My repeated challenge: 'Still waiting on you addressing the lie you have repeated that humans and bananas share 75% (or is it 60%, you gave two difference answers, both lies) of their DNA. I just want to know how you arrived at this figure given that the reference you yourself gave to support your claim:
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0107/27/national/
national22.html given that this URL provides this exact quote: 'He said the banana genome, with 600 million 'letters', was a fifth the length of the human genome, but probably contained as many genes - about 30,000. Perhaps 30 per cent of them would be similar to those in animals such as humans.''
Jabriol's typical response when presented with unavoidable evidence that he has lied (yet again) is to desperately throw out as many irrelevant straw men as he can lay his sweaty hands on, or to completely snip the difficult bits, or to move the goalposts. The latter is his method du jour as we now see him claiming, 'OK I goofed, we are rodents.'
Just six words, but even this minimalist admission of his lying contains yet another Jabriol Lie(TM)!
Note that he has not only failed absolutely to account for his comprehensive incompetence and blatant lie, but he has now thrown out another URL: which both highlights his embarrassing stupidity and underlines his expert incompetence.
After claiming he goofed, and that we are rodents, he gives us a URL that makes not a single mention of rodents! It actually talks about how much alike human and chimpanzees brains are. So Jabriol's brain-dead reference actually supports evolution and further whips the rug from under him!
He schizophrenically believes that he can avoid his lie that we are somewhere between 60 and 75% banana by admitting what he has spent months trying to deny - that evolution is a fact and so it is entirely unsurprising that yet another scientific investigation has uncovered more similarity to the great apes!
This is from the rank idiot who has been posting 'The Budikkka Hole series'. First he hides it away and misspells my name in the hope I won't be able to find it and respond, then he is forced to admit to it because he's been so embarrassed by my highlighting his continued inability to list even one hole in the theory.
Now he quietly starts yet another thread instead of adding it to the half-dozen existing threads where I am still waiting on his reponses to various challenges and questions! Instead of starting new lies, Jabriol, why don't you go back and deal with the unmet challenges and unanswered questions littered throughout a half-dozen threads that you have quietly abandoned when you realised how out of your depth (or is it out of your tree?) you are?
The hilarious thing is that Jabriol has been unable to either support or defend a single thing he has posted in any of his threads. After claiming that the Theory of Evolution is full of 'colossal holes', he has been unable to post even a simple **LIST** of these holes, let alone articulate one of them and support it with evidence.
He has repeatedly quoted 'references' so poorly that you actually have to seriously dig to find them, or that are simply not findable, such as his 'reference' to an article published in a South African newspaper over 20 years ago. That was the article (written by a journalist, not a scientist) that he posted without permission in mid-August. It claimed there were colossal holes in the Theory of Evolution. The article listed not a one of them, nor did it referenced any such list. I have been asking Jabriol for a list ever since, and he cannot supply one.
In the meantime, he has been digging colossal holes for himself all over the Internet. He gave a poorly referenced quote that he pretended was a _New Scientist_ article calling evolution into question. It turns out this 'reference' was to a creationist letter that _New Scientist_ published as a courtesy. Jabriol is so stupid, he thinks this equates to a peer-reviewed science paper published in a professional, refereed science journal!
He insisted that there were no transitional fossils. When I refered him to the talk.origins archive summary of such fossils, he then moved the goal posts and claimed the t.o. archives are not peer-reviewed. Leaving aside his glaring hypocrisy in that he himself has never posted a peer-reviewed reference in his life (reference his current post where his every 'reference' is a news article which makes unsupported claims), the *fact* is that the t.o. FAQ is bolstered by over 70 references, many of which *are* to peer-reviewed articles published in professional science journals!
He cluelessly whined that evolution is unscientific since it cannot be observed. I quoted him the t.o. FAQ on observed speciation, so he once again was forced to move the goalposts and give his 'not peer-reviewed' whine. T.o. articles are informally peer-reviewed by other t.o. regulars, and once again this FAQ was supported by over 70 references, many of which are, again, to peer-reviewed papers.
Jabriol has yet to find the courage to address any of this. Keep snipping Jabriol if that's what it takes to make you feel good about yourself. Everyone else knows what a whimpering chicken you are.
Yet another unreferenced bald-assed straw-man from Jabriol. He should know better. One of the challenges I presented him with, that he ran crying from, was a news item about our similarity to mice, and how difficult did he think it was for a common ancestor to evolve some 300 genes in 60 million years to turn into either a mouse or a human.
Jabriol predictably avoided that challenge, but he is now admitting how similar humans and mice are and implicity, therefore, how easy it is for one to be linked to the other via a common ancestor. This means he has made a complete about face on his colossal holes lie! Just how hard would it be, Jabriol, for a common ancestor to mutate one base pair every two years over 60 million years? Got a headline for that?
Another unreferenced claim. It may be true, but unless Jabriol offers a reference, we don't know if it's true or another of his common or garden Jabriol Lies(TM). This, again, from the hypocrite who derides talk.origins for their articles not being peer-reviewed! What a maroon!
Another unreferenced claim.
So the figure du jour is now fifty? Just making sure. 'Cos a short time ago it was 75, until you yourself highlighted what a blatant liar you are by actually giving us a reference! After that it became an unreferenced 60. Now you are going to settle for fifty because you saw it in a headline? Well that's solid scientific evidence, isn't it - it was in a headline somewhere online so it must be true.
Can we take it that Jabriol is implicitly admitting he lied about the 'colossal holes' in the Theory of Evolution since the URLs he is offering here (still no peer-reviewed stuff, I might add, just to remind him how hypocritical he is to demand of others what he cannot supply himself) are all supportive of the Theory of Evolution?
Remember that this information is from someone who repeatedly complains that talk.origins FAQs are not peer-reviewed, yet here is offering as his 'evidence' a headline from an article that itself has nothing whatsoever to do with research! In fact, it is nothing more more than a brief feature on a visiting PhD!
And so what? What if it did, when the *facts* were known, turn out that we share 50% of our genes with bananas? How does this even remotely support Jabriol's vacuous argument that there are 'colossal holes' in the Theory of Evolution? Well quite simply, it doesn't! Unless he can show that comparatively, the genomes of various species fly completely in the face of accepted evolutionary theory, all Jabriol is doing with his 'references' is supporting the undeniable fact of evolution!
Once again this new item references the similarities between the banana genome and the human genome - something we **would expect to find** if evolution is a fact.
Unfortunately for hypocrite Jabriol, who demands peer-reviewed papers from others but offers news headlines himself, this article not only offers not a single shred of evidence, it doesn't even quote a specific percentage! Jabriol is stealing a blank check to buy his way out of trouble here! Once again, the reference Jabriol offers could well be reporting the same 30% number that his original reference showed him to be lying about - a fact that Jabriol has yet to deal with.
So Jabriol, have you yet come to terms with the fact that no evolutionist claims modern birds descended from modern reptiles, so no argument from incredulity, no matter how ancient it is, using this as its basis, has any bearing on the fact of evolution, and does not even remotely begin to approach a 'colossal hole' in status?
Well here we are then. Once again, in yet another thread, I am still awaiting your list of these colossal holes. Once again you are snipping issues to which you have no answer.
This from the hypocrite who accuses others of ad hom!
Keep snipping, asshole - every time you do, you admit you cannot answer the questions, cannot meet the challenges, cannot offer the evidence, cannot even **LIST** the
