. The interview that purportedly contains that admission that this was an intentional deception is on a paid subscription site. You cannot access this article unless you have a user name and password. Did you pay for a subscription to the site and read the article?
But lets not forget that it is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 1% difference is a myth/lie propagated by the Church of Darwin.
...my argument's with you. That is a completely infactual statement right down to its core as even the linked article proves......even what you just quoted to me shows the 1% number is still valid.
Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story
Not the "whole story"....but PART of the story. Nobody is claiming that the 1% difference in DNA sequences equates to a 1% difference in gene expression or any other bit of nonsense you or some zoologist can conjur up. It's part of the story....a part that will not go away because you call it a myth. AND, if you actually red the article, not once do they actually deal with a DNA sequence comparison to show that there is a larger difference in the DNA sequences....only that IN ADDITION TO the 1% difference in DNA sequences, OTHER differences make an overall difference between the 2 species a little larger than 1%. That's all.
No, they created a big fat strawman for you to chew on and you swallowed every bite.
And moving the common ancester time back effects the anti-”church of Darwin” folks how exactly? That was my original point. I realize the timeframe of such connections get pushed back, but does 10 million as opposed to 2 million really make that big of a difference in the overall scheme of things? The anti-”church of Darwin” people seem to think this is a smoking gun as to the irrelevance of a human/chimp conneciton, when in reality it is not.
You want us to accept a finding of "fraud" based on a single anonymous quote, without benefit of any knowlege of the context that it was taken from.
“But in plagarism cases, identical errors are taken as evidence of a common origin.”
Investigation of plagiarism is now science?
What is the Theory of Plagiarism?
How can it be observed to take place under controlled conditions?
How can it be falsified?
“There are models of how fast genetic mutations can be propagated through a population, given factors such as population size and the lifespan of the individuals. With these, we can backtrack to estimate when these two species had a common ancestor.”
Do these models work any better than the climate models that the GW religionists use? :-)
did you pass reading comprehension in junior college? The article clearly states that there is a 1% difference between humans and chimps, but the expression of genes has a 6% difference.
Why is it that you people cannot accept the fact that science is an ongoing endeavor and that there is still pleanty to learn in any field of science. Just because we learned something new does not mean that previous statements were lies or frauds. You should be ashamed of yourself for spouting obvious nonsense.
Too bad you creationists were too ignorant to identify true scientific fraud. There is no global conspiracy regarding evolution, nor was there a global conspiracy regarding Piltdown Man. Some hoaxters looking for personal glorification are not the same thing.
You're oversimplifying things. Depending on what you're looking at in the genome the difference between us and chimps may be 1%, 5%, 6%. . . Any of the various methods of calculation are correct, and none of them really are useful for understanding how our genomes compare. The smallest differences come from gene sequences, when you start to look at other sequences and chromosome structure it becomes puzzling how to calculate the difference. We have one chromosome that is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, how do you calculate that? How about the sections of our chromosomes that are inverted compared to apes? How do you account for individual polymorphisms, which there are many in both humans and chimpanzees?
Basically all of the twiddling about trying to calculate exactly how different our DNA sequence is compared to chimpanzees doesn't change a thing. Chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor about 5-7 million years ago (there was probably an earlier split with the two ancestral populations hybridizing until about that time). This is consistent with the fossil record and with genetic evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.