Time Aping over Human-Chimp Genetic Similarities

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center ^ | Casey Luskin

[Ichneumon]

By the way, you can rotate a .pdf file and read the file easily: just look on the right side of the tool bar. You don't have to read it sideways. :)

Thanks for the tip, but for some reason my "rotate" buttons on the toolbar are greyed out and not active. Perhaps because I'm using just the free Reader and thus don't have the ability to "modify" the document?

[Recovering_Democrat]

No problem. I didn't pay for my reader, perhaps an upgrade...I think they have free ones. :)

[driftdiver]

We have more in common with mice and pigs from a DNA perspective than we do with chimps.

[Coyoteman]

We have more in common with mice and pigs from a DNA perspective than we do with chimps.

Can you back that up with a source?

(And don't bother referring me to a creationist website, as they are not in the business of doing science; they are rather purveyors of unknowledge.)

[Recovering_Democrat]

Furthermore, Coulter didn't even "look at the data". She at most glanced at the title of Marks's paper, didn't even look at the body of the paper *or* any data...

How do you know this?

Coulter had to do this because she had no desire or ability to deal with the actual data itself.

You're sure of her desires? I think she showed a great desire to deal with the facts, since she spent so many pages on the subject. But I s'pose discerning someone else's desires or inner motivations is, most of the time, pretty subjective.

Have a great day!

[satchmodog9]

I think you mean physiological similarities.

[FreedomProtector]

Patterns of similarity among organisms, homology, or homogeneous structures, [homo: root prefix meaning "same"] are best explained via the same (common) Designer with the same (common/master) plan.


A captivating and interesting read for anyone on the subject is:

Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Chapter 7
“The Failure of Homology.”


Homologies are are not similarities due to common ancestry which came to be by chance and natural process. Homologies are similarities due to a the same common Designer, the same common, single yet triune Ancestor--God.

[Quark2005]

"God just made it look like life evolved!!" placemarker

[FreedomProtector]

HOMOLOGY IN BIOLOGY: A Problem for Naturalistic Science by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Department of Molecular & Cell Biology University of California Berkeley, California, USA

[FreedomProtector]

Homology: A Concept in Crisis by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Department of Molecular & Cell Biology University of California Berkeley, California, USA

Homology: A Concept in Crisis by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Department of Molecular & Cell Biology University of California Berkeley, California, USA

[cccp_hater]

The real question most everyone in this debate seems to ignore is the question did humans arrive on this planet through sexual reproduction of our ancestors or did we appear instantaneously and independantly from other animals/mammals when god made man?

[ahayes]

Facsimile DNA Placemarker

[Quark2005]

The real question most everyone in this debate seems to ignore is the question did humans arrive on this planet through sexual reproduction of our ancestors or did we appear instantaneously and independantly from other animals/mammals when god made man?

The real question of the validity of any scientific model is whether it is internally consistent, falsifiable, makes successful predictions and is logically sound. Whether or not one 'believes' evolution or not, one can accept that the model is scientifically sound and works, which is really the bottom line so far as science is concerned.

[Quark2005]

Jonathan Wells' objections to evolution are well-known around here, and they're not very sound. He basically says what evolutionary biologists have long known, which is that homology, while providing clues to evolutionary links between animals, are not 100% reliable. Genetic similarities provide much more quantitative information as to the common descent of organisms, and confirm the genetic relations that were long suspected by evolutionary biologists prior to the advent of DNA analysis.

Dr. Wells got himself a PhD, I give him credit for that; but if has anything substantial to say on the subject, he should be submitting for review to legitimate science journals, not posting it directly on the web and direct-to-consumer books. Circumvention of the peer review process is a sure sign of a scientific hack.

[swain_forkbeard]

The Monkey Speaks His Mind.

[FreedomProtector]

A peer review by a community of experts in the relevant field is beneficial but not necessarily a valid test for truth or validity.

There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be invalid.

There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have not been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be valid

The same can be said for a PhD. A PhD is a beneficial academic pursuit but not necessarily a valid test for truth or validity for everything that particular PhD says or writes.

[Quark2005]

A peer review by a community of experts in the relevant field is beneficial but not necessarily a valid test for truth or validity.

It's the best test there is for scientific truth or validity. Anyone deliberately dodging it to the extent Wells does is almost definitely doing a snow job.

There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be invalid.

Of course. The process isn't perfect. If peer review can still admit errors, then any sweeping statement or study that hasn't been peer reviewed is almost sure to contain a huge number of errors, if not outright falsehoods.

There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have not been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be valid

And had such studies been peer reviewed, they would surely have met muster. If not, well, then they're probably lacking in accuracy.

Peer review is the best tool we have for discerning accuracy in the technically complex realm science has become, but obviously, you seem unsatisfied with it. With what mechanism would you suggest it be replaced?

[FreedomProtector]

"It's [peer review is] the best test there is for scientific truth or validity"

I strongly disagree. The best test for scientific truth and validity are repeatable experiments which we observe.


"Anyone deliberately dodging it to the extent Wells does is almost definitely doing a snow job."

Dr. Wells and Dr. Denton and anyone else who writes that homologous structures fail to provide evidence for evolution are not doing a snow job just because all of their books/articles are not always peer reviewed by evolutionists. Perhaps it is worth noting that the articles/books they write get both a hostile and friendly peer review nearly every day.


"Peer review is the best tool we have for discerning accuracy in the technically complex realm science has become, but obviously, you seem unsatisfied with it. With what mechanism would you suggest it be replaced?"

Peer reviews are very beneficial in many areas of study and I don't think they should be replaced. The book "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins" is an example of a work (although originally intended for the high school level) which the quality has improved as the result of a very extensive peer review. The peer review for this book is as impressive as any.

Although the reviews on amazon are not always strictly 'scientific' reviews, it is interesting looking at the reviews on amazon for "Of Pandas and Of People". Nearly all of the reviews are either the very highest rating or the very lowest rating. I suspect that if the reviewer held a presupposition that the world evolved via chance and natural process that most of the time the reviewer gave the very lowest rating. Conversely, I suspect that if the reviewer held a presupposition that the world was created via an Intelligent Designer that most of the time they gave the very highest rating.

[RadioAstronomer]

Nice reply to the clueless.

[furball4paws]

RW

Generally I don't post to you. I think it would be a waste of my time. You have a history of posting some real howlers, but this post belongs in the top 5 of Crapdom.

Before shooting off your mouth, why don't you learn something about what you are talking about?