What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut

how is the scientific process bad in anyway? i can't call it evil.

yea try asking a gay person if they would be better off living under christianity, or even an african. try telling muslim women that they are better off being oppressed. absolute morality is a position i can't agree with.

you previous post seems to say that evolution is part of the revealed truth that god has allowed you to discover, does it not?

The Nazi Holocaust was supported by the best scientific theory and data of the time.

Science itself is entirely amoral, lending itself to uses that are deeply evil.

No, the appearance of Evolutionary Theory as being applicable is part of the observed. There could be other reasons that are just as applicable (i.e: directed intelligent biological creation).

What???? The Holocaust was supported by what again??? Where the hell did you get that revolting claim?

From history, sadly it is as true as it is revolting.

Here's a link about it in the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

originally posted by: chr0naut


From history, sadly it is as true as it is revolting.

Here's a link about it in the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

Every despot, tyrant or warring nation employs the "science/technology" of its day (to the extent it is able). Inferring science somehow is complicit in any moralistic way (which you seem to be doing) because an insane cult used science or science based methods, is devoid of anything resembling intellectual integrity and a narrow minded fantasy. Surprised you left out Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

Though it is well known that German anti Semetism was largely motivated by Christianity via Martin Luther and his moronic (Christian) views which had caused simmering tensions for centuries and which the Nazis propagandised very effectively. Another example of how religion can be used to manipulate the minds of populations.

There are many parallels between Hitler and Luther (both Christians and creationists, by the way...Hitler mentions his "Lord Creator" in Mein Kampf). In fact some historians see the Holocaust as the continuation of Luther's fanatical and idiotic (Christian) anti Jewish crusade.

The line of "anti-semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw",[52] according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz. In her The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945, she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the real Luther.[52]

The prevailing scholarly view[42] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazi Party displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: chr0naut
From history, sadly it is as true as it is revolting.

Here's a link about it in the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

What a load of crap. I'm sorry but can you please NAME the exact theory that supported the elimination of non-arian races or that claims one race is superior to another and that all others should be exterminated? It's laughable at best that you would draw such an absurd conclusion from that. Of course he used science. That doesn't mean science supported genocide. The notion that you would try to paint science like that is what's really revolting here. Evolution has never functioned that way. An alleged best adapted species, changes when the environment does. It is temporary and Hitler's notion that blonde hair / blue eyes was in some way superior was nonsensical and had nothing to do with science. Of course he tried to sell it like science supported him, but it doesn't. He was genocidal madman that used propaganda as well as anybody. I highly recommend you cease and desist with this argument because you will get obliterated trying to justify that position.

a reply to: Barcs

I don't particularly like Chr0's... articulations(?), but he is partially correct in saying the Nazi's embraced science. Their medical doctors and engineers had to have embraced the scientific method in order to learn and do as much as they did (Despite the horribleness of their actions). That's about the extent of true science...
However, if we wish to discuss social philosophies which scientists of the time might have embraced (not science, mind you), he is correct in saying that Eugenics was quite popular. It is important to note, however, that eugenics was based more on faulty hypotheses and skewed data than anything else... A misapplication and general disinformation campaign of the time. It's harder to do that today as it is much easier to see the available experimental data and call BS on it if it is.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: chr0naut


From history, sadly it is as true as it is revolting.

Here's a link about it in the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

Every despot, tyrant or warring nation employs the "science/technology" of its day (to the extent it is able). Inferring science somehow is complicit in any moralistic way (which you seem to be doing) because an insane cult used science or science based methods, is devoid of anything resembling intellectual integrity and a narrow minded fantasy. Surprised you left out Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

Though it is well known that German anti Semetism was largely motivated by Christianity via Martin Luther and his moronic (Christian) views which had caused simmering tensions for centuries and which the Nazis propagandised very effectively. Another example of how religion can be used to manipulate the minds of populations.

There are many parallels between Hitler and Luther (both Christians and creationists, by the way...Hitler mentions his "Lord Creator" in Mein Kampf). In fact some historians see the Holocaust as the continuation of Luther's fanatical and idiotic (Christian) anti Jewish crusade.

The line of "anti-semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw",[52] according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz. In her The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945, she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the real Luther.[52]

The prevailing scholarly view[42] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazi Party displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look, I quite agree with you that the vilification of Jews is reprehensible, but you must realize that Luther was responding to vilification of non-Jews by Talmud following Jews (there were published Jewish works that implied that Jews should treat non-Jews as animals and that crimes committed by Jews, against non-Jews should not be counted as sin). Still, two wrongs do not make a right, the blame and wrong is with both sides.

In the case of Hitler, however, he utilized popular scientific and Christan ideas to promote his own agenda against a people unable to defend themselves in any way. Hitlers views and agenda were neither Science nor Christianity and he didn't stop at name calling.

The other thing is that Martin Luther died in 1546, a substantially less enlightened time than 379 years later in 1925 when Mein Campf was first published.

a reply to: hydeman11

Nazi also believed in mysticism... Science being used as tool was just the same as propaganda was used, or religion etc.

So, how did this discussion move to this track?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: hydeman11

Nazi also believed in mysticism... Science being used as tool was just the same as propaganda was used, or religion etc.

So, how did this discussion move to this track?

I'm pretty sure it evolved.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Barcs

I don't particularly like Chr0's... articulations(?), but he is partially correct in saying the Nazi's embraced science. Their medical doctors and engineers had to have embraced the scientific method in order to learn and do as much as they did (Despite the horribleness of their actions). That's about the extent of true science...
However, if we wish to discuss social philosophies which scientists of the time might have embraced (not science, mind you), he is correct in saying that Eugenics was quite popular. It is important to note, however, that eugenics was based more on faulty hypotheses and skewed data than anything else... A misapplication and general disinformation campaign of the time. It's harder to do that today as it is much easier to see the available experimental data and call BS on it if it is.

All powerful nations at the time embraced science. He is suggesting that the systematic elimination of one particular race or another was based on a scientific theory, and that is completely false. Eugenics is not evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Barcs

I don't particularly like Chr0's... articulations(?), but he is partially correct in saying the Nazi's embraced science. Their medical doctors and engineers had to have embraced the scientific method in order to learn and do as much as they did (Despite the horribleness of their actions). That's about the extent of true science...
However, if we wish to discuss social philosophies which scientists of the time might have embraced (not science, mind you), he is correct in saying that Eugenics was quite popular. It is important to note, however, that eugenics was based more on faulty hypotheses and skewed data than anything else... A misapplication and general disinformation campaign of the time. It's harder to do that today as it is much easier to see the available experimental data and call BS on it if it is.

All powerful nations at the time embraced science. He is suggesting that the systematic elimination of one particular race or another was based on a scientific theory, and that is completely false. Eugenics is not evolution.

Racial Science of the German People

At the time, many people thought it was science.

My point is that Science is entirely amoral, leaving it open to misuse. It is not benign because morality and ethics are totally outside its scope.

In the case of Dr Mengele, he was gathering valid scientific data, without limitation of ethical constraints.

Perhaps it could have provided breakthroughs that saved millions as Mengele claimed? Even so, the research should never have been done.

It was science. It was also evil.

And just for some balance, Wikipedia - Unethical human experimentation in the United States

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut

how is the scientific process bad in anyway? i can't call it evil.

yea try asking a gay person if they would be better off living under christianity, or even an african. try telling muslim women that they are better off being oppressed. absolute morality is a position i can't agree with.

you previous post seems to say that evolution is part of the revealed truth that god has allowed you to discover, does it not?

The Nazi Holocaust was supported by the best scientific theory and data of the time.

Science itself is entirely amoral, lending itself to uses that are deeply evil.

No, the appearance of Evolutionary Theory as being applicable is part of the observed. There could be other reasons that are just as applicable (i.e: directed intelligent biological creation).

What???? The Holocaust was supported by what again??? Where the hell did you get that revolting claim?

From history, sadly it is as true as it is revolting.

Here's a link about it in the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

Did you actually read the article you posted? The only mention of what became the "Holocaust" is a reference at the bottom to forced emigration. Any mentions above the last section (although focusing on the Jews . . . duh, it's a Jewish website) were equally applied to all foreigners, intellectuals, political opponents. Basically, anyone who was considered "non-Aryan" or not Christian.

These beliefs were based on the pagan beliefs of his officers, like Hess and Himmler. Supremacy of the "strong", strength through "beauty", strength through "purity". The tool of eugenics was simply adopted (not the cause) to bring about a new pagan order ruled by the "beautiful and powerful" Aryans. Eugenics, in NAZI doctrine, only played a role in the breeding programs (such as Hitler Youth) and sterilization programs for those deemed to have "degenerative issues".

That said, we can move on to some other relevant info. Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, "The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives," by saying: ""They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies."

The prejudice against the Jewish people rested in his Catholic upbringing and Christian beliefs. Their "treatment" was based on this prejudice, as was their attempted extermination. His views on this part of the population were well founded before Hess, Himmler, and Eichmann promoted the Aryan segregation.

The Nuremberg laws reference at the bottom of the article you linked to did not apply to only "Jews". It prevented the intermarriage (or "intermingling") of "Aryans" with ALL "non-Aryans" (despite a Jewish website only focusing on the Jews). They were in response to confusion or objection to what determined who was or was not pure. As, the Jews were the largest "minority" in Germany they specifically reference them in proceedings, due to hundreds of years of "interbreeding" in Germany. The "solution" was to force emigration of all German/Austrian Jews (along with any other non-Aryans) in the country, as the general population was resisting these notions of purity and generally opposed to the Nuremberg laws (not "intermingling" with the Jewish population) . . .

The actual "Holocaust" part of this segregation had nothing to do with eugenics . . . that was purely based on prejudice and hatred, and supported by Hitler's own writings and speeches.

Rather disgusting when people try to insinuate that the "final solution", as opposed to the "first solution" of forced emigration, of eliminating the Jews was based on the pseudo-scientific belief of eugenics. More so, when those that choose to deny the legitimacy of evolutionary theory try to muddy the waters with this pseudo-science having anything thing to do with the actual science. It's intellectual dishonesty of the highest regard.

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: chr0naut

how is the scientific process bad in anyway? i can't call it evil.

yea try asking a gay person if they would be better off living under christianity, or even an african. try telling muslim women that they are better off being oppressed. absolute morality is a position i can't agree with.

you previous post seems to say that evolution is part of the revealed truth that god has allowed you to discover, does it not?

The Nazi Holocaust was supported by the best scientific theory and data of the time.

Science itself is entirely amoral, lending itself to uses that are deeply evil.

No, the appearance of Evolutionary Theory as being applicable is part of the observed. There could be other reasons that are just as applicable (i.e: directed intelligent biological creation).

What???? The Holocaust was supported by what again??? Where the hell did you get that revolting claim?

From history, sadly it is as true as it is revolting.

Here's a link about it in the Holocaust Encyclopedia.

Did you actually read the article you posted? The only mention of what became the "Holocaust" is a reference at the bottom to forced emigration. Any mentions above the last section (although focusing on the Jews . . . duh, it's a Jewish website) were equally applied to all foreigners, intellectuals, political opponents. Basically, anyone who was considered "non-Aryan" or not Christian.

These beliefs were based on the pagan beliefs of his officers, like Hess and Himmler. Supremacy of the "strong", strength through "beauty", strength through "purity". The tool of eugenics was simply adopted (not the cause) to bring about a new pagan order ruled by the "beautiful and powerful" Aryans. Eugenics, in NAZI doctrine, only played a role in the breeding programs (such as Hitler Youth) and sterilization programs for those deemed to have "degenerative issues".

That said, we can move on to some other relevant info. Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, "The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives," by saying: ""They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies."

The prejudice against the Jewish people rested in his Catholic upbringing and Christian beliefs. Their "treatment" was based on this prejudice, as was their attempted extermination. His views on this part of the population were well founded before Hess, Himmler, and Eichmann promoted the Aryan segregation.

The Nuremberg laws reference at the bottom of the article you linked to did not apply to only "Jews". It prevented the intermarriage (or "intermingling") of "Aryans" with ALL "non-Aryans" (despite a Jewish website only focusing on the Jews). They were in response to confusion or objection to what determined who was or was not pure. As, the Jews were the largest "minority" in Germany they specifically reference them in proceedings, due to hundreds of years of "interbreeding" in Germany. The "solution" was to force emigration of all German/Austrian Jews (along with any other non-Aryans) in the country, as the general population was resisting these notions of purity and generally opposed to the Nuremberg laws (not "intermingling" with the Jewish population) . . .

The actual "Holocaust" part of this segregation had nothing to do with eugenics . . . that was purely based on prejudice and hatred, and supported by Hitler's own writings and speeches.

Rather disgusting when people try to insinuate that the "final solution", as opposed to the "first solution" of forced emigration, of eliminating the Jews was based on the pseudo-scientific belief of eugenics. More so, when those that choose to deny the legitimacy of evolutionary theory try to muddy the waters with this pseudo-science having anything thing to do with the actual science. It's intellectual dishonesty of the highest regard.

Intellectual dishonesty?

What about history of America's unethical science or the Japanese research on WW2 POW's or Dr Mengele's research or hundreds of other misapplications of science?

If you want to ignore the truths of history and imagine yourself on the moral high ground amidst all these ethical giants of research, then delude yourself away...

I was talking about science, in general, being amoral, in response to someones suggesting that religion was evil and science totally benign (and they called for an example).

Evolutionary Theory, is another issue. I have spoken about my questions regarding evolution and none of the details, links and such provided by anyone has yet provided any sufficient answer to; in science or in reasoning. Where I have explored their submissions, I have posted my conclusions but no-one has, or seemingly, can, assuage my doubts, instead responding with personal invective like your previous post.

Let me explain, a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that draws a conclusion that does not acknowledge other possible conclusions that could be drawn from the data is intellectually dishonest, implying as it does that the interpretation given in the summary is the only one possible.

a reply to: chr0naut

Moral high-ground? That's laughable.

Your assertion was that the Holocaust was "supported" by science. And, that assertion is completely fallacious.

If you wanted to make the assertion that science (even though all of your examples are beliefs in pseudo-science) has been used by immoral individuals that's fine and has some merit when proper examples are given. However, you didn't start with medical examples like Mengele or the Japanese on POW's. You went right to the Holocaust . . . which is completely false. Moreover, whether you are one or not, that is a very common "criticism" (or tactic) used by religious supporters of creationism against Evolutionary Theory and scientific advancement, in general. So, if it looks like and quacks like . . .

And, I'm not "ignoring history" . . . as I was responding to the exact example you provided to support your assertion. You even made the claim that it was supported by "history", even though the link you provided didn't "support" it. I'm quite familiar with the "history" of those times in Central Europe, not just from books or classes, but also because both sides of my family lived through it (or in some cases didn't).

So, you can deflect all you want . . . But, yes, your "example" is the height of intellectual dishonesty and one that has been used for decades by creationists for the "shock value" it provides, despite there being NO truth to it.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Let me explain, a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that draws a conclusion that does not acknowledge other possible conclusions that could be drawn from the data is intellectually dishonest, implying as it does that the interpretation given in the summary is the only one possible.

Didn't we already establish that what you call peer-review paper by creationist was plagiarism and that most scientist don't even take it into serious discussion, because honestly - it is very hard to discuss with someone in denial state such as creationist, especially young creationist.

For example, here you are trying to prove that one paper questions whole theory of evolution, questioning if there was enough time for evolution to happen - where 99.99% other papers show not that is just possible, but IT HAPPENED, as we have so many fossils that support ToE.

Another example is Ken Ham discussing Bill the science guy. If all evidence points that he is wrong - Ken Ham still believe in his book and all mythological stories...

It is the same with you, my friend. You choose to believe rather then check what 99.99% of other scientist have to say on ToE.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut
Let me explain, a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that draws a conclusion that does not acknowledge other possible conclusions that could be drawn from the data is intellectually dishonest, implying as it does that the interpretation given in the summary is the only one possible.

Didn't we already establish that what you call peer-review paper by creationist was plagiarism and that most scientist don't even take it into serious discussion, because honestly - it is very hard to discuss with someone in denial state such as creationist, especially young creationist.

For example, here you are trying to prove that one paper questions whole theory of evolution, questioning if there was enough time for evolution to happen - where 99.99% other papers show not that is just possible, but IT HAPPENED, as we have so many fossils that support ToE.

Another example is Ken Ham discussing Bill the science guy. If all evidence points that he is wrong - Ken Ham still believe in his book and all mythological stories...

It is the same with you, my friend. You choose to believe rather then check what 99.99% of other scientist have to say on ToE.

Please read my post. It was clearly talking about another paper entirely.

In the paper I was referring to, the authors made comparison between Gorilla and Human albumen protiens and from that concluded that there was a common ancestor as recent as 5 million years ago. As far as I could see, the authors conclusion was only one of several possibilities one might draw from the data and they omitted to make any mention of the alternates.

Going back to the previous post ages ago that you were referring to, no-one (including you) had provided an actual scientific rebuttal of the 'Creationist' paper, and so the conversation has moved on to other topics. Perhaps you should also move on, rather than higlight your non-addressal of the actual point.

I will admit, you seem to have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of Creationism and its popular mouthpieces (far better than mine). Perhaps that is why you steer the conversation continually back towards the topic?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please read my post. It was clearly talking about another paper entirely.

In the paper I was referring to, the authors made comparison between Gorilla and Human albumen protiens and from that concluded that there was a common ancestor as recent as 5 million years ago. As far as I could see, the authors conclusion was only one of several possibilities one might draw from the data and they omitted to make any mention of the alternates.

So what is alternate?

Let's conclude, may we, that ID is not alternate to Theory of Evolution. ID and creationism are just wishful thinking based on no evidence. (That was first sentence of of OP - I am creationist, wasn't it?)

originally posted by: chr0naut
Going back to the previous post ages ago that you were referring to, no-one (including you) had provided an actual scientific rebuttal of the 'Creationist' paper, and so the conversation has moved on to other topics. Perhaps you should also move on, rather than higlight your non-addressal of the actual point.

In science extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence in someone trying to manipulate numbers to prove that ToE is not possible, when all other claims and evidence points that is quite possible.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I will admit, you seem to have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of Creationism and its popular mouthpieces (far better than mine). Perhaps that is why you steer the conversation continually back towards the topic?

Again, that (Creationism) was first sentence in opening OP. You might be perhaps on wrong thread all along...

a reply to: SuperFrog

In the second paragraph of my previous post an alternative to the authors conclusion that there was a common ancestor @ 5 million years ago would be that there was no such common ancestor at that point in time and that the similarities between the six proteins (3 for humans, 3 for gorillas) was just that, a similarity. It could have been based upon adaptation of proteins inherited from a much earlier common ancestor, or perhaps there was no common ancestor at all. Or the genes giving rise to the proteins could have been transferred (horizontally) by some method. Or it could have been a mix of all of these ideas.

Nothing to do with Creationism or ID at all.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

In the second paragraph of my previous post an alternative to the authors conclusion that there was a common ancestor @ 5 million years ago would be that there was no such common ancestor at that point in time and that the similarities between the six proteins (3 for humans, 3 for gorillas) was just that, a similarity. It could have been based upon adaptation of proteins inherited from a much earlier common ancestor, or perhaps there was no common ancestor at all. Or the genes giving rise to the proteins could have been transferred (horizontally) by some method. Or it could have been a mix of all of these ideas.

Nothing to do with Creationism or ID at all.

So you honestly believe that they did not take into account all of this possibilities and go with most likely one, one that they have evidence as how it happened?

With your logic, it would be easy to apply that they should in every research also add that it is possible it was created by God (just example, as you did not really invoke any creationism thoughts into this) to every research.

originally posted by: chr0naut
At the time, many people thought it was science.

Yes, and most Germans also were not even aware of the holocaust for years. People thought flat earth hypothesis was science too, but it wasn't. Just because Germany tricked its citizens with propaganda, doesn't mean that science actually supported genocide.

My point is that Science is entirely amoral, leaving it open to misuse. It is not benign because morality and ethics are totally outside its scope.

Science is amoral. It's a method, but like I said in earlier posts, the knowledge gained is inherently good, even if temporarily abused by insane madmen.

In the case of Dr Mengele, he was gathering valid scientific data, without limitation of ethical constraints.

There is no valid scientific data that supports the notion that aryan races were superior to others. These people were hand selected by Mengele and others as being superior with no scientific justification whatsoever. It was all lies and propaganda.

Perhaps it could have provided breakthroughs that saved millions as Mengele claimed? Even so, the research should never have been done.

It was science. It was also evil.

It wasn't science. It was their misinterpretation of it that was used to push an agenda (just like creationism lol)

The PEOPLE did "evil" deeds as they attempted to use science to support their cause, but in reality there was no justification, just the ravings of a nonsensical madman.

Stop posting as if science is at fault for the way it was abused during that time. Science tells people how things work. How they apply that knowledge to the real world is the issue. I could name dozens of wars that were caused exclusively by religion. Attempting to blame science for its use or misuse in your eyes is nothing more than very weak scapegoating, in an attempt to attack science erroneously.

Also could you please link the peer reviewed scientific creationist paper? From what I've seen there has only been ONE published, and it was done so by a dishonest editor who didn't even review it or go through the proper channels before publishing. He was later discredited as a result.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

In the second paragraph of my previous post an alternative to the authors conclusion that there was a common ancestor @ 5 million years ago would be that there was no such common ancestor at that point in time and that the similarities between the six proteins (3 for humans, 3 for gorillas) was just that, a similarity. It could have been based upon adaptation of proteins inherited from a much earlier common ancestor, or perhaps there was no common ancestor at all. Or the genes giving rise to the proteins could have been transferred (horizontally) by some method. Or it could have been a mix of all of these ideas.

Nothing to do with Creationism or ID at all.

So you honestly believe that they did not take into account all of this possibilities and go with most likely one, one that they have evidence as how it happened?

With your logic, it would be easy to apply that they should in every research also add that it is possible it was created by God (just example, as you did not really invoke any creationism thoughts into this) to every research.

There were several equally likely and reasonable conclusions. They only published one. Up until the time they published, the most likely common ancestor was the Chimp/Human one at 50 million years. Their work identified that there was a possibility that a Gorilla/Human common ancestor existed much more recently, although there is no other corroborative evidence for this. I would conclude that they chose the most sensational conclusion so that they would get recognition, academic and popular.

They should have stuck to conclusions supported by the data. The minute that they raised a speculative conclusion, they should have identified it as such and mentioned alternate possibilities suggested by the data as being equally valid.

To write their conclusion and name their article in such a way as to suggest it was the only, or most likely conclusion, was unethical, but it did give the authors recognition. Their motivation is clear.

a reply to: Barcs

The research of Dr Mengele produced on twins was supposedly to identify that heredity was more important than environment. These twins had limbs amputated unnecessarily and were infected with various diseases just to compare progress. One instance was that two twins were sewn together back to back to simulate cojoined twins. They died of gangrene. Most of the victims were then either sent to the gas chambers or killed by lethal injection (personally administered by Mengele)

Mengele published three peer reviewed scientific papers from his research.

It was a case of the misapplication of science.