It's A Matter of Time
All-Seeing-I
the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
But
In 1998 we were all being told:
Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
explore which genes separate us from the apes
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm
How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
_______________________
Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
--
Assembling the puzzle of evoluitionary lies, with...
The All Seeing I
hersheyh
> On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> But
>
> In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
DNA hybridization and change in melting point.
R Brown
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:b75b5a4b-f613-41d2...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
But
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm
_______________________
Egad! This guy is on to us! Call the Men In Black, he must be neuralized!
(sorry, it was on TV last night)
Eric Root
> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> But
>
> In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>
> _______________________
>
> Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> forced to fit the theory.
Clearly to people with Special Perception, I guess. Certainly not to
scientists.
> Why is THAT?
Because you have some sort of disorder?
>
> --
> Assembling the puzzle of evoluitionary lies, with...
...an overactive imagination a coupled with an underactive
intelligence quotient.
>
> The All Seeing I
Eric Root
chris thompson
And, less directly, protein electrophoresis.
Chris
Boikat
> On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> But
>
> In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>
> _______________________
>
> Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
You're lying again, or you are demonstrating your ignorance. Probably
both.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
OK then. Explain why 98% of human DNA being identical to that of
chimpanzees was being spoon fed to the masses in the media and in
schools before the the chimpanzee genome was even mapped?
ooops! If you could explain it you would not have resorted to personal
disparages.
But I'm use to THAT. In an highly predictable fashion; any time the
evolutionist is stumped for an answer they fall back on personal
insults.
All-seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b75b5a4b-f613-41d2...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> But
>
> In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>
> _______________________
>
> Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Egad! This guy is on to us! Call the Men In Black, he must be neuralized!
> (sorry, it was on TV last night)
Can you think of a qualified reason why we were all being taught 98%
of our genome was identican to the chimps before we had even mapped
the chimp's genome?
Eric Root
Let a biologist explain it, or look it up yourself.
> But I'm use to THAT. In an highly predictable fashion; any time the
> evolutionist is stumped for an answer they fall back on personal
> insults.
In a highly predictable fashion, a creationist mistakes constructive
criticism for personal insults. Anyway, you started it by saying
"evolutionary lies," for which you have no justification.
Eric Root
Ron O
> On Nov 28, 10:54 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> > the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> > researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> >http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> > But
>
> > In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> > Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> > For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> > identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> > explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
> >http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_...
>
> > How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> > identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> > even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>
> DNA hybridization and change in melting point.
It is as if he has never had it explained to him before. The level of
incompetence it takes to go back to the same lame sources and keep
getting his head handed to him for it is mind boggling.
Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
> > _______________________
>
> > Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> > forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
>
> > --
> > Assembling the puzzle of evoluitionary lies, with...
>
> > The All Seeing I-
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Can you explain why you ignored the answers from Howard Hershey and
Chris Thompson that explained it while you keep repeating your question
to others? Are you incapable of reading and remembering facts from
science or just mendaciously unwilling?
Dana Tweedy
> On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the �radar screen� of
> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
>
> But
>
> In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm
>
> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> even on the �radar screen� of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
Because there are other ways of deterimining DNA similarity besides genome
sequencing. DNA Hybridization was used for decades before the human or
chimp genome was sequenced. It is the method used to determine paternity
in court cases.
>
> _______________________
>
> Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
Becuase you are wrong again. Another creationist argument has blown up in
your face. How embarassing for you.
DJT
Sapient Fridge
<b75b5a4b-f613-41d2...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
>the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
>researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
>http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
>
>But
>
>In 1998 we were all being told:
>
>Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
>For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
>identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
>explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm
>
>How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
>identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
>even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
Because the similarity was estimated using techniques other than full
sequencing. For example here is one way to do it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_melting
Look at the date on this paper:
Full sequencing simply *confirmed* that the previous estimates were in
the right ballpark, and that the predictions were correct. Science wins
again.
>_______________________
>
>Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
>forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
>
>--
>Assembling the puzzle of evoluitionary lies, with...
>
>The All Seeing I
>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Kleuskes & Moos
Coz it's true? As as been explained there are other ways than
sequencing to determine how different genomes as a whole are.
hersheyh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_curve_analysis
Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99-121)
Keep in mind that the melting point measurements were largely made on
what was considered to be "single-copy" DNA rather than repetitive
sequences, and, consequently, probably exaggerated the degree of
similarity somewhat (but not radically). But, of course, it is within
the single-copy DNA that you find actual coding genes.
Melting point studies can give you a measure of the *degree* [quite
literally] of similarity without having any sequence evidence
available at all.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
Care to put that in layman's terms?
The wiki explanation: two classes of blood proteins: serum albumin
and globulin.
How does this relate to science claiming 98% of the chimp's DNA was
identical to mans decades before we mapped the chimp DNA?
Inez
> On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> But
>
> In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>
> _______________________
>
> Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
>
experiments, but there is a great deal of shame in pretending that you
do and confidently making claims when really you have no idea. I
guess you aren't smart enough to be embarrassed.
But what about your own theory? Any chance of you a) stating what it
is, and b) explaining what physical evidence you would expect to find
as a result of it? No? Nothing?
Ron O
They could sequence proteins before they could sequence RNA and DNA.
There was a technology (not electrophoresis) that relied on protein
migration and immunoprecipitation. Antibodies would be made to the
human protein and then they would estimate the protein sequence
distance by how far a protein could migrate from a source in the
presence of the human antibody. They could estimate how many amino
acid subsitutions separated the two proteins from the two species.
They could confirm by sequencing the proteins.
You don't have to worry because all the estimates were confirmed once
we could sequence the gentic material itself.
Ron Okimoto
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
ok.
I retract my original post,
But anyone that did not know this information ahead of time would
assume the 98% figure was concieved before the sequences of the chimp
was done
Friar Broccoli
.
Congratulations. I am really glad to see you starting to pay
attention to reasoned arguments supported by facts, and
then publicly acknowledging that your views needed to be
revised.
You may have done this a few times before, but this is the
first time I have seen it.
hersheyh
For DNA, as mentioned, the degree of identity could be measured by
melting point studies before there was extensive ability to sequence
genomes.
For protein studies, one can do a 2-D gel of human and chimp proteins
(from various sources) where, in one direction, you do an isoelectric
focusing gel which separates proteins on the basis of their net charge
and then, in the second direction, do gel electrophoresis to separate
the proteins with the same net charge on the basis of size. The
result is a 2-D map of protein spots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-dimensional_gel_electrophoresis
Human and chimp, in fact, have significant protein spot identity in 2-
D gels. The average protein, given its size, differs in only an
average of two amino acids. About 30% of all human proteins are
identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein. The degree
of identity as seen in 2-D gels would be higher because not all of the
aa differences between human and chimp proteins produce a charge
difference.
hersheyh
As pointed out, you do not need to know the sequence of genes to
determine that there are 2% mismatches in complementary sequences.
The more mismatches, the lower the temperature at which DNA will melt
and become ss. Since ssDNA and dsDNA absorb UV light differently,
this shift is used to determine where the average melting point is.
So you can know the mean *amount* of mismatch without having any idea
exactly which sites differ.
Free Lunch
<eli...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
I wouldn't congratulate him too much, his parting sentence showed that
he still garbled it some. The 98% was arrived at before the DNA of
chimps was sequenced but it was arrived at using other scientific
methods. That is what was known "ahead of time".
>You may have done this a few times before, but this is the
>first time I have seen it.
With luck, he will learn, despite his best efforts.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
So why do you ignore the calm and rational answers given by
hersheyh and Chris, and only respond to those which point
out that you're an idiot? Could it be that you're not
interested in an answer?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ron O
The 98% figure that you keep bringing up was estimated by DNA
hybridization of single copy genomic DNA sequence.
The protein sequence work gave a similar estimate, but a less accurate
estimate of genetic distance because of the redundant genetic code
(more than one DNA sequence can code for the same amino acid in a
protein). Given that around 8 or 9 of the first 10 proteins sequenced
between chimps and humans had identical amino acid sequences
indicating a very close relationship. Proteins such as cytochrome C
may differ by two amino acid residues between horses and donkeys, but
the protein is identical between chimps and humans.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
>On Nov 28, 11:32 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
Seems I wronged you, at least to an extent; you did respond
to Chris. Sort of, although "Thanks for providing the
information I asked for, even after my ignorance-fueled
rant" would have been more appropriate.
Heinlein (paraphrased) quote: "Some things can't be
explained in 10 words or less; they require years of skull
sweat".
If you're really interested you'll dig into this yourself
instead of requesting to be "Spoon Fed" (your term).
Friar Broccoli
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:56:12 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
I feel I need to come clean here:
I don't know the "correct" degree of similarity between
Chimp and Human DNA, and don't think I could know
without a lot of additional work. Were I to give a reasonably
exact number like say 98.4% or whatever, I would need to
understand the exact methods for assigning those values,
and what other values one could obtain using different
measuring techniques.
Those differences/similarities in turn are only meaningful
if I understand how those numbers compare with other
monkeys, mice, horses, birds, fish, crabs, trees, bacteria
and so on, none of which I really know.
So, I don't have a problem with 98% since it is the number I
would use (quickly followed by claims of abundant ignorance
of the details).
> >You may have done this a few times before, but this is the
> >first time I have seen it.
>
> With luck, he will learn, despite his best efforts.
If we get him within ballistic missile range of an understanding
of physical reality, I will be deliriously happy.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Commendable that you did.
hersheyh
Or perhaps he is a masochist who gets his jollies by being called an
idiot by atheists. A lot of fundamentalists seem to have a
pathological psychological need to be abused so they can whine about
being martyrs (without the physical pain and danger of 'real'
martyrdom). Look at how many are really convinced that atheists
prefer fundamentalist Islam and who feel besieged by a government who
does not let them put the imprint of the State on the side of the One
True Religion[TM].
All-seeing-I
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:56:12 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a retard Free.
Get over yourself.
All-seeing-I
You already made your point. Not everyone is as stupid as you are to
require a second pass of the same information.
All-seeing-I
What on earth would make you assume that any of your criticism would
bother me?
Un-like the atheist, a creationist can admit error.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am rather surprised this comment came from you.
I will have to reassess my opinion of you.
Greg G.
He admitted that he was wrong about trilobites being mammals, as I
recall.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
We have observed you not "getting it" after hundreds of "passes of the
same information".
Want some cheese with that whine?
Sapient Fridge
<7124e67e-38de-44c3...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> writes
>On Nov 28, 2:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I retract my original post,
>>
>> But anyone that did not know this information ahead of time would
>> assume the 98% figure was concieved before the sequences of the chimp
>> was done
>
>Congratulations. I am really glad to see you starting to pay
>attention to reasoned arguments supported by facts, and
>then publicly acknowledging that your views needed to be
>revised.
>
>You may have done this a few times before, but this is the
>first time I have seen it.
He retracted his trilobite = mammal post as well.
Not sure if there are any others or not, I can't say I've spotted any.
Usually he just leaves the thread after the rebuttals and just posts the
same stuff a few months later.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
That is a new claim.
heekster
If you read what he wrote, he did no such thing. What he did
postulate, was that you are "a masochist who gets his jollies by being
called an idiot by atheists."
>Un-like the atheist, a creationist can admit error.
An irony meter shattering imbecility.
BTW, no hyphen in "unlike".
Friar Broccoli
.
Hangs head in shame.
That talking vegetarian T-Rex has blotted everything else
from my memory.
Eric Root
It is heartwarming to see try to really learn. I am not kidding.
Eric Root
hersheyh
Read what I said. I rather explicitly said that criticism from
atheists *didn't* bother you. In fact I said you *might* (as in
"perhaps") be getting your jollies from it. But, then, perhaps like
many fundies, you think getting your jollies is a serious sin and feel
quite conflicted and dirty about feeling joy. Repression and all that
psychobabble.
>
> Un-like the atheist, a creationist can admit error.
And should admit error much much much much more often than they
actually do.
Stuart
It was you dope. It was done on the basis of other methods besides
a direct comparison of the two genomes.
When technology advanced to the point that such a direct comparison
was feasible,
that comparison supported the earlier results.
Sheesh.
Stuart
Ron O
How many times have you brought up this same stupid and bogus
argument? It was bogus the first time, so why keep at it? I must
have seen this DNA 98% junk from you a bunch of times in multiple
threads at the same time, usually. I was just pointing out that
protein measurements are less accurate than the DNA sequence
measurements, but they have all been consistent. Do you know the
difference between protein and DNA? Just ask if you want to know.
Ron Okimoto
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Un-like the atheist, a creationist can admit error.
if that were true, creationism wouldn't exist
heekster
wrote:
Yeah, let's keep track of this:
The times Adman was right
II
The times Adman was wrong
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Greg G.
Looks like another case of accidently hitting the Send button before
you were finished typing.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <7124e67e-38de-44c3-8add-d77cb4131...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >On Nov 28, 2:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I retract my original post,
>
> >> But anyone that did not know this information ahead of time would
> >> assume the 98% figure was concieved before the sequences of the chimp
> >> was done
>
> >Congratulations. I am really glad to see you starting to pay
> >attention to reasoned arguments supported by facts, and
> >then publicly acknowledging that your views needed to be
> >revised.
>
> >You may have done this a few times before, but this is the
> >first time I have seen it.
>
> He retracted his trilobite = mammal post as well.
>
> Not sure if there are any others or not, I can't say I've spotted any.
> Usually he just leaves the thread after the rebuttals and just posts the
> same stuff a few months later.
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
It does not matter if I retract or address the isues. Your evo-atheist-
pals will post their nonsense as if I never did.
Which speaks volumes about their character and the character of those
that do not call them on it.
.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>It does not matter if I retract or address the isues. Your evo-atheist-
>pals will post their nonsense as if I never did.
>
guess he's unaware that a creationist known as 'all seeing' does this
very thing all the time
heekster
wrote:
I do apologize for that.
Friar Broccoli
> On Nov 28, 6:14 pm, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In message
> > <7124e67e-38de-44c3-8add-d77cb4131...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes
>
> > >On Nov 28, 2:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> I retract my original post,
>
> > >> But anyone that did not know this information ahead of time would
> > >> assume the 98% figure was concieved before the sequences of the chimp
> > >> was done
>
> > >Congratulations. I am really glad to see you starting to pay
> > >attention to reasoned arguments supported by facts, and
> > >then publicly acknowledging that your views needed to be
> > >revised.
>
> > >You may have done this a few times before, but this is the
> > >first time I have seen it.
>
> > He retracted his trilobite = mammal post as well.
>
> > Not sure if there are any others or not, I can't say I've spotted any.
> > Usually he just leaves the thread after the rebuttals and just posts the
> > same stuff a few months later.
> > --
> > sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> > Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> > Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
.
> It does not matter if I retract or address the isues. Your evo-atheist-
> pals will post their nonsense as if I never did.
>
> Which speaks volumes about their character and the character of those
> that do not call them on it.
I can only speak for myself, but if someone (read Vend) asserts
that there is no God, I will if I notice and have time call him on
it. If someone asserts there is no evidence for God, I do nothing
because, as far as I know there is no good evidence either way,
so I have no way of deciding.
Personally I feel bound to believe what the evidence clearly
tells me, and to keep an open mind where the evidence is
not clear.
As you know, I find the evidence in support of biological
evolution very very compelling, so I do my best to stick to
that issue in this group and try not to get tied up in too
many unclear side issues.
John Harshman
> On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
>
> But
>
> In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
Glad to explain. We had known that since the mid-1980s based on
whole-genome, single copy DNA-DNA hybridization. It's a more primitive
technology than sequencing, but it gives a good estimate of the percent
similarity of two genomes. Just how good became apparent once the chimp
genome had been sequenced.
> Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
Because you're ignorant of the facts. The percent similarity of humans
and chimps can easily be calculated based on the two genome projects.
There is no room for forcing the evidence. Unless you want to suggest
that the genome projects were faked, you have no leg to stand on here.
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> > the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> > researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> >http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> > But
>
> > In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> > Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> > For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> > identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> > explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> > How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> > identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> > even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>
> Glad to explain. We had known that since the mid-1980s based on
> whole-genome, single copy DNA-DNA hybridization. It's a more primitive
> technology than sequencing, but it gives a good estimate of the percent
> similarity of two genomes. Just how good became apparent once the chimp
> genome had been sequenced.
>
> > Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> > forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
>
> Because you're ignorant of the facts. The percent similarity of humans
> and chimps can easily be calculated based on the two genome projects.
> There is no room for forcing the evidence. Unless you want to suggest
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you misunderstood.
The genome project if fine
Friar Broccoli
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
> > the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
> > researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
> >http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
> > But
>
> > In 1998 we were all being told:
>
> > Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
> > For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
> > identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
> > explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>
> > How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
> > identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
> > even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>
> Glad to explain. We had known that since the mid-1980s based on
> whole-genome, single copy DNA-DNA hybridization. It's a more primitive
> technology than sequencing, but it gives a good estimate of the percent
> similarity of two genomes. Just how good became apparent once the chimp
> genome had been sequenced.
>
> > Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
> > forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
>
> Because you're ignorant of the facts. The percent similarity of humans
> and chimps can easily be calculated based on the two genome projects.
> There is no room for forcing the evidence. Unless you want to suggest
> that the genome projects were faked, you have no leg to stand on here.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbd588e00a1439ef
John Harshman
> I think you misunderstood.
>
> The genome project if fine
What? Then why were you claiming that evidence is being forced to fit
the theory? What evidence were you talking about?
And I have explained how we knew about the 2% difference well before the
genome projects. Did you read that part?
John Harshman
and has apparently forgotten that fact. Figures.
Friar Broccoli
I wonder if an amazingly bad memory might not explain
most of what we are seeing with him. (I mean more than
the usual selective creationist memory)
Ye Old One
Your dishonesty is showing again.
>
>Which speaks volumes about their character and the character of those
>that do not call them on it.
You lie all the time. You get called on it. You do a troll dance to
try and avoid facing up to the fact that you lied.
We all make mistakes at times but you seem to have turned it into an
art form.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 28, 4:13 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 3:10 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:37:07 -0800 (PST), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>> > <ap...@email.com>:
>>
>> > >On Nov 28, 11:21 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Nov 28, 10:54 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
>> > >> > the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
>> > >> > researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>>
>> > >> >http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>>
>> > >> > But
>>
>> > >> > In 1998 we were all being told:
>>
>> > >> > Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>>
>> > >> > For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
>> > >> > identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
>> > >> > explore which genes separate us from the apes
>>
>> > >> >http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_...
>>
>> > >> > How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
>> > >> > identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
>> > >> > even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>>
>> > >> > _______________________
>>
>> > >> > Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
>> > >> > forced to fit the theory.
>>
>> > >> Clearly to people with Special Perception, I guess. Certainly not to
>> > >> scientists.
>>
>> > >> > Why is THAT?
>>
>> > >> Because you have some sort of disorder?
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Assembling the puzzle of evoluitionary lies, with...
>>
>> > >> ...an overactive imagination a coupled with an underactive
>> > >> intelligence quotient.
>>
>> > >OK then. Explain why 98% of human DNA being identical to that of
>> > >chimpanzees was being spoon fed to the masses in the media and in
>> > >schools before the the chimpanzee genome was even mapped?
>>
>> > >ooops! If you could explain it you would not have resorted to personal
>> > >disparages.
>>
>> > >But I'm use to THAT. In an highly predictable fashion; any time the
>> > >evolutionist is stumped for an answer they fall back on personal
>> > >insults.
>>
>> > So why do you ignore the calm and rational answers given by
>> > hersheyh and Chris, and only respond to those which point
>> > out that you're an idiot? Could it be that you're not
>> > interested in an answer?
>>
>> Or perhaps he is a masochist who gets his jollies by being called an
>> idiot by atheists. A lot of fundamentalists seem to have a
>> pathological psychological need to be abused so they can whine about
>> being martyrs (without the physical pain and danger of 'real'
>> martyrdom). Look at how many are really convinced that atheists
>> prefer fundamentalist Islam and who feel besieged by a government who
>> does not let them put the imprint of the State on the side of the One
>> True Religion[TM].
>>
>
>What on earth would make you assume that any of your criticism would
>bother me?
>
>Un-like the atheist, a creationist can admit error.
So, will you now admit every claim of yours on this list is an error?
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
That talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
That cigarettes do not cause cancer.
You just have to admit your claims were in error and the list goes
away. Simple as that Mudbrain.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have done that already idiot.
You are an obsessive unintelligent freak that has posted this nonsense
for a year.
You could not stop posting this if you wanted to now.
It was a sad day for the internet when the price of computers went
under a thousand dollars.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. and I retracted.
But like kooks do with obsessions, they just keep going on and on
about it
Boikat
How about retracting your other claims that have been shown to be
wrong or you've failed to support? Would you like a list?
>
> But like kooks do with obsessions, they just keep going on and on
> about it.
Mainly because you are still an arrogant asshole.
Boikat
Boikat
No, you haven't.
>
> You are an obsessive unintelligent freak that has posted this nonsense
> for a year.
And you've never successfully defended any of them, either, and only
retracte the one about trilobites being mammals, and then, only after
starting a thread to defend the idiotic claim.
>
> You could not stop posting this if you wanted to now.
Why should he? Actually, he probably need to add a few, just to keep
the list up to date. or maye someone should just start an "AS-Idiot)
unsupported dlaims) thread, and just add new enteries every day (since
unsupprted or idiotic claims are a daily occurance).
>
> It was a sad day for the internet when the price of computers went
> under a thousand dollars
It was even more sad when your mental health provider decided that
internet access would help cure your mental delusions, in some way.
Boikat
heekster
>> People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
>> always remember just how bright you made them feel.
>>
>
heekster
Usenet inertia. It takes a while for the perturbations to dampen out.
Ignore it, and it will go away.
Continue to feed energy into it, and the oscillations will increase in
amplitude.
Ye Old One
Nope.
>
>You are an obsessive unintelligent freak that has posted this nonsense
>for a year.
Are you going to face up to your lies/errors?
>
>You could not stop posting this if you wanted to now.
Why would I want to stop - you have yet to admit your errors.
>
>It was a sad day for the internet when the price of computers went
>under a thousand dollars.
Even sadder when they gave inmates at your mental institution access
to them.
Now, are you going to deal with the above list of errors/lies? Or are
you just going to continue looking like a lying arsehole?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
SeppoP
<snip>
>>
>> People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
>> always remember just how bright you made them feel.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I have done that already idiot.
>
Yes, you have. By the ton.
-- Seppo P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism is based on ignorance and dishonesty, it breeds from
ignorance and dishonesty, and it breeds ignorance and dishonesty.
Spreading ignorance and dishonesty is the lifeblood and sustenance of
the creationists.
All-Seeing-I
>
> Mainly because you are still an arrogant asshole.
>
> Boikat
>
>
THAT would be you.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Usenet inertia?
a cleaver coin of a phrase.
Boikat
Aside from being an arrogant asshole, you act like an immature brat,
too.
Boikat
John Harshman
> Right. and I retracted.
No you didn't. But thanks for doing so now. Do you also agree, then,
that evidence isn't being forced to fit the theory?
Bruce Stephens
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
[...]
>> Right. and I retracted.
>
> No you didn't. But thanks for doing so now. Do you also agree, then,
> that evidence isn't being forced to fit the theory?
I think he did, didn't he?
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fbd588e00a1439ef>.
(It was slightly qualified, but only slightly.)
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Cries Mudbrain at his image in the mirror!
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
Yes, and kudos for it.
>But like kooks do with obsessions, they just keep going on and on
>about it
You mean like Nashie and Spinnie obsessing over Bob?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
<snip>
> Usenet inertia?
>
>a cleaver coin of a phrase.
Yes, it cuts to the proof.
Cory Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
>>> the chimpanzee genome was not even on the “radar screen” of
>>> researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>>
>>> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>>
>>> But
>>
>>> In 1998 we were all being told:
>>
>>> Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>>
>>> For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
>>> identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
>>> explore which genes separate us from the apes
>>
>>> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_...
>>
>>> How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
>>> identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
>>> even on the “radar screen” of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
>>
>>
>>> Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
>>> forced to fit the theory.
>>
>> scientists.
>>
>>
>> Because you have some sort of disorder?
>>> --
>>> Assembling the puzzle of evoluitionary lies, with...
>>
>> ...an overactive imagination a coupled with an underactive
>> intelligence quotient.
>
> OK then. Explain why 98% of human DNA being identical to that of
> chimpanzees was being spoon fed to the masses in the media and in
> schools before the the chimpanzee genome was even mapped?
Interesting ho the people you respond to are *not* the ones who pointed
out things like DNA hybridization and protein electrophoresis.
Why is that? Gee, I wonder... :-P
John Harshman
Here, let me talk to him directly: Yes, adman, the 98% figure *was*
conceived before the chimp genome was sequenced. Well before it. But on
the basis of another and valid method, as I told you.
And I don't read every single one of your posts, so I didn't see that
retraction. Even after reading, I don't know just what you were retracting.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:37:42 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
>
> <snip>
>
> > Usenet inertia?
>
> >a cleaver coin of a phrase.
>
> Yes, it cuts to the proof.
Watch it, before you get stuck in someone else's cleavage...
heekster
Been there, done that, still have the big grin.
Dave Oldridge
news:b75b5a4b-f613-41d2...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>On this web site we found out that "Less than a decade ago, sequencing
>the chimpanzee genome was not even on the �radar screen� of
>researchers [ genome research; November 2009]
>
>http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
>
>
>But
>
>In 1998 we were all being told:
>
>Science 1998 September 4; 281: 1432-1434.
>
>For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is
>identical to that of chimpanzees. Now they have at last begun to
>explore which genes separate us from the apes
>
>http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/rootweb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_hum
>an. htm
>
>How can we have known for "decades" that at least 98% of human DNA is
>identical to that of chimpanzees if "the chimpanzee genome was not
>even on the �radar screen� of researchers "Less than a decade ago"?
Your incompetence is showing again. We can measure (by various means)
the similarity of two genomes without having full sequences.
>Clearly Evolution is a Spoon Fed Theory where the evidence is being
>forced to fit the theory. Why is THAT?
Clearly you will tell any lie that comes to mind to attack evolution. Is
that because your only true god is the father of lies?
>Assembling the puzzle of evoluitionary lies, with...
>
>The All Seeing I
The only lies I see in your outpourings are creationist lies.
My advice to you:
Stop worshipping demons. It is bad for your spiritual health.
--
Dave Oldridge+