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?

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’.)

Just checking to see if my comment will go through.

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.

I hope we will. That seems to be the point, after all.

PhilipBaxter,

I don’t think ribczynski has been put under moderation.

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!

“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.