Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

dear SLPxWe already discussed a bit on vestiges.My concise Oxford dictionary says: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)Disappearance of traits over time due to not having functions sounds a lot like de-evolution to me. Not really interesting to discuss, since I can perfectly understand the loss of characteristics. I think it is not my personal opinion, if I state that the gain of traits/new genes should be the major evolutionists’ concern, not the loss of genes.However, most vestigial traits have been demonstrated to have unexpected functions, e.g. tonsils, appendix were demonstrated to have an immunological function. It was just a lack of knowledge that these organs were mistakenly thought of as vestiges. We cannot blame the 19th century evolutionist, since they didn’t know anything about immunology. However, the conclusion of evolutionists on these vestigial organs clearly was unwarranted.In addition, I already pointed out that as long as the vestigial muscles you referred to in a previous letter are not atrophic, they are not functionless and thus not vestiges. So, these are also UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS.And, yes, if you challenge me on this topic, I'll take the challenge. It is a nice opportunity to --once more-- demonstrate that the evolutionary conclusions on the genome (e.g. with respect to genetic redundancies, pseudogenes (?) and junk DNA) are completely wrong, outdated 20th century thinking (=unwarranted conclusions based on lack of knowledge of the genome).So, to start, what evidence can you present on the alleged vestigial muscles you introduced in another thread. Are these muscles indeed atrophic? And the whales femur, don’t they interact with muscles? And please keep it scientifically, so please avoid 'snoring' (very unscientific arguments), 'namecalling' (where did you learn about politeness?), 'labeling' (please leave labeling to taxonomists) etc. That would improve our discussion.best wishes,
Peter

Dear Pamboli,You write:"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Disappearance of traits over time due to not having functions sounds a lot like de-evolution to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I sometimes wonder if creationists..."My response:
Mister Pamboli, you make it too easy for me. How exactly do you conclude that I am a creationist?
So in the first sentence of the first response in the thread "unwarranted conclusions in ET" we observe the first unwarrented conclusion. And assuredly, it will not be the last....understand the concept of evolution at all: apparently not. The whole point is that evolution is directionless: there can be no de- or re- or para- evolution. Just evolution.I say:
If you had read what I try to convey for the last couple of months than you would know by now that it is not so indisputable that evolution is without direction. So, if you followed the discussion on "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation" you should know that I objected to the principle of randomness and supported my claim with several scientific observations (1G5 gene, the human ZFY region, the alpha-actinin redundancy). You are, of course, free to ignore/deny that and advocate the false hypothesis of directionless evolution. People like to be fooled, anyway.
Maybe you should also define "Just evolution".quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really interesting to discuss, since I can perfectly understand the loss of characteristics. I think it is not my personal opinion, if I state that the gain of traits/new genes should be the major evolutionists’ concern, not the loss of genes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly you would need to demonstrate why their is a qualitative, rather than merely quantitative difference between the two forms of change.I say:
Ever heard of the hypothesis of evolution? It includes the descent of man from microbe through a naturalistic process. Any biologist can tell you that it is associated with the occurence of new genes. In contrast, nobody can tell you where these genes came from. That is the big evolutionary secret.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, most vestigial traits have been demonstrated to have unexpected functions, e.g. tonsils, appendix were demonstrated to have an immunological function. It was just a lack of knowledge that these organs were mistakenly thought of as vestiges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------So you see a sort of "vestiges of the gaps" argument? Interesting. If you reject the concept of vestiges on the basis that they may have functions we do not yet know, you would presumably not object to someone rejecting ID arguments from irreducible complexity on the basis that some organs may have developed by pathways we do not know yet.I say:
If this is a valid analogy it may be that you are right. It implicates that both creationism and naturalism have the same validity, since both use the same elusive arguments. I mean, both philosophies rely upon things that cannot be proven or detected. It is all assumption. Inference, if you like.
In another thread I already mentioned that science as we know it will not bring clearance in the origin of genes, since we hit the limit of knowledge in this matter: genetic uncertainty. In my opinion, it implicates that everyone is free to believe whatever he/she likes. But, it can never be proven. Bottom line is that everyone is free to choose. Everybody should objectively look for themselves so they can make their own decisions. Next, choose the best option.You say:
ID and irreducible complexity......AND THE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION (PB)......are, by your lights, UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS based on lack of knowledge of evolutionary pathways."best wishes,
Peter

Dear SLPx,You say:
"Well, I am not Pamboli, and I plan on dealing with your thread opening post shortly, but here is why I think you are a creationist:1. Limited knowledge of topics does not prevent you from declaring your opinions to be beyond reproach. Examples: This thread, for one; your folly on the foramen magnum; etc.
This is acommon creationist trait. Read any post by Fred Williams - an electrical engineer - and you can easily see what I mean."My response:
All I demonstrated is that evolution is NOT AT ALL a fact as so often reiterated in the media. As a matter of fact I demonstrated that i) the the 1G5 gene violates NDT, ii) the human ZFY region violates the hype of evolution, iii) genetic redundancies cannot be explained by the hype of evolution (e.g. alpha actinin). All you do is i) deny it, ii) ignore it. I encountered these traits before while trying to get responses from evolutionary experts in the field. So, lack of response determined me to post it here. In my opinion evolutionists are ignoring a (huge) problem.
Why do you refer to Fred as being an electrical engineer? Even if he was an airguitarist in an airband his calculations seem pretty much okay. You could have demonstrated to me where he went wrong in his calculations, instead of calling us 'dumb and dumber'.
If you don't want a dialogue why did you register to this forum?You also say:
"2. The notion of yours that you have 'disproved' the NDT, yet are as yet unwilling or unable to provide a concise description of this falsification. Looking through other threads, I see you repeatedly write things like "I already explained it", yet looking back, there is no explanation at all.My response:
"Maybe you should look back further. You will even find the scientific references that back up my statements"Common creationist tactic - declare victory before the race began (for a HUGE example of this, see:
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_top... )
Common creationist tactic.You also say:
3. Taking evidence against your position and claiming that it is actually evidence for it.
Common creationist tactic (Williams exels in this one).My opinion:
"This item is redundant, since it is already covered by item 4."You say:
4. Proclaiming that evidence against your position is actually evidence for it despite not even reading the article which contains said evidence.
Common creationist tactic.I say:
This is an unwarrented conclusion. Having a different opinion on certain topics regarding molecular data does not mean that I did not read it. Besides, here you refer to an article you mailed to Fred Williams (the Science-article about the alleged Cairns recantation, remember?) and not to me. So, this item doesn't even make sense.Finally you say:
5. Proclaiming that 'science' will someday 'prove' that the evidence for evolution is false. Way common creationist tactic.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.You say:
While I have yet to see you write "I am a creationist", the clues are like beacons in the night. I understand that it seems to be the M.O. de juor for creationmists to claim not to be, to, perhaps, try to retain an air of credibility. Alas, it is too difficult to retreat from the all-too-common ways and means of the creationist.You ain't doing it, either.My personal opinion:
"You like mantras (favorite one: 'common creationist tactic' and possibly you also like the one that goes: 'evolution is a fact') and you like jumping the gun".Best wishes,
(Oye, I am not your personal enemy, I simply do not belief the story anymore)
Peter

dear Pamboli,An 'unwarranted conclusion' is a conlusion that goes way beyond the evidence. So, in fact it is speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with speculation but do not bring it as fact. Often even the speculation are based upon assumptions. Presenting speculations as facts, that's what I object to as a scientist. It has nothing in common with science.best wishes,
Peter

dear Pamboli,Imagine, you find two tracks of footprints next to each other printed in the sand. One track comprises small footprints, the other track are footprints twice as large. The conclusion would be that the tracks were left behind by two bipedal organisms. An unwarranted conlusion would be that the prints were left by two walking bipedals, a child and an adult. Another unwarranted conclusion would be that they were left by two bimorphic bipedals, a man with large and a wife with small prints. Maybe this analogy gives you an impression on conclusions and unwarranted conclusions.Best wishes
Peter

dear Pamboli,Excellent reply. You recognized all conclusion as unwarranted. Indeed, there was not enough evidence/information to any of the three conclusions. You helped me demonstrating that data are usually subject to a paradigm and interpreted accordingly.
As mentioned before, there is nothing inherently wrong with interpretations of data as long as these interpretations are NOT presented as fact. ONLY THE DATA ARE FACT.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-24-2002]

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

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

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

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

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

dear Schraf,You say:
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!I say:
"Apparently you liked the article. Me too. I recalled by head, and it turned out to be another muscle group. Next time I will quote, as I usually do"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.I say:
"Excellent design, isn't it."You:
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..I say:
"Strange conlusions you draw from the authors "apparent functionless"
Unless you call the writer 'no one' (reminds me of Homer (no, Mammuthus, not Homer Simpson ) I understand what you mean."...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.I say:
I read Nature, so I came across it a couple of months ago. And I always check the papers that are referred to. And, if I see statements like "apparently functionless" then it reminds me of vestiges.Bet you didn't expect someone with an Equine Studies degree to be on the board, did you?I say:
"Accually I expected a lot of scientists here of all disciplines, otherwise I wouldn't have registered."Too bad for you. Try again.I say:
The articel proofs that these muscles are NOT "apperently functionless overdeveloped" muscles. It is in accord with my previous statement.Thanks for your detailed response,best wishes,
Peter

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

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