Question About Creationists

[Anomalocaris]

They did not select the samples for the trait, so unless you can prove correlation between the selection criteria and the trait being checked, for the purpose of the occurrence of the trait, the sample is still random and a statistically valid representation of the trait's occurrence in the overall population, moron.

[Abishalom]

They did not select the samples for the trait, so unless you can prove correlation between the selection criteria and the trait being checked, for the purpose of the occurrence of the trait, the sample is still random and a statistically valid representation of the trait's occurrence in the overall population, moron.

They selected the DNA segments to examine the sequences so I do not know where you got the "trait" part from...

[Anomalocaris]

Trait is whatever specific thing your experiment is design to examine, how can you be so utterly ignorant about experimental science and still have the gull to highlight parts of your post as if you could possibly have anything worthwhile to say about it?

In this case the trait being examined is the degree of difference in the sequencing of base pairs between the analogous sections of DNA of humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

If a difference of even just a few percentage over 1% is diffused amongst 3 billion pairs, the probability that 53 random but analogous segments of DNA totaling over 20000 pairs would exhibit statistical difference of only 1% is infinitesimal. The notion that the overall difference between the 3 billion pairs of these 4 animals is very close to 1 % can be asserted with very high level of confidence.

When scientists say "confidence", they have in mind a degree of certainty far more concrete, and assessment of caveats far more precise, and a foundation for rigorous understanding far more firm, than anything any faith head could ever grasp.

[popeyespappy]

Perhaps you’d like to try Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome?

Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.

No?

How about A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications?

We present a global comparison of differences in content of segmental duplication between human and chimpanzee, and determine that 33% of human duplications (> 94% sequence identity) are not duplicated in chimpanzee, including some human disease-causing duplications. Combining experimental and computational approaches, we estimate a genomic duplication rate of 4–5 megabases per million years since divergence.

[Minimalist]

At some point, Pap, we may have to realize that creatards are simply too stupid to understand evolution. As this cartoon explains.....




This might be the best they can manage. Good reason to keep them far away from science classrooms but they are clearly hopeless.

[Cyberman]

Sorry to return to the dead horse, just thought I'd mention that we made FSTDT - again - with this thread:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=87580

[Gooders1002]

Abishalom, Would you say your a Vertebrate? If yes would would you say your a mammal?