Excuse me, but i resent the implication that i am even 80% generically similar to Jeffery Tompkins. And if i descended from Tompkins, why is there still Tompkins?
Think of it this way: humanity is a big experiment, and Jeff is the control group. Everyone else is the group “can human DNA produce an intelligent being.” Be thankful to Jeff, control groups are very important. As his 2nd paper proves, by not having one and failing to catch a bug xD
That Q&A with Jeff is so spooky. He's asked basically the same question twice, doesn't register that it's the same, and gives 2 completely different answers.
Yeah, I noticed that! And i was wondering why that wasn’t brought up and pointed out by Erika. She must have thought it wasn’t the main point of the issues with his answers lol She did mention that his two answers kind of contradict each other, but didn’t really mention that the question was essentially the same thing
So a quick explanation of this video;- 1. In the initial video, Jeff was wrong and Erika pointed this out. In detail. With tables and diagrams. 2. In a reply video, Rob Carter pointed out Erica had made a mistake in her video but conceded that Jeff was indeed wrong. 3. In this video, Erica corrects her error (The one that Rob pointed out) and then goes on to show why it means that Jeff is even more wrong than he was previously but because of her error she hadn't noticed. Again using tables and diagrams. Your move Robj / Jeff
I know that I'm less similar to chimpanzees than many humans. But that's because I've had a hip replacement, bilateral knee replacements, and lens replacement cataract surgery. But, by the same token, I'm less similar to most humans than many humans. Thanks for your good-humored scientific honesty and great videos!
It's insanely refreshing for someone to actually go through their process in looking at and analyzing data. We don't *need* to just trust you, we can *see* your process right here. You're presenting the information like, oh I dunno, a scientist?! This ought to be much more common, and I'm grateful that you set the example of good science communication that you do.
"This ought to be much more common," most data is... not exactly proprietary, but kinda sorta. iow, you as person not publishing in field x usually cannot get hold of the raw data scientists use to form their conclusions. the genome projects are are public databases, the BLAST is a program you can either DL for free or buy publicly, so anyone can do the analysis. plus these are all computer analyses. as opposed to, say, erica studying morphological differences between hominim species, where you actually need to lay your hands on the bones. maybe as public databases grow....
LOL. When Tompkins said genome sequence comparison software developers were rewriting code just because of him, did he mean because he keeps dishonestly breaking everything? And they want to prevent this spurious use of their software?
Another thing: right after the end of the email asking "something? Anything?" I heard a long silence. Turns out that was just the start of another ad lmao
I use RUclips Premium nowadays, but I’m still plagued by the memories of when I chose to watch the 5 mandatory seconds of the ads. The second she said “with that, dear viewers” I thought “oh here comes an ad” and immediately after went “oh silly me heh.” Glad to hear my instincts were actually on point and that was indeed the moment RUclips pushed an ad xD
Thanks for translating science for the common folk. More unbiased scientists need to be doing this, otherwise the pseudoscientists will fill the space.
"otherwise the pseudoscientists will fill the space." - To be honest, evolutionism is losing ground. I'm creationist because creationism is more firmly based on science than naturalism. Naturalists need presuppositions and preconceptions like “there is no ID”. Thus they break one of the most important principles in making science, namely the requisite for no prerequisite.
Naturalists consider methodological naturalism as the only acceptable method of research. However, methodological naturalism is not scientific if we insist that science must not reject any theories in advance. Holding preconception as the guiding principle of work makes atheistic research a pseudoscience, an ideology or even a religion.
The atheistic preconception of “No intelligent design allowed" has nothing to do with scientific thinking. Any observation that seems to point towards intelligent design is automatically abandoned. That's an ideological attitude, that’s pseudoscience. That's the reason why naturalistic science makes constantly false deductions, especially in genetics and biology, constantly correcting itself, still never finding the truth. Creationist science has critical rationalism as the preferred method of scientific studies. In critical rationalism no theory is rejected for ideological reasons. Whether a research points to a natural or to a supernatural solution it is accepted, based on evidence only. Critical rationalism recognizes that our senses and other factors may get in the way between us as researchers and the researched reality. The worn out claim "evolutionists don't presuppose anything, they just go where science takes them" is not true. On the contrary, evolutionists break the most important principle in making science - the rejection of presuppositions and preconception. “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. “… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.” [Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.]
When holding a banana, you instantly get 10% closer to being a chimp genetically. This is where Tomkins's studies are flawed. See all of his test subjects were completely bananaless at all times. Thank you Erica as always for correcting this easy to prevent, yet oh so common mistake made when comparing human and chimp genomes.
Wow, this is, like, the perfect way to correct errors. I love that you unlisted the first one and included a link to it in the description. Keep up the good work. I would love to see more vids on radiometric dating in the future. Or anything at all, all your content is great.
Gosh darn, Gutsick! You did a wonderful job of taking a highly technical subject matter and making it accessible to the average Homo Sapian (weighted, of course); not to mention making it entertaining as well. Please keep up the excellent work - the world really needs it.
@johnfox9169 - That's a bedrock foundation of science: mistakes get corrected and newly discovered data sharpens or ousts old data. With religion, changes are either accepted only after overwhelming pressure and after a looong period of time or NOT AT ALL [Buddhism is an exception. Many times, their teachings have been altered when new scientific data came to light.]
I appreciate that you decided it was important to you to update the video, but still wanted to keep a way to find the original video to hold the incorrect parts to account. Good way of threading the needle between wanting the corrected version to be the one people see first (so they don’t come away with the wrong information), but also keeping the first version accessible to demonstrate a healthy way of admitting ones mistake.
Hi Erika, you made an amazing video! It provided the exact information I needed to help me debunk young earth creationists here in Brazil. If you're interested, Marcos Eberlin, who is the president of the Discovery Institute at a local university in Sao Paulo, is gaining a lot of attention here. I'm a biologist too, and I'm working to debunk their arguments. Right now, I'm preparing a video about genome comparisons between Homo and Pan because they (Intelligent Designer proponents) are spreading the information that it is a 1% myth, among other fallacies. I would like to ask if I can use some of your ideas and findings for the video, with proper reference to your channel. Thanks in advance!
we need more people like you here in Brazil. in the US and Europe creationists are mostly seem as a joke and not taken seriously, but here we still have to deal with things like "maybe you came from a monkey, I didn't" every day, because even the most basic misconceptions are still prevalent thanks to the lack of science communicators combating them.
I have no frame of reference, but I would probably have been convinced that we were related if the number had been 10%. The fact that all organisms have DNA in the first place has me convinced enough.
Just think about it they are the only animals on earth that resemble us. It is only logical to think that we have the same origin story by that i mean evolutionary ancestor, even their mentality is like ours, social behaviors and much more, but those few remaining percentages make a big difference
I watched the premiere. If I had known it would be a 2 hour video, I wouldn't have watched it, I think. But you kept my attention effortlessly, awesome video, thank you. I love it. 💗
Thank you both for an informative presentation and a comprehensive debunking of Tomkins' arguments. After this, I don't know how anyone would take seriously any claims Tomkins makes on genomics again.
Erica accepting critques openly and in good faith from folks and making transparency almost tantamount to production; will hands down always be my favorite thing about this channel. You have so much more patience than I, thank you so much for doing what you do. Both the debunking and just general anthropology videos are amazing!
Please tell me you're submitting a paper to the Answers Research Journal titled, "Complete Reanalysis of Genome-Wide DNA Similarity Within kinds Using the Tompkins Genome Analysis Protocol."
About his response on about he's counting differences, my money is on the fact that he was caught red handed in a way and he knows he doesn"t have a good answer to that and pushed it under the rug.
That was an exhaustive coverage of this topic. I wouldn’t want to be on the other side of your scrutiny, especially if I was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a gullible following. Job well done.
8:08 interesting how the hominoid least related to humans in your chart is the gibbon. Was that a factor when naming youtube channel Gutsy Gibbon, Erika?
Tomkins has the same problem that all creation “scientists” have - they already know what result they want, and design their work to produce those results, rather than designing their work to disprove those results. Normal scientists aren’t immune to this, it’s part of why there’s a reproducibility crisis in many fields, but the fact that their work is fundamentally a priori makes it unscientific from an epistemological perspective.
Thanks for this video, and for your work debunking pseudoscience nonsense. Also, thank you for the links to the BLAST tools. I've shared them with some colleagues interested in comparing patterns outside of genetics. They're quite appreciative!
Science evolves and although mistakes are made, they are ( eventually ) corrected with better data and understanding of what is being studied. Religion is static for the most part, and when ever events and evidence proves overwhelming, reluctant change does sometimes happen. I trust science more than a religious leader who's education comes, maybe, from one book or one set of books. - I'm not knocking anyone's faith, just I prefer proof. To quote a TV show : - " Science, bitch ! ".
Interesting how that old static book says that God made everything by his Word. Now we use the language of mathematics to understand the universe and have found a colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters the longest "word" yet discovered. Science compliments God. Denying God is to deny science.
Yeah; always baffles me when a religious zealot seems to think that the fact that scientific beliefs change while religious beliefs stay constant somehow makes them more convincing.
1:53:42 "It can't be incompetence, so it must be deception" There is another option: cognitive bias. If someone has an emotional attachment to a particular belief (like, say, that God exists, as they envision him), they can warp reality and logic to significant degrees to allow them to hang on to that belief. He "knows" humans and chimps are different "kinds", so any evidence that supports this is correct, and anything that points out that it's not is flawed. He'll reject any high similarity and keep tweaking things until he gets a low similarity, because the former is "wrong" and the latter is "right". He can begrudgingly accept an error in his method, while still holding that the result is somehow roughly correct - it helps if he can find a different method leading to a similar result. No-one is immune to such bias, and that's why skepticism is important. But there are limits to how much you can bend your perception of reality, before it breaks. Which is why it's very rare for professional scientists to have these sorts of views, because you'd have to do a lot of bending to explain away all the contrary evidence that you deal with on a daily basis.
I definitely agree with your conclusion on Tomkins...a lot of science deniers (especially creationists, in my experience) loooove to cite real scientists based solely on their authority without understanding the science itself. And I think people like Tomkins rely on that. He can not weight anything because he's relying on the fact that an average layperson, much like your students, might not understand why you'd need to do that. All the lay creationists need is the number and confirmation that their already strongly held beliefs are correct. I already really enjoyed the first edition of this video even though a lot of it is over my head, but I really respect your decision to re-upload with corrections!
Happy to watch some parts again (i do rhat anyway), so cool of you to yo handle your uodating info this way. Kept the old one in the description for posterity, unlisted it to easo condusion and make sure the accurate data is shown. You've got to be the most ethical RUclipsr
Mindboggling amount of determination and work to refute a pseudoscientist. I learnt a lot. One big Kudo！ 1:58:45 If any scientist had no clue about a crucial detail of the method they used, they would face a heavy loss of credibility. Tomkins really seemed to not know what he was doing.
The fact that a Dr. in genetics is so willfully wrong about something so banal and easily accepted makes me question whether he should keep that doctor. No doubt Dr Tomkins worked hard for that PhD but the glaring mistakes in his recent work just aren't up to any standard in good science.
"but the glaring mistakes in his recent work just aren't up to any standard in good science." i'm not gonna do this, but one could easily find his CV, check his published papers, and do an analysis of the quality of science behind the stuff he gets published in peer reviewed journals and this discovery stuff he is doing. tho if he heads a lab he might not be first author on any peer reviewed stuff anymore. still, if you find a large discrepancy, it would strongly suggest he's doing it intentionally.
@@johmyh14 he's a creationist. he might be letting his creationist agenda skew his methodology or even motivate him to be dishonest w his results. if so, he might be much more rigorous w research not directly related to that agenda. or, maybe he's just a crappy scientist.
A question I've been mulling is how much of the human or mammal genome aligns with that of simpler organisms such as, say, flatworms? At some point, the basic gene set for cells mitochondria, and such should be isolated. Perhaps there's a basic DNA sequence common to every Earth-bound species?
Apparently, Humans share around 20% of their DNA with roundworms. Flatworms share less DNA with us, but I can't find a percentage, despite the fact that tapeworm genomes were sequenced in 2013. All life on Earth shares DNA.
So there's similarity between genes, and there's similarity because the code itself. When you say "basic DNA sequence" you're probably talking about sharing the same genes. So there's a gene for hemoglobin, that protein that carries oxygen through your blood. Now their are different coeds for the hemoglobin protein, but it's still basically the same protein, and thus the same gene. Imagine two different copies of "The Lord of the Rings." One printing has American spelling with the word "color" and another version with the spelling "colour." Technically their are minor differences, but it's still the same book. So in this analogy it would be the same gene. Humans share about 70% genetic similarity with flatworms. We also share about 60% with bananas. Because we're all evolved from a common ancestor. So most of the genes go into making all the cells work, and the rremainder is what kind of cells they are, and how they're arranged. It's true that mitochondria have their own separte genome compared to the nucleus. What isn't widely known is that this genome is very, very tiny. It's sort of atrophied over the billions of years, and couldn't code for itself anymore. Most of the proteins used by mitochondrian have ended up transfering to the nucleus over time. In that regard, it's sort of like a vestigial organ for the cell, which Creationist hate since it's just more proof of evolution.
@@EBDavis111 Can you give me a source that says we share 70% of our genes with flatworms? All I can find is a reoccurring claim about acorn worms, which are not flatworms.
@jerelull9629, if you do a search for the phrase LUCA genome you should get some info on common DNA sequences. There is a NASA article that was especially interesting.
I need to buy a hat just so I can wear it and proceed to take it off in salutation of your approach of handling a video with mistakes. Unlisting it makes it so the algorithm doesn’t accidentally push any level of misinformation to random viewers, while keeping the link to it in the corrected version beautifully catalogues your acknowledgment of the mistake, and leaves documentation of what had happened. This is a level of transparency I don’t think I’ve seen so far on the platform
1:44:32 proof Erika has good taste in music with watching the entirety of Chonny Jash's The Mind Electric, apparently so much that it's recommended to her AGAIN ❤
i love how passionate you are. it makes me really happy to know people like you are out there debunking these idiots.. more importantly i love how educated and passionate you are about what you study🥹
For every creationist who actually learns evolution, there comes a time when they have to decide if they want to remain honest or they want to remain a creationist. They can't do both. (I *think* this comes originally from Aron Ra, but Google was unable to confirm.)
I have to say, even though I feel like I'm glossing over when she discusses gapped and ungapped analysis, somehow, it still sticks. I don't know how she did that. 😅
Oh bloody hell, I'm here to learn - good job by the way - but what might be a bit heavy has this absolutely ridiculous counterweight in these creationist lies being exposed. I mean, I have to laugh thinking no one is really that stupid (and in a sense this is true), whilst hiding the ugly truth to save my sanity! There's so much I would interrupt with if you were telling me all this face to face, so it is perhaps a blessing this never happens! :D Love your work and the fact that I can quite easily follow your speech (English is my second language)! Happy New Year!
Hang on hang on. I know this is hyper-specific in relation to the scope of this analysis, but I just wanna make sure I'm understanding correctly. Reading the full paragraph at 1:33:27, my best interpretation as a layperson is that 4% in completely unalignable regions from an analysis by Buggs is being added to a 16% dissimilarity rate (as calculated by Tomkins) in the alignable sequences, is that correct? Without that context it kinda sounds like the 20% dissimilarity figure is being presented as "my model says 16% difference and your model says 4% difference, therefore 20% difference" but that can't actually be what Tomkins is asserting......right?? 😳
I think what he’s trying to say is that if the unalignable regions are 0% similar (which is just… not true) then his 84% number only accounts for 96% of the genome. So when he adds in the unalignable 4%, it ends up being about 80.64% similar. So his math is still wrong (assuming the unalignable sequences are 0% similar) but not quite is that way.
Genetics is the best evidence for Darwin and Wallace’s 165 year old theory of evolution. The structure of DNA was discovered in the 1950s which suggested the reason it transmits information from one generation to the next. It’s almost like a prophesy. And discovering we are related to chimpanzee is the prediction that Darwin and Wallace made in 1858. They might never have guessed how comprehensively and unambiguously they have been proved right, despite the best efforts of Tomkins to muddy the water.
@@elguapo2831 What are doing is conflating the acceptance of evolution with non-Christianity. Christians can accept evolution; atheists can be skeptical of evolution. Is that interesting?
@@elguapo2831 Francis Collins was a Christian before, and even that being said, he doesn't buy into these YEC lies and he understands that evolution and common ancestry is absolutely true and has stated so.
@@psychologicalprojectionist What is evolving? Everything? Monkey is still a monkey, bacteria is still bacteria, a finch is still a bird. I would love to see a foot that is turning into a wing...fwing🤣
@@elguapo2831 that's how monophyly works. Every organism continues to be part of its paren't group, so bacteria _will_ continue to be bacteria, the same way humans will continue to be apes. What you're asking isn't something that evolution actually proposes, it's a strawman.
If one is trying to measure absolute differences, measure it to the base pair. But if one is measuring relational distance, each mutation should be counted once no matter how big it is. Using absolute difference as a proxy for relational distance is fallacious in a way that plays into his hands.
The man has been questioned as well as his work within an important area of science. If he was to change his colors now the loss would surpass him. I suspect he find a way to become more deceptive in pretending that the answer is just beyond the current method to be definitive.
With respect to the back and forth between Snelling and Williamson, it is clear that Tomkins (and Snelling) was stalling with the 8 month gap. They knew they were boned day one.
Every time you mention Dr Thompson having a scaling problem, I keep expecting you to add in a clip from S2 Loli with HWR explaining that there isn't one.
7:57 You say Chimps are most closely related to humans. I thought they were closer to Bonobos than Humans. (Or does Chimpanzee just refer to the genus Pan in general)
For convenience sake, Chimpanzee often means Pan in general. But, since Chimpanzees & Bonobos diverged after our human ancestors diverged from from the Chimpanzee/Bonobo ancestor, it's correct to say that we are more closely related to both. It's like you having cousins. Which cousin is more closely related to you? Both are.
You either had a really good math teacher in middle school or schools have gotten a lot better since I was in school (the 70s). I would have made the same weighting mistake until well into college. Thanks for the explanation.
I was just watching your debate with Kent Hovind and when he said "If the chimp DNA and the man DNA are 98% similar (which it isn't)" I instantly remembered you telling Seth you were doing this with your husband and I got this video recommended right after the debate I wonder if Kent would try to whack it if he can keep himself out of prison
Great video Erica, I’d love for these grifters to just fade away into obscurity but the reality is they are making money off of perpetuating, possibly even deceptively, falsities. Good work pointing it out.
Outstanding, just plain outstanding. As for cheeky chappy (that’s with an h , not a r .....I think), Tomykins , why let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
I feel a bit sorry for Jeffrey. You'd think an omniscient god would give him the answer! Maybe if Jeff prayed harder, God would come through and defend His champion.
Honestly, I can't understand why is it such a problem for Jeff and co. Human is more similar to a mouse than butterfly, so what? All life is similar, human is more similar to a toadstool than oak, so why is 98% similarity a problem? If all other primates were extinct, human would still be closer to rodents than let's say whales. Would be 80% similarity to the closest living animal too much? Might be 50%?
hmm.. seems like de-ja vu. I'm new to your channel but I feel like I enjoyed this video a couple weeks ago... The description says it's 11 hours old? No matter, I enjoyed it more the second time around because I'm at the age where I need to hear things twice to better understand them. Still entertained and still got a chuckle. Love the snarkiness and don't apologize for swearing. One "bullshit" during a two hour video hardly qualifies as offensive, especially when it is so applicable and perfectly describes the subject matter.
She explained it in the beginning. The video you watched is linked in the description. This is a re-upload with corrections and adding information found after that release. Her previous video uploaded "a professional creationist agrees with me: Tompkins wrong" explains all the things she learned/needed corrected/explained better after revisiting it.
For someone with his education and experience, he seems to me quite hesitant and confused. I don't know about Thompson, but sometimes people tell untruths because they truly believe they are right and will be vindicated down the road. It's like the gambler who "knows" he'll hit the big score any second, until they take his car and his house, and his score never comes.
I hate how Snelling keeps saying Tompkins worked very hard on his paper🥺 Just because you work hard on something doesn’t mean it’s worth anything if you can’t acknowledge errors. Imagine defending your phd thesis, someone asks you a question or comments on something and you just say “I’ve been working very hard on this😢”
@@whatabouttheearth "agian" was a caption - I was late to the premiere so I was watching at higher speed and it looked weird as it went by, so much so that I had to rewind and run it past slower to be sure.
I kinda wish the title was “84% Chimpanzee: 100% Nonsense.”
Sugar cookies, please.
ha ha ha!!
Excuse me, but i resent the implication that i am even 80% generically similar to Jeffery Tompkins.
And if i descended from Tompkins, why is there still Tompkins?
Sorry to bust your bubble but Erika only provided the ungapped %. if she would have used the gapped you are in fact 96.5% similar to Homo Tomkins
@@franciscomendezlacomba3856 'When I use a number’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean.'
🔥
Think of it this way: humanity is a big experiment, and Jeff is the control group. Everyone else is the group “can human DNA produce an intelligent being.”
Be thankful to Jeff, control groups are very important. As his 2nd paper proves, by not having one and failing to catch a bug xD
You’ll make a perfect flat earthier! 🙂🤣
That Q&A with Jeff is so spooky. He's asked basically the same question twice, doesn't register that it's the same, and gives 2 completely different answers.
Yeah, I noticed that! And i was wondering why that wasn’t brought up and pointed out by Erika. She must have thought it wasn’t the main point of the issues with his answers lol
She did mention that his two answers kind of contradict each other, but didn’t really mention that the question was essentially the same thing
Well the poor guy looked as if he hadn't slept for at least three days, so no wonder there...
So a quick explanation of this video;-
1. In the initial video, Jeff was wrong and Erika pointed this out. In detail. With tables and diagrams.
2. In a reply video, Rob Carter pointed out Erica had made a mistake in her video but conceded that Jeff was indeed wrong.
3. In this video, Erica corrects her error (The one that Rob pointed out) and then goes on to show why it means that Jeff is even more wrong than he was previously but because of her error she hadn't noticed. Again using tables and diagrams.
Your move Robj / Jeff
A whole night of Gibbon goodness 😂
Happy new year Erika ❤
I know that I'm less similar to chimpanzees than many humans. But that's because I've had a hip replacement, bilateral knee replacements, and lens replacement cataract surgery. But, by the same token, I'm less similar to most humans than many humans. Thanks for your good-humored scientific honesty and great videos!
Lol me 2 got that Terminator hip
Genetically speaking, it's all the same
@@drsatan9617 you get that I was joking, right?
@@RobertFHarrison I didn't then, no... 🤦♂️
You sound like a living refutation of a gods perfect design abilities
It's insanely refreshing for someone to actually go through their process in looking at and analyzing data. We don't *need* to just trust you, we can *see* your process right here. You're presenting the information like, oh I dunno, a scientist?! This ought to be much more common, and I'm grateful that you set the example of good science communication that you do.
"This ought to be much more common,"
most data is... not exactly proprietary, but kinda sorta.
iow, you as person not publishing in field x usually cannot get hold of the raw data scientists use to form their conclusions.
the genome projects are are public databases, the BLAST is a program you can either DL for free or buy publicly, so anyone can do the analysis.
plus these are all computer analyses.
as opposed to, say, erica studying morphological differences between hominim species, where you actually need to lay your hands on the bones.
maybe as public databases grow....
Erica is the Hbomberguy of science RUclips and I'm here for it, as always.
LOL. When Tompkins said genome sequence comparison software developers were rewriting code just because of him, did he mean because he keeps dishonestly breaking everything? And they want to prevent this spurious use of their software?
Yeah, probably changing the api or interface to throw "You're using this wrong" errors.
Literally right after you said "to that I say, dear viewer," an ad for dog medication started.
Comedy like that is why I don't always use adblock
Another thing: right after the end of the email asking "something? Anything?" I heard a long silence. Turns out that was just the start of another ad lmao
Hah me too! On an atlas pro video he said “and in that note” and then an add that started with “buy the new…” popped up😂
I use RUclips Premium nowadays, but I’m still plagued by the memories of when I chose to watch the 5 mandatory seconds of the ads.
The second she said “with that, dear viewers” I thought “oh here comes an ad” and immediately after went “oh silly me heh.”
Glad to hear my instincts were actually on point and that was indeed the moment RUclips pushed an ad xD
Guy should pivot to software testing: he seems really great at finding hard to replicate bugs, given how many times he has relied on them.
Most software doesn't test for the inability of the professional researcher to do seventh grade math
@@muskyoxesexactly, they need him on staff
Thanks for translating science for the common folk. More unbiased scientists need to be doing this, otherwise the pseudoscientists will fill the space.
"otherwise the pseudoscientists will fill the space." - To be honest, evolutionism is losing ground.
I'm creationist because creationism is more firmly based on science than naturalism. Naturalists need presuppositions and preconceptions like “there is no ID”. Thus they break one of the most important principles in making science, namely the requisite for no prerequisite.
Naturalists consider methodological naturalism as the only acceptable method of research. However, methodological naturalism is not scientific if we insist that science must not reject any theories in advance. Holding preconception as the guiding principle of work makes atheistic research a pseudoscience, an ideology or even a religion.
The atheistic preconception of “No intelligent design allowed" has nothing to do with scientific thinking. Any observation that seems to point towards intelligent design is automatically abandoned. That's an ideological attitude, that’s pseudoscience. That's the reason why naturalistic science makes constantly false deductions, especially in genetics and biology, constantly correcting itself, still never finding the truth.
Creationist science has critical rationalism as the preferred method of scientific studies. In critical rationalism no theory is rejected for ideological reasons. Whether a research points to a natural or to a supernatural solution it is accepted, based on evidence only. Critical rationalism recognizes that our senses and other factors may get in the way between us as researchers and the researched reality. The worn out claim "evolutionists don't presuppose anything, they just go where science takes them" is not true. On the contrary, evolutionists break the most important principle in making science - the rejection of presuppositions and preconception.
“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. “… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.” [Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.]
Where the tuna sandwich?
When holding a banana, you instantly get 10% closer to being a chimp genetically. This is where Tomkins's studies are flawed. See all of his test subjects were completely bananaless at all times. Thank you Erica as always for correcting this easy to prevent, yet oh so common mistake made when comparing human and chimp genomes.
That explains Ray Comfort's stupidity. But I did not know that Chimps were dishonest. Perhaps the dishonesty comes from some other phenomena.
Where's Ray Comfort when you need him?
@@aaronpolichar7936 He is obviously playing with the banana, that fits so godlike, in his behind.
@@freddan6fly He's still having some trouble with the soda can...
Otherwise known as "Comfort's Banana"
Wow, this is, like, the perfect way to correct errors. I love that you unlisted the first one and included a link to it in the description. Keep up the good work. I would love to see more vids on radiometric dating in the future. Or anything at all, all your content is great.
"more vids on radiometric dating "
much better than the radioenglish system of dating.
it's called radioimperial @@vforwombat9915 😉
Gosh darn, Gutsick! You did a wonderful job of taking a highly technical subject matter and making it accessible to the average Homo Sapian (weighted, of course); not to mention making it entertaining as well. Please keep up the excellent work - the world really needs it.
I have yet to hear about any Creationist who is honest.
A person that can admit their mistakes has integrity and commands respect. You have a wonderful channel. Thanks for that!!!!
@johnfox9169 - That's a bedrock foundation of science: mistakes get corrected and newly discovered data sharpens or ousts old data.
With religion, changes are either accepted only after overwhelming pressure and after a looong period of time or NOT AT ALL
[Buddhism is an exception. Many times, their teachings have been altered when new scientific data came to light.]
I appreciate that you decided it was important to you to update the video, but still wanted to keep a way to find the original video to hold the incorrect parts to account. Good way of threading the needle between wanting the corrected version to be the one people see first (so they don’t come away with the wrong information), but also keeping the first version accessible to demonstrate a healthy way of admitting ones mistake.
"Now that you know how BLAST works..." ...I do?
Hi Erika, you made an amazing video! It provided the exact information I needed to help me debunk young earth creationists here in Brazil. If you're interested, Marcos Eberlin, who is the president of the Discovery Institute at a local university in Sao Paulo, is gaining a lot of attention here. I'm a biologist too, and I'm working to debunk their arguments. Right now, I'm preparing a video about genome comparisons between Homo and Pan because they (Intelligent Designer proponents) are spreading the information that it is a 1% myth, among other fallacies. I would like to ask if I can use some of your ideas and findings for the video, with proper reference to your channel. Thanks in advance!
Wow, fight the good fight, Noble Warrior! ❤
we need more people like you here in Brazil. in the US and Europe creationists are mostly seem as a joke and not taken seriously, but here we still have to deal with things like "maybe you came from a monkey, I didn't" every day, because even the most basic misconceptions are still prevalent thanks to the lack of science communicators combating them.
I’d love to watch any content you post on this - can you help any interested parties in finding it please
@@funfunfun18 Sure, at my Channel. The problem is that It is in portuguese.
Tomkin's publications, as well as various rebuttals, should be available in the public domain
Love seeing you post...
Am I crazy to think that even 84% is a shockingly large number?
I have no frame of reference, but I would probably have been convinced that we were related if the number had been 10%. The fact that all organisms have DNA in the first place has me convinced enough.
Just think about it they are the only animals on earth that resemble us. It is only logical to think that we have the same origin story by that i mean evolutionary ancestor, even their mentality is like ours, social behaviors and much more, but those few remaining percentages make a big difference
I watched the premiere. If I had known it would be a 2 hour video, I wouldn't have watched it, I think. But you kept my attention effortlessly, awesome video, thank you. I love it. 💗
The lack of control comparisons is THE fatal flaw here. Glad you pointed that out but it is really worth highlighting more.
Thank you both for an informative presentation and a comprehensive debunking of Tomkins' arguments. After this, I don't know how anyone would take seriously any claims Tomkins makes on genomics again.
Erica accepting critques openly and in good faith from folks and making transparency almost tantamount to production; will hands down always be my favorite thing about this channel.
You have so much more patience than I, thank you so much for doing what you do. Both the debunking and just general anthropology videos are amazing!
Thoroughly enjoyed listening to you apply a scientific smack down on the illogical. 🙂
Hope you have a Happy New Year!
Please tell me you're submitting a paper to the Answers Research Journal titled, "Complete Reanalysis of Genome-Wide DNA Similarity Within kinds Using the Tompkins Genome Analysis Protocol."
About his response on about he's counting differences, my money is on the fact that he was caught red handed in a way and he knows he doesn"t have a good answer to that and pushed it under the rug.
Oh how we love your new videos !!!
That was an exhaustive coverage of this topic. I wouldn’t want to be on the other side of your scrutiny, especially if I was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a gullible following. Job well done.
DAYUM! 6 hours of the Princess of Primatology? It’s a Christmas miracle!
8:08 interesting how the hominoid least related to humans in your chart is the gibbon. Was that a factor when naming youtube channel Gutsy Gibbon, Erika?
Analogously, Tompkins: "Let's use apples to make my point, and oranges to refute yours!" Yup, that's fair! :(
Tomkins has the same problem that all creation “scientists” have - they already know what result they want, and design their work to produce those results, rather than designing their work to disprove those results. Normal scientists aren’t immune to this, it’s part of why there’s a reproducibility crisis in many fields, but the fact that their work is fundamentally a priori makes it unscientific from an epistemological perspective.
Might Tompkins be experiencing some cognitive dissonance?
Thanks Gutsick Gibbon for the rehash. Your time and energy is appreciated.
Thanks for this video, and for your work debunking pseudoscience nonsense.
Also, thank you for the links to the BLAST tools. I've shared them with some colleagues interested in comparing patterns outside of genetics. They're quite appreciative!
Science evolves and although mistakes are made, they are ( eventually ) corrected with better data and understanding of what is being studied.
Religion is static for the most part, and when ever events and evidence proves overwhelming, reluctant change does sometimes happen.
I trust science more than a religious leader who's education comes, maybe, from one book or one set of books. - I'm not knocking anyone's faith, just I prefer proof.
To quote a TV show : - " Science, bitch ! ".
Interesting how that old static book says that God made everything by his Word.
Now we use the language of mathematics to understand the universe and have found a colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters the longest "word" yet discovered.
Science compliments God.
Denying God is to deny science.
Yeah; always baffles me when a religious zealot seems to think that the fact that scientific beliefs change while religious beliefs stay constant somehow makes them more convincing.
@@Foulgaz3 🤦♂️
@@elguapo2831DNA isn't a code kiddo
It's analogous to code but it doesn't have letters
"Religion is static for the most par"
Not really. It keeps evolving to take advantage of the next generation of gullible chumps.
Please compare YEC and the Tobacco industry playbook
You are too kind! So much content and it's still 2023
1:53:42 "It can't be incompetence, so it must be deception"
There is another option: cognitive bias.
If someone has an emotional attachment to a particular belief (like, say, that God exists, as they envision him), they can warp reality and logic to significant degrees to allow them to hang on to that belief. He "knows" humans and chimps are different "kinds", so any evidence that supports this is correct, and anything that points out that it's not is flawed. He'll reject any high similarity and keep tweaking things until he gets a low similarity, because the former is "wrong" and the latter is "right". He can begrudgingly accept an error in his method, while still holding that the result is somehow roughly correct - it helps if he can find a different method leading to a similar result.
No-one is immune to such bias, and that's why skepticism is important.
But there are limits to how much you can bend your perception of reality, before it breaks. Which is why it's very rare for professional scientists to have these sorts of views, because you'd have to do a lot of bending to explain away all the contrary evidence that you deal with on a daily basis.
I like both Gutsick Gibbons! 😁😁😁
This is very good, it takes a lot of time to nail down all this fine detail, and make these videos, but it needs doing.
I definitely agree with your conclusion on Tomkins...a lot of science deniers (especially creationists, in my experience) loooove to cite real scientists based solely on their authority without understanding the science itself. And I think people like Tomkins rely on that. He can not weight anything because he's relying on the fact that an average layperson, much like your students, might not understand why you'd need to do that. All the lay creationists need is the number and confirmation that their already strongly held beliefs are correct.
I already really enjoyed the first edition of this video even though a lot of it is over my head, but I really respect your decision to re-upload with corrections!
Keep up the fantastic work GG!
Happy to watch some parts again (i do rhat anyway), so cool of you to yo handle your uodating info this way. Kept the old one in the description for posterity, unlisted it to easo condusion and make sure the accurate data is shown. You've got to be the most ethical RUclipsr
I appreciate all of your hard work Erika. Keep kicking names and taking ass!
Mindboggling amount of determination and work to refute a pseudoscientist. I learnt a lot. One big Kudo！
1:58:45 If any scientist had no clue about a crucial detail of the method they used, they would face a heavy loss of credibility. Tomkins really seemed to not know what he was doing.
The fact that a Dr. in genetics is so willfully wrong about something so banal and easily accepted makes me question whether he should keep that doctor. No doubt Dr Tomkins worked hard for that PhD but the glaring mistakes in his recent work just aren't up to any standard in good science.
"but the glaring mistakes in his recent work just aren't up to any standard in good science."
i'm not gonna do this, but one could easily find his CV, check his published papers, and do an analysis of the quality of science behind the stuff he gets published in peer reviewed journals and this discovery stuff he is doing.
tho if he heads a lab he might not be first author on any peer reviewed stuff anymore.
still, if you find a large discrepancy, it would strongly suggest he's doing it intentionally.
@@vforwombat9915Why would he do that? Funding from creationist orgs?
@@johmyh14 he's a creationist. he might be letting his creationist agenda skew his methodology or even motivate him to be dishonest w his results.
if so, he might be much more rigorous w research not directly related to that agenda.
or, maybe he's just a crappy scientist.
A question I've been mulling is how much of the human or mammal genome aligns with that of simpler organisms such as, say, flatworms? At some point, the basic gene set for cells mitochondria, and such should be isolated. Perhaps there's a basic DNA sequence common to every Earth-bound species?
Apparently, Humans share around 20% of their DNA with roundworms. Flatworms share less DNA with us, but I can't find a percentage, despite the fact that tapeworm genomes were sequenced in 2013. All life on Earth shares DNA.
So there's similarity between genes, and there's similarity because the code itself. When you say "basic DNA sequence" you're probably talking about sharing the same genes. So there's a gene for hemoglobin, that protein that carries oxygen through your blood. Now their are different coeds for the hemoglobin protein, but it's still basically the same protein, and thus the same gene. Imagine two different copies of "The Lord of the Rings." One printing has American spelling with the word "color" and another version with the spelling "colour." Technically their are minor differences, but it's still the same book. So in this analogy it would be the same gene.
Humans share about 70% genetic similarity with flatworms. We also share about 60% with bananas. Because we're all evolved from a common ancestor. So most of the genes go into making all the cells work, and the rremainder is what kind of cells they are, and how they're arranged.
It's true that mitochondria have their own separte genome compared to the nucleus. What isn't widely known is that this genome is very, very tiny. It's sort of atrophied over the billions of years, and couldn't code for itself anymore. Most of the proteins used by mitochondrian have ended up transfering to the nucleus over time. In that regard, it's sort of like a vestigial organ for the cell, which Creationist hate since it's just more proof of evolution.
@@EBDavis111 Can you give me a source that says we share 70% of our genes with flatworms? All I can find is a reoccurring claim about acorn worms, which are not flatworms.
@jerelull9629, if you do a search for the phrase LUCA genome you should get some info on common DNA sequences. There is a NASA article that was especially interesting.
NASA link: astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/looking-for-luca-the-last-universal-common-ancestor/
If nothing else Tompkins is proving the absolute necessity for peer review.
I need to buy a hat just so I can wear it and proceed to take it off in salutation of your approach of handling a video with mistakes.
Unlisting it makes it so the algorithm doesn’t accidentally push any level of misinformation to random viewers, while keeping the link to it in the corrected version beautifully catalogues your acknowledgment of the mistake, and leaves documentation of what had happened. This is a level of transparency I don’t think I’ve seen so far on the platform
Great work Erica. Evolution is the truth. Thank you for your dedicated work.🎉🎉🎉 I wish you much respect in 2024 for your work.
Hello again, Mr. Gibbon. Thx for helping out favorite gentlle & snarky gibbon share the data 🖖🌈💚
2:14:02 Edit: no, I don't believe him.
1:44:32 proof Erika has good taste in music with watching the entirety of Chonny Jash's The Mind Electric, apparently so much that it's recommended to her AGAIN ❤
Good to see you 🙂 👍
As always thanks for your hard work in shutting down this bogus nonsense.
i love how passionate you are. it makes me really happy to know people like you are out there debunking these idiots.. more importantly i love how educated and passionate you are about what you study🥹
For every creationist who actually learns evolution, there comes a time when they have to decide if they want to remain honest or they want to remain a creationist. They can't do both. (I *think* this comes originally from Aron Ra, but Google was unable to confirm.)
You attribute the quote correctly.
I like how every image of the other great apes had the whites of their eyes showing just to spite that ever common creationist argument.
I have to say, even though I feel like I'm glossing over when she discusses gapped and ungapped analysis, somehow, it still sticks. I don't know how she did that. 😅
Gutsick gibbon? More like sassy gibbon. And I’m here for it. Thank you Erica.
Great video, that interview was wild, he looked so uncomfortable. And thanks for the nutshell explanation of comparative genomics.
Oh bloody hell, I'm here to learn - good job by the way - but what might be a bit heavy has this absolutely ridiculous counterweight in these creationist lies being exposed. I mean, I have to laugh thinking no one is really that stupid (and in a sense this is true), whilst hiding the ugly truth to save my sanity! There's so much I would interrupt with if you were telling me all this face to face, so it is perhaps a blessing this never happens! :D Love your work and the fact that I can quite easily follow your speech (English is my second language)! Happy New Year!
Thank you for making video. Your expertise helps clarify those who seek truth.
I laughed way too hard at the "But I noticed, Jeff!" interjection at 1:21:50.
Two videos in one day? I dunno what RUclips is gonna think about that, but oh well I'm going to watch it anyways.
Hang on hang on. I know this is hyper-specific in relation to the scope of this analysis, but I just wanna make sure I'm understanding correctly. Reading the full paragraph at 1:33:27, my best interpretation as a layperson is that 4% in completely unalignable regions from an analysis by Buggs is being added to a 16% dissimilarity rate (as calculated by Tomkins) in the alignable sequences, is that correct? Without that context it kinda sounds like the 20% dissimilarity figure is being presented as "my model says 16% difference and your model says 4% difference, therefore 20% difference" but that can't actually be what Tomkins is asserting......right?? 😳
I think what he’s trying to say is that if the unalignable regions are 0% similar (which is just… not true) then his 84% number only accounts for 96% of the genome. So when he adds in the unalignable 4%, it ends up being about 80.64% similar. So his math is still wrong (assuming the unalignable sequences are 0% similar) but not quite is that way.
@@katzbird1 okay yeah, we're on the same page then. You and I that is; not Tomkins. 😆
Genetics is the best evidence for Darwin and Wallace’s 165 year old theory of evolution. The structure of DNA was discovered in the 1950s which suggested the reason it transmits information from one generation to the next. It’s almost like a prophesy. And discovering we are related to chimpanzee is the prediction that Darwin and Wallace made in 1858. They might never have guessed how comprehensively and unambiguously they have been proved right, despite the best efforts of Tomkins to muddy the water.
Interesting how Francis Collin became a believer in God after heading the human genome project.
@@elguapo2831 What are doing is conflating the acceptance of evolution with non-Christianity. Christians can accept evolution; atheists can be skeptical of evolution. Is that interesting?
@@elguapo2831
Francis Collins was a Christian before, and even that being said, he doesn't buy into these YEC lies and he understands that evolution and common ancestry is absolutely true and has stated so.
@@psychologicalprojectionist What is evolving? Everything? Monkey is still a monkey, bacteria is still bacteria, a finch is still a bird. I would love to see a foot that is turning into a wing...fwing🤣
@@elguapo2831 that's how monophyly works. Every organism continues to be part of its paren't group, so bacteria _will_ continue to be bacteria, the same way humans will continue to be apes. What you're asking isn't something that evolution actually proposes, it's a strawman.
If one is trying to measure absolute differences, measure it to the base pair. But if one is measuring relational distance, each mutation should be counted once no matter how big it is. Using absolute difference as a proxy for relational distance is fallacious in a way that plays into his hands.
Fantastic video as always. Thanks
Re: deception vs ignorance. Don't forget wilfull ignorance and self-deception
@greenfloatingtoad - It seems like some of each.
Does any of those creationists ever specify at which percentage humans and chimpansese are not related?
You can EXPLAIN it to them (creationists), but you can't UNDERSTAND it for them.
@thezieg - Very true.
Mr. Gibbon seems like a sweetheart
The self deception is astounding by Thompson.
It's really hard for some people to surrender their ego and focus on methods and data.
The man has been questioned as well as his work within an important area of science. If he was to change his colors now the loss would surpass him. I suspect he find a way to become more deceptive in pretending that the answer is just beyond the current method to be definitive.
With respect to the back and forth between Snelling and Williamson, it is clear that Tomkins (and Snelling) was stalling with the 8 month gap. They knew they were boned day one.
Why does...its a picture book, but still a book....burns so deep😂
Every time you mention Dr Thompson having a scaling problem, I keep expecting you to add in a clip from S2 Loli with HWR explaining that there isn't one.
7:57 You say Chimps are most closely related to humans.
I thought they were closer to Bonobos than Humans.
(Or does Chimpanzee just refer to the genus Pan in general)
For convenience sake, Chimpanzee often means Pan in general. But, since Chimpanzees & Bonobos diverged after our human ancestors diverged from from the Chimpanzee/Bonobo ancestor, it's correct to say that we are more closely related to both. It's like you having cousins. Which cousin is more closely related to you? Both are.
You either had a really good math teacher in middle school or schools have gotten a lot better since I was in school (the 70s). I would have made the same weighting mistake until well into college. Thanks for the explanation.
I was just watching your debate with Kent Hovind and when he said "If the chimp DNA and the man DNA are 98% similar (which it isn't)" I instantly remembered you telling Seth you were doing this with your husband and I got this video recommended right after the debate
I wonder if Kent would try to whack it if he can keep himself out of prison
This is such a great video.
Great video Erica, I’d love for these grifters to just fade away into obscurity but the reality is they are making money off of perpetuating, possibly even deceptively, falsities. Good work pointing it out.
Outstanding, just plain outstanding. As for cheeky chappy (that’s with an h , not a r .....I think), Tomykins , why let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Unrelated, but Scott Pilgrim anime was great.
Also, love learning from your own mistakes- that just happens to make you even more right.
Happy New Year gentle and modern apes!
I feel a bit sorry for Jeffrey. You'd think an omniscient god would give him the answer! Maybe if Jeff prayed harder, God would come through and defend His champion.
Well met. Don't forget to leave a like.
1:57:14 if and when Tomkins decides to change careers, he'd make a heck of a ventriloquist. I can barely see his lips move.
@seraphonica - To be cynical, doesn't this make God/the Bible the ventriloquist and Tomkins the dummy?
Honestly, I can't understand why is it such a problem for Jeff and co. Human is more similar to a mouse than butterfly, so what? All life is similar, human is more similar to a toadstool than oak, so why is 98% similarity a problem? If all other primates were extinct, human would still be closer to rodents than let's say whales. Would be 80% similarity to the closest living animal too much? Might be 50%?
hmm.. seems like de-ja vu. I'm new to your channel but I feel like I enjoyed this video a couple weeks ago... The description says it's 11 hours old? No matter, I enjoyed it more the second time around because I'm at the age where I need to hear things twice to better understand them. Still entertained and still got a chuckle. Love the snarkiness and don't apologize for swearing. One "bullshit" during a two hour video hardly qualifies as offensive, especially when it is so applicable and perfectly describes the subject matter.
She explained it in the beginning. The video you watched is linked in the description. This is a re-upload with corrections and adding information found after that release. Her previous video uploaded "a professional creationist agrees with me: Tompkins wrong" explains all the things she learned/needed corrected/explained better after revisiting it.
Oh wow I was only half way through the first one!! ... ok here I go again
All those skulls need correctly sized Santa hats!!! 🎅
Men and women should have different DNA because men have one less rib than women do.
Wait! What! They don't!? But, but, but...
For someone with his education and experience, he seems to me quite hesitant and confused. I don't know about Thompson, but sometimes people tell untruths because they truly believe they are right and will be vindicated down the road. It's like the gambler who "knows" he'll hit the big score any second, until they take his car and his house, and his score never comes.
I hate how Snelling keeps saying Tompkins worked very hard on his paper🥺 Just because you work hard on something doesn’t mean it’s worth anything if you can’t acknowledge errors. Imagine defending your phd thesis, someone asks you a question or comments on something and you just say “I’ve been working very hard on this😢”
Oh no, not *"agian"!* Sorry Erica, Happy new year to you and fellow subscribers. 🎉🍸🍷🎆
Happy new year!
@@firebladetenn6633 Thank you 👍
Ageaen?
@@whatabouttheearth "agian" was a caption - I was late to the premiere so I was watching at higher speed and it looked weird as it went by, so much so that I had to rewind and run it past slower to be sure.
@@TheOwlman
Oh, lol
Genome?! You’re telling me this gnome had jeans?! 🤔