JLT
Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008
|
Hi guys and gals!
I'm slowly recovering from severe tard fatigue, haven't touched UD or anything tard related with a long stick for over half a year.
I've tried to catch up over the last week or so, which nearly induced a tardaphylactic shock until I remembered to put on my BS protection gear.
I enjoyed the mathgrrl/Patrick interlude, and Elizabeth Liddle - I don't know how she does it. She must know by now that it is absolutely futile to try and talk reason to these guys but she seems to have the patience of a saint.
A highlight for me was niwrad's attempt to do science. Although he had accepted that his comparision of the chimp and human genome (from September last year) resulted in a 98.73 % similarity after correction he apparently has managed to erase this unconvenient fact from his memory and is back to claiming that it's only ~62 %. That his human - human comparision gives a similarity of only 96 % despite him claiming originally that his method of comparision would actually overestimate similarities (LOL) doesn't strike him as odd, either:
| Quote | Consider that this high figure is obtained under the following conditions very favorable to similarity:
(1) the ESM model helps to obtain high value of similarities;
(2) the 30BPM test, for definition, is a lavish one because allows a total scrambling of patterns.
If one or both of these conditions is not applied the scenario can only get worse for similarity. |
The same objections that had been brought up after his human-chimp comparision were repeated after his human-human comparision, the only difference being that this time niwrad didn't bother to comment at all (He has three comments of 130 total but completely ignores anything that's actually on topic). In the end, Atom agrees that niwrad's numbers need to be corrected:
| Quote | | DrREC is correct that the value you use for number of bases compared will affect the similarity results, not giving true similarity. |
This basically ends the discussion, without anyone (not even Atom) acknowledging that niwrad's method, if using the needed correction, actually supports the high percentage similarity between human and chimp as stated in the scientific literature.
I have no doubt that the next time the "99 % myth" comes up they'll all pretend that none of this ever happened. Ah, the good stuff...
OTOH, the emails that were sent to KF really saddened me. I would've thought we're better than that. If anyone sent me an email in this context with greetings to my wife and kids, that'd make me feel uncomfortable, too. (Well, not really, because I don't have neither, but if I had.) What do they have to do with anything?
IMO, that was despicable.
And I would've hoped that more of us here at AtBC would speak out against something like that, too.
Anyways, what else did I miss?
--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner
|
