Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'
SPMaximus wrote:What the fuck did I just watch?
(1) Your answers don't match the question posed, and you have no idea.
(2) You dole out memorized groupthink dogma.
(3) You respond with demeaning which means you don't know.
(4) You play the religion card..."fairies, invisible men in the sky..."AKA you don't know.
(5) You answer with trite epithets AKA you don't know.
(6) You refer me to books, vids that "know". They don't know.
(7) You reject facts of nature that go against evolution.
(8) You are 100% sure that you know how nature formed.
(9) You have no notion that you just might have been fooled by these guys.
(10) You accept any pro-evo scenario, no matter how absurd.
"...ape/man ran after animal and this is how we got our skin..."
"...they evolved four legs and fur. Then they went back into the ocean and became whales and, and..."
CADman2300 wrote:As a Straw-Man argument, the first scenario he mentions is just sad.
natselrox wrote:You are a pessimist, Cali. Cloned mouse molars were available in 2008.
stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the rare intelligent answer and discussion. I really wish more people here could discuss as you have. This really is such a fun and fascinating subject. Discussing it should be open and respectful. But oh well.
You run into HUGE problems right at the start. Your explanation is clear, but not correct. The common ancestor to all tetrapods with the visual system you example, also had to evolve ALL of the other organs and systems common to all tetrapods.
Hepatic systems, multi-chambered heart/lung/blood/blood vessel/brain controller/cardiac muscle systems, pancreas, gastro-intestinal system, auditory, and on and on, all in one species.
You can't simply choose to isolate and discuss one system without addressing all systems. Do you actually think all systems extant and common to all tetrapods evolved in that one single species CA?
Now we must multiply everything that so that all CA's of all modern groups must have evolved all systems common and extant to all species in each CA's descendant groups. Your problem is you isolate one single system, vision, and tell me that that single CA spread that one system to all future tetrapods.
You totally ignore the fact that there are many systems to deal with in many different species groups. For example, vision had to evolve independently in each one of those SINGLE species common ancestors to all eyed groups of species.
According to you, the approximately 36 phyla would each have to have their own single CA, and each single CA would have to evolve all of the organ/systems extant and common to that phylum.
If that was not the case, then you run into the problem again of multiple species evolving multiple organs\systems and then having to somehow spread those systems around to other species. And then getting all of those organ/systems, that evolved in multiple species, tucked into that one common ancestor.
If you disagree, pencil out a diagrammatic tree and try and track where the organs and systems would go. You will get stuck quickly.
BTW, of course you realize that the ISP thing is Tongue In Cheek. I placed "TIC" twice in the vid in case someone thinks it's serious. But the point of the vid IS serious.
stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the rare intelligent answer and discussion. I really wish more people here could discuss as you have. This really is such a fun and fascinating subject. Discussing it should be open and respectful. But oh well.
You run into HUGE problems right at the start. Your explanation is clear, but not correct. The common ancestor to all tetrapods with the visual system you example, also had to evolve ALL of the other organs and systems common to all tetrapods.
Hepatic systems, multi-chambered heart/lung/blood/blood vessel/brain controller/cardiac muscle systems, pancreas, gastro-intestinal system, auditory, and on and on, all in one species. You can't simply choose to isolate and discuss one system without addressing all systems. Do you actually think all systems extant and common to all tetrapods evolved in that one single species CA?
Now we must multiply everything that so that all CA's of all modern groups must have evolved all systems common and extant to all species in each CA's descendant groups.
Your problem is you isolate one single system, vision, and tell me that that single CA spread that one system to all future tetrapods.
You totally ignore the fact that there are many systems to deal with in many different species groups. For example, vision had to evolve independently in each one of those SINGLE species common ancestors to all eyed groups of species.
According to you, the approximately 36 phyla would each have to have their own single CA, and each single CA would have to evolve all of the organ/systems extant and common to that phylum. If that was not the case, then you run into the problem again of multiple species evolving multiple organs\systems and then having to somehow spread those systems around to other species. And then getting all of those organ/systems, that evolved in multiple species, tucked into that one common ancestor.
If you disagree, pencil out a diagrammatic tree and try and track where the organs and systems would go. You will get stuck quickly.
Rumraket wrote:Multichambered hearts didn't suddenly pop into existence from one generation to the next.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest