Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What hell is this?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’ve just discovered that my friend Richard Buggs is in some kind of trouble for having said what everyone obviously knows, that chimpanzees are NOT 98% human (and therefore humans are not 98% chimpanzee).

Guys, have you ever even considered dating a female chimp?

Yuh, thought so.

Common ancestry? Well, it’s way easier to defend if we start with the fact that humans and chimps are NOT obviously all that similar. So starting with a lower (believable) figure would be a better way to begin than starting with a higher (unbelievable) figure.

That’s all Buggs was trying to do. But, to keep the UK government-funded trolls at bay, Buggs clarified:

Given these statistics, it is factually incorrect to say that humans are 99% the same as chimpanzees. Yet, just last month, the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Chicago Press in the USA published a book entitled “99% Ape: How evolution adds up.” This misleading title was doubtless chosen by a marketing guru rather than the editor, who is a reputable and distinguished scientist in plant evolutionary ecology (the field in which I did my doctoral research). Such promotion of the ”myth of 1%” to the public as evidence for evolution is probably why some non-scientists have suggested on the internet that my earlier article, dispelling this myth, is somehow a death-blow to evolution – it is not.

Look, I am totally sorry that my friend Buggs is pestered by these creepy trolls. Can anyone call the trolls off? Or is this going to end like another Michael Reiss “sinner in the hands of an angry God.” story?

And DON’T try telling me that some supposed Christian Brit toff like Denis Alexander is going to, like, do something about it.

We know that if he cared, he would have done it already …

Dammit, Brits, we’ve bailed you out of two World Wars. Don’t force us to do it again. My Dad was one of the very few survivors of his Canadian air force unit.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that Darwinism and its attendant =isms are a bunch of crap. How many of your own must you feed to the shredders before you recognize that?

Hey, I’m a Canuck (really, honestly) and we’re a-watchin’! And we don’t see why you need us to tell you.. Maybe this is the day when you need us and all you get is awful silence.

Richard, in your last defence, if you are betrayed by all hands, come to Canada!

Traditional Canadians are fighting back against the most worthless and disgusting mob you have ever imagined, who only want to plunder us and have no concern whether Canada even survives as a country.

But we ARE fighting back. And GOD is watching. So all, look out.

Comments
My last comment was held in moderation. I'm hoping this one will go through unimpeded. Joseph, I can't make sense of your comment #53, so let me ask a couple of direct questions. 1. In comment #40, I wrote:
Consider a diploid wheat plant with genome A and a tetraploid variant with exactly the same genome repeated twice: AA. According to you and Buggs, their genetic similarity is only 50%, because the tetraploid variant’s second A counts as a mismatch. (In reality the number would be even less than 50%, because the genomes would be A and BB, where A and B are similar but not identical). So by your logic, a human is genetically more similar to a chimpanzee than two varieties of wheat are to each other. Is that the conclusion you were hoping to reach?
Do you see why Buggs' method, which you are defending, leads to this absurd conclusion? 2. You wrote:
Consider a human baby. It has two sets of 23 chromosomes. The same number as its father and mother. By your reckoning the baby has 100% of its mother’s AND 100% of its father’s.
I replied:
No. You’re assuming that each of the parents possesses two identical copies of every chromosome. They don’t. Google “homozygous” and “heterozygous”.
You responded rather cryptically:
Not since the early 60s when I was too young to know what a chromosome is.
Do you understand (and acknowledge) that "my reckoning" does not lead to the conclusion that the baby has 100% of the mother's genome and 100% of the father's?ribczynski
December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Thanks, Philip! But I'm not back, at least not yet. My comment got held in moderation. Moderators, Could you please remove me from moderation? And if not, could you publicly state why I am under moderation? (If I have already been liberated, thank you. I won't know until I hit 'Submit Comment'.)ribczynski
December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Welcome back rib!PhilipBaxter
December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Hi, guys! Just checking to see if my comment will go through. :-)ribczynski
December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
What's going on? Why are posts missing?Joseph
December 9, 2008
December
12
Dec
9
09
2008
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Just wanted to offer my two cents... 1 - I believe that, while Richard Buggs is a Brit he is actually funded by the University of Florida, so it isn't the "UK government funded trolls" that need to be kept at bay. 2 - Having looked through Dr Buggs' publications, any research group would be insane to threaten him. He is publishing in some top journals (which is particularly impressive for a young researcher). While I am sceptical of ID, if anybody tries to "threaten him" then I'll be on his side! 3 - Panda's Thumb has an article linking to some old discussions on the issue: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/12/indel-length-di.html. Just thought people might be interested... 4 - I don't have time to engage anybody in a debate like those raging on here, but briefly in response to Joseph [#55]: "point to the scientific data which links the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans to the genetic differences observed?" A - The loss of MYH16 explains the reduced masticatory muscles in humans relative to chimpanzees (Stedman et al., 2004). B - Deactivation of KRTHAP1 likely had substantial impacts on the thinning of body hair in humans relative to chimpanzees (Winter et al., 2001). Stedman, H.H. et al. Nature 428 (6981): 415–418 Winter, H. et al. Hum Genet 108 (1): 37–42.ChrisH
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
IDskeptic, I hope we will. That seems to be the point, after all. PhilipBaxter, I don't think ribczynski has been put under moderation.Clive Hayden
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Clive - We're on opposite sides but I applaud your tone. Maybe we'll find the truth between us!IDskeptic
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Hi, I've just been reading at that ATBC place, it seems that ribczynski has been placed under moderation (does that mean he can no longer post or posts are delayed or something else?) Is this true Clive? Why? I was enjoying his arguments and rebuttals, as apparently so has Barry with his recent post
Below the fold I have reproduced an interesting comment thread in which ribczynski attacks ID proponents’ criticisms of macroevolution through NDE, and two ID proponents convincingly refute the Darwinist line.
Thanks for the info about ATBC, it's always good to see both sides of the story and there's some very funny pictures in some of the threads! I've already sent some of the best to everybody I know!PhilipBaxter
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Joseph: "ANYTHING that doesn’t match is a mismatch- duh." "That is a stupid inference." Keep it civil or I will be forced to delete these comments and may have to ban you. The point in this policy is that harsh words and disrepect will only bring about more of the same. It clouds the argument. For goodness sakes, be respectful, no matter how vehemently you disagree with someone. If you're conversant in the topic then this is not necessary.Clive Hayden
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Joseph [58]: wha? I said the physiological differences won't boil down to genes alone. You disagreed, but from the content of your link I think you mean something else. Do you think they do boil down to genes alone? I said they don't, and Denton, who you quote, distinguishes between influencing and determining -- so he seems to agree with me (about this at least, if little else).RoyK
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Joseph: "Hey rib, I just read your comment over on ATBC. It is a lie......" I'm deleting your comment. It's obvious why. This is not acceptable. Keep the personal attacks out of discussion.Clive Hayden
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Joseph @61,
2- determine whether or not it is due to culled genetic accidents or design
How will you be making that determination? Will you be using publicly available gene sequences so we can all follow along? This is fascinating stuff indeed! I look forward to the demonstation!PhilipBaxter
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Hi Joseph, There have been quite alot discovered regarding genes that regulate brain size. Is that the sort of thing you are after?
the scientific data which links the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans to the genetic differences observed?
PhilipBaxter
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
But that doesn’t have any bearing on whether (a) humans and chimps are related, or
It has a bearing on how they are related.
(b) gene similarity tells a lot about how closely they’re related.
Gene similarity works within a population. Outside of that you need the data I asked for. Because without that all you have is speculation based on the assumption. 1- get the data I asked for 2- determine whether or not it is due to culled genetic accidents or designJoseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Talk us mechanistically through step 3, if you can, Joe.
It went as designed with a few hiccups.Joseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
There’s no reason to think that all the differences between chimps and humans will boil down simply to genetic differences.
Yes there is:
“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes in Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or to view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.” Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent
Joseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Joseph [56], the relations between genes and physiology are being worked out in simpler organisms (like C. elegans). There's no reason to think that all the differences between chimps and humans will boil down simply to genetic differences. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether (a) humans and chimps are related, or (b) gene similarity tells a lot about how closely they're related.RoyK
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Talk us mechanistically through step 3, if you can, Joe.IDskeptic
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Enough with the idle chit-chat Can either one of you, RoyK or ribczynski, point to the scientific data which links the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans to the genetic differences observed? If not then why do you accept the premise?Joseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
So Joseph [51], does this mean that you think humans, bonobos, common chimps, gibbons, gorillas, and orangutans are all designed separately?
That is a possibility. And one I wouldn't rule out- at least without knowing what makes each what it is.
That’s an active designer.
Or designers. And not very active if it is all based on a common genetic theme. Then there would be pre-implementation activity as well as the implementation. And the implementation could be as easy as letting all the pre-implementation processes go to work. 1- write the program(s) 2- allocate resources 3- goJoseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Upon further reflection:
Consider a diploid wheat plant with genome A and a tetraploid variant with exactly the same genome repeated twice: AA.
I would say there is a 50% genetic difference. That is with the following caveat- that 50% can be made up in one step. Just as the 2nd gene can also be made in one step. The % genetic difference is the same, however don't confuse or conflate that difference with the number of steps. Insertions and deletions are also considered one time events. IOW the % difference needs to be qualified. And I believe Dr Buggs did that. Next rib claims:
You’re assuming that each of the parents possesses two identical copies of every chromosome.
Not since the early 60s when I was too young to know what a chromosome is.Joseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
So Joseph [51], does this mean that you think humans, bonobos, common chimps, gibbons, gorillas, and orangutans are all designed separately? That's an active designer.RoyK
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Joseph wrote:
Consider a human baby. It has two sets of 23 chromosomes. The same number as its father and mother. By your reckoning the baby has 100% of its mother’s AND 100% of its father’s.
No. You're assuming that each of the parents possesses two identical copies of every chromosome. They don't. Google "homozygous" and "heterozygous". Let it go, Joseph.ribczynski
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Joseph, just curious: in your view, does a large degree of genetic similarity provide evidence for relatedness?
Within a population, yes. However genetic similarities can also be explained by a common design and convergence. What is needed is a map that links the DNA to the anatomy and physiology. As I said before to date the only evidence for the evolution of the eye/ vision system is the SAME today as it was in Darwin's day- that is we have observed varying degrees in complexity of eyes/ vision systems and we "know" the first population(s) didn't have one. And that is pathetic.Joseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Consider a diploid wheat plant with genome A and a tetraploid variant with exactly the same genome repeated twice: AA.
Consider a human baby. It has two sets of 23 chromosomes. The same number as its father and mother. By your reckoning the baby has 100% of its mother's AND 100% of its father's. Yet we know it only has 50% from each. And BTW, we know that plants do NOT behave the same as metazoans. Both myself and Dr Buggs know this and would take that into account. IOW your example is just a staw-man.Joseph
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
From my experience doing as you say is a quick way to become a target as well, especially if you lack the job security of being tenured. Which is very unfortunate. Although I'd agree that he set himself up with his prior actions. The problem is that what he probably thought of as an innocent move on his part is jumped upon as travesty by Darwinists. The problem is not with him, it's with the Darwinists and their hostile mindset. Hell, I've been insulted before just because I quoted something in a book and did not provide a reference (or something along those lines...I forget exactly). When I explained that I had already taken the book back to the library since it was late I was called a liar. Seriously, how can anyone deal with such unreasonable people? Even little realities of life are turned into horrible acts. Quite frankly they make me sick. In any case, what makes Dr. Buggs afraid is the thought that someone will misinterpret what's going on as Buggs being an active part of the Uncommon Descent ID community. Let me be very clear: he's not. Because we commented on his prior article he communicated with us a little, but that is all. In fact, he's made some statements that some of us might disagree with. I want to make this very clear just in case a co-worker of Dr. Buggs reads this conversation. I do not want a miscommunication to cause them to become angry with Dr. Buggs.Patrick
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Yes, he's untenured: which is why he should publish in the scientific literature and not push his views of science in religious newspapers or church groups where they almost to be taken as creationist. His decisions are hard to understand.RoyK
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
that still would not explain why he didn’t try to publish in a scientific journal.
You answered your own question: He’s an untenured (assistant) professor.Patrick
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Patrick, if true, that still would not explain why he didn't try to publish in a scientific journal. As I have pointed out, revisions to earlier measures were published in the research literature, so it's not as though it's going to hurt him. He's an untenured (assistant) professor. If he's got something to say scientifically, publishing it in the research literature can only help, even if it's refuted.RoyK
December 8, 2008
December
12
Dec
8
08
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply