Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

[B][QUOTE]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.[/B][/QUOTE]"Apparently human science is unable to address these questions. So, there is a lot of space left for creation," quoth you in an earlier post. This and your comments on the "nihilism" of NDT being your life-long mission to counter, led to the inference. You may indeed say it was an inference to a stronger position than could be made with reliability, but it was hardly unwarranted.
[B][QUOTE]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.[/B][/QUOTE]Indeed I have read it - and you make a good attempt at rendering an incoherent position tolerably coherent. But you fail to distinguiush between the constraint of potentialities and direction, and are mislead by the ambiguity of the latter term. Direction can be as unintentional as "the relative position to which something tends" such as "the direction North" or something highly intentional suhc as "under the direction of his commander." This ambiguity plagues your entire discussion.
[B][QUOTE]Maybe you should also define "Just evolution".[/B][/QUOTE]Just change. Change which happens to lead to a variation in the numbers of classes under our current, but by no means perfect, definitive or final, means of classification.
[B][QUOTE]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.[/B][/QUOTE]You are still floundering around the issue. What is the qualitative difference between a new gene and change? What is the quality that changes that cannot be expressed in mere quantitative terms?
[B][QUOTE]It implicates that both creationism and naturalism have the same validity, since both use the same elusive arguments.[/B][/QUOTE]Actually it doesn't. The particular forms of argument may both have equal formal validity at the point of inferring an unknown, but both have to get there first. Creationism's arguments, especially the ludicrous intelligent design theory, rely on inherently flawed arguments to infer design and "fill the gaps": evolutionists typically work with analogs and extensions of observable processes to do the same thing. The difference is, that while both positions may be wrong, the evolutionist's position will, by correcting itself with future observations, reliably converge on the truth. The inferential strategy of creationists cannot do so. It is not the use of inference (which is our only source of knowledge of the world external to our own consciousness), but the strategy for converging to the truth that is most important.
[B][QUOTE]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.[/B][/QUOTE]Even were one to accept such a limit to knowledge, which I am far from doing, it still would not change the choice of inferential strategy. No inferential strategy can be based on the certainty of making future observations which could modify the inferences.

LOL,I mispell things quite frequently too.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I have just gotten into this thread quite recently.I have some questions for you?Do you discount the genome? Do you discount that something defines all the chracteristics passed down from generation to generation on a molecular level? What is your theory for the "substance" that defines life? What do you call this "substance"?I will agree with you in saying that the person you are replying to could have brought her langauge to a langauge you could understand. And yes, I am sorry for some of us who resort to higher unfamiliar words to base our arguments off of. It is totally unfair. When I use a word in a debate, I do not think everyone will understand, I define it.And, it is quite easy to get led off by string of words that you do not completely understand, such as the case here."To my way of thinking, even the concepts "gene" or "protein" are merely convenient labels which constrain our understanding even as they enable it. "We could label them any way we want, but as gene or protein this is the consensus mathod or name that we label these things. We have explained them the best and this is what modern scientist call them. Everyone across the Magesterium of Science knows what a gene or protein is. They by nature have to be convenient labels, or else there would be confusion.QUESTION: How could something contrain our understanding while at the same time enable it?Interested in your reply------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I am evolutionist, as has been made clearly several times."After 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 new experiments are not yielding new genes, then how did we get the genetic code in the first place? Do the laws of today still hold for the laws that were governing the earth billions of years ago?For my ignorance, becuase quaulitative and quantatative can be defined so differently under several contexts, would you mind defining them the way you are using them?Thanks------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Can you think of another exmample to back up your argument?We can not base the whole argument our positions on just one aspect. We need to base it off a whole spectrum of things.Just wondering.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Love it,I shall use this next time, the opportunity comes up.I love reading your posts.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
I have just gotten into this thread quite recently. I have some questions for you?

---

Sure - delighted to answer.
[B][QUOTE]Do you discount the genome? Do you discount that something defines all the chracteristics passed down from generation to generation on a molecular level?[/B][/QUOTE]No. Yes.
I do not discount the genome in the sense that I beleive it plays a significant role in defining characteristics, but not all characteristics, not even all significant characteristics. Further I do not see any evidence that is the only mechanism of passing on characteristics. There is a nice summary of an alternative view of the status of genomics here ... Evolution
[B][QUOTE]What is your theory for the "substance" that defines life? What do you call this "substance"?[/B][/QUOTE]I cannot see that life could be defined in terms of substance. If pushed, I would suggest that "life" is a useful shorthand for particular (difficult to define) processes. I do not see, at the margins, a clear distinction between living and non-living systems. One can identify what is clearly living, but such definitions fail in hard cases.
[B][QUOTE]I will agree with you in saying that the person you are replying to could have brought her langauge to a langauge you could understand. And yes, I am sorry for some of us who resort to higher unfamiliar words to base our arguments off of.[/B][/QUOTE]My concern was not that I could not understand - it was that the writer did not understand the implications of what they were actually saying.
[B][QUOTE]We could label them any way we want, but as gene or protein this is the consensus mathod or name that we label these things. We have explained them the best and this is what modern scientist call them. Everyone across the Magesterium of Science knows what a gene or protein is. They by nature have to be convenient labels, or else there would be confusion.QUESTION: How could something contrain our understanding while at the same time enable it?[/B][/QUOTE]Your point is, of course, valid and gets to the problem nicely. My answer to your question is therefore also applicable to the reason why concepts (not merely terms) such as "gene" or "protein" are both essential and limiting.Let us take the case of the 19th century linguists who began to study the structure of the chinese languages. They came to these languages equipped with linguitic concepts such as Subject, Object, Adverb or Predicate which, however useful in Indo-European languages, did not really apply to their new subjects of study. The concepts of grammar, in other words, enabled their understanding in the sense that they gave them a "library" of concepts without which they could not begin to analyse their subjects at all, but constrained their understanding initially to those aspects of their study which could be described in terms of their "library" of concepts.
"Gene" and "protein" do the same. They enable the scientist to actually conceptualise and bring their understanding to bear on a subject, but they constrain that understanding.
Every now and then in science, along comes a Newton or a Clerk Maxwell who shakes out the old concepts and introduces a new set which enable further understanding, but introduce their own constraints.

AnnePerhaps you aren't aware I'm a creationist? For me all of the genes were created in distinct genomes. These have diversified since and transferred etc. I will not argue that paralogs could have evolved but I will argue that distinct gene families are very consistent with the creation of kinds and are a mystery for evolution.Somewhere along the line quantitative turns into qualitative. Factors of trillions differnt in probabilty would be a pretty good way to distinguish.If you don't like that then on the other hand you have to ask yourself what good a new protein by itself will do. Proteins exist in pathways containing anywhere from three or four to dozens of proteins. Getting a new pathway is undeniably qualitatively different than switching a gene off.Evolution has simply assumed that the hard ask is possible. That is fine - there is no law of physics that says it isn't - but I think that requires incredible faith. Ever heard of glycosolation or the CTA cycle?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-20-2002]

AnneWhether we're talking lab evoltuion in irradiated organisms or viral drug resistance or phage display combinatorial chemistry we have learnt that new genes is a hard ask. Only one in 10,000 sequences fold let alone funciton.But regardless of that protein families are distinct. We don't find two protein families with essentially the same fold and sequence with one family having one catalytic site for, eg, phophorylation and the other with a site for glycosolation. It is not somehting we systematically, or even at all, see. When an enzyme sequence is shared, so is the catalytic function.

"Evolution has simply assumed that the hard ask is possible."
I hate to say this, but it looks like you're about to talk yourself into a probability arguement that you just can't win. In truth there is no "hard 'ask'" to be less probable of an outcome.

"Do you discount the genome? Do you discount that something defines all the chracteristics passed down from generation to generation on a molecular level? What is your theory for the "substance" that defines life? What do you call this "substance"?"I do understand that this was not addressed to me, however I do feel that I should ask about it. I actually have two questions. First: What is life? Second: What "substance" defines life?

[B][QUOTE]Somewhere along the line quantitative turns into qualitative. Factors of trillions differnt in probabilty would be a pretty good way to distinguish.[/B][/QUOTE]Well this is progress: the hard task isn't hard, just much more unlikely to occur at random. [B][QUOTE]If you don't like that then on the other hand you have to ask yourself what good a new protein by itself will do.[/B][/QUOTE]Value terms again: there is no requirement for a protein to do good, or to have anything to do with benefit. They are just proteins.
[B][QUOTE]Proteins exist in pathways containing anywhere from three or four to dozens of proteins. Getting a new pathway is undeniably qualitatively different than switching a gene off.[/B][/QUOTE]I deny it. Unless you can clarify when different probabilities becomes different qualities. The questions are straightforward enough:
:: if the differences are qualitative, what is the quality which differs?
:: if the qualititative difference is merely a certain quantitative difference, how do you decide between one and the other?I suspect the answer to the latter is "when it suits my argument" but would be interested if you could show otherwise. [B][QUOTE]Evolution has simply assumed that the hard ask is possible. That is fine - there is no law of physics that says it isn't - but I think that requires incredible faith.[/B][/QUOTE]So you admit it is possible and simply very unlikely - that is a quantitative argument. To make this work, you now have to show the probability of a designed or God-created answer so we can compare them.Of course, you will perhaps want to retreat into your qualitative language: resist the temptation. You admit evolution is possible, now show us that your answer is possible. Otherwise, anyone reading this is best advised to stick with the evolutionary answer, don't you think?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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.

---

You did no such thing.

quote:

---

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 'deny it and ignore it' because your interpretations seem quite unwarranted - I consider them unwarranted extrapolations.

quote:

---

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.

---

And those 'experts in the field' probably saw your 'falsifications' much the same way I do. Hence, no detailed response.

quote:

---

Why do you refer to Fred as being an electrical engineer?

---

Because that is what he is.

quote:

---

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?

---

Fred can calculatre all day long, and you can heap accolades upon a fellow creationoist to your heart's content.
His premises are foundationless.Ask him for the evidence that more than 1667 fixed beneficial mutations are required to account for Homo to have evolved from an ape-like ancestor.Ask him why he sees no problem using evolution-based studies when he thinks he can calim them as anti-evolution evidence, yet claims that the use of similar studies are "circular" and such when he cannot.

quote:

---

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"

---

I have seen your scientific references. I have also seen how you approach them. I have seen you declare references support for your position prior to even reading them. I have seen others demonstrate that your interpretations are at odds with the actual data.
So you will forgive me for not calling the Nobel folks right away...

quote:

---

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, carefully read what 3 and 4 actually say. I suspect that this is a clue as to your odd interpretations, perhaps. There are qualitative differences between 3 and 4. Please try again.

quote:

---

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.

---

Correct. The fact that you first declared the citations support for your position and then, about 4 days later, wrote that you actually had the time to look through them makes my conclusion warranted. That you later dug out a sentence or two that you thought supported your original baseless assertion is irrelevant.
You denied and ignored the fact that the papers all clearly demonstrate that mutations are random with regard to fitness, and were not directed at the 'beneficial' genes.
Therefore, it is pretty obvious that your interpretations are suspect.

quote:

---

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.

---

It makes perfect sense, since Cairns was the originator of the directed-mutation hypothesis. He had much to lose by recanting, yet did so because of what additional data indicated.

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL!!!Yup, Pete, you did just that, didn't you?

quote:

---

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".

---

I don't recall writing "evolution is a fact." maybe you can point it out to me?My 'mantra' - well, I was making a list, wasn't I?

quote:

---

Best wishes,
(Oye, I am not your personal enemy, I simply do not belief the story anymore)
Peter

---

I don't consider you an enemy. I just think you are fooling yourself, and will probably make a fool of yourself if you continue on with this hore-sense in your profession. Frankly, I do not think that you are the "Peter Borger" from the literature. I think you either just happen to have the same name as a real researcher and decided to run with it, or you decided to pose as him. I believe this because, as I pointed out, you have made exceedingly illogical and uninformed arguments. Most professional scientists - those that are not creationists, anyway - tend to at least learn the basics of a set of facts prior to taking a public stand on them.

"Whether we're talking lab evoltuion in irradiated organisms or viral resistance or phage display combinatorial chemistry we have learnt that new genes is a hard ask. Only one in 10,000 sequences fold let alone funciton"Awww, but evolution did not happen in a lab. We cannot reproduce the exact conditions of earth long ago. We cannot reproduce the actual processes of evolution. Do NOT get me started in an argument of probability, I probability, but I will use if if necessary [means more math for me]. Personally, I would rather stick to the theoretical hard mathematics."But regardless of that protein families are distinct. We don't find two protein families with essentially the same fold and sequence with one family having one catalytic site for, eg, phophorylation and the other with a site for glycosolation. It is not somehting we systematically, or even at all, see. When an enzyme sequence is shared, so is the catalytic function"Ok, need more research or need to go and look this up in my biology book. I am not sure whether I agree with you, but before I make a judgement, I need to gather facts.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day