Hi Everyone, here is a video summarizing my results on replicating the work of Jeffery Tomkins:
His 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2018 papers are all discussed. I will hopefully produce a writeup when I get the time as well.
Kudos for putting in the hard work!! I will have to check it out when I have a chance.
Tomkins’ multiple attempts to cast doubt on the scientific consensus have long been a source of comedy. They are wonderful examples of what happens to logic and reason when someone is forced to land on a specific conclusion. If my memory is still working, one of the more hilarious attempts involved a methodology that said two identical DNA sequences were really something like 88% similar. When he blasted the sequences he averaged all of the hits instead of taking the percent similarity of the top hit. Go figure. Another attempt excluded gapped sequences so a single indel resulted in much lower similarity than what it was in reality. At this point, I have to assume he is cooking the books on purpose.
Side comment: Am I the only one who thinks Tomkins could be brothers with Steve Carell?
Is the write-up going to be the paper reviewed by PS and published here as was discussed? Or is that a different thing?
Great presentation Erika.
I found Tomkin’s response to the weighting issue strange. Why not weight the data? It’s an obvious improvement, at no cost, and rookie easy. That is what Excel was born for; it is not as if anyone would notice a spreadsheet take longer to refresh. I did it routinely in engineering even when it scarcely mattered.
Just watched this through in it’s entirety. Fantastic work Erika.
I love how using Tomkins method a human chromosome is like 83-88% similar to itself. ROFL!
4 Likes
“It can’t be incompetence so it must be deception.”
You have reached enlightenment.
3 Likes
Great video Ericka!!
Like many experiences with creationists, I always get this picture in my head:
Ungapped and weighted? Why don’t you gap the comparison, Jeffrey?
Now it’s gapped and UNWEIGHTED!!! What happened Jeffrey?
You get the runup to the ball, and then it is pulled away.
Is it on purpose? If you are a plant geneticist with a PhD, how could all of this be an accident? I don’t see how it could. At what point is this level of incompetence equivalent to deceit? It boggles the mind.
2 Likes
They aren’t equivalent. It’s been deceit all along.
3 Likes
I have to agree. What’s more is that it shows through the email exchanges that the people at AIG like Snelling and others have been complicit in the deception. All of their crap excuses for not allowing roohif to publish his rebuttal in AIG’s in-house (and now absolutely proven to be nothing but a) propaganda outlet.
2 Likes
I’m reminded of Henry Morris’s blatant quote mines, and Duane Gish continuing to use falsehoods about peroxide/hydroquinone reactions after being proved wrong in his previous debate.
This is just a continuation of the same attitude - truth is irrelevant, what matters is whether your audience will spot the lies.
2 Likes
Bullfrog!!!
The bullfrog incident is still one of my favorites.
2 Likes
The fact they keep these articles on their website without even an errata says it all. “Bearing false witness” has no meaning at AiG.
3 Likes
It’s just the Culture War, not any real religion.
3 Likes
We’d love to publish that write up :).
2 Likes
You claim that Tour has “A far greater knowledge of what actually happens in chemical reactions than a good number of origin of life researchers, for a start.”
Was that a sincere judgment made from the evidence, or did you just make it up? Why can’t you name a single one of them? That looks like you were certainly lying to me.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.