What public? The minority that you belong to?
Again. Can you please tell us what you would accept for evidence of evolution?
It’s already been done.
1 Like
After which, your pal @EricMH in effect goes on to say “Uh, guys? I’m just a newbie here, and I really don’t know how to do any of this stuff. Could you tell me what I’m supposed to do? What happens when I press this button? Oh. Is that what was supposed to happen?” Etc.
IOW a guy who has no clue runs a computer program to spit out some numbers he doesn’t understand.
Exactly how does this show that “lab sequencing, computer simulations, etc are not real science”? Could you explain?
1 Like
Holy cow. You must hold the record for speed reading. You read that paper FAST.
What would you accept as evidence for evolution?
2 Likes
Why don’t you cite some of the groundbreaking Creation Science Research that has calculated this figure, no doubt down to a million decimal places…
Just so we are on the same page, are you accusing the authors of the chimp genome paper of lying about their data?
Why aren’t the differences listed in the chimp genome paper the real variation?
1 Like
Also notice you said films. Not peer reviewed literature. Thank god for creationists for coming out with propaganda films! They are doing the real science!..
2 Likes
Yeah I’m out. I’ve seen my fair share of circus clowns and the entertainment value has diminishing returns.
We never needed to even think about doing what you suggest. We used the eyes that God gave us to know that humans and chimps could not possibly be related. We never even entertained such a thought until we allowed Darwin (my gosh, who is he?) to put the silly notion in our heads. Shame on those who fell for his line.
He isn’t. He’s thinking about the claim that nested hierarchy is the only explanation for structure in data sets as measured by (so far) consistency index and bootstraps. This has nothing at all to do with specific relationships, not within primates or anything else, and nothing to do with genetic distances.
1 Like
Linnaeus beat Darwin to the punch by quite a few years:
1 Like
Ahh sry that was a typo, I meant r_speir is the one who thinks that, not Eric Holloway. I think that’s why r_speir keeps blathering about human or chimp (or primate) sequencing because he somehow thinks this is related to phylogenetic signal.
1 Like
the abillity to speak is of course coded by genes.
the problem is that we will probably need at least few mutations before we will get this abillity. so its basically IC system.
behe in biochemistry of course.
Or individual mutations just improve the capacity for language, so mutations can simply accumulate. Heck, that could even happen if some of them are neutral, or even weakly deleterious. And different individuals can carry different language-capacity-affecting mutations, and then they can have sex and both parents can pass on those genes to the same child. Or innumerable other possible combinations of population genetic events.
Last I checked there’s no problem with accumulating mutations over generations.
Besides, you haven’t shown me what mutation couldn’t evolve. You haven’t shown me a genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees that could not have evolved since we split from our common ancestor. Point out a locus and tell me there’s no way that could have evolved. Is there some stretch of basepairs that can’t have been duplicated, or some A that can’t have changed to G?
1 Like
Yes. They said the difference is 15%
Let me link a bunch of papers on their webpage. https://www.dismantledevolution.com/resources This is the main reference as far as the waiting time I think.
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population | Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling | Full Text
I’d like to take time to read through them all. I haven’t read through them yet. Here’s two more probably more relevant.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0011
Yes, I stated it incorrectly. That’s also a model and a story
I have never seen a single peer reviewed study that found a 15% difference between the size of the human and chimp genomes. If they cite a reference I would love to see it.
I would suspect that they are talking about the Y chromosome where there is about a 15% difference in size between chimps and humans. However, the 22.8 million base pairs in the human Y chromosome is only 0.8% of the 3 billion base haploid genome, so it really doesn’t make a big impact overall.
1 Like
I think that’s this one. https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v11/chimpanzee_contig.pdf
I’ll have to read through them all before I can remotely attempt to intelligently discuss this. I only took a basic high school and basic college biology class. 
The Y chromosome is always inherited though, so it is important to look at it. If creationism is true, then there are no common ancestors, so no need to look at the whole genome.
What data did they base this on?
The latest and most complete human genome assembly puts the human genome at 3.045 billion bases, so their claim is that the chimp genome is between only 2.588 and 2.647 billion bases long?
Well, the latest chimp genome assembly has a length of about 3.050 billion bases, so what gives?
2 Likes
That article doesn’t demonstrate a difference in genome size, it’s making a claim about similarity. A claim that was soundly and easily debunked by some high school-level stats by @roohif:
I promise you, if you watch this 5-minute video, you’ll understand what Tomkins did and how fatally flawed it was perfectly.
5 Likes