Frank: Well, you’ve gone and said it again James to emphasize how strongly you feel – “hostile” – and yet you won’t challenge Tomkins head to head.
The nature of some of the comments in this forum – and from people who would describe themselves as Christians is somewhat worrying – do indeed demonstrate a certain level of prejudice.
All in all this very short visit to this forum has been most informative and further enlightening into the mind of theistic evolutionists.
James: Frank, you need to realise something about us science/tech types. We tend to be absolutely scathing about anything where we see demonstrable falsehood, woolly thinking, or resistance to correction.
Frank: Okay, I see. You justify your excoriating attacks which you admit to as hostile, absolutely scathing and falsehoods i.e. deceit, deception and dishonesty on Tomkins, a fellow Christian and scientist a Ph.D geneticist, on the grounds of “irregularities” (my description not yours) in computer programming using BlastN and other software packages, right?
This is the core of your argument (and that of other critics of Tomkins) right? Have I understood you correctly?
I think I have understood you and others in this “tolerant” “respectful of others” forum very clearly in that you, a software developer – you haven’t mentioned if you have any qualifications in genetics or microbiology or biochemistry etc – have accepted the findings of Glenn Williamson as written in stone.
Here is an extract from:
www.uncommondescent.com › Intelligent Design
Human and chimp DNA: They really are about 98% similar
October 22, 2015 Posted by vjtorley under Intelligent Design
“A few days ago, scientist and young-earth creationist Dr. Jay Wile wrote a post on his Proslogion blog, in which he reported that Dr. Jeff Tomkins had abandoned his claim that human and chimpanzee DNA are only about 70% similar, in favor of a revised figure of 88%. But even that figure is too low, according to the man who spotted the original flaw in Dr. Tomkins’s work.
Dr. Wile reports:
More than two years ago, Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, a former director of the Clemson University Genomics Institute, performed a detailed, chromosome-by-chromosome comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA using a widely-recognized computer program known as BLAST. His analysis indicated that, on average, human and chimpanzee DNA are only about 70% similar. This is far, far, below the 95-99% numbers that are commonly cited by evolutionists, so once I read the study, I wrote a summary of it. Well, Dr. Tomkins has done a new study, and it invalidates the one he did two years ago.
The new study was done because last year, a computer programmer of financial trading algorithms (Glenn Williamson) discovered a bug in the BLAST algorithm that Tomkins used. This bug caused the program to ignore certain matches that should have been identified, which led to an artificially low similarity between the two genomes.
Here is what Glenn Williamson has to say about himself:
“Yeah – 36 year old, stay-at-home father of four – including triplets, ha!
I DON’T HAVE ANY FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS IN GENETICS, OR ANYTHING BIOLOGICAL for that matter. I have a bachelors degree in computing science (i.e. programming) from the University of Technology in Sydney. Started my career as a programmer, but transitioned into derivatives trading, which is a lot more fun… [my added emphasis]
And for what it’s worth, I believe that my paper is more of a computing science paper than a genetics paper. It’s more my area of expertise than Jeff Tomkins’ area.
In this paper I carefully reproduce a subset of Dr Tomkins’ results, and show clearly and unambiguously that Dr Tomkins has fallen victim to a serious bug in the software used to obtain his results. It is this bug that causes Dr Tomkins to report the erroneous figure of 70% similarity. After correcting for both the effects of this bug and some non-trivial errors in Dr Tomkins’ methodology, I report an overall similarity of 96.90% with a standard error of ±0.21%. This figure includes indels, and the result is largely in line with the secular scientific consensus.”
Frank: The article does go on to report that YEC Dr. Wile is most cautious about accepting this more recent research by Tomkins and Williamson again argues agains the findings and the revised figure of 88%.
However, there is marked difference between the comments of Williamson and your excoriating assaults on the character of Tomkins based on the findings of a derivatives trader with no qualifications in genetics or any other biological area.
James: This is simply because we are all too aware that when science and technology are involved, getting things wrong can put people’s lives at risk.
When, as Christians, we see the YEC organisations not only promoting extreme sloppiness in science, but also insisting that the authority of the entire Bible depends on it and denouncing anyone who questions it as “compromisers” and “faithless so-called Christians” … I think you can see why we’re scathing. That kind of attitude brings the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ into disrepute.
Frank: This is a strawman and a gross distortion of the YEC (and ID position) and I will be charitable in saying that you can only have accepted this version third-hand and not actually personally researched the matter.
The YEC organisations and individuals I know do not see acceptance of an old earth and theistic evolution as a salvation issue and that Genesis MUST be accepted in order to be saved. If you have come to believe differently to that which I have just said you are very much mistaken.
As a software developer I think I would be correct in saying that you must have an IQ somewhat higher than the average and that being the case it greatly surprises me that a man of your intelligence could actually believe that YEC’s promote and insist that being a saved Christian depends on accepting the literal account of Genesis.
Having said that I am in agreement with YEC’s who say that what is important is the issue of Authority. Do Christians accept the Authority of Scripture which is God’s revealed word to Man or do we accept the authority of science – which is fallen men discovering knowledge which is (using hyperbole) one day considered to be accurate and true until tomorrow when something else is discovered that replaces yesterday’s truth and so on and so on.
That subject is for another thread I suppose and will not labour the point at present.
I will however repeat what I posted previously to Steve Schaffner it was, I think, if Adam was not a real literal historical figure there was no sin and no Fall and there was no need for Jesus Christ to undergo torture and crucifixion – it was all for nothing.
Yes, I keep hearing about objections to Creation and ID but I’ve yet to see those objections backed up by any real hard facts and evidence.
James: What do you mean? The misconfigurations of BLAST, nucmer and LASTZ in a way that reports that human DNA is only 85% similar to itself, and the failure to correct or withdraw the resulting claims are evidence.
Frank: On this particular issue of 88%, given that Tomkins, published a new report in which he abandons his 70% figure, as far as I’m concerned the jury is still out.
IF it turns out that the figure is, say, 95% similarity that still equates to some 150 Million DIFFERENCES (I’m not shouting merely emphasising).
Furthermore, Darwinian evolutionary naturalism contain a huge number of holes: where are the fact and evidence that life originated in “a warm little pond” or “hydrothermal vents”? Where did the specified information - recognised by Bruce Alberts see my post in this connection – as indispensible to life come from? From where did an organism “acquire” new increased additional information of the type necessary for the organism to evolve into a higher organism? Bruce Alberts et al admits he doesn’t know.
Those are only few but very wide and bottomless holes in Darwinism.
Where in your picture of life as a theistic evolutionist does God play a role? I do trust you will not be as facetious as beaglelady who evidently is stumped for a coherent explanation.
A final point. Before you next resort to excoriating hostile scathing attacks on IDers and YEC’s whom you think bring the Gospel into dispute I will kindly suggest that you may just want to consider if the attitudes and behaviours which you exhibit are beyond reproach.