Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9041 total)
74 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ringo (3 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,916 Year: 3,562/14,102 Month: 182/321 Week: 42/59 Day: 3/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestiges for Peter B.
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 125 (17961)
09-22-2002 7:45 AM


peter, aren't you going to adress my vestigial DNA?

I think you should, if you claim science will prove there are no vestiges


Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by peter borger, posted 09-22-2002 7:58 PM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6597 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 77 of 125 (17986)
09-22-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by monkenstick
09-22-2002 7:45 AM


Dear Monkenstick

Sorry 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by monkenstick, posted 09-22-2002 7:45 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 808 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 78 of 125 (18049)
09-23-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by peter borger
09-22-2002 5:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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 can understand why you would write this.

quote:

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)."


Yes, I have heard of the thymus. I teach immunology. Can you explain when the thymus was seen as "proof" of evolution as a vestigial structure?
Can you then explain why it is no longer considered a vestigial structure? The 'conclusion jumping', as you call it (hmmm.... projection?) was due to a lack of evidence to the contrary. When evidence was uncovered to the contrary, a new understanding was possible. The only way that your absurd charge would have merit would be if evolutionists still insisted that the adult thymus is a vestige.
But that isn't the case, is it, Peter B.?

Of course, if one wants to talk abouit conclusion jumping, I suggest one go no further than the nearset creationist website. Or Peter B. post.

quote:

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?"


Yes, I do. You seem to have been doing quite a bit of it on this board. Of course, considering your humiliating forays into areas of science that are not your own, I don't think I am doing this.

I notice that you did not answer my question.

quote:

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"


Oh, well, pardon me. I guess that means that the entire farrago of 'vestigial structures' is a sham. Is that NOT what you intend? Or is this supposed to be something else?[quote]

quote:
SLPx:
However, this has nothing to do with the extensor coccygis or the auricularis group of muscles.

What - no statment of indignation?
No irrelevant snippet?
Hmmmm.....

quote:

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"


No, it is entirely warranted. You, a creationist, claim that "science" will 'proof' that there are no vestiges.
This claim has been circulating for years - maybe decades. Just like the claim that molecular biology will 'disprove' evolution, ala TB. Of course, that asinine 'prediction' was made over a decade ago, and the opposite seems to have more basis in reality than the creationist bombast.

No, quite warranted.

And what was your 'concern' again? That horses don't have a vestigial hoof muscle because it does something, therefore it can't be vestigial?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by peter borger, posted 09-22-2002 5:20 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 09-24-2002 9:37 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6597 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 79 of 125 (18059)
09-23-2002 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by nos482
09-20-2002 8:05 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 8:05 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:15 PM peter borger has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6597 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 80 of 125 (18061)
09-23-2002 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by nos482
09-20-2002 8:05 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 8:05 AM nos482 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 125 (18065)
09-23-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by peter borger
09-23-2002 9:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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


They don't know when the mutation occured which separated the sexes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by peter borger, posted 09-23-2002 9:51 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 1:34 AM nos482 has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 6597 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 82 of 125 (18091)
09-24-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by nos482
09-23-2002 10:15 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nos482, posted 09-23-2002 10:15 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 8:44 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Joe Meert, posted 09-24-2002 10:13 AM peter borger has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 125 (18115)
09-24-2002 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by peter borger
09-24-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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


Yup, you're a creationist alright since you don't have a real clue about evolution.

I already have and that is why I know that evolution is true and creationism is nothing but wishful "thinking". There is just too much credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence in favor of evolution and all you have is your bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 1:34 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 125 (18119)
09-24-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by nos482
09-20-2002 1:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by John:

Do you not understand that a smart teen capable of willful deception would, in a US court of law, be considered mature enough to stand trial as an adult in, for example, a murder case? Yet this same teen is not mature enough to decide to f#%k? Really, nos, that is absurd.

That has more to do with people wanting some kind of "justice" for out of hand children than any real sign of maturity. It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well. They'd probably execute children if they could.

No nation can truly call itself civilized which still executes its own citizens.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]


I agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 1:19 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 125 (18122)
09-24-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by nos482
09-20-2002 1:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well.

Both you and schraf are skipping over the question of when we become adults.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 1:19 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 10:15 AM John has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 125 (18124)
09-24-2002 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by derwood
09-23-2002 1:49 PM


Oh, oh, oh! Are we talking about horse anatomy and evolution? I have a degree in Equestrian Studies and have worked with horses for about 20 years now.

Horses have a lot of obvious vestigial structures, such as the splint bones on either side of the cannon bones. They are vestigial tarsal bones left over from when horses used to have multiple digits. In fact, they articulate the knee joint at the top, but then taper away to nothing about 2/3 down the leg.

A picture:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/CEN213(31)a.gif

Here is what AiG says about splint bones in horses, with my comments:

quote:
"In particular, the horse?s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs.

The splint bones, unless they have been through stress or traumatic injury and have therefore become calcified and fused to the cannon bone, do not provide any strength to the cannon bone because they are only floating beside the cannon, attached with connective tissue. An injury and inflammation in this area is common in young horses and is very painful.

I have no idea how the splint bones could strengthen the foot bones, either, because they are nowhere near the foot bones.

quote:
"They also provide attachment points for important muscles. And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse?s weight as it walks.24"

Horses can get along just fine without their splint bones, and I know this from first hand experience. In some horses the splint bones are so fine and thin that they would not provide much protection.

I notice that nowhere in AiG's article do they discuss why a bone that tapers away to nothing would articulate in a joint, and they do not discuss the common inflammation and injury to splint bones in horses.

Big surprise.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by derwood, posted 09-23-2002 1:49 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 8:30 PM nator has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4611 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 87 of 125 (18129)
09-24-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by peter borger
09-24-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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


So Peter, have you published any of your hypotheses yet? Arguing on these bulletin boards is interesting, but you know that this is not the forum for overturning a paradigm. So let's see you publish some of these ideas.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 1:34 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 8:21 PM Joe Meert has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 125 (18130)
09-24-2002 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by John
09-24-2002 9:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well.

Both you and schraf are skipping over the question of when we become adults.


When society says we are. In the USA it is 21, in Canada it is 19. In primitive cultures it is as soon as your body is old enough to reproduce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John, posted 09-24-2002 9:32 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by John, posted 09-24-2002 1:53 PM nos482 has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 125 (18150)
09-24-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by nos482
09-24-2002 10:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well.

Both you and schraf are skipping over the question of when we become adults.


When society says we are. In the USA it is 21, in Canada it is 19. In primitive cultures it is as soon as your body is old enough to reproduce.


You do not pay attention. In the US there are dozens of different ages of maturity depending on what you want to do, where you want to do it, who you want to do it with, and what sex you are.

Your reply is of course begging the question. You again gallop happily right over the important bits. Why 21? Why 19? Who set the age? Why do I believe them? Why is it OK that the age of maturity changes culture to culture?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 10:15 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 2:08 PM John has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 125 (18152)
09-24-2002 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by John
09-24-2002 1:53 PM


Originally posted by John:

You do not pay attention. In the US there are dozens of different ages of maturity depending on what you want to do, where you want to do it, who you want to do it with, and what sex you are.

Your reply is of course begging the question. You again gallop happily right over the important bits. Why 21? Why 19? Who set the age? Why do I believe them? Why is it OK that the age of maturity changes culture to culture?

It all depends on the cultural norms and other things such as population size, educational systems, male to female ratio, experience from observed behaviors at certain age levels, etc.

It is not as simple as you would want it to be. Sorry, but it seems that the cops won't be letting you bonk any young teenage girls any time soon and we can see just how much you want to do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by John, posted 09-24-2002 1:53 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by John, posted 09-24-2002 2:52 PM nos482 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021