What hell is this?
| December 6, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
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.
74 Responses to What hell is this?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Joseph,
There have been quite alot discovered regarding genes that regulate brain size. Is that the sort of thing you are after?
Joseph @61,
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!
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.
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).
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.
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
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!
Clive – We’re on opposite sides but I applaud your tone. Maybe we’ll find the truth between us!
IDskeptic,
I hope we will. That seems to be the point, after all.
PhilipBaxter,
I don’t think ribczynski has been put under moderation.
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/archive.....th-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.
What’s going on? Why are posts missing?
Hi, guys!
Just checking to see if my comment will go through.
Welcome back rib!
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’.)
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:
Do you see why Buggs’ method, which you are defending, leads to this absurd conclusion?
2. You wrote:
I replied:
You responded rather cryptically:
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?