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
tribune7 wrote:
And he has yet to call anyone a “creationist” or imply/demand that someone’s position should not be considered due to that someone’s religious leanings. If a poster uses the “c” word in an attempt to dismiss an argument, the default should be to delete the post. For a second offense, the default should be to delete the poster.
Trib, If I were saying in effect that "Buggs is a creationist; therefore his argument is wrong", then you might have a point. But I'm not. I'm saying that Buggs is a creationist, publishing in a newspaper run by creationists, writing on a hot-button issue for creationists. Creationists do not accept common ancestry. Therefore it is unreasonable to conclude that defending common ancestry was "all Buggs was trying to do" in the article. It's legitimate and relevant to use the "c word" in this context.ribczynski
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
RoyK, 1. He tells me so. Having heard individuals as varied as Guillermo Gonzalez and Rick Sternberg tell me the same thing, I have no good reason to doubt it, but would be happy to learn he is mistaken. 2. GOD is watching is intended for theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander, in case he hadn't noticed, not for Richard Dawkins who won't believe it. Presumably, however, both of them will write tomorrow morning to reassure Dr. Buggs that he has nothing to worry about.O'Leary
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
But what evidence is there that Buggs is in any kind of trouble? And a second question: is a post defending Buggs by noting that "GOD is watching" likely to help?RoyK
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Hi all, I doubt the trouble that Buggs is worried about is with his newspaper editor (to whom give my regards), but rather with colleagues (are they fronting the 98% thing?) Given that science education consultant Michael Reiss lost his job in a recent Royal Society purge, I take the threat to Buggs seriously, unless he himself tells me not to. Heck, the Expelled film is a documentary, not fiction. Where I differ with Buggs (and Reiss?) is that I don't think the best way to handle stuff like this is to keep it quiet. I think we should give maximum publicity to the sort of people who threaten others over issues of legitimate disagreement, like how to count genes or teach kids. In Canada, we have a name for that - we call it "denormalization." It just means that we stop treating such people's behaviour as normal. We call attention to it as abnormal behaviour, and ask what can be done about it. In any event, the obvious reason for the 98% claim is to minimize the difference between humans and chimps, primarily for *political* reasons. If it was really about science, then Buggs and somebody else would be free to have a scholarly dispute and hardly anyone would care. You can be pretty sure that when science issues become so controversial that people are writing to me about their careers being on the line, it's not about the science at all. It's about some questionable ideology that science is supposed to bolster. So add this word to your dictionary: DenormalizationO'Leary
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Before this degenerates into a pie fight, can someone address the question I raised above: to wit, is there any evidence for the claims Denyse makes, or are they hyperbolic?RoyK
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Mark, The Professor Olofsson thread is very cool and the Professor is making clarifying comments about his point of view fairly constructive ones about ours. And he has yet to call anyone a "creationist" or imply/demand that someone's position should not be considered due to that someone's religious leanings. If a poster uses the "c" word in an attempt to dismiss an argument, the default should be to delete the post. For a second offense, the default should be to delete the poster. And I hate this new format where you can't see what the poster said in recent comments.tribune7
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
"I have to ask, why do people record our comments and post them on that website you linked?" Because UD moderators have a reputation for deleting comments unreasonably. I am not sure to what extent this reputation is deserved. The situation seems to have improved dramatically recently and some comments are lost accidentally rather than intentionally. Nevertheless retaining deleted comments provides a way of judging this. I struggle to see what was disrespectful about ribczynski's comment. It is certainly a lot more respectful than Denyse's original post. Please don't slip back into the old ways of banning anything that is slightly feisty. Look at the fascinating and in-depth discussion that arose here by allowing some direct talk.Mark Frank
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
Your comment had a condescending tone. I don't mind one bit that you present your arguments, just keep them properly respectful. I apologize on behalf of anyone who has treated you unduly disrespectful that's associated with UD. That's no reason to act that way yourself. Let's just stick to civil and respectful arguments and discussions. Otherwise, I will ban you. There's no double standard in that. I have to ask, why do people record our comments and post them on that website you linked?Clive Hayden
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
Clive, My comment expressed incredulity at one of Denyse's assertions and presented my reasons for disagreeing. It was far less rude, snide or condescending than some of the comments directed at me and other skeptics by ID supporters here at UD, including more than one moderator. I'm not complaining about those comments, but I am complaining about the double standard. Someone at AtBC saved my comment and posted it. Readers can see it here and judge for themselves.ribczynski
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
ribczynski I deleted your first comment on this post because of the snide tone. I’ve seen your arguments, and they are usually mostly civil, so I usually have no problem...But this comment flew all over me. Do not be rude, snide, or have any condescending demeanor, or I will ban you.Clive Hayden
December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
The Buggs article was discussed in the Questioning the Tree of Life thread, starting here.ribczynski
December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
Denyse Unfortunately Reformatorisch Dagblad does not operate on a Sunday so it is hard to find out what trouble Richard is in or what he did to deserve or not deserve it. There is a short explanation of the various ways you can measure the difference between Chimpanzee and Human genome here. It is based on a symposium on the subject published in Nature which probably has the edge over Reformatorisch Dagblad as a source. It looks like it is all a question of how you measure the difference - which doesn't surprise me. I am confused about the connection between this episode the second world war? (I am British and my father was also a bomber pilot)Mark Frank
December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT
I can't see how Dr. Buggs is "in some kind of trouble," either. He writes that "Several people have emailed me to ask questions, or tell me I am wrong." How this constitutes "trouble" or an attack on funding is unclear.RoyK
December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Hi all: first comment. Now, I'm no expert on human evolution, but isn't it the case that Buggs isn't either? I mean, isn't he a botanist whose peer-reviewed publications are in plant biology? Wouldn't it be better to make an argument like this in a peer-reviewed publication (where the 99% figure got knocked down) rather than in a small-circulation Dutch newspaper? Just a thought.RoyK
December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply