Tag: Nature (journal) | Page 3 | Science and Culture Today

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
June 13, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Genetics
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, chimp genome, chimpanzees, common ancestry, common design, computer programmers, Discovery Institute, Donald Trump, Evolution News, geneticists, human genome, humans, National Museum of Natural History, Nature (journal), signage, Smithsonian Institution, Supplemental Data, taxpayers, University of Washington}

Challenged on the “1 Percent” Myth, Smithsonian Gives a Meaningless Non-Answer

_{David Klinghoffer
June 13, 2025

Evolution, Genetics, Human Origins and Anthropology

3}

Note to President Trump: I find this pretty disrespectful to the people who pay the bills at the Smithsonian. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Coppedge

Date
May 29, 2025

Categories
Ethics
Metascience
Science Reporting
Tagged
, accuracy, artificial intelligence, data, data science, evidence, Evolution News, fakery, fallibility, file drawer problem, fraud, generative ai, integrity, knowledge, Leipzig, Nature (journal), objectivity, peer review, PLOS ONE, PNAS, politicization, post-trust, predatory journals, pseudoscience, public trust, replicability, scientific reliability, scientists, suppressed evidence, The Conversation, transparency}

How the “Scientific Community” Undermines Its Own Trustworthiness

_{David Coppedge
May 29, 2025

Ethics, Metascience, Science Reporting

10}

The “file drawer problem” leads invariably to biased reporting. It refers to scientists deciding not to report negative results. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
May 27, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Exceptionalism
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), Casey Luskin, chimpanzees, DNA, evolution, gap divergence, genetic code, genetic difference, genomes, Gorilla gorilla, gorillas, human exceptionalism, human origins, humans, intelligent design, National Museum of Natural History, Nature (journal), orangutans, Pan troglodytes, Pongo abelii, primates, Progressive Cactus, signage, Smithsonian Institution, Supplemental Data, University of Johannesburg}

Letter to the Smithsonian

_{Casey Luskin
May 27, 2025

Evolution, Human Exceptionalism, Human Origins and Anthropology

9}

Unfortunately, the 1 percent myth is promulgated as fact at, among other places, the nation's own Smithsonian Institution. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
May 27, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Exceptionalism
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), ape genomes, biologists, biology, chimpanzees, chromosomes, common descent, diploidal genome, gap divergence, genome, genomic analysis, haploid, human exceptionalism, human genome, humans, Nature (journal), non-sex chromosomes, nucleotides, Progressive Cactus, Research, sex chromosomes, software, Supplementary Data}

Additional Method of Analysis Confirms Human-Chimp Genomes Are About 15 Percent Different

_{Casey Luskin
May 27, 2025

Evolution, Human Exceptionalism, Human Origins and Anthropology

6}

This number is only looking at the non-sex chromosomes. When you look at the sex chromosomes, the differences seem to be even greater. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Klinghoffer

Date
May 23, 2025

Categories
Human Origins and Anthropology
Intelligent Design
Zoology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), atheism, Brian Miller, Casey Luskin, chimpanzees, Darwinian evolution, environments, evolutionary icons, Günter Bechly, humans, immaterial genome, Michael Levin, National Museum of Natural History, Nature (journal), Plato, Plato's Revenge, Platonic space, protein-coding DNA, Richard Sternberg, science education, science media, Smithsonian Institution, Supplemental Data, zoos}

Immaterial Genome Meets the Human-Chimp “1 Percent” Myth

_{David Klinghoffer
May 23, 2025

Human Origins and Anthropology, Intelligent Design, Zoology

2}

Obviously, humans and chimps are a whole lot more “different” than 1 percent. But…they’re also a lot more different than 14.9 percent. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
May 23, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Origins and Anthropology
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), chimpanzees, common ancestry, DNA, evolution, gap differences, genetic difference, genetic similarity, genome, human exceptionalism, human origins, humans, intelligent design, junk DNA, Museum of Natural History, Nature (journal), Smithsonian Institution, waiting-time problem}

What’s the Best Explanation for Human-Chimp Genetic Differences?

_{Casey Luskin
May 23, 2025

Evolution, Human Origins and Anthropology, Intelligent Design

6}

We have broken a major story about a recently published study showing that the human and chimp genomes are 14.0 percent to 14.9 percent different. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
May 22, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Exceptionalism
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), ape genomes, brains, cell division, chimpanzees, DNA, genetic differences, genomes, human genome, humans, Jonathan Wells, misrepresentation, Nature (journal), Nucleic Acids Research, order of magnitude, repetitive DNA, zombies}

Genetic Differences Between Humans and Chimps Represent Functional DNA

_{Casey Luskin
May 22, 2025

Evolution, Human Exceptionalism, Human Origins and Anthropology

7}

I contacted the corresponding authors of the original study and they kindly offered their interpretation of the differences between the human and chimp genomes. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
May 21, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Origins and Anthropology
Science Reporting
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), ape genomes, bonobos, Bornean orangutans, chimpanzees, deletions, DNA, fact check, gap difference, gap divergence, gene duplications, genomes, Gorilla gorilla, gorillas, human genome, humans, insertions, Kateryna Makova, National Center for Biotechnology Information, Nature (journal), order of magnitude, Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, persistent scientific errors, Pongo abelii, siamangs, Smithsonian Institution, Sumatran orangutans, Supplemental Data}

Fact Check: New “Complete” Chimp Genome Shows 14.9 Percent Difference from Human Genome

_{Casey Luskin
May 21, 2025

Evolution, Human Origins and Anthropology, Science Reporting

14}

I suspect that this radical finding has implications — for human exceptionalism and more — that people will be discussing for a long time. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
May 20, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Exceptionalism
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), burying the lede, chimpanzees, common ancestry, David Klinghoffer, DNA, gap difference, genomes, human exceptionalism, humans, Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, Kevin Williamson, Museum of Natural History, National Review, Nature (journal), science journalism, Smithsonian Institution, statistics, Supplementary Data, zombies}

Bombshell: New Research Overturns Claim that Humans and Chimps Differ by Only 1 Percent of DNA

_{Casey Luskin
May 20, 2025

Evolution, Human Exceptionalism, Human Origins and Anthropology

7}

This finding should be major news in the science world, yet those involved don’t seem interested in highlighting the discovery. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Daniel Witt

Date
May 19, 2025

Categories
History of Science
Intelligent Design
Philosophy
Philosophy of Science
Tagged
, Andreas Wagner, Aristotle, biology, Brian Miller, calculations, Charles Darwin, Darwin's Black Box, Darwinism, Denis Noble, Empedocles, evolution, information, Irreducible Complexity, Jupiter, Michael Behe, Middle Ages, Nature (journal), neurons, Oxford University, Peter Corning, Plato's Revenge, Presocratic philosophers, René Descartes, telescope, Theodosius Dobzhansky, University of Zurich}

Settled Science Is Becoming Radically Unsettled: Get Ready for Revolutions

_{Daniel Witt
May 19, 2025

History of Science, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

12}

It might be early to say whether Richard Sternberg's calculations are correct — but the point is, this kind of calculation is only just becoming possible. Read More ›