84% Chimpanzee: The NONSENSE CREATIONISM of Jeffery Tomkins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- You may have heard humans are "ONLY" 70-89% similar to chimpanzees, and you may have heard that from a creationist in your life or online. They might have told you Jeffery Tomkins, a creationist geneticist, has turned the human/chimp relationship on it's head. These creationists are wrong, and I'm here to explain why using Tomkins' own methods.
A few months ago I released a video debunking Jeffery Tomkins. I received criticism and pushback for some of the claims in that video, and a handful of these criticisms were warranted. As such, I have performed a series of additional experiments to clear up exactly WHY Jeffery Tomkins is incorrect.
I've unlisted the original video for SEO purposes (I don't want folks getting the wrong idea as to why Jeff's wrong) but I want it available so no one thinks I'm SHIRKING my mistakes. You can find it, and a video addressing criticisms, below.
A few times in this video in demonstrating Tomkins 2011-2014 weighting scheme I use the following formula: (average length/average qlen) * 100 = percentage.
This should be (average nident/average qlen) * 100 = percentage. (this actually makes the numbers ~1% worse).
This does not impact the listed results for organisms pairs as I reran the weighting for each, as can be double checked using the write-up linked below, but simply applied to on-screen demonstrations of the calculation.
All analyses for Tomkins methodology were redone for this video. Methods and tools found here:
github link: github.com/mis...
Write-up:
"Human and Chimpanzee Genetic similarity; an Appraisal of Creationist Analyses":
docs.google.co...
Addressing Criticisms: • A Professional Creatio...
Original video: • "80% Chimpanzee" | The...
Sources are listed by name where relevant.
Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrig...
open.spotify.c...
Socials:
gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
@Gutsick_Gibbon
Support the channel!
/ gutsickgibbon
www.redbubble....
Excuse me, but i resent the implication that i am even 80% generically similar to Jeffery Tompkins.
And if i descended from Tompkins, why is there still Tompkins?
Sorry to bust your bubble but Erika only provided the ungapped %. if she would have used the gapped you are in fact 96.5% similar to Homo Tomkins
@@franciscomendezlacomba3856 'When I use a number’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean.'
🔥
Think of it this way: humanity is a big experiment, and Jeff is the control group. Everyone else is the group “can human DNA produce an intelligent being.”
Be thankful to Jeff, control groups are very important. As his 2nd paper proves, by not having one and failing to catch a bug xD
I kinda wish the title was “84% Chimpanzee: 100% Nonsense.”
Sugar cookies, please.
ha ha ha!!
That Q&A with Jeff is so spooky. He's asked basically the same question twice, doesn't register that it's the same, and gives 2 completely different answers.
Yeah, I noticed that! And i was wondering why that wasn’t brought up and pointed out by Erika. She must have thought it wasn’t the main point of the issues with his answers lol
She did mention that his two answers kind of contradict each other, but didn’t really mention that the question was essentially the same thing
Well the poor guy looked as if he hadn't slept for at least three days, so no wonder there...
So a quick explanation of this video;-
1. In the initial video, Jeff was wrong and Erika pointed this out. In detail. With tables and diagrams.
2. In a reply video, Rob Carter pointed out Erica had made a mistake in her video but conceded that Jeff was indeed wrong.
3. In this video, Erica corrects her error (The one that Rob pointed out) and then goes on to show why it means that Jeff is even more wrong than he was previously but because of her error she hadn't noticed. Again using tables and diagrams.
Your move Robj / Jeff
Guy should pivot to software testing: he seems really great at finding hard to replicate bugs, given how many times he has relied on them.
Most software doesn't test for the inability of the professional researcher to do seventh grade math
@@muskyoxesexactly, they need him on staff
A whole night of Gibbon goodness 😂
Happy new year Erika ❤
It's insanely refreshing for someone to actually go through their process in looking at and analyzing data. We don't *need* to just trust you, we can *see* your process right here. You're presenting the information like, oh I dunno, a scientist?! This ought to be much more common, and I'm grateful that you set the example of good science communication that you do.
"This ought to be much more common,"
most data is... not exactly proprietary, but kinda sorta.
iow, you as person not publishing in field x usually cannot get hold of the raw data scientists use to form their conclusions.
the genome projects are are public databases, the BLAST is a program you can either DL for free or buy publicly, so anyone can do the analysis.
plus these are all computer analyses.
as opposed to, say, erica studying morphological differences between hominim species, where you actually need to lay your hands on the bones.
maybe as public databases grow....
LOL. When Tompkins said genome sequence comparison software developers were rewriting code just because of him, did he mean because he keeps dishonestly breaking everything? And they want to prevent this spurious use of their software?
Yeah, probably changing the api or interface to throw "You're using this wrong" errors.
I know that I'm less similar to chimpanzees than many humans. But that's because I've had a hip replacement, bilateral knee replacements, and lens replacement cataract surgery. But, by the same token, I'm less similar to most humans than many humans. Thanks for your good-humored scientific honesty and great videos!
Lol me 2 got that Terminator hip
Genetically speaking, it's all the same
@@drsatan9617 you get that I was joking, right?
@@RobertFHarrison I didn't then, no... 🤦♂️
You sound like a living refutation of a gods perfect design abilities
Erica is the Hbomberguy of science UA-cam and I'm here for it, as always.
When holding a banana, you instantly get 10% closer to being a chimp genetically. This is where Tomkins's studies are flawed. See all of his test subjects were completely bananaless at all times. Thank you Erica as always for correcting this easy to prevent, yet oh so common mistake made when comparing human and chimp genomes.
That explains Ray Comfort's stupidity. But I did not know that Chimps were dishonest. Perhaps the dishonesty comes from some other phenomena.
Where's Ray Comfort when you need him?
@@aaronpolichar7936 He is obviously playing with the banana, that fits so godlike, in his behind.
@@freddan6fly He's still having some trouble with the soda can...
Otherwise known as "Comfort's Banana"
Thanks for translating science for the common folk. More unbiased scientists need to be doing this, otherwise the pseudoscientists will fill the space.
"otherwise the pseudoscientists will fill the space." - To be honest, evolutionism is losing ground.
I'm creationist because creationism is more firmly based on science than naturalism. Naturalists need presuppositions and preconceptions like “there is no ID”. Thus they break one of the most important principles in making science, namely the requisite for no prerequisite.
Naturalists consider methodological naturalism as the only acceptable method of research. However, methodological naturalism is not scientific if we insist that science must not reject any theories in advance. Holding preconception as the guiding principle of work makes atheistic research a pseudoscience, an ideology or even a religion.
The atheistic preconception of “No intelligent design allowed" has nothing to do with scientific thinking. Any observation that seems to point towards intelligent design is automatically abandoned. That's an ideological attitude, that’s pseudoscience. That's the reason why naturalistic science makes constantly false deductions, especially in genetics and biology, constantly correcting itself, still never finding the truth.
Creationist science has critical rationalism as the preferred method of scientific studies. In critical rationalism no theory is rejected for ideological reasons. Whether a research points to a natural or to a supernatural solution it is accepted, based on evidence only. Critical rationalism recognizes that our senses and other factors may get in the way between us as researchers and the researched reality. The worn out claim "evolutionists don't presuppose anything, they just go where science takes them" is not true. On the contrary, evolutionists break the most important principle in making science - the rejection of presuppositions and preconception.
“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. “… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.” [Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.]
Where the tuna sandwich?
Wow, this is, like, the perfect way to correct errors. I love that you unlisted the first one and included a link to it in the description. Keep up the good work. I would love to see more vids on radiometric dating in the future. Or anything at all, all your content is great.
"more vids on radiometric dating "
much better than the radioenglish system of dating.
it's called radioimperial @@vforwombat9915 😉
Gosh darn, Gutsick! You did a wonderful job of taking a highly technical subject matter and making it accessible to the average Homo Sapian (weighted, of course); not to mention making it entertaining as well. Please keep up the excellent work - the world really needs it.
Might Tompkins be experiencing some cognitive dissonance?
Thanks Gutsick Gibbon for the rehash. Your time and energy is appreciated.
Analogously, Tompkins: "Let's use apples to make my point, and oranges to refute yours!" Yup, that's fair! :(
Hi Erika, you made an amazing video! It provided the exact information I needed to help me debunk young earth creationists here in Brazil. If you're interested, Marcos Eberlin, who is the president of the Discovery Institute at a local university in Sao Paulo, is gaining a lot of attention here. I'm a biologist too, and I'm working to debunk their arguments. Right now, I'm preparing a video about genome comparisons between Homo and Pan because they (Intelligent Designer proponents) are spreading the information that it is a 1% myth, among other fallacies. I would like to ask if I can use some of your ideas and findings for the video, with proper reference to your channel. Thanks in advance!
Wow, fight the good fight, Noble Warrior! ❤
we need more people like you here in Brazil. in the US and Europe creationists are mostly seem as a joke and not taken seriously, but here we still have to deal with things like "maybe you came from a monkey, I didn't" every day, because even the most basic misconceptions are still prevalent thanks to the lack of science communicators combating them.
I’d love to watch any content you post on this - can you help any interested parties in finding it please
@@funfunfun18 Sure, at my Channel. The problem is that It is in portuguese.
Tomkin's publications, as well as various rebuttals, should be available in the public domain
Please tell me you're submitting a paper to the Answers Research Journal titled, "Complete Reanalysis of Genome-Wide DNA Similarity Within kinds Using the Tompkins Genome Analysis Protocol."
Hello again, Mr. Gibbon. Thx for helping out favorite gentlle & snarky gibbon share the data 🖖🌈💚
2:14:02 Edit: no, I don't believe him.
Science evolves and although mistakes are made, they are ( eventually ) corrected with better data and understanding of what is being studied.
Religion is static for the most part, and when ever events and evidence proves overwhelming, reluctant change does sometimes happen.
I trust science more than a religious leader who's education comes, maybe, from one book or one set of books. - I'm not knocking anyone's faith, just I prefer proof.
To quote a TV show : - " Science, bitch ! ".
Interesting how that old static book says that God made everything by his Word.
Now we use the language of mathematics to understand the universe and have found a colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters the longest "word" yet discovered.
Science compliments God.
Denying God is to deny science.
Yeah; always baffles me when a religious zealot seems to think that the fact that scientific beliefs change while religious beliefs stay constant somehow makes them more convincing.
@@Foulgaz3 🤦♂️
@@elguapo2831DNA isn't a code kiddo
It's analogous to code but it doesn't have letters
"Religion is static for the most par"
Not really. It keeps evolving to take advantage of the next generation of gullible chumps.
Tomkins has the same problem that all creation “scientists” have - they already know what result they want, and design their work to produce those results, rather than designing their work to disprove those results. Normal scientists aren’t immune to this, it’s part of why there’s a reproducibility crisis in many fields, but the fact that their work is fundamentally a priori makes it unscientific from an epistemological perspective.
"Now that you know how BLAST works..." ...I do?
I appreciate that you decided it was important to you to update the video, but still wanted to keep a way to find the original video to hold the incorrect parts to account. Good way of threading the needle between wanting the corrected version to be the one people see first (so they don’t come away with the wrong information), but also keeping the first version accessible to demonstrate a healthy way of admitting ones mistake.
A person that can admit their mistakes has integrity and commands respect. You have a wonderful channel. Thanks for that!!!!
@johnfox9169 - That's a bedrock foundation of science: mistakes get corrected and newly discovered data sharpens or ousts old data.
With religion, changes are either accepted only after overwhelming pressure and after a looong period of time or NOT AT ALL
[Buddhism is an exception. Many times, their teachings have been altered when new scientific data came to light.]
I have yet to hear about any Creationist who is honest.
I feel a bit sorry for Jeffrey. You'd think an omniscient god would give him the answer! Maybe if Jeff prayed harder, God would come through and defend His champion.
You can EXPLAIN it to them (creationists), but you can't UNDERSTAND it for them.
@thezieg - Very true.
Thoroughly enjoyed listening to you apply a scientific smack down on the illogical. 🙂
Hope you have a Happy New Year!
The fact that a Dr. in genetics is so willfully wrong about something so banal and easily accepted makes me question whether he should keep that doctor. No doubt Dr Tomkins worked hard for that PhD but the glaring mistakes in his recent work just aren't up to any standard in good science.
"but the glaring mistakes in his recent work just aren't up to any standard in good science."
i'm not gonna do this, but one could easily find his CV, check his published papers, and do an analysis of the quality of science behind the stuff he gets published in peer reviewed journals and this discovery stuff he is doing.
tho if he heads a lab he might not be first author on any peer reviewed stuff anymore.
still, if you find a large discrepancy, it would strongly suggest he's doing it intentionally.
@@vforwombat9915Why would he do that? Funding from creationist orgs?
@@johmyh14 he's a creationist. he might be letting his creationist agenda skew his methodology or even motivate him to be dishonest w his results.
if so, he might be much more rigorous w research not directly related to that agenda.
or, maybe he's just a crappy scientist.
Literally right after you said "to that I say, dear viewer," an ad for dog medication started.
Comedy like that is why I don't always use adblock
Another thing: right after the end of the email asking "something? Anything?" I heard a long silence. Turns out that was just the start of another ad lmao
Hah me too! On an atlas pro video he said “and in that note” and then an add that started with “buy the new…” popped up😂
I use UA-cam Premium nowadays, but I’m still plagued by the memories of when I chose to watch the 5 mandatory seconds of the ads.
The second she said “with that, dear viewers” I thought “oh here comes an ad” and immediately after went “oh silly me heh.”
Glad to hear my instincts were actually on point and that was indeed the moment UA-cam pushed an ad xD
Please compare YEC and the Tobacco industry playbook
Men and women should have different DNA because men have one less rib than women do.
Wait! What! They don't!? But, but, but...
I like both Gutsick Gibbons! 😁😁😁
I don't see what the problem is with creationists. It should be obvious what's going on here.
Bible god is a monkey.
In fact, an artist took descriptions of Bible god from the Bible and approximated those descriptions with modern measurements and came out with a figure with short legs, a broad torso, elongated arms and an unnervingly large head. Not 100% ape like, but pretty close (do not ask about the genitals).
Point is, even the Bible supports a simian deity.
Though, speaking of things the Bible supports, it also states very clearly that Bible god (or perhaps, Bible ape?) got its butt kicked by Chemosh.
So I don't know why the creationists are so invested in supporting this supernatural space hominid anyway when they could get on Team Chemosh and be real winners for a change.
What do these people think YEC God will.judge dishonesty and lying and deceiving? Seriously wondering about that.
The lack of control comparisons is THE fatal flaw here. Glad you pointed that out but it is really worth highlighting more.
I watched the premiere. If I had known it would be a 2 hour video, I wouldn't have watched it, I think. But you kept my attention effortlessly, awesome video, thank you. I love it. 💗
If god was behind it all, he sure used something a whole lot like Evolution didn't he?
About his response on about he's counting differences, my money is on the fact that he was caught red handed in a way and he knows he doesn"t have a good answer to that and pushed it under the rug.
DAYUM! 6 hours of the Princess of Primatology? It’s a Christmas miracle!
Well met. Don't forget to leave a like.
Great work Erica. Evolution is the truth. Thank you for your dedicated work.🎉🎉🎉 I wish you much respect in 2024 for your work.
Am I crazy to think that even 84% is a shockingly large number?
I have no frame of reference, but I would probably have been convinced that we were related if the number had been 10%. The fact that all organisms have DNA in the first place has me convinced enough.
Just think about it they are the only animals on earth that resemble us. It is only logical to think that we have the same origin story by that i mean evolutionary ancestor, even their mentality is like ours, social behaviors and much more, but those few remaining percentages make a big difference
With respect to the back and forth between Snelling and Williamson, it is clear that Tomkins (and Snelling) was stalling with the 8 month gap. They knew they were boned day one.
I have to say, even though I feel like I'm glossing over when she discusses gapped and ungapped analysis, somehow, it still sticks. I don't know how she did that. 😅
Honestly, I can't understand why is it such a problem for Jeff and co. Human is more similar to a mouse than butterfly, so what? All life is similar, human is more similar to a toadstool than oak, so why is 98% similarity a problem? If all other primates were extinct, human would still be closer to rodents than let's say whales. Would be 80% similarity to the closest living animal too much? Might be 50%?
Love seeing you post...
Gutsick gibbon? More like sassy gibbon. And I’m here for it. Thank you Erica.
A question I've been mulling is how much of the human or mammal genome aligns with that of simpler organisms such as, say, flatworms? At some point, the basic gene set for cells mitochondria, and such should be isolated. Perhaps there's a basic DNA sequence common to every Earth-bound species?
Apparently, Humans share around 20% of their DNA with roundworms. Flatworms share less DNA with us, but I can't find a percentage, despite the fact that tapeworm genomes were sequenced in 2013. All life on Earth shares DNA.
So there's similarity between genes, and there's similarity because the code itself. When you say "basic DNA sequence" you're probably talking about sharing the same genes. So there's a gene for hemoglobin, that protein that carries oxygen through your blood. Now their are different coeds for the hemoglobin protein, but it's still basically the same protein, and thus the same gene. Imagine two different copies of "The Lord of the Rings." One printing has American spelling with the word "color" and another version with the spelling "colour." Technically their are minor differences, but it's still the same book. So in this analogy it would be the same gene.
Humans share about 70% genetic similarity with flatworms. We also share about 60% with bananas. Because we're all evolved from a common ancestor. So most of the genes go into making all the cells work, and the rremainder is what kind of cells they are, and how they're arranged.
It's true that mitochondria have their own separte genome compared to the nucleus. What isn't widely known is that this genome is very, very tiny. It's sort of atrophied over the billions of years, and couldn't code for itself anymore. Most of the proteins used by mitochondrian have ended up transfering to the nucleus over time. In that regard, it's sort of like a vestigial organ for the cell, which Creationist hate since it's just more proof of evolution.
@@EBDavis111 Can you give me a source that says we share 70% of our genes with flatworms? All I can find is a reoccurring claim about acorn worms, which are not flatworms.
@jerelull9629, if you do a search for the phrase LUCA genome you should get some info on common DNA sequences. There is a NASA article that was especially interesting.
NASA link: astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/looking-for-luca-the-last-universal-common-ancestor/
Thank you both for an informative presentation and a comprehensive debunking of Tomkins' arguments. After this, I don't know how anyone would take seriously any claims Tomkins makes on genomics again.
I'm only 50% similar to myself.
If nothing else Tompkins is proving the absolute necessity for peer review.
Oh wow I was only half way through the first one!! ... ok here I go again
All those skulls need correctly sized Santa hats!!! 🎅
Genetics is the best evidence for Darwin and Wallace’s 165 year old theory of evolution. The structure of DNA was discovered in the 1950s which suggested the reason it transmits information from one generation to the next. It’s almost like a prophesy. And discovering we are related to chimpanzee is the prediction that Darwin and Wallace made in 1858. They might never have guessed how comprehensively and unambiguously they have been proved right, despite the best efforts of Tomkins to muddy the water.
Interesting how Francis Collin became a believer in God after heading the human genome project.
@@elguapo2831 What are doing is conflating the acceptance of evolution with non-Christianity. Christians can accept evolution; atheists can be skeptical of evolution. Is that interesting?
@@elguapo2831
Francis Collins was a Christian before, and even that being said, he doesn't buy into these YEC lies and he understands that evolution and common ancestry is absolutely true and has stated so.
@@psychologicalprojectionist What is evolving? Everything? Monkey is still a monkey, bacteria is still bacteria, a finch is still a bird. I would love to see a foot that is turning into a wing...fwing🤣
@@elguapo2831 that's how monophyly works. Every organism continues to be part of its paren't group, so bacteria _will_ continue to be bacteria, the same way humans will continue to be apes. What you're asking isn't something that evolution actually proposes, it's a strawman.
I'm atheist, but I think it's funny that the whole god story could be mixed with human evolution by saying that god was just picking what he wanted to look like and then setting on humans after billions of years of constant reprisal of the original design.
Oh how we love your new videos !!!
I can hardly believe that Thompkins' math I.Q. is so low.
Example:
X=2/4=50%.
Y= 4/100=4%.
Total=6/104=5.8%
But doing it his way would be (50%+4%)÷2=27%.
So is Thompkins stupid, or knowingly lying to make his point???? Either way, the world improves if we all ignore his "ideas."
Two videos in one day? I dunno what UA-cam is gonna think about that, but oh well I'm going to watch it anyways.
Re: deception vs ignorance. Don't forget wilfull ignorance and self-deception
@greenfloatingtoad - It seems like some of each.
young Earth creationist scientist?? How oxyMORONIC can a title BE? Not much more so than that little mouthful.
You might be surprised to find out how many scientists believe in God because the science overwhelming concludes that.
Unfortunately Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
I’m Christian, science doesn’t confirm or disconfirm the existence of God . Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience like astrology!
@@elguapo2831 Zero. There are zero creationist scientists.
@@EBDavis111 You still have a long way to go little mud skipper
@@elguapo2831 Maybe save it for the flat earth convention. They pretend they're scientists too.
The man has been questioned as well as his work within an important area of science. If he was to change his colors now the loss would surpass him. I suspect he find a way to become more deceptive in pretending that the answer is just beyond the current method to be definitive.
I don't buy anything he is selling.
If one is trying to measure absolute differences, measure it to the base pair. But if one is measuring relational distance, each mutation should be counted once no matter how big it is. Using absolute difference as a proxy for relational distance is fallacious in a way that plays into his hands.
Why does...its a picture book, but still a book....burns so deep😂
1:53:42 "It can't be incompetence, so it must be deception"
There is another option: cognitive bias.
If someone has an emotional attachment to a particular belief (like, say, that God exists, as they envision him), they can warp reality and logic to significant degrees to allow them to hang on to that belief. He "knows" humans and chimps are different "kinds", so any evidence that supports this is correct, and anything that points out that it's not is flawed. He'll reject any high similarity and keep tweaking things until he gets a low similarity, because the former is "wrong" and the latter is "right". He can begrudgingly accept an error in his method, while still holding that the result is somehow roughly correct - it helps if he can find a different method leading to a similar result.
No-one is immune to such bias, and that's why skepticism is important.
But there are limits to how much you can bend your perception of reality, before it breaks. Which is why it's very rare for professional scientists to have these sorts of views, because you'd have to do a lot of bending to explain away all the contrary evidence that you deal with on a daily basis.
Wait… when did you get married? Congratulations!
8:08 interesting how the hominoid least related to humans in your chart is the gibbon. Was that a factor when naming youtube channel Gutsy Gibbon, Erika?
Good to see you 🙂 👍
Does any of those creationists ever specify at which percentage humans and chimpansese are not related?
For every creationist who actually learns evolution, there comes a time when they have to decide if they want to remain honest or they want to remain a creationist. They can't do both. (I *think* this comes originally from Aron Ra, but Google was unable to confirm.)
You attribute the quote correctly.
Tomkins is a liar. That's MY opinion. Allow me to explain why I believe this.
The interview with him gave me a great deal of food for thought, and without that section I would be just as confused as you. What we need is a way to distinguish between the two main hypotheses at play here: Honest Mistake and Deliberate Deception.
The data alone simply can't do it. I've been around the debunking sphere FAR too long to think that there's ever a point where something is SO dumb that it MUST be intentional. There is no bottom to that particular barrel. This is why we need the interview: we need his mindset, not just his work.
So what we're doing is going through the combination of his work and this interview to build a case for both hypotheses, and see if either of them get knocked out by any particular data point. I'll spoil right now that no, neither one is completely eliminated, but the scales do tilt rather significantly after everything has been stacked upon them. This is why it remains my opinion, rather than a provable fact. But let's see how I got there.
The first hypothesis is the Honest Mistake Hypothesis (or HMH for silly people). This would hold that Tomkins is doing his best to do the work correctly, but his best is seriously flawed, and he only barely understands the field he's walked into. Already we have a slight problem here because he IS a fully-fledged Geneticist, though to be fair, only of plants, not animals. But some transferable skills would be expected, here...
(As an aside, if anyone knows their plant genetics, I would be very curious to know if the mistakes he's been making correspond at all to the differences between plant and animal genetics work, or if the same basic HSPS and Gapped vs Ungapped problems would mess up his results over _there,_ too. This would be a huge piece of evidence to place on the scale, and could easily solidify or reverse the results all by itself)
Tomkins's interview style is quiet and unassuming. The hesitation and uncertainty he shows as he answers each question with mostly nonanswers could well be the result of not knowing this subject particularly well, and so not having any of the off-the-cuff confidence and knowledge that an expert would have. He literally doesn't understand what he's being asked, and either runs off with a faulty assumption of what the question was, like with both of Erika's questions, or rambles about not knowing the difference between the two main ways of quantifying indels like in that first one.
Overall, while an interpretation of honesty is still possible, it does not at all paint Tomkins in a good light. He may be trying his best, but he's far, FAR out of his depth. He doesn't understand proper procedure or proper terminology, doesn't simply admit when he's out of his depth, doesn't acknowledge the mistakes that others have clearly shown he's made, and has even gone out of his way to attack the character of at least one person pointing out the flaws in his work. As the saying goes, when an honest man finds out he is wrong, he can either stop being wrong, or stop being honest. The BEST case scenario for Tomkins is that he's so inept at this task that he can't even understand that he actually IS wrong, here, and lacks the strength of character to scrutinize himself in order to find out why everyone keeps attacking him.
Which leads us very neatly into the alternative, the Deliberate Deception Hypothesis. The DDH posits that Tomkins knows full-well that he's wrong, but is doing it anyway for a cause. Maybe because he truly believes in the bible, like Erika said, maybe for his own fame, maybe to quiet the voice of doubt scratching at the back of his mind, who knows. There are numerous reasons to lie, and numerous ways to do so, but if any individual one of them is true, so too is the DDH.
I'm not seeing the typical Narcissistic angle here. He doesn't seem to be touting himself as the Destroy of Evolution, he's not bulling ahead with his previous claims as if they're the Forever Truth, and he's quite frankly far too quiet when given the opportunity to speak unquestioned. But I do see an option for a more ordinary form of liar here.
A very common tactic of pseudoscience in general is to remain as vague as you possibly can. Once you find yourself pinned to a specific point, it's easier to debunk that point and uproot your whole argument. This is why Flat Earth proponents so rarely try to produce maps. Any flaw in the map is a flaw in their worldview. But if they just say "it has to be flat", there's nothing concrete enough to bust unless you can somehow disprove the ENTIRE CONCEPT from every conceivable angle. And that's....not really possible, when they leave themselves so many places to hide, including unfalsifiability.
To put things simply: Everything Tomkins does here can be explained by "he's trying to stay as vague as he can get away with without leaving the fight entirely". He refuses to answer the indel question because once he picks one, we just run tests with controls on that version and show his "different kinds" hypothesis to be dead in the floodwater. He brushes off Joel Duff's question about the similarity between different canines, giving himself the perfect out no matter what the results show by saying there MIGHT be problems in the genome. Rushing _directly_ to that possibility is a pretty big red flag, especially when it's the entirety of his answer. He says it'd be a "fun project", showing his support for the idea, while immediately building in an escape hatch when it inevitably proves him wrong yet again.
This, to me, is what makes the most sense. We can explain his behavior by him being honestly attempting to find the truth, but being really bad at it, and having several distinct character flaws that all hinder his attempts in a plethora of unique and fascinating ways....
Or we can explain his behavior by saying he's trying to find any way he can to massage the data to make it look worse than it actually is, and when speaking on the topic remaining as vague as possible so he doesn't get pinned down to an undefendable position, giving him as much room to adjust the wheel-mounted goalpost as he can get away with.
While both of these are still possible realities, one of these explanations is far cleaner than the other, and accounts for all the bizarre facts in one neat, singular assumption: He's a liar and he knows it.
Again, this is not an ironclad fact. It is still an opinion, no matter what I say in support of it. But considering the sheer chonker of a comment I've created here, I hope it's very obvious that I do not come to this opinion lightly. While I'm still open to the possibility of being proven wrong (plant geneticists, call me!), I have no reason at this time to believe I am. But as Erika says: It's your opinion to make for yourself. If you take anything from this comment, let it be the data and logic I used to reach my conclusion, not simply the conclusion itself.
I am quite, quite confident that there is nothing unique in plant genetics that in any way explain his errors. The fundamental mechanisms are the same, unless I have missed something really huge. (BS in conservation biology, not genetics, but we do obviously look at genetics as part of that)
Thanks for this video, and for your work debunking pseudoscience nonsense.
Also, thank you for the links to the BLAST tools. I've shared them with some colleagues interested in comparing patterns outside of genetics. They're quite appreciative!
Genome?! You’re telling me this gnome had jeans?! 🤔
tbh I don't buy that a phd doesn't understand how to weight data. I think he elects not to and understands that the audience he's writing for are looking for any scrap of confirmation of their beliefs and so won't approach his work too critically.
edit: I should've realized anyone would reach conclusion, lol. Next time I'll comment after I finish the whole video.
If Tompkins were as good at achieving victory as he is at declaring victory, he'd have a couple Nobel prizes by now.
This is very good, it takes a lot of time to nail down all this fine detail, and make these videos, but it needs doing.
There's a starwoman waiting in the sky
She'd like to come and meet us
But she thinks she'd blow our mind
There's a starlady waiting in the sky
She's told us not to blow it
'Cause she knows it's all worthwhile
She told me:
Let the children lose it
Let the children use it
Let all the childrens boogie... .
Please, please, can you put chapters in your videos, we don't all have time to sit down for 2 hours in one go.
How the hell are you such an expert at dropping relevant meme videos for sections like cardi b and such... 😮😮😮
Erica accepting critques openly and in good faith from folks and making transparency almost tantamount to production; will hands down always be my favorite thing about this channel.
You have so much more patience than I, thank you so much for doing what you do. Both the debunking and just general anthropology videos are amazing!
As always thanks for your hard work in shutting down this bogus nonsense.
Erica is the best ❤
I don't believe him...
I laughed way too hard at the "But I noticed, Jeff!" interjection at 1:21:50.
i would love to see a creationist paper where they just use ai to compare pictures of humans and chimps. i think that would be hilarious
i dont believe him
That was an exhaustive coverage of this topic. I wouldn’t want to be on the other side of your scrutiny, especially if I was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a gullible following. Job well done.
I like how every image of the other great apes had the whites of their eyes showing just to spite that ever common creationist argument.
Just a thought. If man (an ape) was created in the image of God, is God an ape?
Mindboggling amount of determination and work to refute a pseudoscientist. I learnt a lot. One big Kudo！
1:58:45 If any scientist had no clue about a crucial detail of the method they used, they would face a heavy loss of credibility. Tomkins really seemed to not know what he was doing.
No, I can not believe he wants to "get to the bottom of this"
Shame on you Dr. Tomkins, you bloody bullshitter!
“Mom wake up! The menopause whale lady posted”
Wow I am in NO WAY a geneticist yet I can easily see the huge issue using ungaped pairs.....to compare genomes
Erica, i feel you do yourself a disservice by naming him a peer. To reach your level, he must climb to the top of the tower of Babel and beyond. 😂🤗
I definitely agree with your conclusion on Tomkins...a lot of science deniers (especially creationists, in my experience) loooove to cite real scientists based solely on their authority without understanding the science itself. And I think people like Tomkins rely on that. He can not weight anything because he's relying on the fact that an average layperson, much like your students, might not understand why you'd need to do that. All the lay creationists need is the number and confirmation that their already strongly held beliefs are correct.
I already really enjoyed the first edition of this video even though a lot of it is over my head, but I really respect your decision to re-upload with corrections!
Mr. Gibbon seems like a sweetheart
I hate how Snelling keeps saying Tompkins worked very hard on his paper🥺 Just because you work hard on something doesn’t mean it’s worth anything if you can’t acknowledge errors. Imagine defending your phd thesis, someone asks you a question or comments on something and you just say “I’ve been working very hard on this😢”
For someone with his education and experience, he seems to me quite hesitant and confused. I don't know about Thompson, but sometimes people tell untruths because they truly believe they are right and will be vindicated down the road. It's like the gambler who "knows" he'll hit the big score any second, until they take his car and his house, and his score never comes.
So Tomkins went apeshit over this data? How appropriate.
I watch this twice for education. Then twice more for entertainment.