Posted on 07/10/2007 10:17:24 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
"Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons
07/02/07
by David Tyler
"Truth be told" about Chimp-Human DNA comparisons 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
“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.”
Because the evos on these threads dogmatically assert that the ‘science is settled’ on the evidence for the TOE.
So, don’t say on the one hand that people shouldn’t discuss the evidence and then say that it’s all settled. Both sides on these threads are guilty of hyperbole.
“Too bad you creationists were too ignorant to identify true scientific fraud. “
You entirely missed the point of the whole Piltdown Man fiasco, didn’t you?
It’s not just about identifying scientific fraud and global conspiracies. It’s about scientists losing their first impulse to be skeptical; it’s about scientists not vetting exciting new discoveries.
There was so much excitement on the finding of PM and all the ridiculous associated conclusions, including the silly full-sized drawings (remember the drawings of a pre-human partially covered with fur?) that came out based on incredibly scanty evidence.
The point of the PM hoax is that science (and scientists) can be overwhelmed with emotion just like any other human being, and in this case, there were a lot of scientists who really, really wanted to believe. So it happened that many, many scientists jumped on the bandwagon. It’s an embarrassment because so many supposedly purely objective scientists were conned by a pretty silly hoax.
But that’s what happens when humans want really badly to believe something. They begin to see connections that don’t really exist.
Would you consider the methodology and treatment of the evidence that's led to conclusions of "fraud" here to be an example scientists should take a lesson from?
“Would you consider the methodology and treatment of the evidence that’s led to conclusions of “fraud” here to be an example scientists should take a lesson from?”
I think ‘fraud’ might be a bit of a reach in describing this situation. But this gentleman was not exactly fierce in his efforts to correct the misinformation:
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux
Mr. Gagneux was willing to let misinformation stand if it served his agenda.
Again, this is an example of a scientist letting his emotions and agenda get in the way of science.
So the point is always that the scientists and the science are flawed.
“So the point is always that the scientists and the science are flawed.”
Always?
No, I never said that.
It’s just that most scientists think that they are purely objective and I disagree with their self-assessment. They have many biases and blind spots in their thinking just like anyone else, not to mention obvious conflicts of interest in some cases. Once a person recognizes this then they can work to compensate for it but most do not even acknowledge it (whether a scientist or not).
Now there's a "fierce" effort to correct the accusations of fraud.
No, I never said that.
It’s just that most scientists think that they are purely objective and I disagree with their self-assessment. They have many biases and blind spots in their thinking just like anyone else, not to mention obvious conflicts of interest in some cases. Once a person recognizes this then they can work to compensate for it but most do not even acknowledge it (whether a scientist or not).
Agreed, you never said it. But so far you have consistently demonstrated it.
You should try harder; Ichy could have expanded that meaningless propaganda into atleast 15 HTML pages.
By contrast It is the ID'ers and true creationists that freak out about evolution - because it is a threat to their literal Biblical world view. And, why folks would put SUCH faith and stock in a BOOK written by MEN - politicians yet....is beyond me.
God exists.
Evolution occurs.
See, they both can happen at once.
Why didn’t a YEC/OEC/IDer expose it before the Evil*tm* Scientists?
And you could have expanded it into 20 pages, 16 of which would deal with the magical healing powers of coffee.
You really like your coffee, huh?
No.
Dr. Pepper with cane sugar for me ;)
I assume that you are a woman?
The phosphoric acid in the sodas will destroy your bones rather quickly. You might want to cultivate a taste for green tea; it’s actually beneficial in every way, and tastes better without any sugar too.
Green Tea is what I drink after I have my morning Dr. Pepper.
It’s my one vice :)
It took about ten years for the Piltdown man to be exposed as a fake. In contrast of course to the 2000+ odd years that creationists have been laboring with the delusion their existence came about as a result of an Imaginary superman from outerspace’s party trick.
One of these fellows did it before John Glenn. Fact is, this fellow probably was smarter than Glenn.
Since you've posted this same general idea to me in other parts of this thread, I'm replying just ot this particular instance. The peer review process is where such biases and blind spots in research are corrected. Just look at the cold fusion claims. The claims were very exciting and many scientists wanted to believe them and some still do, but the experiments were never replicated by other scientists. It was shown to be false. That's just one big example. Science isn't a solo endeavor. Without review, comment and refinement by others, a lot more errors and bad work would get into the literature.
On top of that, the creationist side is even more divided and far more emotionally invested in their arguements. Bias is all that is known there because there is nothing objective in their stance. Nothing. It is all faith based. So compared to creationists, and IDers, science bias is miniscule by comparison.
“The peer review process is where such biases and blind spots in research are corrected. Just look at the cold fusion claims. “
Yeah, right. Just look at Global Warming. Peer review doesn’t seem to be working too well there, does it?
“So compared to creationists, and IDers, science bias is miniscule by comparison.”
I never said that ID was science. But I’m sure there are no agendas in Global Warming science, either, right? No issues with scientists refusing to speak out for fear of losing funding or anything like that.
“On top of that, the creationist side is even more divided and far more emotionally invested in their arguements. “
What about all those guys that jumped on the bandwagon for frauds like Piltdown Man and other examples? Are you saying that they were not emotionally invested in their arguments?
It takes alot of faith to believe that science as it’s practiced today in our politically saturated climate is a highly objective endeavor.
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.