Erika, or @GutsickGibbon as she is known online has posted an incredible series of videos in the last 2 days comprehensively attacking the work of Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins. If you thought her previous work on the subject was thorough, boy howdy are you in for a treat.
Though many, if not most of you, are likely already aware of this excellent trio of videos, I bring them to the community’s attention nonetheless.
I am not equipped to evaluate the robusticity of these conclusions given my background, but from my perspective this seems definitive.
Will this have a lasting impact on the conversation regarding the similarity between chimps and humans, or will ignorance prevail over even this level of rigor?
Erika’s work is great, but it will have no lasting impact because the barriers have nothing to do with ignorance “prevailing” over “rigor.” You refer to the new videos as “definitive” as though there was ever any technical or scientific debate to be had. I think this means that you have been duped, in the same way that Tomkins’ intended audience has been duped: they believe that there is a scientific debate and that Tomkins is a credible player in that debate.
Like all folk science, the purpose of Tomkins’ “work” is to make believers feel better about believing. “Rigor” is not relevant, and credibility is only relevant insofar as it helps the audience rationalize their decision to pay attention to the writer/speaker. If you want to understand the “conversation regarding the similarity between chimps and humans,” you should read about misinformation and psychology. Not about genetics.
Perhaps Answers Research Journal will finally publish Glenn Williamson’s paper rebutting Thomkin’s claims. Maybe with Rob Carter as a reviewer? Or maybe Carter would be willing to coauthor a paper with Williamson?
Interestingly, her video did prompt a response from Carter himself, and Carter admits that Erika is correct about her critique of Tomson’s work.
One of the videos is also a collaboration with Glenn Williamson and his analysis.
It’s unfortunate that I came across that way. I am actually not under the illusion that there is a serious scientific debate on any of this. I was hopeful that perhaps at best the degree to which Erika addressed the Tomkins arguments might push the Tomson arguments to the side. I know overall that this will not stop those who are committed.
Ah, that’s my fault for projecting that onto you, and I do apologize. I do think that words like “definitive” give the impression of a debate amongst informed adults, which is not what I would call this. Since the audience for Tomkins and his ilk is a population addicted to falsehood (almost a third of white evangelicals swallow QAnon whole), I think it is misguided at best to hope that any kind of reasoning is an effective antidote.
