Time Aping over Human-Chimp Genetic Similarities

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

[ahayes]

How do you know this?

She drew conclusions from it that were completely false. Your options:

1. She didn't read it, just the title.
2. She read it and was too dumb to understand it.
3. She read it, understood it, and lied about it.

Personally, I'd go with "I didn't really read it. . ." as the excuse.

[King Prout]

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.

repeating experiments and conducting independent analyses of the same root data set ARE peer review.
what? did you think "peer-review" was analogous to a Harlequin reading-circle?

[Quark2005]

The peer review for this book is as impressive as any.

Books aren't peer reviewed by scientists, scientific journal articles are.

A good science book explains the conclusions articulated in the work of scientific journal articles (and should cite such material, directly or indirectly), explained at the appropriate educational level. Pandas and People does not meet these criteria.

Any science book that draws conclusions that are not shared by the consensus of working scientists in the field is not a good science book.

[editor-surveyor]

"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."

Obviously.

Most people do seem to be able to see this; the problem seems to come from those who wish to create their own god.

[travlnmn41]

John Kerry is the missing link.

[steve-b]

I've been working through her chapters on evolution and writing up all the errors, lies, fallacies, and other mindbogglingly bad material in them.

I'm inclined to ask you for a copy when you get done... but I only have about 20 gigabytes of free space on my home machine, so it might not fit....

[editor-surveyor]

" but I only have about 20 gigabytes of free space on my home machine, so it might not fit...."

You've forgotten that vast expanse of free space between your ears. You could fit the library of congress there with room to spare.

[steve-b]

Where did you "learn" chemistry, from Jack Chick comics?

I guess he learned chemistry from the same school where Dear Leader's minions learned nuclear physics.

[steve-b]

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?

The same way one knows (for example) that someone who says "Reagan's tax cuts didn't work" has never looked at figures showing the amount of revenue entering the Federal treasury during the early 1980s.

That is, when someone states a "fact" that is immediately and obviously contradicted by the records, one may infer that the stater has never looked at the records. (It's also possible that the stater is simply flat-out lying, but it's polite to assume the former unless forced to the latter.)

[steve-b]

I think she showed a great desire to deal with the facts, since she spent so many pages on the subject.

ROFL!! This has got to be the single stupidest statement I've read this week, and that's saying something.

The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, It Takes A Village, and Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance also contain a great many pages. Does that mean that they reliably deal with the facts?

[RunningWolf]

I think many people would get where I was going with that, and most likely even if I did take the time to get refreshed on all the terminology and language you will still find flaws in that and yet once again that would be your straw-man.

W.

[RunningWolf]

Glad you feel better now to get that off your chest

Carry on!

Wolf

[ml1954]

Those Chemical Formulas Are All Wrong Placemaker.

[Recovering_Democrat]

There is no reason to be nasty, steve.

Of course I don't equate Ann Coulter to Adolph Hitler or Hillary Clinton. My statement, if you read it carefully, shows my opinion that she wasn't merely emoting.

I realize a lengthy treatise, however well-intentioned, can be wrong. I'm certain we all do.

Being rude and insulting me is uncalled for. It isn't something I suspect you do in real life, and I would appreciate the same treatment on the 'net.

[Recovering_Democrat]

That is, when someone states a "fact" that is immediately and obviously contradicted by the records...

Yes, I understand that explanation. I just don't know if I think you're accurate about whether Ann did look at the work. Or maybe another work.

I did look at the piece referred to earlier, and from what I recall it did mention a similarity between the DNA of all life.

I cannot get the link to work on the main title, but here is the "out of thin air" quote I think is making some so exorcised:

"...a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. A human and a daffodil share common ancestry and their DNA is thus obliged to match more than 25% of the time. For the sake of argument let’s say 33%....The point is that to say we are one-third daffodils because our DNA matches that of a daffodil 33% of the time, is not profound, it’s ridiculous."

Now that seems to agree with Ann's paraphrase: "The human genome is 35 percent identical to that of a daffodil. I think even a Darwiniac would admit humans are not 35 percent identical to a daffodil..."

This sounds like agreement between Ann and the author of the study on the question of whether daffodils and humans are alike.

I understand what is meant when it is said the evolutionist writing this paper made the figure up "out of thin air"; nevertheless, the illustration still applies for both writers. The difference is how far one carries the illustration.

I appreciate the discussion on the question; however I don't think either one of us will persuade the other to change his position. I still see it as a matter of understanding the data in a different way.

Have a great day!

[RunningWolf]

I will just start giving you a courtesy ping whenever I post just so you can make your ubiquitous and compulsive 'placemarker' with a message in them to me LOL

W.

[RunningWolf]

Placemarker Ping List

---

A courtesy 'ping' service for everytime I might contemplate making a post so all affected evos can get their 'placemarkers' in

You have been added to this courtesy ping list by way of demonstrating an interest in my posts by use of the 'Message in a Placemarker' and/or having numerous sidebar conversations about me.

To assist beginners: But it's "just a placemarker", Evos are Troll's Toolkit,
and how to marginalize science with religious fanaticism toward the monkey god of darwinist ideology.

Welcome ML1954 to the new 'placemarker ping list'!! By the interest in my posts that you have shown by way of your 'placemarkers'I just know that you are thrilled to be on this ping list!!!

As I get the usual suspects all rounded, up we can all start the ping & placemarker party!.

If it turns out however, that you and the other placemaker evos were just confused and mistaken, there is way to get off this ping list. And that would be a public recantation of your past placemarker behavior and a pledge to cease and desist in the future.

W.

[ahayes]

Sheer Amusement Placemarker

[RunningWolf]

Alright!

One more for 'the list' ;)

[RadioAstronomer]

Complete whacked out Looney tunes placemarker