I looked around the forum for the piece you posted asking me to gently dissect a claim about 5 mutations and such but I can no longer find it.

Perhaps some moderator mistook serious science for desecrating the flag. Anyway my recollection is that somewhere in there was a comment about 10,000 genes and one of my arguments against the piece having any validity was that the number was purely arbitrary.

Here we are, just a few weeks later, and proof of that is published.

Researchers Find Smallest Cellular Genome
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012184647.htm

From which I quote:
"Carsonella ruddii has only 159,662 base-pairs of DNA, which translates to only 182 protein-coding genes, reports a team of scientists from The University of Arizona in Tucson and from Japan."

I would say 182 a far cry from 10,000 and a clear demonstration of the fact that the items numbers were there to lend credibility to a fairy tale rather than to provide value.

Thanks Dan.

I came to the conclusion that the creationist piece wasn't serious science, but was an attempt to cobble some dodgy stats together to back up a conviction that had been reached on an intuitive or religious level and far divorced from any real evidence.

Thanks for more confirmation.

I would add that as I know quite a few Creationists, I wouldn't accuse them all of being dishonest, just lacking in good dispassionate scientific methodology.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"I know quite a few Creationists, I wouldn't accuse them all of being dishonest, just lacking in good dispassionate scientific methodology."

I would agree if we are talking about the parishioners rather than the clergy. Having had more than a few serious discussions with members of the clergy I have become convinced that they fall into roughly one of three categories.

2% ... seriously delusional
3% ... in need of criminal prosecution.
95% ... knowingly telling "white lies" with the best of intentions (more on this in November if you ask)

Dan,

I have to call you on this one.

You promote a scientific approach to understanding the universe, but you then quite happily come to the conclusion that 95% of clergy knowingly tell white lies, based upon a sample group of 'more than a few'.

You can't just abandon science when you feel like it. At best you can say that 'more than a few clergy knowingly tell white lies'. Anything else is conjecture without a solid base.

I know you're not stating it as fact, but simply that you have become personally convinced (so credit due there), but it says something about your thinking if you can become convinced with so little evidence.

Blacknad.

My percentages were tongue-in-cheek. That is why I indicated I'd tell you more off-forum. Sorry if the light-hearted nature of the response didn't come through.

Boy, do I feel like an idiot now - and rightly so.

Sorry.

Blacknad.

Please don't: That was not my intention.