==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.
Sorry Strawberry, the zoologist is named and quoted in the AAAS/Science article. They knew that the 1% difference was a sham all along. That’s deliberate fraud in my book, or at the very least (as another FReeper pointed out) “spin” bordering on fraud. If you refuse to see this for what it is, that’s your problem, not mine:
What’s most remarkable about this confession is how certain evolutionary biologists are evaluating the claim in hindsight. In the 1970s, it was considered a “heretical” view that our genomes could be that similar, but Cohen comments, “Subsequent studies bore their conclusion out, and today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.” But “Truth be told,” he begins in the next sentence, the inaccuracy of the statistic was known from the start:
But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm#20070629a
Actually, you’re reading too much into what the zoologist said and absolutely refuse to see that even your own article leaves the 1% number as valid.....AND that the zoologist left the 1% number as valid as well. Nowhere has anyone said that the 1% number is WRONG/INCORRECT/REFUTED...or any other term you want to use.
What he’s saying is that limiting the understanding of the differences between the species to a 1% difference based on DNA sequences is a hinderance to further understanding of the total difference between the species because there’s other things at work that HAVE to be taken into consideration. He’s not saying that the 1% number is invalid, only that it limits understanding if you limit your thinking to that 1%....when that 1% actually leads to genetic expression and physiological differences greater than 1%.
The 1% number is still valid because it’s a simple comparison of the DNA sequences, no matter how much you think it’s been disqualified....that it’s a sham....when it is not...even according to your article. So nice of you to give me all my ammo. “But truth be told....it’s not the WHOLE STORY”....meaning that the 1% is valid. “On TOP OF THE 1%”...meaning that the 1% number is valid.
Everything you’ve shown backs up that the 1% number is valid.....because it is.
One cannot disqualify the 1% because it is simple fact generated by a DNA sequencer....not by an analysis or a conjured up formula or an opinion. The sequencer spits out the sequence and it’s compared objectively to another sequence.
Doesn''t say that anywhere in the article. Quit lying and fabricating falshoods. The fact is that on a gene by gene basis, the diffrence is 1%. The point of the article is that sciecne is learning that gene expression is responsible for more differences than simple genomic variances.
So when you say there is fraud involved you are a LIAR!
fraud
1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonyms see deception, imposture
But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired. “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”
Yes, please let the truth be told. It's about time. But then, science isn't about truth, or so we've been told.
Anyway, I find it quite interesting that the evos on this forum are trying to excuse, justify, gloss over, whatever, the fact that deceit was knowingly perpetrated on the public, spinning, twisting, dancing like a kite in the wind to avoid admitting that fraud took place. The same thing that happens whenever Piltdown Man is mentioned.
Instead of admitting that someone did something wrong, the knee-jerk reaction is to declare *but it was a scientist who exposed the fraud*. No recognition of that fact that one of their own perpetrated it, no condemnation of him, no saying that this doesn't represent mainstream science.
The defense and silence is very condemning. If they won't admit wrong doing, that's more deceit so why should we trust them in other matters?
If there's no condemnation of the behavior as not representing mainstream science, then one can conclude that this does, in fact, represent mainstream science.
The unwillingness to admit to wrongdoing and lies, taints all of the scientific community and cuts deeply into their credibility.