Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

dear Mr. Pamboli,
It may be that you are a philosopher. Although I infer that you are a sceptic, you are not an objective one, since you start from an evolutionary stance. I am not a philosopher (although I have a PhD), and I will not challenge you on this topic. I will stick to the scientific facts (data). I know what data are when I see data (yes, I know I can doubt on what I see). Sorry, but I am not going into idle discussions about words. I leave that to philosophers. My objective is to demonstrate that there is something seriously wrong with the current hypothesis of evolution. I will not allow myself to be distracted.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
I will stick to the scientific facts (data). I know what data are when I see data (yes, I know I can doubt on what I see). Sorry, but I am not going into idle discussions about words.

---

The subject is neither idle nor about words. You accuse others of inferential errors but show no ability to actually determine what constitutes an inferential error.[B][QUOTE]My objective is to demonstrate that there is something seriously wrong with the current hypothesis of evolution.[/B][/QUOTE]You cannot do so. You would need to demonstrate that the inferences are unwarranted and this requires an understanding of what "unwarranted conclusions" entail.All you can demonstrate - indeed, all you have demonstrated is that there are conclusions that Peter Borger does not agree with. This is not science, merely personal prejudice parading itself in ill-fitting clothes as logic.
[B][QUOTE]I will not allow myself to be distracted.[/B][/QUOTE]That is good news. Your lack of understanding of the nature of inferential logic and your insistence on parading it is of great benefit to those of us who regard creationism as dangerous nonsense.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 09-24-2002]

SPLx, you also forgot another common Creationist tactic:Claiming educational and professional credentials which are called into question, and then refusing to provide evidence of claimed degrees, etc.

Dear Pamboli,In respons to your mail:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
I will stick to the scientific facts (data). I know what data are when I see data (yes, I know I can doubt on what I see). Sorry, but I am not going into idle discussions about words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The subject is neither idle nor about words. You accuse others of inferential errors but show no ability to actually determine what constitutes an inferential error.My response:
Okay, if you like you may set up the rules. Then we stick to your rules. I will stick to your definition of an inferrential error and/or unwarranted conclusion.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My objective is to demonstrate that there is something seriously wrong with the current hypothesis of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say:
You cannot do so. You would need to demonstrate that the inferences are unwarranted and this requires an understanding of what "unwarranted conclusions" entail.All you can demonstrate - indeed, all you have demonstrated is that there are conclusions that Peter Borger does not agree with.I say:
Apparently, the hype of evolution requires a philosopher to prevent it from becoming irrelevant. Well, I am impressed (NOT!).You say:
This is not science, merely personal prejudice parading itself in ill-fitting clothes as logic.I say:
"This whole discussion with you is not science".quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will not allow myself to be distracted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That is good news. Your lack of understanding of the nature of inferential logic and your insistence on parading it is of great benefit to those of us who regard creationism as dangerous nonsense.I say:
So that's what it is all about. I already thought when will it be introduced. Well, Mr pamboli, it maybe that I could care less about creationism than you. All that matters me is the truth, and since the hype of evolution is untrue, there may as well be creation. I already met several obstacles in getting my unconventional ideas heard. So, your philosophical NON-sense will not keep me from proceeding. Finally, Mr Pamboli, I invite you to set the scientific rules. I will obey them.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

I say:
Actually, science is proving that much of evolutionary claims are wrong. I already discussed several socalled vestiges, e.g. i) thymus, ii) tonsils, iii) appendix, iv) horse hoofmuscles, v) junk DNA, vi) genetic redundancies, etc.

---

Horse hoof muscles?HOOF muscles?Horses don't have any muscles in their hooves. They really don't have any muscle in their lower legs at all. Their lower legs, from the knees and hocks down, are pretty much made up of bone, connective tissue, tendon, ligament, and skin, with a little bit of circulatory system.What the heck are you talking about with "hoof muscles?"You really must stop claiming that you have refuted something that you obviously have not a single clue about.------------------
"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"

dear Schraf,Another attempt to discredit me?As a non-native english speaker I thought they were called like that. However, as a self proclaimed horse-expert you should have read the Nature article I refered to. Apparently, you didn't otherwise you would have known what I was talking about.best wishes
(oye, I am not your personal enemy. I simply do not believe the hype anymore. I have already demonstrated my very good scientific reasons. So, stop blaming me, instead blame science)
Peter

[B][QUOTE]Okay, if you like you may set up the rules. Then we stick to your rules. I will stick to your definition of an inferrential error and/or unwarranted conclusion.[/B][/QUOTE]The point, Peter, is not what I think is an inferential error: you are the one claiming inferential errors in others, and making rather a point of it - yet you cannot say what constitutes such an error. You are right: I am a sceptic. And like you I am sceptical about facts - because facts can be, and indeed often seriously mistaken. So, were I to propose a hypothesis - which I have no interest in doing - my emphasis would be on my system of inference firstly. Most serious theoretical scientists - as contrasted with empirical scientists - consider these issues very seriously indeed.My point, by the way, was that YOU cannot prove or disprove anything by YOUR methods. You have made some interesting observations in previous posts, but they are entirely worthless without a consistent logical framework within which to set them. [B][QUOTE]All that matters me is the truth,[/B][/QUOTE]I see no evidence of this as you show no particualr interest in how the truth may be determined. [B][QUOTE]I already met several obstacles in getting my unconventional ideas heard.[/B][/QUOTE]Seriously, I think the only substantial obstacle is your own lack of logical consistency and inability to demonstrate any form of objective reasoning. Unconventional ideas abound in science. I attend many brainstorming and future-scoping seminars with scientists, and they are never short of unconventional ideas to promote. Indeed they revel in it.Finally, it is not for me to set the rules. I merely observe. You are claiming there are rules which others break - when you do, please be good enough to detail what the rules are and wherein lies the breach.

Dear Mr. Pamboli,The rules of the hype have been set in the NDT. Since my interests are very broad, I read a lot and occasionally I encounter weird stuff. Weird stuff articles break the rules, and I decided to blow the whistle as soon as non-randomness with respect to mutations was found or neutral selection has to be introduced. As a matter of fact, they both have to be introduced to explain the observations in the genome. I posted these findings to theoretical evolutionists all over the world but --as reiterated-- no response. This site: denial and ignorance. I don't believe it! There may be a mechanism that introduces mutations, and knowing it may lead to the development of intervention mechanisms to fight of eukaryote-mediated deseases. It seems to me that rather the hype is protected than to concur the possible existance of non-random mutations in eukaryota and the beneficial effect for mankind it may have if we elucidate the mechanism. That is what matters me. So, now I am dragged into the EvC debate and I will have to demonstrate that the hype is false. Since I have a reasonable scientific knowledge and do not advocate the hype, I am encountered as an paria and constantly personally discredited. It may well be that the hype is the best scientific theory regarding the origin, but I am not interested in the best scientific theory. I am interested in what truth is, and based on what I know it may well include creation. I already hear them say: "See, we knew it, he is a creationist." Well, I don't mind, since I'm also a stoic.Best wishes
Peter

so you're ready to claim that mutation is non-random, even though you can't propose a mechanism, and you've only "observed" it in a single gene (after the fact, by INTERPRETING sequence data, without knowing anything at all about the gene's function)this is why I have no doubt that you're not a scientist and never have been. Scientists don't make claims this ridiculous without a lot more evidence than you've presented

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mr. Pamboli,

​

The rules of the hype have been set in the NDT. Since my interests are very broad, I read a lot and occasionally I encounter weird stuff. Weird stuff articles break the rules, and I decided to blow the whistle as soon as non-randomness with respect to mutations was found or neutral selection has to be introduced. As a matter of fact, they both have to be introduced to explain the observations in the genome. I posted these findings to theoretical evolutionists all over the world but --as reiterated-- no response. This site: denial and ignorance. Peter

---

JM: Now, I suspect you are a post-doc somewhere when you post naive statements such as these. One does not take a scientific finding and post it to discussion boards in an effort to overturn paradigms. One does not 'post' their findings to other researchers in an effort to overturn a paradigm. You've already built the complete conspiracy theory on your mind in an effort to supress the alternative. Maybe your science is just plain bad or poorly thought out. If you are really a Ph.D. in some science (I have no reason yet to doubt this is true), then you should have learned the process that modern science operates under. You have an idea, you can present it at a conference to get some initial feedback. You then publish the idea and sometimes this requires a few rounds of rejection. Get over it! I recently had a paper rejected by Nature, we revised it, sent it back to Nature where it was rejected again. We then sent it to Science where it was rejected (sans review). We still thought we had a good idea so we sent it to Geophysical Research Letters where it was rejected on what we thought were shaky grounds. We sent it out for comment to an expert in the field that was being challenged only to find out that his post-doc had reviewed the paper and incorrectly interpreted our conclusions. We sent the paper back to GRL where it is now in press. You have to do one of two things when people reject your ideas. You can reformulate, pay attention to the critiques and resubmit OR you can claim conspiracy against you and go into a shell. You seem to have chosen the latter approach for now. I dare say that unless you come out of your pity party, your scientific career will quickly close.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
SPLx, you also forgot another common Creationist tactic:

​

Claiming educational and professional credentials which are called into question, and then refusing to provide evidence of claimed degrees, etc.

---

Indeed. Hovind uses a similar ploy. I saw him 'debate' a few years ago, and his opponant pulled out some primary source refs and showed that Hovind was not only wrong about one of his frequent claims, but that he has known that he was wrong for some time now yet still uses the erroneous claim.When it was Hovind's turn to reply, he just marched out, held up a bible and said, "So, you're calling me a liar? Thats OK, I know the TRUTH!" Pretty much verbatim.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Schraf,

​

Another attempt to discredit me?

​

As a non-native english speaker I thought they were called like that

---

Funny, there is no reason to suspect that if one reads the article.Of course, I find it odd that a non-native english speaker would find such things so difficult to phrase properly and yet seems to have no problems with the more colloquial jargon (e.g., blah blah blah (NOT!))

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
I am interested in what truth is, and based on what I know it may well include creation. I already hear them say: "See, we knew it, he is a creationist." Well, I don't mind, since I'm also a stoic.

---

Hmmm... Looks like we were right after all, and the denials were just... false witness?

Well, peter B - if that is your real name - I see that you are getting thoroughly intellectually spanked over in this thread, so I am not sure why you would 'challenge' me to respond to your piffle.Folks like you are a dime a dozen.

[B][QUOTE]It may well be that the hype is the best scientific theory regarding the origin, but I am not interested in the best scientific theory. I am interested in what truth is, and based on what I know it may well include creation.[/B][/QUOTE]I think this little nugget sums up Peter's position pretty accurately. He seems to think he can shortcut to the truth based on his own intuition. Science, for him, seems to be little more than a multiple choice test, with the answers to be looked up in the afterlife. Science as a self-correcting process - as a method for converging to the truth - would appear to be of no interest to him.Like others here, I suspect he is no scientist at all, but rather a flaneur on its byways. He does rather a good job of discrediting himself, rather than relying on others to do it for him.