Thanks Paul for including me! Sourcing Tompkins paper was one of the most upsetting things I've done recently. Doing bad science while hiding behind real credentials in the hope that people will defer to your authority over the quality of your work is as intellectually and morally dishonest as anything I could imagine academically. Please if you see this, and don't want to take my word for It, go and find his AIG publications and look at the sources and methodology yourself.
I spent considerable amounts of my free time a few years ago on Meyer's Cambrian Explosion mess, Darwin's Doubt. After a few months, it became abundantly clear that Meyer simply grabbed sources that had little to do with his thesis, but the titles or the abstracts of papers and manuscripts seemed to support him. It gave the term intellectual honesty a really bad name since there was so little of it in his work. But his supporters, who knew little if anything about paleontology, or cared even less about the Cambrian, would crow about how well sourced his work was. I must admit, I was a little concerned at first because it looked like it was done well. But when you got into his sources you found that things weren't as they seem. His favorite was taking a statement out of context and using that new meaning to make his point. It was disheartening, to say the least. There were a few brave souls who fought the battles, like in the Amazon Books comments section. Generally his work got the attention it deserved in the professional realm - none. But then, he wasn't writing to convince them, was he. Good job, Shannon. Its a miserable job, but someone has to do it.
I used to feel special when I got a "comment loved" from Paulogia, but then I scrolled down here and saw that he loved basically every one. I guess I'm not that special :'(
True, the followers aren't necessarily dishonesty. Although I believe he was referring to the people who spread creationism like Eric Hovind and Dr. Gorgia Purdom who are *very* dishonest.
Just sleep with the prof. It apparently worked for her since she is scientifically inept and still got a doctorate. Does Anal Roberts U. hand out PhDs in science?
It seems that she's one of those creationists you hear about.... The sort that goes and gets a degree in science to use it as a badge to confer authority whilst conning others.
Grumpy, are you by chance the Sears Santa I punched out at 6? Sorry, I don't like the smell of booze. Ever since I was 3 at a fishing camp, & wanted a Budweiser because it had horses on it. I spit it out & screamed, "this tastes like horse piss!"
I appreciate Paulogia staying on top of these people at the "creation so called museum", and the, as l refer to it, the" Noways Lark"park here in Kentucky. I believe that Ken Hams dream to build his boat has helped in so many ways to expose it as "Noway".
Jeez, I wouldn't have got away with that abysmal 'report' in my first assignment in my foundation course. An arts foundation course! It would have been marked as a fail. No question. He should be ashamed of himself. As for Purdom, she has no shame.
Hi Paulogia, you have done a really good job of explaining how Tompkins completely missuses the BLAST algorithm. I'd like to point out though that the % similarity isnt really the strongest evidence of Human-Chimp common ancestry, what is more important is the PATTERN of differences and similarities, this is the slam dunk for common ancestry. The similarities and differences form a nested structure which is only explained by common ancestry, sometimes the differences are more important than the similarities!
I am a scientist and I fully agree with Shannon Q. The problem is that most people don't even understand why the peer-review is here, let alone how it is supposed to be done. That's why they think that if something *seems* illogical then they are free to reject it, and why creationist-followers don't understand that creationist "scientific" journals aren't legitimate. Before even teaching anything about chemistry/biology/physics, we should probably think about teaching how scientific work is done and why.
As far as I know lot of schools do actually teach the scientific method and explain why science is done these days. I don't know about the schools that those guys went to, but it's entirely possible that they "forgot" how science actually works.
So if we have 98% DNA similarity, then humans and chimps had a common ancestor, but if the similarity is less than 70%, then we didn't have a common ancestor? What kind of weird logic is she using? More dissimilarities would only mean that the common ancestor is more distant. Even if it were true that there's only less than 70% similarities, that would in no way disprove common ancestry.
precisely librepenseur, that, and the LCM/common ancestor, is something they utilize in "Quelle source of Mark, Luke confluence" so, the what-the intensifies...
Want to make a creationist cry? Chimps are human, gene study implies. border=0. The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus. www.primates.com/chimps/genushomo.html
What a great and clearly explained video for the novice in genetics, myself included. Both you and Shannon Q laid out a solid case of lying and obfuscation on the part of AIG, but what's new? BTW, Shannon looks like a bodybuilder here! LOL...
I have a tendency to muscle up, quickly & easily. Yet, I never do body building shit. I remember when I worked at US Elevator, we were working on something on a long table, about 20 of us. Victor, a bodybuilder, 6 ft 6 & 280 lbs, lifted up one end. I, a female & 5 ft 3 & 160 lbs lifted up the other end. A secretary said, "Well, if Marilyn can do it." She tried to lift it up, her eyes nearly popped out of her head. Everybody laughed. She was like 5 ft 8. I guess she thought that meant she should be stronger than me.
Yes. Methodology is important. He didn’t include any equations or data? That kind of paper would never make it through peer review. My most recent paper is observational. I have 55 references for 11 pages. I only cited myself 1 out of those 55 times, because it was needed for clarification. It was also, like she said, a continuation.
Clade Starfish yes. It’s ok. However, citing yourself 4 out of 10 times would be overkill and isn’t likely to happen even in a specialized field, unless you’re the pioneer in that field. Even then, you had to start from somewhere. There’s always those who your work is built upon.
Clade Starfish Hi Claude! I tried to make it clear that it wasn't inherently Bad but that it was in this context. It's hard to elaborate extensively in a 5 minute segment of a 20 minute video. I'll work on being a little more concise 😁 Thanks for the feedback!
Love that Lewis Black special........one of my favorites. And using the Bible as evidence is like using the game Operation as a practice guide for surgery.
Ben Melenius - except spiderman didn't predict the future annihilation of mankind by way of a global thermonuclear war, 2500 years before it occurred. The Bible has made such a prediction and we are about to see it happen within the next 11 years according to the Bible. ruclips.net/video/lRCh54zN7hc/видео.html
I have come to believe that these people don't actually believe in their god. If they did, they'd have to know that they face a severe reckoning. There's a difference between "Lying For Jesus" and fleecing people out of their money, and they are all about the money.
I'm not sure, but he also says, When I say, we're 10 hairs short of being baboons, you can hear the fucking pin drop. You watch Jerry Springer. That's what they're like now, imagine what they were like THEN! ruclips.net/video/xcJvkAdydnQ/видео.html
When you have to use incomplete information and/or completely misrepresent others along with not being transparent with your methodology, you've already lost any argument you are presenting. How can they be so deceptive and downright dishonest and still not question the validity of their claims? If I had to outright lie to support my position, I would be forced to review my stance but these people appear to have no problem with dishonesty. This is an aspect of religion I cannot abide.
ajs, they have an easy way out of religion, just read the damn bible. But of course, that means, no more making shit up. Like, "OOOH, god hates abortions." Right. the biggest abortionist in history hates abortions. Makes perfect sense.
They think they are smart. And in a way they are. They don't care what we think they only want to keep their believer audience as happy as possible. This is how they make their money, they get it from the believers. It's all about money, same a church. The lies don't matter because we don't matter. Their believers aren't a problem, they are believers so they believe. Then they slander us because we notice the truth of a situation. Well I'm happy to say that I am not going to heaven, it is written in the bible that I can't. Have a look at Deuteronomy, a bastard can't go to heaven. Well, I'm a bastard, so up yours god, ya can stick heaven where the sun don't shine !!! Loving god ! Bullshit !!!
MaTtRoSiTy They know that only a tiny minority of their audience will ever bother to check facts. There was a video on You Tube that now seems to have disappeared, where Kent Hovind was giving a lecture during which he stated the fossil 'Lucy' was declared to be that of a chimpanzee by a number of experts. He was asked who the experts were and the student pressed home the question. Hovind wriggled like a worm on a hook trying to get out of his lie.
MaTtRoSiTy - "If I had to outright lie to support my position, I would be forced to review my stance but these people appear to have no problem with dishonesty. This is an aspect of religion I cannot abide." Atheism is the primary religion with those specific characteristics:)
At 2:49 Georga, { Analysis of bad liars tells} a new record from { trying to avoid eye contact} to the {down and left look} and lest we forget, {the [ no ] gesture with the eyes. The odd thing is it seems to be she has cognitive dissonance that is causing mental pain, which is apparent in the eye roll up nearly into the head. Note how different Tompkins is, stating the same basic misinformation. Tompkins actually believes it, but Georga doesn't and is in denial. Compare with her statement about biblical scripture later on. She is lying but also to herself.
booleanenator If we're being frank she is a well paid poe who no longer has to publish peer reviewed papers and has automatic credentials despite her body of works. I mean, it's tempting.
If I were a cynical bastard and not the gentle trusting soul I am, I'd suspect she was part of a plan to fleece money from the gullible by flogging them bullshite...
7:02 - I did my BSc at Rhodes University in South Africa like 10 years ago, and I distinctly remember our minimum number of required references for any paper we handed in was 15. My supervisor was doing his Master's, and he mentioned how annoying it was having to organize just over a 100 citations. One of my least favorite things about people who misrepresent what it means to be a scientist like this, is that they completely disregard the love, effort, care and attention to detail it takes to actually _be_ a good scientist.
I'm proud to be a supporter. You just delivered another metaphorical artillery shell to the gut of Answers in Genesis. And I am a scientist in the pertinent fields you mention, so I can accurately judge you and your guests' accuracy (in this case, Shannon Q--thank you as well, you got it right). You are fairly meticulous, and you are right, why would believers in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god need to lie?
William Estes - Yeah, this channel is really good at misleading people. The problem with the atheistic view of DNA comparisons, is that they willfully ignore the layer of Encryption encoded into DNA, via duons and codons. Thus comparing DNA would be like comparing ZIP files. You only need a few changes to effect drastic changes in the decrypted programming language:) Paulogia might do better by trying to debunk the scientific fact that DNA is an Intelligent Programming language for carbon-nitrogen based biological organisms, or that TRUE random mutations are nearly always destructive to Evolution:)
delawarecop Evolution doesn't have a direction. It isn't sentient stating that mutation is destructive to evolution is like saying encountering a dam doesn't benefit the intent of water to continue to flow.
They also do it for astronomy as well. It's disgusting how much they'll lie just to justify how we can see 13.8 billion year old light in a 6000 year old universe.
It's MAGIC! LOL Oh, I forgot if a god does it, it's a miracle. Clade. How come we haven't seen any of these pterodactyls? I wanted one for a pet. "There be dragons over at that crazy Newman's residence."
Crape - " It's disgusting how much they'll lie just to justify how we can see 13.8 billion year old light in a 6000 year old universe." NEWS FLASH FOR OLD ATHEISTARDS! The speed of light is NOT constant as Einstein proposed, and his theory of Relativity is also a bust because Quantum Entanglement proves that local causality is a delusion. So the only thing that is disgusting, is the pure willful ignorance of uneducated atheists:)
marilyn Newman - "It's MAGIC! LOL Oh, I forgot if a god does it, it's a miracle." Gee, and here is me thinking that you atheistards referred to miracles as PLACEBO EFFECT:)
delawarecop Miracles: Untestable acts of magic that are by their very nature unscientific. The Placebo Effect: An observable, testable, and proven scientific fact that is a cornerstone of modern medicine. I see no correlation
Amazingly good job as always Paul! I have grown to expect a high standard of research and work going into your videos and every video more than delivers. Thank so much for pointing out their dishonest practices. I think the simple act of putting the lies on display will help sway people into wanting to find the truth for themselves. That had a large impact on my own deconversion.
I don't know if you saw or heard of it, but a group in the G+ community got together a year of so ago and did 3 or 4 hangouts tearing his work apart. It was beautiful.
I don't know how you keep doing this, but I am very glad you do. If I had to keep watching this (bad) used car salesman or the AiG crew, I would lose my mind. Thank you for providing a rational viewpoint and commentary on these extremists and con artists.
Excellent video. I still can't understand how these creationists can be so dishonest and keep a straight face. It must have something to do with the power of unsubstantiated belief. When these people try to use science to prove their beliefs, they get bitten on the ass..
I am a former creationist too. I am embarrassed that I did not know about the retraction. It is not like they are shouting it from the rooftops, but I missed that one.
I come back to this episode a lot! This is one of the greatest videos I've seen that exposes AIG and other creationists. You clearly show that they are either deliberately dishonest, or incompetent.... probably both, actually.
On a Facebook group I'm in recently, one guy posted, "I saw the movies Genesis 3D the night it was out. It really opened my eyes to how evolution has been disproven by the atheists' god, Science." and thought immediately of this channel and how you debunk probably everyone who was in the movie.
Paul as usual well thought out and presented response to aig's deliberately deceptive bs too bad their followers will take Georgia's word because she's a scientist(however dishonest)even though they know it's junk science...as always an uphill battle
Bravo! I got a link to this today from a Twitter debate (a pro-evolutionist brought it onto the field). I had the info on this in my TIP field, but your summary is superbly concise, and I'll be adding this video to the references in the new Rocks book
great video that points out who is so easily willing to be dishonest in this "discussion". Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism : "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
Paul, im so glad you make these videos! Nothing gets under my skin more than misinformation! Also, was so happy the other day! I saw an atheist billboard in okc!! And there is an atheist convention in march! Are you going!?(:
p.s. the computer he described is basically a $1000 consumer-class computer. One can throw these sorts of computers together in a few minutes on Amazon. Though I have to give him some points for using Linux. Still, I've got machines ten times more powerful than the one he describes sitting on the floor of my office. So if he's trying to have a big d*ck contest, he loses. I'm sure it sounds impressive to a lay-person, though. The human genome is around 800MB worth of data (and compresses nicely beyond that). One can fit dozens of copies on a single USB stick. Shheesh. Even a smart phone has plenty of cpu and memory to process a comparison with a chimp genome just on its own. You don't actually need a powerful computer to do it. -Matt
I am currently in my first year if college, and am in an intro to Biology course. I can confirm that the research paper described in this video would indeed fail, even at my level of schooling. I got points reduced on my research paper when I added information about the chemical compounds of the agar that I was using, because it was useless information to the question being asked. If I put all of that useless information about his computer in my paper, with the same topic, I am certain it would have ended up in the trash. And that's not even getting into the faulty sources.
"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment." Bishop Eusebius, patriarch of the early Christian church.
One of the most dogma-damaging reports to surface in recent years is the Y-chromosome comparison between humans and chimps. In this study, the male-specific region (MSY), a large region of the Y-chromosome, was compared between human and chimp. To accomplish this, a fair amount of resequencing had to be performed due to the fact that the chimp sequence in this area was fragmented and incomplete. The end result was 25,800,000 bases of highly accurate chimp Y-chromosome sequence distributed among eight contiguous segments. When compared to the human Y-chromosome, the differences were enormous. The authors state, “About half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa.” The ampliconic sequence contains ornate repeat units (called palindromes) that read the same forwards as they do backwards. Dispersed within these palindromes are families of genes that are expressed primarily in the male testes. Not only did 50% of this type of sequence fail to align between human and chimp in the Y-chromosome, humans had over twice as many total genes (60 in humans vs 25 in chimp). There were also three complete categories of genes (gene families) found in humans that were not even present in chimps. Related to this large difference in gene content, the authors note, “Despite the elaborate structure of the chimpanzee MSY, its gene repertoire is considerably smaller and simpler than that of the human MSY,” and “the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units.
I dont think you guys did this intentionally, but I was thinking that Tomkins referred to his SSD hard drive as "crucial", which I was super excited to see in a scientific paper that was supposed to be written by a professional scientist. Crucial is the brand that makes the HD. Sad day.
happens to the best of us. great job otherwise! I submitted a post to /r/askscience to see if I can get a biologist to weigh in on everything else (I'm certainly no scientist, just a lowly engineer). If anyone is interested in how that goes you can find the thread here: www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7hu1gm/what_is_the_metric_by_which_we_quantify_genetic/
Oh... Dr. Giggles - so nice to hear you once again babble incessantly ... Paul - Shannon Q rocks. I really enjoy your content - and it's exponentially more interesting when you reach out to a guest who then fills in your expertise gaps... keep it up brother !
Imagine sitting down with Georgia and asking her specifically about the Preuss quote, the incomplete and uncited methods of Tompkins, excessive self-citation, and the whole 70% retraction thing based on the errors. She KNOWS that all of those things were dishonest and unscientific because she has a PhD in genetics, but she knowingly lies about it because of her AiG paycheck. I see even more why she was so antagonistic to Paul at the Ham&AiG News studio, while Brody and Ham were so friendly. She knows she is wrong but the other guys are blissfully unaware of it. But she pushes the garbage anyway. That is why Georgia is worse than Ham, Hovind, or Brody.
I wonder what her backstory is... was she always a YEC or did she have the usual conversion story. Hard to imagine she got a PhD not believing the peer reviewed literature. If she understood the evidence she wouldn't be a YEC. Strange case but I think all the YEC PhD's are similarly cryptic and do not do debates. Probably because they all know they sold out for money
To be fair, I've just checked a genuine scientific article I was involved in, and 3 out of the 6 references (50%) were to our own research group's work. However, that was just a brief paper for a conference, not an in-depth reanalysis of a well-researched topic.
I once argued with a creationist who could not understand that the _number_ of chromosomes had nothing to do with the overall similarity in DNA. To him, the fact that humans have 23 pairs and other primates have 24 was proof that the genomes were not similar at all. Creationists will cherry-pick any fact to support their narrative.
One creationist in a YT comment argued that the fusion is proof of intelligent design because otherwise the first human ancestor to have the fusion would have been unable to mate. His new single chromosome would have fatally compromised any attempt by his sperm's DNA to hook up with a mate's egg's DNA (or hers/her egg's/mate's sperm's, as the case may have been) in which the original two chromosomes were unfused. I don't know anywhere near enough genetics to really evaluate this claim, but it seems like the fused chromosome still has all the same sequences, telomeres, centromeres, etc. that the unfused pair had, so each bit of DNA would still be able to find its dance partner during fertilization.
Wedge Document. It's the creatards plan to invade science, and claim an air of legitimacy. It's about as dishonest as you can get. Earn a real degree, then throw out everything you learned, and instead throw your degree around and claim you are an authority.
Even at the incorrect 70% ... that's still a mostly similar situation... so then if you were truthful, and thought this 70% was fact... you'd still have to determine that there still was a common ancestor - just maybe further back in history - allowing for greater divergence in genetic similarities. So much for 6000 yr old earth. AIG just added MORE deep time
@@jameswithers2334 Because rice is an eukaryote like us, and all eukaryotes share around 10% to 20% of their genetic code. Given the length of time life on Earth spent on the eukaryotic stage, this is what should be expected.
"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination." - Dr. David Pilbeam
Arguments from authority, keeping religion alive and keeping the flock ignorant. Thanks for doing this episode, it is good defence material to add to the collection.
Every time I watch one of your videos, the bit of my brain that thinks these profesional creationists are just honesty deluded shrinks, and the bit that concludes they are deliberately lying to protect their lucritive business interests grows.
CoC1970 Lastname You have to bear in mind that they work on the principle that all evidence must be made to fit their conclusion. No evidence which is contrary to their conclusion can be accepted.
Thanks Paul for including me!
Sourcing Tompkins paper was one of the most upsetting things I've done recently. Doing bad science while hiding behind real credentials in the hope that people will defer to your authority over the quality of your work is as intellectually and morally dishonest as anything I could imagine academically.
Please if you see this, and don't want to take my word for It, go and find his AIG publications and look at the sources and methodology yourself.
Why Thank you 😁
-differ- defer But nice job here Shannon.
Shannon Q I applaud you for having the patience to read though those creationist papers. You are a true hero.
I spent considerable amounts of my free time a few years ago on Meyer's Cambrian Explosion mess, Darwin's Doubt. After a few months, it became abundantly clear that Meyer simply grabbed sources that had little to do with his thesis, but the titles or the abstracts of papers and manuscripts seemed to support him. It gave the term intellectual honesty a really bad name since there was so little of it in his work. But his supporters, who knew little if anything about paleontology, or cared even less about the Cambrian, would crow about how well sourced his work was. I must admit, I was a little concerned at first because it looked like it was done well. But when you got into his sources you found that things weren't as they seem. His favorite was taking a statement out of context and using that new meaning to make his point. It was disheartening, to say the least. There were a few brave souls who fought the battles, like in the Amazon Books comments section. Generally his work got the attention it deserved in the professional realm - none. But then, he wasn't writing to convince them, was he. Good job, Shannon. Its a miserable job, but someone has to do it.
I clearly need a spell checker! If the only flaw is my spelling in the comments section I declare victory! ;)
"if you have to lie to protect your god, you don't serve much of a god..."
Love it!
In the immortal words of Ken Ham "We have a book.." - why are we all wasting time thinking and stuff?
This is one of the best rebuttals I have ever watched.
Larry Cloyes Thanks!
i cant beleave i gave a minute of time to view this sight ... may your god bless you
Actually _reading_ papers seems to be a huge advantage over just _citing_ them. Thanx, Paul and Shannon, for looking into it.
I used to feel special when I got a "comment loved" from Paulogia, but then I scrolled down here and saw that he loved basically every one. I guess I'm not that special :'(
Viced Rhino not everyone it seems... 😜
I heard you almost poked his eye out with that horn of yours...
I think your pretty cool if that helps
can't let anyone get complacent
that's mean paul :C
Is there any phrase more redundant than "dishonest creationist?"
ha... I'm going to use that.
Well, some people are just ignorant.
If every trusted person in your life tells you it's true, why would you ever question it?
True, the followers aren't necessarily dishonesty. Although I believe he was referring to the people who spread creationism like Eric Hovind and Dr. Gorgia Purdom who are *very* dishonest.
I can't take full credit. Aron Ra is oft to say that they have to choose to be honest or to remain creationists.
Ah. It's clear to me now. As a scientist I only look at things, whereas I should be *really* looking at things. Got it.
Simon Giles lol exactly
Just sleep with the prof. It apparently worked for her since she is scientifically inept and still got a doctorate. Does Anal Roberts U. hand out PhDs in science?
Another excellent video Paul. Out of them all, I find the dishonesty of Georgia simply stunning, and so very deserving of being exposed.
It seems that she's one of those creationists you hear about.... The sort that goes and gets a degree in science to use it as a badge to confer authority whilst conning others.
When the evidence doesn't match your world view, manufacture evidence to back your world view. Then claim being a scientist.
Creationism in a single sentence. Nicely put.
Grumpy, are you by chance the Sears Santa I punched out at 6? Sorry, I don't like the smell of booze.
Ever since I was 3 at a fishing camp, & wanted a Budweiser because it had horses on it. I spit it out & screamed, "this tastes like horse piss!"
This must be one of the greatest smack downs on this channel and maybe one of the greatest I have ever heard. Well done Paul!
I appreciate Paulogia staying on top of these people at the "creation so called museum", and the, as l refer to
it, the" Noways Lark"park here in Kentucky. I believe that Ken Hams dream to build his boat has helped in so many ways
to expose it as "Noway".
Couldn't have had better rebuttal. Was absolutely spot on and perfectly explained!
Steve McRae Now that I run shit it's really improving around here 😉
Steve McRae Used two sentence fragments in a row. Am extremely disappointed.
Jeez, I wouldn't have got away with that abysmal 'report' in my first assignment in my foundation course. An arts foundation course! It would have been marked as a fail. No question. He should be ashamed of himself. As for Purdom, she has no shame.
"These people are watching the Flintstones as if it were a documentary"
i laughed at this way too hard
Hi Paulogia, you have done a really good job of explaining how Tompkins completely missuses the BLAST algorithm. I'd like to point out though that the % similarity isnt really the strongest evidence of Human-Chimp common ancestry, what is more important is the PATTERN of differences and similarities, this is the slam dunk for common ancestry. The similarities and differences form a nested structure which is only explained by common ancestry, sometimes the differences are more important than the similarities!
100% correct! And still 100% correct in 2021 😂
I am a scientist and I fully agree with Shannon Q. The problem is that most people don't even understand why the peer-review is here, let alone how it is supposed to be done. That's why they think that if something *seems* illogical then they are free to reject it, and why creationist-followers don't understand that creationist "scientific" journals aren't legitimate.
Before even teaching anything about chemistry/biology/physics, we should probably think about teaching how scientific work is done and why.
As far as I know lot of schools do actually teach the scientific method and explain why science is done these days. I don't know about the schools that those guys went to, but it's entirely possible that they "forgot" how science actually works.
So if we have 98% DNA similarity, then humans and chimps had a common ancestor, but if the similarity is less than 70%, then we didn't have a common ancestor?
What kind of weird logic is she using? More dissimilarities would only mean that the common ancestor is more distant. Even if it were true that there's only less than 70% similarities, that would in no way disprove common ancestry.
precisely librepenseur,
that, and the LCM/common ancestor,
is something they utilize in "Quelle source of Mark, Luke confluence"
so, the what-the intensifies...
Want to make a creationist cry?
Chimps are human, gene study implies. border=0. The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.
www.primates.com/chimps/genushomo.html
Ouch. My University dissertation wasn't up to much but at least people could see my methodology and I provided a data table.
What a great and clearly explained video for the novice in genetics, myself included. Both you and Shannon Q laid out a solid case of lying and obfuscation on the part of AIG, but what's new?
BTW, Shannon looks like a bodybuilder here! LOL...
Steven DuVall hahaha well I'm a soccer and softball player and a Yoga enthusiast.. Body Builder however, I am Not!
You're awesome. We want more !!!!!
Yay!! Thanks!! That makes spending 3 days with that garbage worth it 😁
:)
oh, thank you for the effort and dedication
I have a tendency to muscle up, quickly & easily. Yet, I never do body building shit.
I remember when I worked at US Elevator, we were working on something on a long table, about 20 of us. Victor, a bodybuilder, 6 ft 6 & 280 lbs, lifted up one end. I, a female & 5 ft 3 & 160 lbs lifted up the other end.
A secretary said, "Well, if Marilyn can do it." She tried to lift it up, her eyes nearly popped out of her head. Everybody laughed. She was like 5 ft 8. I guess she thought that meant she should be stronger than me.
Paulogia. Fighting the good fight against pseudoscience and science illiteracy while debunking creationist bullshit.
Its got to be bad when you stack the cards in your favour and can still only lower it down to 70%
ha!
Yes. Methodology is important. He didn’t include any equations or data? That kind of paper would never make it through peer review. My most recent paper is observational. I have 55 references for 11 pages. I only cited myself 1 out of those 55 times, because it was needed for clarification. It was also, like she said, a continuation.
That's why it was only published on the AiG website.
Clade Starfish yes. It’s ok. However, citing yourself 4 out of 10 times would be overkill and isn’t likely to happen even in a specialized field, unless you’re the pioneer in that field. Even then, you had to start from somewhere. There’s always those who your work is built upon.
Clade Starfish Werd
Clade Starfish
Hi Claude! I tried to make it clear that it wasn't inherently Bad but that it was in this context. It's hard to elaborate extensively in a 5 minute segment of a 20 minute video. I'll work on being a little more concise 😁
Thanks for the feedback!
Shannon Q I agree. I totally understand.
Love that Lewis Black special........one of my favorites. And using the Bible as evidence is like using the game Operation as a practice guide for surgery.
Knight Politics It is more like using "checkers" as a practice guide for surgery.
Or using someones papercut as a practice guide for surgery...
if they use the bible as proof then use a spiderman comic as proof of spiderman
I have his Lewis Black on Evolution as one of my bookmarks.
Ben Melenius - except spiderman didn't predict the future annihilation of mankind by way of a global thermonuclear war, 2500 years before it occurred. The Bible has made such a prediction and we are about to see it happen within the next 11 years according to the Bible.
ruclips.net/video/lRCh54zN7hc/видео.html
I have come to believe that these people don't actually believe in their god. If they did, they'd have to know that they face a severe reckoning. There's a difference between "Lying For Jesus" and fleecing people out of their money, and they are all about the money.
Breaching the 3rd and 9th commandment at the same time! Two for the price of one, that's a sweet deal!
You left off the part where he says "...and if they continue I throw it right over their head.". XD
I'm not sure, but he also says, When I say, we're 10 hairs short of being baboons, you can hear the fucking pin drop. You watch Jerry Springer. That's what they're like now, imagine what they were like THEN!
ruclips.net/video/xcJvkAdydnQ/видео.html
When you have to use incomplete information and/or completely misrepresent others along with not being transparent with your methodology, you've already lost any argument you are presenting.
How can they be so deceptive and downright dishonest and still not question the validity of their claims?
If I had to outright lie to support my position, I would be forced to review my stance but these people appear to have no problem with dishonesty.
This is an aspect of religion I cannot abide.
Agreed.
ajs, they have an easy way out of religion, just read the damn bible. But of course, that means, no more making shit up. Like, "OOOH, god hates abortions." Right. the biggest abortionist in history hates abortions. Makes perfect sense.
They think they are smart. And in a way they are. They don't care what we think they only want to keep their believer audience as happy as possible. This is how they make their money, they get it from the believers. It's all about money, same a church. The lies don't matter because we don't matter. Their believers aren't a problem, they are believers so they believe. Then they slander us because we notice the truth of a situation. Well I'm happy to say that I am not going to heaven, it is written in the bible that I can't. Have a look at Deuteronomy, a bastard can't go to heaven. Well, I'm a bastard, so up yours god, ya can stick heaven where the sun don't shine !!! Loving god ! Bullshit !!!
MaTtRoSiTy
They know that only a tiny minority of their audience will ever bother to check facts.
There was a video on You Tube that now seems to have disappeared, where Kent Hovind was giving a lecture during which he stated the fossil 'Lucy' was declared to be that of a chimpanzee by a number of experts.
He was asked who the experts were and the student pressed home the question. Hovind wriggled like a worm on a hook trying to get out of his lie.
MaTtRoSiTy - "If I had to outright lie to support my position, I would be forced to review my stance but these people appear to have no problem with dishonesty. This is an aspect of religion I cannot abide."
Atheism is the primary religion with those specific characteristics:)
At 2:49 Georga, { Analysis of bad liars tells} a new record from { trying to avoid eye contact} to the {down and left look} and lest we forget, {the [ no ] gesture with the eyes. The odd thing is it seems to be she has cognitive dissonance that is causing mental pain, which is apparent in the eye roll up nearly into the head. Note how different Tompkins is, stating the same basic misinformation. Tompkins actually believes it, but Georga doesn't and is in denial. Compare with her statement about biblical scripture later on. She is lying but also to herself.
Did I just walk into an episode of _Lie to Me_? :D
I wonder where these people at the creationist research center got their PhDs from? Serious universities? It seems not.
Apologists make such a habit of lying and distortion, that they almost believe themselves.
I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that Georgia has a PhD. in genetics and is a young earth creationist. She has to be a poe.
booleanenator If we're being frank she is a well paid poe who no longer has to publish peer reviewed papers and has automatic credentials despite her body of works. I mean, it's tempting.
If I were a cynical bastard and not the gentle trusting soul I am, I'd suspect she was part of a plan to fleece money from the gullible by flogging them bullshite...
I couldn't be. AiG would never extort money from anyone
True. In fact, don't they have a DVD series to buy about how they aren't out to fleece money from anyone...?
Simon Giles hahahahahahahaha this thread made me pee a little. Thank you both.
Once again you've beaten me to the punch on a topic... and again, it's in genetics.
You can do one as well, yes? More brain candy is better.
Oh yeah. It's on the way.
I HAD TO INVESTIGATE
Looking forward to Friday, Tony!
How have I not seen your channel yet? RUclips, you really let me down.
7:02 - I did my BSc at Rhodes University in South Africa like 10 years ago, and I distinctly remember our minimum number of required references for any paper we handed in was 15. My supervisor was doing his Master's, and he mentioned how annoying it was having to organize just over a 100 citations. One of my least favorite things about people who misrepresent what it means to be a scientist like this, is that they completely disregard the love, effort, care and attention to detail it takes to actually _be_ a good scientist.
I'm proud to be a supporter. You just delivered another metaphorical artillery shell to the gut of Answers in Genesis. And I am a scientist in the pertinent fields you mention, so I can accurately judge you and your guests' accuracy (in this case, Shannon Q--thank you as well, you got it right). You are fairly meticulous, and you are right, why would believers in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god need to lie?
appreciate this affirmation, Farley! thanks...
Thanks Farley!
That is great to hear :)
This channel is so good. Thank you so much
thanks for watching!
Thanks! Paul does all the heavy lifting his dedication to this is astounding!
William Estes - Yeah, this channel is really good at misleading people.
The problem with the atheistic view of DNA comparisons, is that they willfully ignore the layer of Encryption encoded into DNA, via duons and codons. Thus comparing DNA would be like comparing ZIP files. You only need a few changes to effect drastic changes in the decrypted programming language:)
Paulogia might do better by trying to debunk the scientific fact that DNA is an Intelligent Programming language for carbon-nitrogen based biological organisms, or that TRUE random mutations are nearly always destructive to Evolution:)
delawarecop Evolution doesn't have a direction. It isn't sentient stating that mutation is destructive to evolution is like saying encountering a dam doesn't benefit the intent of water to continue to flow.
Shannon Q - Yeah, Paul lifts his foot out of his lying mouth every time he claims to have been a christian:)
LYING athEistards!
Excellent video!
And now I have more references for my next video on evolution vs woo peddlers! Thank you, as always, for the amazing work, Paul &co.
This sort of thing happens all across the YEC "science" fields. I see the same think done in their geology work.
They also do it for astronomy as well. It's disgusting how much they'll lie just to justify how we can see 13.8 billion year old light in a 6000 year old universe.
It's MAGIC! LOL Oh, I forgot if a god does it, it's a miracle.
Clade. How come we haven't seen any of these pterodactyls? I wanted one for a pet. "There be dragons over at that crazy Newman's residence."
Crape - " It's disgusting how much they'll lie just to justify how we can see 13.8 billion year old light in a 6000 year old universe."
NEWS FLASH FOR OLD ATHEISTARDS! The speed of light is NOT constant as Einstein proposed, and his theory of Relativity is also a bust because Quantum Entanglement proves that local causality is a delusion. So the only thing that is disgusting, is the pure willful ignorance of uneducated atheists:)
marilyn Newman - "It's MAGIC! LOL Oh, I forgot if a god does it, it's a miracle."
Gee, and here is me thinking that you atheistards referred to miracles as PLACEBO EFFECT:)
delawarecop Miracles: Untestable acts of magic that are by their very nature unscientific.
The Placebo Effect: An observable, testable, and proven scientific fact that is a cornerstone of modern medicine.
I see no correlation
Amazingly good job as always Paul! I have grown to expect a high standard of research and work going into your videos and every video more than delivers. Thank so much for pointing out their dishonest practices. I think the simple act of putting the lies on display will help sway people into wanting to find the truth for themselves. That had a large impact on my own deconversion.
Mine too. Believe in god if you want, but don't lie about it.
Paulogia my feelings exactly.
When it comes to creationists, there are only two types of people:
The deceived and the deceivers.
Shannon Q nailed it on the lack of Tomkins' methods section.
Heavy Hauler thanks 😁
I don't know if you saw or heard of it, but a group in the G+ community got together a year of so ago and did 3 or 4 hangouts tearing his work apart. It was beautiful.
I believe Steve mentioned that in GDC yesterday while I was in the chat. I would have loved that!
I'm fairly certain Williams was in the group, using a different name of course. :0)
If you get in touch with Jade West, plus.google.com/u/0/+JadeWestTurkeyCat , she can give you more info on the hangouts and resources that were used.
PAUL you are what I would have referred to as "godsend" ten years ago.
I don't know how you keep doing this, but I am very glad you do. If I had to keep watching this (bad) used car salesman or the AiG crew, I would lose my mind. Thank you for providing a rational viewpoint and commentary on these extremists and con artists.
Great stuff as usual. Really enjoy seeing a new Paulogia post pop up.
Excellent video. I still can't understand how these creationists can be so dishonest and keep a straight face. It must have something to do with the power of unsubstantiated belief. When these people try to use science to prove their beliefs, they get bitten on the ass..
I am a former creationist too. I am embarrassed that I did not know about the retraction. It is not like they are shouting it from the rooftops, but I missed that one.
doulos they do not make it easy to find my friend. Almost as though it's intentional..
I come back to this episode a lot! This is one of the greatest videos I've seen that exposes AIG and other creationists. You clearly show that they are either deliberately dishonest, or incompetent.... probably both, actually.
On a Facebook group I'm in recently, one guy posted, "I saw the movies Genesis 3D the night it was out. It really opened my eyes to how evolution has been disproven by the atheists' god, Science." and thought immediately of this channel and how you debunk probably everyone who was in the movie.
I would like the guest to know that even a bad cake is wonderful if it was made for someone. All cakes are beautiful.
HA! You've never seen what happens when I attempt to bake my friend! But thanks for the encouragement!
Thanks for taking the time to point out all the dishonesty in their "Research".
Thank you, Joe! Definitely my pleasure.
If Creationists were honest...they wouldn't be creationists for long.
Excellent video
The humancipide the perfect analogy for creationists.
I enjoy all your videos and podcasts, Paul. I'm a Catholic and I find your work very thorough.
Paul as usual well thought out and presented response to aig's deliberately deceptive bs too bad their followers will take Georgia's word because she's a scientist(however dishonest)even though they know it's junk science...as always an uphill battle
Eric Hovind and Georgia Purdom in the same video? What is this, a crossover episode?
Crisis on Earth AiG
Top 10 Anime Crossovers?
Mental image now of Ken Ham yelling, "This isn't even my final form" as the Ark Encounter glows with his power up.
Funny how Ham was careful not to build his ark in a flood zone.
Bravo! I got a link to this today from a Twitter debate (a pro-evolutionist brought it onto the field). I had the info on this in my TIP field, but your summary is superbly concise, and I'll be adding this video to the references in the new Rocks book
"When you really look at it" = "When you put your god glasses on" (and turn off your brain)
Brilliant as always mate.
great video that points out who is so easily willing to be dishonest in this "discussion".
Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism : "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
Eek, a new video! (Jumps up and down)
Paul, im so glad you make these videos! Nothing gets under my skin more than misinformation! Also, was so happy the other day! I saw an atheist billboard in okc!! And there is an atheist convention in march! Are you going!?(:
This is by far one of my fav vids from this channel...
omfg, so happy you slipped in a veggie tales reference without putting a pic with it. Oh where is my hairbrush?
What was the comedy video at the beginning? No, I don't mean the Creation Today video the other comedy video! Fossil! I want to see the whole thing!
p.s. the computer he described is basically a $1000 consumer-class computer. One can throw these sorts of computers together in a few minutes on Amazon. Though I have to give him some points for using Linux. Still, I've got machines ten times more powerful than the one he describes sitting on the floor of my office. So if he's trying to have a big d*ck contest, he loses. I'm sure it sounds impressive to a lay-person, though.
The human genome is around 800MB worth of data (and compresses nicely beyond that). One can fit dozens of copies on a single USB stick. Shheesh. Even a smart phone has plenty of cpu and memory to process a comparison with a chimp genome just on its own. You don't actually need a powerful computer to do it.
-Matt
Another beautifully delivered blow to the creationist lie mill!
I am currently in my first year if college, and am in an intro to Biology course. I can confirm that the research paper described in this video would indeed fail, even at my level of schooling. I got points reduced on my research paper when I added information about the chemical compounds of the agar that I was using, because it was useless information to the question being asked. If I put all of that useless information about his computer in my paper, with the same topic, I am certain it would have ended up in the trash. And that's not even getting into the faulty sources.
"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment." Bishop Eusebius, patriarch of the early Christian church.
The people of AIG should be used in classrooms as an example of unethical behavior and bad science.
One of the most dogma-damaging reports to surface in recent years is the Y-chromosome comparison between humans and chimps. In this study, the male-specific region (MSY), a large region of the Y-chromosome, was compared between human and chimp. To accomplish this, a fair amount of resequencing had to be performed due to the fact that the chimp sequence in this area was fragmented and incomplete. The end result was 25,800,000 bases of highly accurate chimp Y-chromosome sequence distributed among eight contiguous segments. When compared to the human Y-chromosome, the differences were enormous. The authors state, “About half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa.” The ampliconic sequence contains ornate repeat units (called palindromes) that read the same forwards as they do backwards. Dispersed within these palindromes are families of genes that are expressed primarily in the male testes. Not only did 50% of this type of sequence fail to align between human and chimp in the Y-chromosome, humans had over twice as many total genes (60 in humans vs 25 in chimp). There were also three complete categories of genes (gene families) found in humans that were not even present in chimps. Related to this large difference in gene content, the authors note, “Despite the elaborate structure of the chimpanzee MSY, its gene repertoire is considerably smaller and simpler than that of the human MSY,” and “the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units.
Amazing. And the investigation behind, too.- Kudos!
Paul you’re giving out all the love today in the comments
I dont think you guys did this intentionally, but I was thinking that Tomkins referred to his SSD hard drive as "crucial", which I was super excited to see in a scientific paper that was supposed to be written by a professional scientist. Crucial is the brand that makes the HD. Sad day.
Wikey9 HA! That is simply a testimate to my utter lack of computer knowledge.
happens to the best of us. great job otherwise! I submitted a post to /r/askscience to see if I can get a biologist to weigh in on everything else (I'm certainly no scientist, just a lowly engineer). If anyone is interested in how that goes you can find the thread here: www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7hu1gm/what_is_the_metric_by_which_we_quantify_genetic/
Anyone who thinks absolute similarity metrics are what matters for making conclusions in evolution, has not understood either.
What will become of his hair brush? Lol
Oh... Dr. Giggles - so nice to hear you once again babble incessantly ... Paul - Shannon Q rocks. I really enjoy your content - and it's exponentially more interesting when you reach out to a guest who then fills in your expertise gaps... keep it up brother !
El Carpe Thanks!
Keep up the good work Paul. I just watched an attack video on you and it fell so short I dont think even his viewers bought that shit. Good job man
Imagine sitting down with Georgia and asking her specifically about the Preuss quote, the incomplete and uncited methods of Tompkins, excessive self-citation, and the whole 70% retraction thing based on the errors. She KNOWS that all of those things were dishonest and unscientific because she has a PhD in genetics, but she knowingly lies about it because of her AiG paycheck. I see even more why she was so antagonistic to Paul at the Ham&AiG News studio, while Brody and Ham were so friendly. She knows she is wrong but the other guys are blissfully unaware of it. But she pushes the garbage anyway. That is why Georgia is worse than Ham, Hovind, or Brody.
I would literally DIE for the opportunity to have a 1 on 1 with her and ask her that type of question!
I wonder what her backstory is... was she always a YEC or did she have the usual conversion story. Hard to imagine she got a PhD not believing the peer reviewed literature. If she understood the evidence she wouldn't be a YEC. Strange case but I think all the YEC PhD's are similarly cryptic and do not do debates. Probably because they all know they sold out for money
Shannon Q I think you can do more good alive, honestly.
ᗩᔓᓰᖇᗩᖺᗩᙓᒪ I'll do my utmost to remain that way then!
Why did she bother with a phd in genetics then?
Love your videos. Keep em coming
Christianity: Those poor Atheists... tricked by the devil.
Atheist: Those poor Christians... tricked by flawed studies.
Another excellent video - keeping this one.
That Veggitales reference, though. TEN POINTS TO HUFFLEPUFF!
To be fair, I've just checked a genuine scientific article I was involved in, and 3 out of the 6 references (50%) were to our own research group's work. However, that was just a brief paper for a conference, not an in-depth reanalysis of a well-researched topic.
I am always blown away at the supremacy of yours and Shannon’s journalism.
The veggie tailes cringe is strong with this video....
That article was on my birthday!
So, how does human chromosome 2 being the result of the fusion of 2 primate chromosomes fit into creationism?
You either deny it once and never speak of it again or simply ignore it. Then the problem goes away like magic.
I'll hive you a hint:
it doesn't
I once argued with a creationist who could not understand that the _number_ of chromosomes had nothing to do with the overall similarity in DNA. To him, the fact that humans have 23 pairs and other primates have 24 was proof that the genomes were not similar at all.
Creationists will cherry-pick any fact to support their narrative.
One creationist in a YT comment argued that the fusion is proof of intelligent design because otherwise the first human ancestor to have the fusion would have been unable to mate. His new single chromosome would have fatally compromised any attempt by his sperm's DNA to hook up with a mate's egg's DNA (or hers/her egg's/mate's sperm's, as the case may have been) in which the original two chromosomes were unfused.
I don't know anywhere near enough genetics to really evaluate this claim, but it seems like the fused chromosome still has all the same sequences, telomeres, centromeres, etc. that the unfused pair had, so each bit of DNA would still be able to find its dance partner during fertilization.
same as the answer for everything... "that's just how God did it."
Omg I just laughed so hard at the hairbrush joke at the beginning
I'm glad someone did!!
What a relief! I was worried that I was the only one
"What will become of his hairbrush?"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why would anyone do all the work to earn a PhD and then "defer" all that knowledge to an ancient text?
Wedge Document. It's the creatards plan to invade science, and claim an air of legitimacy. It's about as dishonest as you can get. Earn a real degree, then throw out everything you learned, and instead throw your degree around and claim you are an authority.
These people are so disingenuous that if they told me the sky was blue I'd have to look out the window to double check.
Even at the incorrect 70% ... that's still a mostly similar situation... so then if you were truthful, and thought this 70% was fact... you'd still have to determine that there still was a common ancestor - just maybe further back in history - allowing for greater divergence in genetic similarities. So much for 6000 yr old earth. AIG just added MORE deep time
I remember a display at an aquarium in La Jolla, CA, that asserted a 16% genetic match between humans and brown rice.
@@jameswithers2334
Because rice is an eukaryote like us, and all eukaryotes share around 10% to 20% of their genetic code. Given the length of time life on Earth spent on the eukaryotic stage, this is what should be expected.
LOL. . . "The isolated segments of DNA we share with chimps". . . Like endogenous retroviruses?
I thought the title was "Human and Chump DNA"
I really loved when the comic went like"fossil". I'm not familiar with comics. Who's the guy?
Lewis Black
"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination." - Dr. David Pilbeam
Arguments from authority, keeping religion alive and keeping the flock ignorant. Thanks for doing this episode, it is good defence material to add to the collection.
Every time I watch one of your videos, the bit of my brain that thinks these profesional creationists are just honesty deluded shrinks, and the bit that concludes they are deliberately lying to protect their lucritive business interests grows.
CoC1970 Lastname
You have to bear in mind that they work on the principle that all evidence must be made to fit their conclusion.
No evidence which is contrary to their conclusion can be accepted.
And now I find out that Tompkins has a fancier rig than mine.
What's he need that shit for? o.O