RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 7, 2013 at 9:19 am
(November 7, 2013 at 3:21 am)orogenicman Wrote: Well, since you brought it up, I have to ask, how is it possible that you, a molecular geneticist, can, with a straight face, claim fondness for Tomkins' work, declaring that "he does know what he’s talking about", and yet in nearly in the same sentence call his work "terribly unscientific", "absolutely and unremittingly terrible" and "not honest"?After reading 4 papers by him, he knows a lot about genomes and how to study them- that much is clear. This makes his very bad work (as in the "chromosome fusion" paper) look very suspicious. Since he clearly knows what the evidence shows, such a terrible misrepresentation of it, along with evidence that claims what all evolutionary biologists have been saying (which renders it useless) and presenting this evidence selectively and disingenuously, can only mean he is deliberately lying (the other option would be that he is ignorant- and he has proven that he's not). Since his audience is going to consist largely of people who will be impressed by "sciency" language, he can get away with that, since I don't think he has many peers at his level of education to review his work.
The "chimp and human chromosomes" paper isn't VERY bad. It's just misrepresentative of others' work and has gaping holes in its study design. What he has done in it I believe he has done correctly- his evidence looks good to a layperson but is fairly meaningless as he has presented it. Still, there is a point of interest in the work itself, and I won't pretend there isn't.
It is absolutely possible to know a great deal about genomes and tell lies about them to other people. The work is a strange mix of correct terminology and selective but correct descriptions of our understanding of certain areas of chromosomes, combined with an utter disregard for facts he finds inconvenient. My fondness comes from the novelty of having a YEC speak my language.
