Replies

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.)

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!