Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

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.

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"

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. 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

---

Apparently, you didn't read the article in Nature either, because you wouldn't have used the term "hoof muscles" because it probably isn't used in the article.I don't believe for a second that you are having trouble with the language. I think you are attempting to blow smoke where it shouldn't go.Please provide the issue and page numbers of the article, or a link, so I can read it. I must have missed that thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Schraf,

​

Another attempt to discredit me?

​

Peter

---

​

Attempt? Succeed is more like it.

---

Well, thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Schraf,

​

It is good to see that you and Peter are in complete agreement.

​

Okay, de reference on the horse muscles.

​

The Nature paper is 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). Hay, that is new, dampening of vibrations by muscles!! Never thought off, before! Apparently, muscles are pleiotropic. Well, I am not surprised.

​

I also mailed it to SLPx and the paper is still open for discussion.
Have fun reading it.

​

(And if Joe Meert reads this. Horse articles in Nature? Is that appropriate? Well, Professor Meert, apparently it is something new)

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

Peter, the Nature article you cited about horses not only doesn't mention anything about "hoofmuscles", it doesn't say anything all about vestigial muscles in the horse!It is basically a really cool biophysics article which details and analyses how the "unique musculoskeletal adaptations" of the limbs of horses allow for really efficient movement and great vibration-absorption.It isn't that there was some muscle in the leg that people thought didn't do anything and now they have discovered that it absorbs vibration. It is that with greater study of what actually happens during loading and motion, they have discovered something new about the vibration-absorbing properties of the digital flexors.I think you might be referring to this quote, and I think you misunderstand it:"In summary, the apparently functionless but well-developed digital flexor muscles in the horse appear to act as dampers of high-frequency limb vibration rather than to flex the digit or tune the leg spring."Especially out of context like this, this could be misinterpreted. In the context of the study, what the authors are saying is that during a gallop the DDF muscle isn't actually used to flex the leg, as the analysis of the motion of the gait shows that it is the tendon loading and "spring action" that actually moves the leg, and that the large mass of the muscle actually functions more as a vibration reducer when the leg is under the gallop-like stresses/speeds the researchers confined their study to.However, no one doubted that the digital flexor muscles had a function, or thought they were merely vestiges - they just seemed overdeveloped, and didn't seem to function in gaits like the gallop where the spring loading of the tendons come into play in the gait. The digital flexor muscles are obviously used to flex the leg when the horse is just standing and lifting the leg for the blacksmith, for instance, or kicking at a fly.They just discovered something neat and new about why the muscles were so developed, which is why it got into Nature. Nobody ever thought that the muscles had no function at all, which would be the case if they were considered vestigial.Tell me, where have you read or heard that the DDF muscle in horses was ever considered vesigial, because it sure isn't what they are saying in the Nature paper? I've done a search around the net and haven't found anything.Bet you didn't expect someone with an Equine Studies degree to be on the board, did you? Too bad for you. Try again.

quote:

---

The articel proofs that these muscles are NOT "apperently functionless overdeveloped" muscles. It is in accord with my previous statement.

---

No, you originally stated that these muscles were VESTIGIAL.Peter, do you even know what vestiges actually are?YOU are the one who claimed that the article said that the muscles were vestigial, but it does not state or imply this anywhere in the article unless you use the really stupid and lame tactic of taking a phrase out of context.The authors clearly mean to say that the DDF muscles appeared functionless FOR FLEXING THE LEG AT THE STRESS LEVELS AND SPEED EXPERIENCED AT A GALLOP.They never meant to say that the DDF NEVER had a function and was considered vestigial.You are twisting the meaning of the article to make it say something it doesn't.You cannot show me where this was ever implied IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.If you want to play the lame Creationist game of picking phrases and quotes out of context, misunderstand them on purpose or out of intellectual laziness, and then claim a point for yourself, then go right ahead. You only make yourself look bad.You just skimmed the article and saw the catchprase "apparently functionless", (you admit that it "made you think of vestiges"), and you pretty much stopped right there. Later, you remembered the catchphrase and linked to the article as some kind of evidence that vestiges have now been found to have function.The only problem with you using this article in that way is that the article never states that the DDF is a vestige. Neither does it say that the muscle is functionless; that is, you notice that it doesn't say that if you bother to read the article carefully.You are no scientist, and you do not debate in good faith.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Schraf,

​

I also quoted the Concise Oxford Dictionary how it defines "vestige" and "vestigal". See my first posting. 1+1=2.

​

Best wishes, Peter

​

---

Just because you can cut n paste a definition from a dictionatry is absolutely no indication of your level of understanding of the term.

quote:

---

Vestige = a part or organ of an organism that is reduced or functionless but was well developed in ancestors.
Vestigial = atrophied or functionless from the process of evolution (a vestigial wing)

---

Please explain to me how the equine DDF could ever be considered vestigial or a vestige.I have explained how it isn't. If you cannot provide a logical, compelling argument, preferably with references to some kind of book or paper on the equine musculoskeletal system or similar, then you have clearly been engaging in the common Creationist tactic of finding a catchphrase in a paper which you think supports your position (when it actually demonstrates no such thing) and ignoring the rest.Actually, it's not always a "tactic", exactly.Often it is done out of sloppiness and a lack of disciplined thinking.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Schraf,

​

You say:
Please explain to me how the equine DDF could ever be considered vestigial or a vestige.

​

I have explained how it isn't. If you cannot provide a logical, compelling argument, preferably with references to some kind of book or paper on the equine musculoskeletal system or similar, then you have clearly been engaging in the common Creationist tactic of finding a catchphrase in a paper which you think supports your position...

​

I say:
As soon as I find something in literature that supports my claim you will be the first to know. But anyway, it also doesn't support your stance that it has been evolved. So it is a draft, you one point I one point. (You could have thanked me for focussing your attention on the excellent piece of research. If I find more like this hippus-stuff I will let you know)

​

(when it actually demonstrates no such thing) and ignoring the rest.

​

Actually, it's not always a "tactic", exactly.

​

Often it is done out of sloppiness and a lack of disciplined thinking.

​

I say:
"Still standing are the other vestiges that turned out to be no vestiges."

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

We aren't talking about the other ones, but I am glad that you have (kind of) admitted that this one has fallen by the wayside.Perhaps in the future you will be more careful to read and understand the papers you cite as support of your position. Of course, you have already not done this and been called on it several times, so I have my doubts.Oh, why wouldn't the DDF muscle have evolved to serve the vibration-absorbing purpose that it serves during a gallop? (It also serves the more mundand function of flexing the leg when the horse is standing or walking)There are variations of the size of the DDF muscle within the individuals of a population of Equines.They have to gallop a lot to evade predators. The ones with larger DDF muscles develop fewer stress injuries which are associated with vibrational forces. The ones which get injured due to the smaller DDF which do not absorb vibrations are not as able to evade predators, so they get caught and eaten. The horses which do not get eaten (the ones with the larger DDF) pass on the tendency to have larger DDFs to their offspring.This is called a beneficial trait.This is the scenario which has been observed over and over again in many different species with many different traits.Why is this so unlikely?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-27-2002]