Vestiges for Peter B.

Dear SLPxRegarding the coccyx in my own thread (!) (I am honoured):This is what I found on the internet:"The notion that it pulls the coccyx back into position after childbirth is unsupported."I say:
This does not mean that it does NOT have this function. Maybe it needs furher scrutiny. Anyway, the backbone has to end somewhere. It happens to be the coccyx.And:
"The musculature supporting the coccyx, along with every other pelvic bone, relaxes as a pregnancy approaches term. Post-partum (after birth), all muscles gradually return to their normal state, returning the pelvic bones to their normal positions."I say:
"Women who have had their coccyx fixated due to previous fracture have more problems giving birth to their baby, and this suggests a function in delivery. Any midwife can tell you this."And:
"Additionally, stating that 'movement of the coccyx during childbirth expands the birth-canal' is misleading. Yes, it does. The movement, however, is entirely passive - the result of the baby's head passing thru the birth canal."I say:
"But, if the coccyx wasn't there the baby had a hard time to pass the birth canal since it has to make a 90 degrees turn".In conclusion, I is doubtful whether the coccyx has no function.(ref: www-personal.umich.edu/~jsolum/yec/archive/coccyx1.htm)Maybe I will look up comments on the auricularis muscles too.
I will keep you informed.Best wishes
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-09-2002]

Dear SLPx,Sorry for skimming your post to quickly. I missed that you refered to this small muscle. However, as long as this muscle (and the other one you refered to) do not demonstrate signs of atrophy --yes you have to show me the references where they demonstrate that these muscles are atrophic-- these muscles are not vestiges.
I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)Peter

Dear SLPx,Once more sorry for addressing the wrong topic. (for my comments see below)Dear SLPx,
Sorry for skimming your post to quickly. I missed that you refered to this small muscle. However, as long as this muscle (and the other one you refered to) do not demonstrate signs of atrophy --yes you have to show me the references where they demonstrate that these muscles are atrophic-- these muscles are not vestiges.
I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)Peter

dear nos,You write:
"The reason why men have nipples is because the natural form of life is female, not male. If you look at the 23rd chromosome pair in men you will see that the Y is actually a broken X."I say:
What do you mean? The shape of the Y chromosome during mitosis? Observed through a light microscope? Or the DNA sequences? If you make such statements please back them up by references. Where did you find this information? According to my knowledge the Y chromosome has only a minor recombining part, demonstrating minor sequence homology with X.Peter

Dear Nos,Better start reading some SCIENTIFIC work on this topic. The Y chromosome is NOT a broken X chromosome. The Y chromosome specifies unique male-specific genes.BW
Peter

dear SLPx,I think you missed my message (#27).Peter

Dear SLPx,You write,"The extensor coccygis is not even present in all people. Indeed, most modern anatomy texts do not even list it or describe it.
Before I waste time with this, I will have to see evidence that you understand the terms I will be using, and have an understanding of anatomy. You failed utterly in your treatment of the foramen magnum, for example.My response:
"I did not treat the foramen magnum (yet)."I am an anatomist by education, so I do have a solid understanding here.My reply:
"Ever heard of the thymus? It used to be seen as a rudimentary organ that was not to be found in all subjects studies. Especially the older subjects. Why? Since it is primarily an organ used for the instruction of immune cells, and decays away afterwards. Of course it was eagerly taken as proof for evolution and presented as a vestigial organ. It turned out to be nothing but conclusion jumping (=unwarranted)."Do you understand what extension is?
Do you understand what muscles do?Lets hope so. If you do, then we can proceed."My response:
"Do you know what underestimating is?"In response to my:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say:
"I am all a tingle that you were able to search the lit and find this amazing disproof of all vestigial structures."I say:
"Excellent distortion. Where do I say that it disproofs all vestigial structures. It proofs however that the EVOLUTIONARY VISION ON THESE MUSCLES WAS WRONG"However, this has nothing to do with the extensor coccygis or the auricularis group of muscles.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)
Peter--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You have the overconfidence of a creationist.I say:
"And this is another unwarranted conclusion. Besides, you didn't address my major concern"Cheers (see you in the new thread)
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-22-2002]

Dear MonkenstickSorry for not responding, but I do not get a message in my email (anymore), so I have to find out for myself.
Regarding your question.
You mean the loss of/inactivation of a redundant gene? I really do not understand why everyone is so focussed on the loss of genes. My hypothesis of a multipurpose genome holds that the major part of the genes of an organsism is redundant anyway (e.g. 98% of the genes of Arabidopsis, or 10% of the Ecoli genes can be removed without any problem), and according to this hypothesis --since there is no selection on these genes-- they will easily be lost. Not a problem for me to explain. However, the evolution theory cannot explain redundant genes since they are in the genome without selection. It would implicate a rapid evolution (=change) of these genes --as explained before-- but that is not the case. (this has several implications for ET that I will address elsewhere). So, in contrast to the hypothesis of evolution the hypothesis of a multipurpose genome explains this phenomenon.BTW, I read the article you referred to and you find the best evidence for common descent (Johnson and Coffin, PNAS 1999). As a matter of fact and as stated by the authors it is all based upon three ASSUMPTIONS (page 10255, last paragraph). If you read my response on pseudogenes you also get an impression how I see pseudogenes. Furthermore, the authors provide one falsification of common descent: the RTVL-Hb HERV (figure 2G). So, a close look at the article you refer to demonstrates that common descent deduced from endogenous retroviruses is not at all compelling. Evidence for common descent simply depends on the DNA region one studies (see also my reference in: Genetica 1996).best wishes,
Peter

Dear Nos,Mammuthus posted some reviews. They demonstrate that the X is not a broken Y. Their conclusion is "that the PAR (pseudoautosomal region) are relics of differntial additions, loss, rearrangements and degradation of the Y chromosome in different mammalian." My conlusion: nobody knows the origin of the Y chromosome (specific genes).Peter

Dear Nos,Mammuthus posted some reviews (mail #69). They demonstrate that the X is not a broken Y. The authors of the most recent review conclude "that the PAR (pseudoautosomal region) are relics of differential additions, loss, rearrangements and degradation of the Y chromosome in different mammalian." My conlusion: nobody knows the origin of the Y chromosome (specific genes).Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-23-2002]

dear Nos,They don't know WHEN the mutations occured AND they don't know WHERE the genes came from. Before mutations to occur there has to be a gene, isn't it? Or before losses, translocations, rearrangements, and degradations there has to be a lot of genes, isn't it? As a matter of fact nobody knows where they came from, and evo's simply ignore the question. Evo's BELIEVE that is just popped into existance and creo's believe it has been created. I already mentioned that we are not able to trace back the origin because of genetic uncertainty. So, apperently we have two believe systems: one is atheistic (evolutionism) the other one is theistic (creationism). That's what the fuss is about. But, it is just a matter of choise. Get familiar with the matter involved. Read opposite opinions, falsifications, and falsifications of falsifications. Keep what is good and you will find the truth.best wishes
Peter

dear Joe,
I am trying to publish on this topic. I've send a letter to Nature on non-random mutation, and I got it back: rejected. So, not yet any manuscripts accepted. Of course, I could get it in a creationist's journal, but that is not what I want. I like to have it real scientific impact. So, I am still working on it. But, as mentioned before it is hard to fight an established paradigm.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Schraf,It is just a matter of paradigm. The guys from the AiG overstress the functional bit (because it has been designed and it is in decay now), while evo's overstress the redundant, functionless bit (since it evolved and is a leftover from ancient times).Luckely I can see through both paradigms,Peter

dear Schraf,You say:
"No, the AiG people have their facts wrong. It's not just that they have a different perspective, which is true, but it's that they are simply wrong, and they also leave out facts which point away from design."I say:
"Leaving out facts is also a common habit to popularise the hype of evolution. For instance, gene trees not matching family trees. I proposed several times to discuss the IL-1 beta genes so if you like..."And you say:
They are counting on the fact that very few people have intimate knowledge of horse anatomy (unlike me), and that's why they can say things like "the splint bones support the foot bones" with a straight face. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.I say:
Same can be said about evolutionists. I checked several evolutionists' claims that could not hold (entirely) and posted them here.You say:
How does the evolutionary explanation "overstress" anything? It simply examines all the evidence, including fossil evidence of the ancestors of the modern Equus, and makes an observation.I say:
There is also Spetner's book. The odds that the story on horse evolution is the whole story (without directed mechanisms) is highly disputable.You say:
You know, sometimes modern horses are actually born with additional bones/limbs on their legs. Did you know that? Why do you think that is? Could it be that Equine ancestors used to have multiple digits and every once in a while the DNA that codes for that structure gets "turned on" again?I say:
'Some humans are born with 6 fingers, or with facial hair. It has nothing to do with atavistic traits. It could be explained as deregulations of genes involved in developmental control, or even redundant genes that are activated in response to some external signals.
Also, some humans grow hairs on the middle-bone of their fingers other haven't, or some are able to curl their tongs while others can't. This reflect genetic variation of the multipurpose genome.'How, exactly, do you explain this in non-evolutionary terms?I say:
"With a multipurpose genome."Here is a link to a wonderful radiograph of vestigial toes in a modern horse:http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/...leo/pony11_1/Pe111.html#AtavismsAlso, why do you think that the splint bones articulate the knee joint if they never a weight-bearing part of the leg? How do you explain this without using evolutionary mechanisms?I say:
"Activation of the wrong (redundant) genes during development. If activation of these genes don't jeopardize the reproduction of the organism, why not. Eventually, these redundant genes may decay away, and will shape the ultimate form of the hippus. Than the organism is finished"Best wishes,
Peter

Dear whoever,Inresponse to:"JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.You say:
"Like most creationists he likes to start at the top instead of working his way up through a gradual process and adapting his paper because it is perfect already. "My response:
"If one finds something new, than it is a common thing in science to send it in as high as possible, and work downwards. I seems that you are not in science, since you would start submitting your findings as low as possible and than work upwards (sound like evolutionism) sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the way it works in science. It may be that you start submitting your manuscrips to the "Journal of Irreproducable Results", I don't. Besides, you can't work upwards. So, if you have a sensible contribution to the discussion, go ahead, otherwise be silent. And, thanks for the label (pretty predictive)".And you say:
"Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them."I say:
"Correct. So now I work downwards. Anyway, it was just a hypothesis".best wishes
Peter