How Unreliable Is Evolution? Let's See:
All-seeing-I
"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."
Ron O
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.
Ron Okimoto
Davej
> "...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.
spintronic
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).
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<21f1a76b-88c8-4d9b...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com> :
In what way is any of this a comment on evolution?
Mike Dworetsky
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.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
bpuharic
>
>"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.
John Harshman
> "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.
John Harshman
question.)
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because instead of 2 copies of one gene per person being subject to
mutation, you now have many.
Reddfrogg
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.
DJT
Mike Dworetsky
> 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.
--
Baron Bodissey
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> All-seeing-I wrote:
<snip>
>
> 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).
>
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.
John Harshman
> mutation, you now have many.
How many? Enough to account for the hundreds of alleles in some genes?
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly.
John Harshman
> Exactly.
Please provide a reference, and some numbers that make your point.
All-Seeing-I
> 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.
Denial. It could also be a mental illness.
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please Give me something to work with, and some numbers that don't
make your's.
All-Seeing-I
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.
Reddfrogg
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.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> 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.
DJT
Devils Advocaat
How about you cite your source for these quotes?
And while you are at it, maybe you could search out the actual
research paper.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>If you read the topic of the post, it noted evolution's unreliability.
how could an observed process be unreliable?
>
>This paper clearly shows the percents are wrong. Latter research will
>show a larger percent is wrong, a safe bet.
yeah you guys have said that for 150 years. it's right up there with
your contention that a jellyfish is a shark because both are fishes
spintronic
> On Nov 21, 8:57 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.
> 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.
*******************************************
I'm compiling a list;
'conserved synteny' horses vs humans. Err Err
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1225716/Neigh--Blueprint-horse-genetic-code-reveals-remarkable-similarity-humans.html
*******************************************
How many genes does maze have?
Well in 2008 it had 50,000, and in 2009 it has 32,000.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091119193636.htm
Must have lost some, are they up your sleeve? Their not up mine.
**************************************************
In the "and the "skull evidence" for human chimp lineage issss"
catagory;
http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9599892.php
Punch line,
"if we can relate chimps to humans, humans to space men are no
problem."
Ron O
> 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.
Ron Okimoto
>
> > Ron Okimoto-
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>You think "Scientists from 13 research centres including Britain's
>Sanger Institute in Cambridge are telling lies?
>
>funny
>
weird...
the creationist thinks these scientists are telling the truth
but the rest of the time, the entire world's scientific community is
lyijng when it says evolution isa a fact
Ron O
You may want to rethink that. A chimp can pull your arms off and beat
you to death with the stumps. A human waitress might just pour hot
coffee in your lap.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
subject. You probably don't want to understand it. If you did, you
wouldn't be able to use it as a club to fight off unwelcome knowledge.
John Harshman
> On Nov 21, 9:10 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 8:57 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> .
> .
>
>> 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.
>
> *******************************************
> I'm compiling a list;
It appears to be a list of random nonsense. Was that your intent?
Ye Old One
>
>"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."
>
I see you dishonestly post somebody else's words without attribution.
Typical creationist.
--
Bob.
Here we see the creationist in its natural environment, between a rock
and a hard place. We can tell it is of the young earth breed due to
the way it reaches, grasping for straws but only clasps thin air.
Mark Evans
Clearly you have not dined at some of the places I have.
Mark Evans
spintronic
Don't know. Can't see it since you snipped it.
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:20:56 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
.
> I dishonestly post somebody else's words without attribution.
> --
> Bob.
Yes we already know that BOB.
John Harshman
All-seeing-I
I see very little difference in that outcome.
stew dean
Put some money up now and I'll take any bet you offer. I'd stake my
house on evolution being right. There's far more on this whole chimp/
human thing out there than you are aware of.
You'd not be the first one to place such a bet and you won't be the
first one not to honour the bet when you loose either.
Stew Dean
Devils Advocaat
> "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
> from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are
> more likely to be about 96 per cent similar."
>
>
> Could this just be a matter of one scientists interpretation of the
> evidence?
>
> 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."
A little online digging led me to these articles:
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6174510.stm?lsm
A link in the second, took me closer to the necessary original
scientific paper:
A search using “270 people” led me to this:
http://search.sanger.ac.uk/cgi-bin/exasearch?_q=270+people
The third item on the search took me here:
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Info/Press/2006/061122.shtml
And the link “published today” took me to this location:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/abs/nature05329.html
This is the link to the full text
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/nature05329.html
and the PDF version
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/pdf/nature05329.pdf
Now genetics is not my forte, but looking at the supplementary data
charts
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/suppinfo/nature05329.html
On page 12 of the first set of figures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/extref/nature05329-s1.pdf
The losses and gains shown appear to be consistent with such
variations as would be predicted by evolutionary theory.
Boikat
In other words, you wouldn't be able to stroke off.
Figures.
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<9a968053-dc1f-45e8...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
You are forging what people wrote, that is very dishonest.
The actual line was:
> I see you dishonestly post somebody else's words without attribution.
What happened to those high morals you guys are meant to have?
--
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
All-seeing-I
> On 21 Nov, 13:20, 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."
>
> A little online digging led me to these articles:
>
>
> and
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6174510.stm?lsm
>
> A link in the second, took me closer to the necessary original
> scientific paper:
>
> http://www.sanger.ac.uk/
>
> A search using “270 people” led me to this:
>
> http://search.sanger.ac.uk/cgi-bin/exasearch?_q=270+people
>
> The third item on the search took me here:
>
> http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Info/Press/2006/061122.shtml
>
> And the link “published today” took me to this location:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/abs/nature05329.html
>
> This is the link to the full text
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/nature05329.html
>
> and the PDF version
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/pdf/nature05329.pdf
>
> Now genetics is not my forte, but looking at the supplementary data
> charts
>
>
> On page 12 of the first set of figures:
>
>
> The losses and gains shown appear to be consistent with such
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you can do this kind of research and deduction then you should have
no problem finding out and verifying the real truth from books such as
the bible and other ancient texts.
What are you waiting for. You do want truth, right?
Or do you LIKE being lied to by a man made science that is limited to
the natural world?
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 22, 12:21 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:20:56 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>.
>.
>
>> I see you dishonestly post somebody else's words without attribution.
>> Typical creationist.
>> --
>> Bob.
>
>Yes we already know that BOB.
** SHUNNED for forging, abject stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
All I have done is track down the actual research paper that the
journalistic report you quoted from was referring to, and typically as
you can see the journalist managed to make a mountain out of a
molehill.
And I suppose by "the real truth", you mean that truth which is
revealed, is unsupported by objective evidence, and has to be taken on
faith?
>
> What are you waiting for. You do want truth, right?
>
> Or do you LIKE being lied to by a man made science that is limited to
> the natural world?
Why do you use the products of what you call "man made science" if you
have such a low opinion of it?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>If you can do this kind of research and deduction then you should have
>no problem finding out and verifying the real truth from books such as
>the bible and other ancient texts.
ah. 'other ancient texts' because the bible is often wrong, so he
needs 100,000 ancient texts to find ONE that he thinks is right
>
>What are you waiting for. You do want truth, right?
>
>Or do you LIKE being lied to by a man made science that is limited to
>the natural world?
take a walk out a 10th story window, creationist. let me know if your
knowledge of the supernatural saves you, m'kay?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>If you can do this kind of research and deduction then you should have
>no problem finding out and verifying the real truth from books such as
>the bible and other ancient texts.
yeah. with 100,000 ancient texts you can find one that'll say anything
you want
>