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 and junk DNA) are completely wrong, outdated 20th century thinking (=unwarranted conclusions based on lack of knowledge of the genome).So, to start, what evidence can you present on the alleged vestigial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

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 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.[B][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.[/B][/QUOTE]Firstly you would need to demonstrate why their is a qualitative, rather than merely quantitative difference between the two forms of change.[B][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.[/B][/QUOTE]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. ID and irreducible complexity are, by your lights, UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS based on lack of knowledge of evolutionary pathways.

Mister PamboliWith respect, your evoltuionary bias has blinded you from an appreciation of the actual issues of the origin of novelty.The fact that you can't understand that the initial origin of a an enzyme that, for example, glcosylates a protein, is an incredibly harder ask than switching that gene off and letting it drift away to a random sequence over time proves my point.A single base change will switch of a gene. To get a new enzyme from random is a far harder ask which is defineitely qualitatively different. You have the background to know this but you have become blind to the difference.To you an entire new biochemical pathway is dime a dozen so why get excited about a new enzyme. Evoltuion is so systematic it just happens all the time. New genes, new organs.Ha! That is your mistake. You assumed what you thought you were proving.It is the bread and butter of evoltuion which has very little evidence.You have fallen into the trap of thinking of genes as just lists of letters. They are very, very special lists of letters. There is more to it than just coming up with a unique list of 'letters'. Genomic sequences are special sequences. Glycosolation or peptidase activity or hydroxylation is achieved because the protein actually folds, is stable and presents side-chains in precise 3D arrnagements to get catalysis.Utter, utter, complete folly.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Evoltuion is so systematic it just happens all the time. New genes, new organs.

---

and

quote:

---

It is the bread and butter of evoltuion which has very little evidence.

---

My bolds.Sheesh TB, slow those typing fingers down. I've noticed this spelling of "evolution" many times in your various messages.MooseBy edit: Oops, missed an "evoltuionary" also. [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-20-2002]

^ Whenever I get a typo lesson from you guys I know I'm on the right track. Some of us have day jobs.Fair enough though.Have you seen how sometimes I spell creation as cretan? [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
With respect, your evoltuionary bias has blinded you from an appreciation of the actual issues of the origin of novelty.

---

Hardly: I am just much more interested, as a philosopher, not a scientist, in what constitutes novelty.
[B][QUOTE]The fact that you can't understand that the initial origin of a an enzyme that, for example, glcosylates a protein, is an incredibly harder ask than switching that gene off and letting it drift away to a random sequence over time proves my point.[/B][/QUOTE]Harder? Sounds awfully like a value-laden term to me. Quantitively, what is the difference? Mere probability? And "random sequence" sounds highly unlikely: difficult to see how any chemical sequence could be without constraining facets and thus far from random.
[B][QUOTE]A single base change will switch of a gene. To get a new enzyme from random is a far harder ask which is defineitely qualitatively different.[/B][/QUOTE]Enough with the "harder" already! I think you are being mislead by your own qualitative langauge. For example: "To get a new enzyme from random is an event of less probability" poses the equation you are trying to make in similar terms on both sides and thus is much less attractive to your argument - it demonstrates that the difference is, at base, quantitative rather than qualitative, and therefore, however delightful to behold, not dependent on transcendent interference.
[B][QUOTE]To you an entire new biochemical pathway is dime a dozen so why get excited about a new enzyme. Evoltuion is so systematic it just happens all the time. New genes, new organs.[/B][/QUOTE]Actually I imagine new genes and new organs are extremely rare.
[B][QUOTE]Ha! That is your mistake. You assumed what you thought you were proving.[/B][/QUOTE]What did I assume, and what did you think I thought I was proving?
[B][QUOTE]Utter, utter, complete folly.[/B][/QUOTE]Folly to be wise, perhaps? :-)
[B][QUOTE]You have fallen into the trap of thinking of genes as just lists of letters. They are very, very special lists of letters.[/B][/QUOTE]I should sue!! :-) There are few people who resist the concept of biological information as strongly as I do. Letters indeed! You'll be saying I think there is a genetic code next! To my way of thinking, even the concepts "gene" or "protein" are merely convenient labels which constrain our understanding even as they enable it.

^ MPAfter millions of lab experiments, let alone simulations, we know that switching off a gene is much easier. Just compare two species (ie in the same genus) of Bacillus. Hundreds of gene losses relative to each other (as well as horizontal transfer gains). Do the mainstream scientists claim the non-transferred genes were gained or lost? Lost of course! They know how hard it is to get new genes. All those artifical evolution experiments do not end up with new genes - they end up with genes with a few SNPs either switching of a gene or enhancing pre-existing binding.If there was no qualitative difference between loss and gain of new protein families then any molecular biologist would be able to generate novel orders of life in backyard DNA experiments. You are arguing against commonly known mainstream concepts.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
After millions of lab experiments, let alone simulaitons, we know that switching of a gene is much easier.

---

Easier! So can you express this in any way other than with qualitative terms. Define "easier" or "harder" - they both imply agency and volition, so something or somebody has to find it "easier" or "harder." You see, that's why qualitative terms lead you down your own well-worn path. Get rid of the easier and harder, and see how well your concepts stand up.
[B][QUOTE]If there was no qualitative difference betwe nloss and gain of new protein families then any molecular biologist would be able to generate novel orders of life in backyard DNA experiments.[/B][/QUOTE]OK - let's try it your way. If there is a qualitative difference, wherein lies the quality? What is the "quality" that is different. If "easier" or "harder" is the best you can do - what is the goal-directed agency which finds it easier or harder. And what leads you to think that the process is goal-directed anyway?
After all, if the process is not goal-directed, then it cannot be "easier" or "harder", can it? Just more or less probable.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 09-20-2002]

^ When somehting happens everday in bacterial lab experiments with billions of organisms and the other thing never happens then that is quantification.Most people don't have a problem with loose terms like 'easy' and 'hard' when the differneces are factor of, say hundreds or thousands. The differneces here are probably in the factors of trillions (10^12) or more.Eg, to get a peptide (a chain of say 10 amino-acids) to bind somewhere one needs to try billions of random sequnces until activity is struck. An active enzyme (typically 100 amino-acids) would require trillions of attempts. Compare 'trillions' (attempts to get new enzyme) to 'ten' (attempts to switch off a gene). That is hard vs easy. Then you need more enzymes so that you get a pathway!I agree with your point about goal direction. But that does not detract from the fact that genomic sequences are very special.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

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

peterB, a vestige for youHuman Urate Oxidase Psuedogene CDS (exons 1-8)atggcccact accataacaa ctataaaaaga atgatgagg tggagtttgt ccgaactggc tatgggaagg aaatggtaaa agttctccat attcagtgag atggaaaata tcacagcatt aaagaggtgg caacttcagt gcaacttact ctaagttcca aaaaagatta cctgcatgga gataattcag acatcatccc tacagacacc atcaagaaca cagttcatgt cttggcaaag tttaaagaa atcaaaagca tagaagcctt tggtgtgaat atttgtgagc attttctttc ttcttttaac catgtaatcc gagctcaagt ctacatggaa gaaatccctt ggaagcatct tggaaag aatggagtta agcatgtcca tgcatttatt cacactccca ctggaacaca cttctgtgaa gttgaacagc tgagaagt ggaccccaag tcattcattc tggaatcaaa gacctcaagg tcttgaaaac aacacagtct ggatttgaag gtttcatcaa ggaccagttc actaccctcc ctgaggtgaa ggactgatgc tttgccaccc aagtgtactg caagtggcgc taccaccagt gcagggatgt ggacttcaag gctacctgg gacaccattc gggaccttgt catggagaaa tctgctgggc cctatgacaa aggtgaatac ttgacctctg tgcagaagac cctctgtgat atccaggtgc tctccctgag ccgagttcct gcg atagaagata tggaaatcag cctgccaaac attcactact tcaacataga catgtccaaa atgggtctga tcaacaagga agaggtcttgctgc cattagacaa tccatatgga aaaattactg gtacagtcaa gaggaagttg
tcttcaagac tgtgaHuman Urate Oxidase Pseudogene translated:Met A H Y H N N Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K E Met V K V L H I Q Stop D G K Y H S I K E V A T S V Q L T L S S K K D Y L H G D N S D I I P T D T I K N T V H V L A K F K E I K S I E A F G V N I C E H F L S S F N H V I R A Q V Y Met E E I P W K H L G K N G V K H V H A F I H T P T G T H F C E V E Q L R S G P Q V I H S G I K D L K V L K T T Q S G F E G F I K D Q F T T L P E V K D Stop C F A T Q V Y C K W R Y H Q C R D V D F K A T W D T I R D L V Met E K S A G P Y D K G E Y L T S V Q K T L C D I Q V L S L S R V P A I E D Met E I S L P N I H Y F N I D Met S K Met G L I N K E E V L L P L D N P Y G K I T G T V K R K L S S R L StopA fully functional copy of urate oxidaseAotus trivirgatus (owl monkey) urate oxidase gene:atggcccact accataacga ctataaaaag aacgatgagg tggagtttgt acgaactggc tatgggaagg atatggtaaa agtcctccat attcagcgag atggaaaata tcacagcatt aaagaggtgg caacttcagt gcaacttact ctgagttcca aaaaagatta cctgcatgga gacaattcag atatcatccc tacagacacc atcaagaaca cagttcatgc cttggcaaag tttaaagga atcaaaagca tagaagcctt tgctgtgaat atttgtcagc attttctttc ttcttttaac catgtcatcc gaactcaagt ctatgtggaa gaaatccctt ggaagcggct tgaaaag aatggagtta agcatgtcca tgcatttatt cacactccca ctggaacaca cttctgtga gttgaacagc tgagaagt ggacccccag ttattcattc tggaatcaaa gacctcaagg tcttgaaaac aacccagtct ggatttgaag gtttcatcaa ggaccagttc accaccctcc ctgaggtgaa ggaccgatgc tttgccgcac aagtatactg caagtggcgc taccaccagt gcagggatgt ggacttcgag gctacctgg gacaccattc gggacgttgt cctagagaaa tttgctgggc cctatgacaa aggcgagtac tcgccgtctg tgcagaagac cctctatgat atccaggtgg tctccctgag tcaagtccct gagatagacgata tggaaatcag cctgccaaac attcactact tcaacataga catgtccaaa atgggtctga tcaacaagga agaggtcttgctgc cattagacaa tccatatggc aaaattactg gtacagtcaa gaggaagttg tcttcgagac tgtgaTranslation:Met A H Y H N D Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K D Met V K V L H I Q R D G K Y H S I K E V A T S V Q L T L S S K K D Y L H G D N S D I I P T D T I K N T V H A L A K F K G I K S I E A F A V N I C Q H F L S S F N H V I R T Q V Y V E E I P W K R L E K N G V K H V H A F I H T P T G T H F C E V E Q L R S G P P V I H S G I K D L K V L K T T Q S G F E G F I K D Q F T T L P E V K D R C F A A Q V Y C K W R Y H Q C R D V D F E A T W D T I R D V V L E K F A G P Y D K G E Y S P S V Q K T L Y D I Q V V S L S Q V P E I D D Met E I S L P N I H Y F N I D Met S K Met G L I N K E E V L L P L D N P Y G K I T G T V K R K L S S R L StopBlast pairwise alignments:human/owl monkey:Score = 1483 bits (771), Expect = 0.0
Identities = 867/915 (94%)
Strand = Plus / Plus

Peter says:
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.Ever hear of the hypothesis called gravity? It includes the descent of man from tall builings after the stock market crash through a naturalistic process. Any physicist can tell you it is measurable. In contrast nobody can tell you how it really works. This is the big physical conspiracy to blind us fools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Peter says:
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.

​

Ever hear of the hypothesis called gravity? It includes the descent of man from tall builings after the stock market crash through a naturalistic process. Any physicist can tell you it is measurable. In contrast nobody can tell you how it really works. This is the big physical conspiracy to blind us fools.

---

LOL------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

Ha! That is your mistake. You assumed what you thought you were proving.

---

Interesting...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
My response:
Mister Pamboli, you make it too easy for me. How exactly do you conclude that I am a creationist?

---

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.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.
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.3. Taking evidence against your position and claiming that it is actually evidence for it.
Common creationist tactic (Williams exels in this one).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.5. Proclaiming that 'science' will someday 'prove' that the evidence for evolution is false.
Way common creationist tactic.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.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 09-20-2002]