"The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought - which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases."
"Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the evidence?
"Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > evidence?
> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
Mostly just hype and journalist stupidity, adman, you should be used to that by now. Have you found that honest and valid anti-evolution argument, yet? The above isn't one. In fact you have brought it up before, so when you have to repeat bogus arguments so often what does that tell you?
Just tell us in your own words what you think that this argument means. From what you have written it sounds like you think that the estimates have changed drastically, and that seems to mean to you that the technology and inference is flawed, but you already know that isn't true, so why put the argument up again? Why lie. Where are your honest and valid arguments? What does it tell you when you do not have any?
Changing your nym to All-screeching-denial doesn't mean that you can start over on the bogus junk. Most of us know that you are the same stupid idiot that used to go by adman et al.. You only fool guys like Pagano that tried to give you credit for trying to make your arguments as bogus as possible as some type of rhetorical argument. If Pags had known that you were adman he would not have made that stupid mistake. It should also tell you just how bogus your arguments are when your own side hopes that you are trying to make a fool of yourself.
On Nov 21, 7:20 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> [...] > "...our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously > assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent > similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
Heck, if my waitress was a chimpanzee and she only filled my coffee cup 96% full I'd raise holy hell.
> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > evidence?
> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
What I found most interesting about this paper when I read it a few years back was how;
The bumbling loonatic flights of fancy, that loons like Lenny the loon, claimed, was turned on it's head.
Namely that (They Claimed) that "it is impossible to have the allele variation that we see today, within the 4 thousand years since the flood".
But CNV turns that gibberish on it's head, now doesn't it (That wasn't a question BTW).
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:20:56 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in <21f1a76b-88c8-4d9b-b66b-70e0eaed5...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com> :
>"The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent >identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more >different between one another than once thought - which could explain >why some people are prone to serious diseases."
>"Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to >our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed >from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are >more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
>And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
>Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the >evidence?
>"Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including >Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role >in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, >Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
In what way is any of this a comment on evolution?
All-seeing-I wrote: > "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > evidence?
> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
Did the biologists add in the final paragraph of the conclusions, "Therefore, evolution is wrong and creationism is correct..."? No! Or is this simply about a newer and different way of measuring the genetic similarities and dissimilarities of humans and chimps? Yes!
The reference you give is awfully vague, making it difficult to trace the original publication(s) without more effort.
However, an article in The Independent for 23 Nov 2006 gave some details. What was discovered was that people vary more than expected in the number of copies of specific genes that they carry in their DNA. That is, individuals have a wide range of duplicated genes. So does that make them really a lot different from one another? More than expected, but only in a restricted sense.
If you think of human DNA as a book, containing instructions on how to make machinery to construct a human, what is happening is that sentences, or even paragraphs and whole pages, are occasionally duplicated word for word. But the contents of the duplicated pages are identical to the gene copied in an individual (usually).
A question also arises, what has happened in the intervening three years? Any progress on the above discovery? Is the Discovery Institute's Lab busy exploiting it to prove that ID or Creationism is scientifically correct? Somehow I doubt the latter.
I note that Madman believes that, because science is an unending quest for better understanding, it is fundamentally flawed. But really, it means that it is the best available way to get closer to the truth.
>"The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent >identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more >different between one another than once thought - which could explain >why some people are prone to serious diseases."
>"Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to >our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed >from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are >more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
>And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
>Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the >evidence?
OK i give up. how does this deal with evolution? it seems you don't understand statistical methods or measurements.
including the statistical measure of creationism's failure: 100%. creationism has always failed.
All-seeing-I wrote: > "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > evidence?
Yes. And I think it's a poor interpretation.
> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're talking about. I bet you never even read the article. You just pulled out a quote that you imagine supports your point.
I think you may even have made this particular point before, with this particular example, and been soundly shot down. And yet you post again as if none of that ever happened.
Whether humans and chimps are 99% similar or 96% similar depends on how you count it. Any way you count it, as long as you count the same way, chimps are closer to us than anyone else, and other organisms have varying levels of similarity, largely depending on how closely related they are.
As for the exact nature of the difference, this 96% figure comes from counting each base in a long insertion or deletion as one difference, instead of counting the entire indel as one difference. The latter is more appropriate, since each indel is a single mutation.
spintronic wrote: > On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent >> identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more >> different between one another than once thought - which could explain >> why some people are prone to serious diseases."
>> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to >> our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed >> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are >> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
>> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
>> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the >> evidence?
>> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including >> Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role >> in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, >> Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> What I found most interesting about this paper when I read it a few > years back was how;
> The bumbling loonatic flights of fancy, that loons like Lenny the > loon, claimed, was turned on it's head.
> Namely that (They Claimed) that "it is impossible to have the allele > variation that we see today, within the 4 thousand years since the > flood".
> But CNV turns that gibberish on it's head, now doesn't it (That wasn't > a question BTW).
Explain. How does CNV turn that gibberish on its head? (That *was* a question.)
> spintronic wrote: > > On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > >> identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > >> different between one another than once thought - which could explain > >> why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> >> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > >> our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > >> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > >> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> >> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> >> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > >> evidence?
> >> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > >> Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > >> in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > >> Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> > What I found most interesting about this paper when I read it a few > > years back was how;
> > The bumbling loonatic flights of fancy, that loons like Lenny the > > loon, claimed, was turned on it's head.
> > Namely that (They Claimed) that "it is impossible to have the allele > > variation that we see today, within the 4 thousand years since the > > flood".
> > But CNV turns that gibberish on it's head, now doesn't it (That wasn't > > a question BTW).
> Explain. How does CNV turn that gibberish on its head? (That *was* a > question.)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Because instead of 2 copies of one gene per person being subject to mutation, you now have many.
> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > evidence?
> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
The above doesn't indicate that evolution is unreliable. At worst, it suggests that some measures of DNA similarity need to be revised. It doesn't affect the theory of evolution, or the fact that chimps are humans' closest relatives.
John Harshman wrote: > All-seeing-I wrote: >> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent >> identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more >> different between one another than once thought - which could explain >> why some people are prone to serious diseases."
>> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to >> our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed >> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are >> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
>> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
>> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the >> evidence?
> Yes. And I think it's a poor interpretation.
>> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including >> Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role >> in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, >> Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're talking about. I bet > you never even read the article. You just pulled out a quote that you > imagine supports your point.
Yes, I Googled for the first paragraph, and found it in several places, some legit, but also on several religious sites, usually followed by a sermon along the lines of, "The scientists are not perfect and unvarying in the knowledge they gain, therefore creationism is correct." Followed by a sermon of one sort or another. Literally.
> I think you may even have made this particular point before, with this > particular example, and been soundly shot down. And yet you post again > as if none of that ever happened.
> Whether humans and chimps are 99% similar or 96% similar depends on > how you count it. Any way you count it, as long as you count the same > way, chimps are closer to us than anyone else, and other organisms > have varying levels of similarity, largely depending on how closely > related they are.
> As for the exact nature of the difference, this 96% figure comes from > counting each base in a long insertion or deletion as one difference, > instead of counting the entire indel as one difference. The latter is > more appropriate, since each indel is a single mutation.
> If you think of human DNA as a book, containing instructions on how to make > machinery to construct a human, what is happening is that sentences, or even > paragraphs and whole pages, are occasionally duplicated word for word. But > the contents of the duplicated pages are identical to the gene copied in an > individual (usually).
<snip>
Egads, man! You used an analogy. That'll REALLY confuse them.
Baron Bodissey [A] belief is not considered delusional if it is accepted by other members of an individual’s culture or subculture. – Vila-Rodriguez and MacEwan, 2008. Am J Psychiatry 165: 1612.
spintronic wrote: > On Nov 21, 2:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> spintronic wrote: >>> On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >>>> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent >>>> identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more >>>> different between one another than once thought - which could explain >>>> why some people are prone to serious diseases." >>>> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to >>>> our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed >>>> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are >>>> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar." >>>> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future. >>>> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the >>>> evidence? >>>> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including >>>> Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role >>>> in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, >>>> Nature Genetics and Genome Research." >>> What I found most interesting about this paper when I read it a few >>> years back was how; >>> The bumbling loonatic flights of fancy, that loons like Lenny the >>> loon, claimed, was turned on it's head. >>> Namely that (They Claimed) that "it is impossible to have the allele >>> variation that we see today, within the 4 thousand years since the >>> flood". >>> But CNV turns that gibberish on it's head, now doesn't it (That wasn't >>> a question BTW). >> Explain. How does CNV turn that gibberish on its head? (That *was* a >> question.)
> Because instead of 2 copies of one gene per person being subject to > mutation, you now have many.
How many? Enough to account for the hundreds of alleles in some genes?
> spintronic wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> spintronic wrote: > >>> On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >>>> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > >>>> identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > >>>> different between one another than once thought - which could explain > >>>> why some people are prone to serious diseases." > >>>> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > >>>> our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > >>>> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > >>>> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar." > >>>> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future. > >>>> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > >>>> evidence? > >>>> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > >>>> Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > >>>> in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > >>>> Nature Genetics and Genome Research." > >>> What I found most interesting about this paper when I read it a few > >>> years back was how; > >>> The bumbling loonatic flights of fancy, that loons like Lenny the > >>> loon, claimed, was turned on it's head. > >>> Namely that (They Claimed) that "it is impossible to have the allele > >>> variation that we see today, within the 4 thousand years since the > >>> flood". > >>> But CNV turns that gibberish on it's head, now doesn't it (That wasn't > >>> a question BTW). > >> Explain. How does CNV turn that gibberish on its head? (That *was* a > >> question.)
> > Because instead of 2 copies of one gene per person being subject to > > mutation, you now have many.
> How many? Enough to account for the hundreds of alleles in some genes?- Hide quoted text -
spintronic wrote: > On Nov 21, 3:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> spintronic wrote: >>> On Nov 21, 2:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> spintronic wrote: >>>>> On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >>>>>> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent >>>>>> identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more >>>>>> different between one another than once thought - which could explain >>>>>> why some people are prone to serious diseases." >>>>>> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to >>>>>> our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed >>>>>> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are >>>>>> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar." >>>>>> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future. >>>>>> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the >>>>>> evidence? >>>>>> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including >>>>>> Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role >>>>>> in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, >>>>>> Nature Genetics and Genome Research." >>>>> What I found most interesting about this paper when I read it a few >>>>> years back was how; >>>>> The bumbling loonatic flights of fancy, that loons like Lenny the >>>>> loon, claimed, was turned on it's head. >>>>> Namely that (They Claimed) that "it is impossible to have the allele >>>>> variation that we see today, within the 4 thousand years since the >>>>> flood". >>>>> But CNV turns that gibberish on it's head, now doesn't it (That wasn't >>>>> a question BTW). >>>> Explain. How does CNV turn that gibberish on its head? (That *was* a >>>> question.) >>> Because instead of 2 copies of one gene per person being subject to >>> mutation, you now have many. >> How many? Enough to account for the hundreds of alleles in some genes? > Exactly.
Please provide a reference, and some numbers that make your point.
> On Nov 21, 7:20 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> > "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> > And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> > Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > > evidence?
> > "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> Mostly just hype and journalist stupidity, adman, you should be used > to that by now.
Oh really?
You think "Scientists from 13 research centres including Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge are telling lies?
funny
> Have you found that honest and valid anti-evolution > argument, yet?
Yes. You have no observation of species divergence.
>The above isn't one. In fact you have brought it up > before, so when you have to repeat bogus arguments so often what does > that tell you?
I have not brough up this specific information from 13 research centres including Britain's Sanger Institute
> Just tell us in your own words what you think that this argument > means. From what you have written it sounds like you think that the > estimates have changed drastically, and that seems to mean to you that > the technology and inference is flawed, but you already know that > isn't true, so why put the argument up again? Why lie. Where are > your honest and valid arguments? What does it tell you when you do > not have any?
That you have to lie for evolution to be true, what does that tell you?
> Changing your nym to All-screeching-denial doesn't mean that you can > start over on the bogus junk. Most of us know that you are the same > stupid idiot that used to go by adman et al..
I think I will start to track how many of you dishonestly use different Nyms. I was upfront with my name change
>You only fool guys like > Pagano that tried to give you credit for trying to make your arguments > as bogus as possible as some type of rhetorical argument. If Pags had > known that you were adman he would not have made that stupid mistake. > It should also tell you just how bogus your arguments are when your > own side hopes that you are trying to make a fool of yourself.
> spintronic wrote: > > On Nov 21, 3:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> spintronic wrote: > >>> On Nov 21, 2:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>>> spintronic wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >>>>>> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > >>>>>> identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > >>>>>> different between one another than once thought - which could explain > >>>>>> why some people are prone to serious diseases." > >>>>>> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > >>>>>> our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > >>>>>> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > >>>>>> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar." > >>>>>> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future. > >>>>>> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > >>>>>> evidence? > >>>>>> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > >>>>>> Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > >>>>>> in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > >>>>>> Nature Genetics and Genome Research." > >>>>> What I found most interesting about this paper when I read it a few > >>>>> years back was how; > >>>>> The bumbling loonatic flights of fancy, that loons like Lenny the > >>>>> loon, claimed, was turned on it's head. > >>>>> Namely that (They Claimed) that "it is impossible to have the allele > >>>>> variation that we see today, within the 4 thousand years since the > >>>>> flood". > >>>>> But CNV turns that gibberish on it's head, now doesn't it (That wasn't > >>>>> a question BTW). > >>>> Explain. How does CNV turn that gibberish on its head? (That *was* a > >>>> question.) > >>> Because instead of 2 copies of one gene per person being subject to > >>> mutation, you now have many. > >> How many? Enough to account for the hundreds of alleles in some genes? > > Exactly.
> Please provide a reference, and some numbers that make your point.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Please Give me something to work with, and some numbers that don't make your's.
> All-seeing-I wrote: > > "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> > "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> > And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> > Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > > evidence?
> Yes. And I think it's a poor interpretation.
> > "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're talking about. I bet > you never even read the article. You just pulled out a quote that you > imagine supports your point.
> I think you may even have made this particular point before, with this > particular example, and been soundly shot down. And yet you post again > as if none of that ever happened.
> Whether humans and chimps are 99% similar or 96% similar depends on how > you count it. Any way you count it, as long as you count the same way, > chimps are closer to us than anyone else, and other organisms have > varying levels of similarity, largely depending on how closely related > they are.
> As for the exact nature of the difference, this 96% figure comes from > counting each base in a long insertion or deletion as one difference, > instead of counting the entire indel as one difference. The latter is > more appropriate, since each indel is a single mutation.
If you read the topic of the post, it noted evolution's unreliability.
This paper clearly shows the percents are wrong. Latter research will show a larger percent is wrong, a safe bet.
> On Nov 21, 8:57 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > All-seeing-I wrote: > > > "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > > > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > > > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > > > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> > > "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > > > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > > > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > > > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> > > And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> > > Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > > > evidence?
> > Yes. And I think it's a poor interpretation.
> > > "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > > > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > > > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > > > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> > You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're talking about. I bet > > you never even read the article. You just pulled out a quote that you > > imagine supports your point.
> > I think you may even have made this particular point before, with this > > particular example, and been soundly shot down. And yet you post again > > as if none of that ever happened.
> > Whether humans and chimps are 99% similar or 96% similar depends on how > > you count it. Any way you count it, as long as you count the same way, > > chimps are closer to us than anyone else, and other organisms have > > varying levels of similarity, largely depending on how closely related > > they are.
> > As for the exact nature of the difference, this 96% figure comes from > > counting each base in a long insertion or deletion as one difference, > > instead of counting the entire indel as one difference. The latter is > > more appropriate, since each indel is a single mutation.
> If you read the topic of the post, it noted evolution's unreliability.
No, it didn't. The article related to the genetic similarity between humans. It did not imply, or suggest in any way that evolution, or evolutionary theory was unreliable.
> This paper clearly shows the percents are wrong. Latter research will > show a larger percent is wrong, a safe bet.
No, it doesn't say the percentages are wrong, and even if the percentages were wrong, it wouldn't mean that evolution was incorrect.
> On Nov 21, 7:38 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 7:20 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > > > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > > > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > > > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> > > "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > > > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > > > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > > > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> > > And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> > > Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > > > evidence?
> > > "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > > > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > > > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > > > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> > Mostly just hype and journalist stupidity, adman, you should be used > > to that by now.
> Oh really
Yes really.
> You think "Scientists from 13 research centres including Britain's > Sanger Institute in Cambridge are telling lies?
> funny
Ron did not suggest that the scientists were 'telling lies'. He's suggesting the reporter may have misunderstood.
> > Have you found that honest and valid anti-evolution > > argument, yet?
> Yes. You have no observation of species divergence.
Except that speciation has been observed many times. Your own ideas about "species divergence" is a strawman.
> >The above isn't one. In fact you have brought it up > > before, so when you have to repeat bogus arguments so often what does > > that tell you?
> I have not brough up this specific information from 13 research > centres including Britain's Sanger Institute
The information above doesn't harm evolution, or evolutionary theory. Your claim blew up in your face, again.
> > Just tell us in your own words what you think that this argument > > means. From what you have written it sounds like you think that the > > estimates have changed drastically, and that seems to mean to you that > > the technology and inference is flawed, but you already know that > > isn't true, so why put the argument up again? Why lie. Where are > > your honest and valid arguments? What does it tell you when you do > > not have any?
> That you have to lie for evolution to be true, what does that tell > you?
Where has Ron lied? Please be specific.
> > Changing your nym to All-screeching-denial doesn't mean that you can > > start over on the bogus junk. Most of us know that you are the same > > stupid idiot that used to go by adman et al..
> I think I will start to track how many of you dishonestly use > different Nyms. I was upfront with my name change
Who besides creationists have used different nyms "dishonestly"?
> >You only fool guys like > > Pagano that tried to give you credit for trying to make your arguments > > as bogus as possible as some type of rhetorical argument. If Pags had > > known that you were adman he would not have made that stupid mistake. > > It should also tell you just how bogus your arguments are when your > > own side hopes that you are trying to make a fool of yourself.
> Denial. It could also be a mental illness.
Perhaps you should look into why you need to deny the fact of evolution.
> "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > evidence?
> "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
How about you cite your source for these quotes?
And while you are at it, maybe you could search out the actual research paper.
> On Nov 21, 7:38 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 7:20 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > "The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent > > > identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more > > > different between one another than once thought - which could explain > > > why some people are prone to serious diseases."
> > > "Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to > > > our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed > > > from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are > > > more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
> > > And just think what new discoveries will be found in the future.
> > > Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the > > > evidence?
> > > "Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including > > > Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role > > > in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, > > > Nature Genetics and Genome Research."
> > Mostly just hype and journalist stupidity, adman, you should be used > > to that by now.
> Oh really?
> You think "Scientists from 13 research centres including Britain's > Sanger Institute in Cambridge are telling lies?
No, you are the one that is lying, but putting up the same junk as if it meant what you need it to say you are lying. You have to know this by now, so why keep doing it?
> funny
Tragic.
> > Have you found that honest and valid anti-evolution > > argument, yet?
> Yes. You have no observation of species divergence.
So tell what the argument is and what it is supposed to mean. Why can't you do that and still have an honest and valid argument?
You know that it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. You have repeatedly had your face rubbed in the facts. You just claim pat answers. What a bogus excuse. What you need are pat arguments. So where are they? Why are you always the one holding the short end of the stick?
> >The above isn't one. In fact you have brought it up > > before, so when you have to repeat bogus arguments so often what does > > that tell you?
> I have not brough up this specific information from 13 research > centres including Britain's Sanger Institute
Just demonstrate that it means what you need it to mean. Just do it. The reason that you can't is because you know that you are lying about it.
> > Just tell us in your own words what you think that this argument > > means. From what you have written it sounds like you think that the > > estimates have changed drastically, and that seems to mean to you that > > the technology and inference is flawed, but you already know that > > isn't true, so why put the argument up again? Why lie. Where are > > your honest and valid arguments? What does it tell you when you do > > not have any?
> That you have to lie for evolution to be true, what does that tell > you?
Just point out where I have lied. I can go back to any of a number of posts where you lied. What about the clergy that signed the clergy letter project. Demonstrate that I have ever stooped to lying like that or about just about anything.
Really. You know that you are lying about this stupid argument right now. So why keep doing it?
> > Changing your nym to All-screeching-denial doesn't mean that you can > > start over on the bogus junk. Most of us know that you are the same > > stupid idiot that used to go by adman et al..
> I think I will start to track how many of you dishonestly use > different Nyms. I was upfront with my name change
I do not do this so this isn't a counter argument for anything except your own bogus behavior. Does it make what you do less insane and just stupid?
> >You only fool guys like > > Pagano that tried to give you credit for trying to make your arguments > > as bogus as possible as some type of rhetorical argument. If Pags had > > known that you were adman he would not have made that stupid mistake. > > It should also tell you just how bogus your arguments are when your > > own side hopes that you are trying to make a fool of yourself.
> Denial. It could also be a mental illness.
I keep telling you that, but you are too mentally ill to realize that your are All-screeching-denial and nothing else.
|
