pangloss
June 25, 2003, 12:07 PM
Sarfati/Socrates has been "dropping hints" like crazy that he knows who I am, violating the identity rule at PropWeb - juxtaposing my screen name there (which is my initials) and my name, for example, by referring to my Amazon.com review of his lie-filled book.
I complained about this, and heard from 5 solas that he did not feel that the juxtaposition was 'close enough' to warrant editing the post.
So, I posted this in a new thread:
[note added in edit: I had cut and pasted an early version of the post before, this is the version I had posted]
==============================================
SLPx:
Another thread documents some deceptive/illinformed claims by Sarfati in his over-long pamphlet "Refuting Evolution."
Humph -- before you were claiming that it was too short. There's no pleasing dogmatic atheists.
I claimed that it was short for a book – and it is, and this is compensated for by small size and large font - but it is basically a long pamphlet. Please quote accurately and stop misrepresenting me, though I know that will be hard for the dogmatic fundamentalist. For example, Sarfati makes a blatant false claim on p. 83:”… Rather the original paper inferred 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA from a rather crude technique called DNA hybridization." [Referring to a paper by Sibley and Ahlquist] Actually, it is called DNA-DNA hybridization. One of those little technicalities that one actually conversant in the science will pick up, while the target audience wpould not. One that gleans information on a subject by skimming some second-hand sources (which seems to have been the case in the sections I refer to) often makes these sorts of errors. Oh really? Then abuse Jonathan Marks, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte for his paper DNA hybridization in the apes -- Technical issues www.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/dnahyb2.html where this allegedly errant term was used in the title, and even in the text: "The technique was called DNA hybridization". And in case anyone wonders, this was directly referring to Sibley and Ahlquist's work.
I am not abusing you, just pointing out that those I have worked with refer to it as DNA-DNA hybridization. Afterall, it is possible to hybridize DNA and RNA. I am not the least bit surprised that you refer to Marks, who went on a hysterical witch-hunt after Sibley and Ahlquist, referring to their paper as a ‘fraud’ and other such nonsense. Of course, Marks ended up posting his angry invective on his website, not in the literature. It was much overblown, but the reason you linked to it was, most likely, because that is the creationist source of “refutation” of the % similarity studies, which I clearly show are bunk.
Of course, what we have here is yet another example of the aiG mouthpiece’s tendency to rely on second-hand information. Why rely on Marks’ hysteria when you can simply do a search for the original papers? Observe:
Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE.
The phylogeny of the hominoid primates, as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization.
J Mol Evol. 1984;20(1):2-15.
Hmmm... It appears that the original authors used the same term I did, not the one Marks did. Pays to get information form the ORIGINAL source, eh?
Here is another:
Templeton AR.
The phylogeny of the hominoid primates: a statistical analysis of the DNA-DNA hybridization data.
Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Sep;2(5):420-33
Uh oh! Here is one that uses the term "DNA hybridization" in the title, but look at the abstract:
J Mol Evol. 1987;26(1-2):99-121.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: results from an expanded data set.
Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE.
The living hominoids are human, the two species of chimpanzees,
gorilla, orangutan, and nine species of gibbons. The cercopithecoids (Old World monkeys) are the sister group of the hominoids. A consensus about the phylogeny of the hominoids has been reached for the branching order of the gibbons (earliest) and the orangutan (next earliest), but the branching order among gorilla, chimpanzees, and human remains in
contention. In 1984 we presented DNA-DNA hybridization data, based on 183 DNA hybrids, that we interpreted as evidence that the branching order, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. In the present paper we report on an expanded data set totaling 514 DNA hybrids, which supports the branching order given above. The ranges for the datings of divergence nodes are Old World monkeys, 25-34 million years (Myr) ago; gibbons, 16.4-23 Myr ago; orangutan, 12.2-17 Myr ago; gorilla, 7.7-11 Myr ago; himpanzees-human, 5.5-7.7 Myr ago. The possible effects of differences in age at first breeding are discussed, and some speculations about average genomic rates of evolution are presented.
And another:
J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data.
Sibley CG, Comstock JA, Ahlquist JE.
Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) presented the results of a study of
514 DNA-DNA hybrids among the hominoids and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae). They concluded that the branching order of the living hominoid lineages, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. Thus, a chimpanzee-human clade was indicated, rather than the chimpanzee-gorilla clade usually suggested from morphological evidence. The positions of the gibbon and orangutan branches in the phylogeny are supported by substantial evidence, but whether the chimpanzee lineage branched most recently
from the human lineage or from the gorilla lineage remains
controversial. The conclusions of Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) have been supported by several independent studies cited by Sibley and Ahlquist (1987), plus the DNA sequence data of Hayasaka et al. (1988), Miyamoto et al. (1988), Goodman et al. (1989, 1990), and the DNA-DNA hybridization data of Caccone and Powell (1989). The laboratory and data analysis methods have been criticized by Marks et al. (1988) and
Sarich et al. (1989). In response to these critics, and for our own
interests, we present a reanalysis of the Sibley and Ahlquist data, including a description of the corrections applied to the "raw counts." The validity of the laboratory methods is supported by the congruence of tree topology and delta values with those of Caccone and Powell (1989), although their tetraethylammonium chloride technique differs from the hydroxyapatite method in several respects. The utility of the
T50H distance measure is indicated by its congruence with percent sequence divergence at least to delta T50H 30, as noted by Goodman et al. (1990). The Sibley and Ahlquist uncorrected data indicate that Pan is genetically closer to Homo than to Gorilla, but that Gorilla may be genetically closer to Pan than to Homo. Melting curves are presented for the pertinent experiments, plus one that includes representatives of most of the groups of living primates.
Now, wasn’t that simple? And isn’t it a better idea to get the information, when possible, straight from the wombat’s mouth, rather than relying on second hand information?
So SLPx is welcome to use the longer term "DNA-DNA hybridization" like the windbag he is. But if he wants to score points off creationists he should check that they are not using an acceptable variant used by the authors of the original paper
Nice direct personal insult. The best this AiG mouthpiece can come up with, I suppose. Of course, all we have is another blunder by Socrates – in fact, the authors of the original paper call it the same thing I did. As I prove above. Now, Soc, won’t you promise to use PRIMARY SOURCES in the future so as to not so frequently get caught like this?
Nah – it is much funner pointing them out!
Could we please get off of the ad homs and deal directly with the charge that Sarfatti has made false claims in his book Refuting Evolution… that SLPx is hardly worth debating further since he's so consumed with atheistic hatred that he can't even get his facts straight.
The continued aspersions are most unbecoming, Mr.S, and I would hope that they constitute a breach of decorum. Especially when the charges of ‘not getting the facts straight’ are, in fact, ‘not straight’! Overconfident erroneous assertion designed to impress like-minded layman is still overconfident erroneous assertion.
I have no “atheistic hatred”, though it seems obvious that your “Christian fundamentalist hatred” colors each of your posts here.
Then, this is a classic AiG method of ducking the issues, like the blatant errors made in the pamphlet. As for getting facts straight, I am not the one that wrote a book with documented errors in it. Am I? Oh NO!!! It turns out that someone who cannot get their facts straight is hardly worth debating No someone who can't get his facts straight in a petty point with no value except to slander the opposition is not worth debating.
It is not slander. As I document from the PRIMARY (and other) SOURCE. The “acceptable” alternative is short-hand.
At best, it is a dodge engaged in by the author to avoid having to admit the errors in Safarti’s propaganda pamphlet.
It's one of these pathetic attacks that spreads thoughout the infidel network. E.g. a particularly nasty and malicious anti-creationist called Scott L. Page made the same absurd charge in an Amazon review of Refuting Evolution.
Nasty and Malicious? What is nasty about what was written? What is malicious in it? I am not the one rejoicing in the notion that non-believers are burning in Hell. I am not the one that insults his opponents in nearly EVERY post. I am not the one who writes of himself in the third person under an anonymous screen name. By the way – you can quit the asinine antic of trying to drop hints that you know who I am. Unlike you, I am not hiding it. It gives you no power, only makes you look like the childish malcontent that most rational people know you to be.
Of course, you have yet to address any of the SUBSTANTIVE criticisms of your diatribe.
The objective reader will wonder why…
But atheists typically copy off each other instead of checking the facts.
You sure project with the best of them! :lol:
I suppose it is just my imagination that the pamphlet in question has nearly an identical argument as fellow AiG mouthpiece Batten has in his silly essay on the issue? That nearly every creationist spews some ‘borrowed’ gibberish that was gleaned from some anti-science creationist site like AiG? That according to many creationists, ‘Nebraska Man’ is still being taught as an ancestor? (heard that one from at least 4 different creationists!) Please…
Same with their pathetic lists of alleged Bible contradictions -- so many of them claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth in Daniel 4, so they haven't bothered to check the Bible itself---this is a report of a dream of a pagan king not a teching of Scripture
There is a book called “Self-Contradiction in the Bible.” (or “Self-contradictions of the Bible”, I don’t remember which) It came out in the 1800’s, and the author smartly published it anonymously. As I recall, there were a couple of hundred of examples of direct contradiction. Doubtless, all of them would be justified, equivocated, or “explained” away in hysterical, slanderous and malicious diatribes written by creationist chemists such as Jon Sarfati, pontificating in areas that they have no formal education or experience in …
Just like when Sarfati or Batten or any number of creation ‘scientists’ write their false-claim riddled all-encompassing books, essays, and lectures.
Still no substantive rebuttals. Must be that Socrates admits that “Refuting Evolution” is littered with half-truths, misrepresentation, errors of fact and omission, etc. All for the God’s Glory!
==============================================
I look back an hour later, and Sherbear - who has been out to get me for a while, after my showing how much of an idiot she is on several occasions (don't get me wrong - lots of other folks have done the same! it is, after all, quite easy to do) - has deleted the post and suspended me!
The email tells me that I had been repeatedly warned' about this - the identity rule bullshit.
So, was it where I wrote "Mr.S"?
Doesn't SOCRATES start with an S?
Isn't Sarfati a "Dr." (at least in name), not a Mr.?
I am now back in the matrix.
The hero protection at that pit of simpletons is really, really sad.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Good bye, Propaganda Web......
I complained about this, and heard from 5 solas that he did not feel that the juxtaposition was 'close enough' to warrant editing the post.
So, I posted this in a new thread:
[note added in edit: I had cut and pasted an early version of the post before, this is the version I had posted]
==============================================
SLPx:
Another thread documents some deceptive/illinformed claims by Sarfati in his over-long pamphlet "Refuting Evolution."
Humph -- before you were claiming that it was too short. There's no pleasing dogmatic atheists.
I claimed that it was short for a book – and it is, and this is compensated for by small size and large font - but it is basically a long pamphlet. Please quote accurately and stop misrepresenting me, though I know that will be hard for the dogmatic fundamentalist. For example, Sarfati makes a blatant false claim on p. 83:”… Rather the original paper inferred 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA from a rather crude technique called DNA hybridization." [Referring to a paper by Sibley and Ahlquist] Actually, it is called DNA-DNA hybridization. One of those little technicalities that one actually conversant in the science will pick up, while the target audience wpould not. One that gleans information on a subject by skimming some second-hand sources (which seems to have been the case in the sections I refer to) often makes these sorts of errors. Oh really? Then abuse Jonathan Marks, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte for his paper DNA hybridization in the apes -- Technical issues www.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/dnahyb2.html where this allegedly errant term was used in the title, and even in the text: "The technique was called DNA hybridization". And in case anyone wonders, this was directly referring to Sibley and Ahlquist's work.
I am not abusing you, just pointing out that those I have worked with refer to it as DNA-DNA hybridization. Afterall, it is possible to hybridize DNA and RNA. I am not the least bit surprised that you refer to Marks, who went on a hysterical witch-hunt after Sibley and Ahlquist, referring to their paper as a ‘fraud’ and other such nonsense. Of course, Marks ended up posting his angry invective on his website, not in the literature. It was much overblown, but the reason you linked to it was, most likely, because that is the creationist source of “refutation” of the % similarity studies, which I clearly show are bunk.
Of course, what we have here is yet another example of the aiG mouthpiece’s tendency to rely on second-hand information. Why rely on Marks’ hysteria when you can simply do a search for the original papers? Observe:
Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE.
The phylogeny of the hominoid primates, as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization.
J Mol Evol. 1984;20(1):2-15.
Hmmm... It appears that the original authors used the same term I did, not the one Marks did. Pays to get information form the ORIGINAL source, eh?
Here is another:
Templeton AR.
The phylogeny of the hominoid primates: a statistical analysis of the DNA-DNA hybridization data.
Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Sep;2(5):420-33
Uh oh! Here is one that uses the term "DNA hybridization" in the title, but look at the abstract:
J Mol Evol. 1987;26(1-2):99-121.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: results from an expanded data set.
Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE.
The living hominoids are human, the two species of chimpanzees,
gorilla, orangutan, and nine species of gibbons. The cercopithecoids (Old World monkeys) are the sister group of the hominoids. A consensus about the phylogeny of the hominoids has been reached for the branching order of the gibbons (earliest) and the orangutan (next earliest), but the branching order among gorilla, chimpanzees, and human remains in
contention. In 1984 we presented DNA-DNA hybridization data, based on 183 DNA hybrids, that we interpreted as evidence that the branching order, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. In the present paper we report on an expanded data set totaling 514 DNA hybrids, which supports the branching order given above. The ranges for the datings of divergence nodes are Old World monkeys, 25-34 million years (Myr) ago; gibbons, 16.4-23 Myr ago; orangutan, 12.2-17 Myr ago; gorilla, 7.7-11 Myr ago; himpanzees-human, 5.5-7.7 Myr ago. The possible effects of differences in age at first breeding are discussed, and some speculations about average genomic rates of evolution are presented.
And another:
J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data.
Sibley CG, Comstock JA, Ahlquist JE.
Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) presented the results of a study of
514 DNA-DNA hybrids among the hominoids and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae). They concluded that the branching order of the living hominoid lineages, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. Thus, a chimpanzee-human clade was indicated, rather than the chimpanzee-gorilla clade usually suggested from morphological evidence. The positions of the gibbon and orangutan branches in the phylogeny are supported by substantial evidence, but whether the chimpanzee lineage branched most recently
from the human lineage or from the gorilla lineage remains
controversial. The conclusions of Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) have been supported by several independent studies cited by Sibley and Ahlquist (1987), plus the DNA sequence data of Hayasaka et al. (1988), Miyamoto et al. (1988), Goodman et al. (1989, 1990), and the DNA-DNA hybridization data of Caccone and Powell (1989). The laboratory and data analysis methods have been criticized by Marks et al. (1988) and
Sarich et al. (1989). In response to these critics, and for our own
interests, we present a reanalysis of the Sibley and Ahlquist data, including a description of the corrections applied to the "raw counts." The validity of the laboratory methods is supported by the congruence of tree topology and delta values with those of Caccone and Powell (1989), although their tetraethylammonium chloride technique differs from the hydroxyapatite method in several respects. The utility of the
T50H distance measure is indicated by its congruence with percent sequence divergence at least to delta T50H 30, as noted by Goodman et al. (1990). The Sibley and Ahlquist uncorrected data indicate that Pan is genetically closer to Homo than to Gorilla, but that Gorilla may be genetically closer to Pan than to Homo. Melting curves are presented for the pertinent experiments, plus one that includes representatives of most of the groups of living primates.
Now, wasn’t that simple? And isn’t it a better idea to get the information, when possible, straight from the wombat’s mouth, rather than relying on second hand information?
So SLPx is welcome to use the longer term "DNA-DNA hybridization" like the windbag he is. But if he wants to score points off creationists he should check that they are not using an acceptable variant used by the authors of the original paper
Nice direct personal insult. The best this AiG mouthpiece can come up with, I suppose. Of course, all we have is another blunder by Socrates – in fact, the authors of the original paper call it the same thing I did. As I prove above. Now, Soc, won’t you promise to use PRIMARY SOURCES in the future so as to not so frequently get caught like this?
Nah – it is much funner pointing them out!
Could we please get off of the ad homs and deal directly with the charge that Sarfatti has made false claims in his book Refuting Evolution… that SLPx is hardly worth debating further since he's so consumed with atheistic hatred that he can't even get his facts straight.
The continued aspersions are most unbecoming, Mr.S, and I would hope that they constitute a breach of decorum. Especially when the charges of ‘not getting the facts straight’ are, in fact, ‘not straight’! Overconfident erroneous assertion designed to impress like-minded layman is still overconfident erroneous assertion.
I have no “atheistic hatred”, though it seems obvious that your “Christian fundamentalist hatred” colors each of your posts here.
Then, this is a classic AiG method of ducking the issues, like the blatant errors made in the pamphlet. As for getting facts straight, I am not the one that wrote a book with documented errors in it. Am I? Oh NO!!! It turns out that someone who cannot get their facts straight is hardly worth debating No someone who can't get his facts straight in a petty point with no value except to slander the opposition is not worth debating.
It is not slander. As I document from the PRIMARY (and other) SOURCE. The “acceptable” alternative is short-hand.
At best, it is a dodge engaged in by the author to avoid having to admit the errors in Safarti’s propaganda pamphlet.
It's one of these pathetic attacks that spreads thoughout the infidel network. E.g. a particularly nasty and malicious anti-creationist called Scott L. Page made the same absurd charge in an Amazon review of Refuting Evolution.
Nasty and Malicious? What is nasty about what was written? What is malicious in it? I am not the one rejoicing in the notion that non-believers are burning in Hell. I am not the one that insults his opponents in nearly EVERY post. I am not the one who writes of himself in the third person under an anonymous screen name. By the way – you can quit the asinine antic of trying to drop hints that you know who I am. Unlike you, I am not hiding it. It gives you no power, only makes you look like the childish malcontent that most rational people know you to be.
Of course, you have yet to address any of the SUBSTANTIVE criticisms of your diatribe.
The objective reader will wonder why…
But atheists typically copy off each other instead of checking the facts.
You sure project with the best of them! :lol:
I suppose it is just my imagination that the pamphlet in question has nearly an identical argument as fellow AiG mouthpiece Batten has in his silly essay on the issue? That nearly every creationist spews some ‘borrowed’ gibberish that was gleaned from some anti-science creationist site like AiG? That according to many creationists, ‘Nebraska Man’ is still being taught as an ancestor? (heard that one from at least 4 different creationists!) Please…
Same with their pathetic lists of alleged Bible contradictions -- so many of them claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth in Daniel 4, so they haven't bothered to check the Bible itself---this is a report of a dream of a pagan king not a teching of Scripture
There is a book called “Self-Contradiction in the Bible.” (or “Self-contradictions of the Bible”, I don’t remember which) It came out in the 1800’s, and the author smartly published it anonymously. As I recall, there were a couple of hundred of examples of direct contradiction. Doubtless, all of them would be justified, equivocated, or “explained” away in hysterical, slanderous and malicious diatribes written by creationist chemists such as Jon Sarfati, pontificating in areas that they have no formal education or experience in …
Just like when Sarfati or Batten or any number of creation ‘scientists’ write their false-claim riddled all-encompassing books, essays, and lectures.
Still no substantive rebuttals. Must be that Socrates admits that “Refuting Evolution” is littered with half-truths, misrepresentation, errors of fact and omission, etc. All for the God’s Glory!
==============================================
I look back an hour later, and Sherbear - who has been out to get me for a while, after my showing how much of an idiot she is on several occasions (don't get me wrong - lots of other folks have done the same! it is, after all, quite easy to do) - has deleted the post and suspended me!
The email tells me that I had been repeatedly warned' about this - the identity rule bullshit.
So, was it where I wrote "Mr.S"?
Doesn't SOCRATES start with an S?
Isn't Sarfati a "Dr." (at least in name), not a Mr.?
I am now back in the matrix.
The hero protection at that pit of simpletons is really, really sad.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Good bye, Propaganda Web......