
I really should be more careful when I come across such things.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Thanks for the compliment, and I will try very hard not to insult you personally, your ideas and way of thinking is another matter entirely, these are fair game in a debate and if someone spouts nonsense I would expect them to get called on it.stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the rare intelligent answer and discussion. I really wish more people here could discuss as you have.
Well I guess you can respect the person without respecting their arguments but as everyone here knows that is a bit of a sham simply for the sake of the decorum of the forum. It is extremely difficult to respect someone who believes in ludicrous ideas, promotes false information and are themselves disrespectful to whole swathes of the scientific and rational community, but of course I say this in all respect and apply it as a generalism to people who do these things and do not direct it specifically at youstevebee92653 wrote:This really is such a fun and fascinating subject. Discussing it should be open and respectful. But oh well.
I would agree that it may not be correct and I am open to discussion on exactly how it may not be correct in detail, however it was only meant to be an example of the reasoning behind the argument for common ancestry as the solution to your false dilemma. I am sure that there are many people here on this forum that could correct any mistakes I have made in my outline, however I will continue to show you how you misunderstand or deliberately misconstrue my argument.stevebee92653 wrote:You run into HUGE problems right at the start. Your explanation is clear, but not correct.
There's a misunderstanding straight away, what I actually suggested was that the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system, that the visual system evolved in the common ancestor of all vertebrates. So the common ancestor of tetrapods did not have to evolve that particular system it inherited it form the common ancestor of all organsims that have that particular visual system, those organisms include tetrapods but are not exclusively tetrapods as fish and all vertebrates have that same visual system. Therefore there does not have to be a single common ancestor that had to evolve all those systems you mention, it is perfectly plausible they inherited them form their own ancestors or that they did not evolve until after that specific ancestor.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
I did not isolate a single system but discussed more than one to get my point across. Although I did not discuss all the systems you mention, this was done simply to simplify the explanation, we could go on to address all the other systems if you want, but the principle is the same, the origins of any biological system will be found to be in a particular species which then goes on to become the common ancestor of all subsequent species that have that particular system. The fact that these systems are currently integrated systems is a consequence of evolution and not evidence that they had to be developed at the same point in time within the same species. Take for example the integration of the circulatory and respiratory system, as per my example, though I did not explicitly state it above, the circulatory system evolved as species gained an advantage in being larger, necessitating a system to supply oxygen to internal tissues, of course this evolved long before lungs as these organisms were aquatic. It was not until aquatic creatures found themselves in an environment in which they benefited from extracting oxygen form the air that the rudimentary lung evolved, with already evolved circulatory systems that were already in place and used to convey oxygen to internal tissues that these lungs could then be integrated with. And of course the tissues that the rudimentary lung was developed from were already integrated with the circulatory system as part of the digestive system (which is a whole other page in the book of evolution and developed in other ancestral species).stevebee92653 wrote:You can't simply choose to isolate and discuss one system without addressing all systems.
Er, no, that would be part of your false dilemma and a strawman that no one actually holds to be true.stevebee92653 wrote:Do you actually think all systems extant and common to all tetrapods evolved in that one single species CA?
Well you could be right if you take that ambiguous statement, which almost describes the nested hierarchies that we do see, to mean that they did not have to evolve all systems at the same time, some earlier common ancestors to larger groups, that for example all have a circulatory system, evolved that system, while the common ancestors of the later groups which already had that system then went on to evolve other systems like for example the respiratory system. So, you could say that all common ancestors had to evolve all systems common and extant to all species in the common ancestors descendant groups, and still be correct, it's just that there were several common ancestors to all extant groups, along the time-line of the ancestry of that group - not that they existed at the same time, the earlier ancestors being the ones which evolved the systems that are extant in many groups spanning more groups in the hierarchy, the more recent ancestors being the ones which evolved the systems that are extant in fewer of the groups so spanning less groups in the hierarchy.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
No, you totally ignore the fact that I specifically chose more than one system to illustrate the solution to your false dilemma.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
Well the statement “those SINGLE species common ancestors” makes no sense whatsoever, a common ancestor must be common to more than one species, however, I will try and interpret that the way you are trying to convey that is that the common ancestor of several species is itself a single species which is what I alluded to. So since a common ancestor is in itself a single species there can be only one species in which a particular vision system evolved, this single common ancestor being common to all those groups that have that particular vision system, so it's not necessary to invoke independent evolution of any particular vision system in many different species at the same time. Your dilemma therefore is overcome by postulating that, as we observe, there are several vision systems each of which has a separate common ancestor species which evolved different vision systems and different types of eyes such as the vertebrate eye type and the cephalopod eye type – superficially similar but different enough in detail to postulate separate common ancestors which evolved these eyes independently. And of course completely different eye types such as the compound eye type seen in insects for example also evolved in a different common ancestor which propagated the possibility of using that eye type to all it's descendants.stevebee92653 wrote:For example, vision had to evolve independently in each one of those SINGLE species common ancestors to all eyed groups of species.
Of course the species (and Classes, Orders, Families, and Genus) within each of those phyla had the same common ancestor but there are also different common ancestor species for each of the other levels of the nested hierarchy such as Class, Order, Family, and Genus, as well as different points along the way where different biological systems evolved – they don't have to all evolve in the same species that was the common ancestor of any particular level of the hierarchy. What we actually do see is that several groups can have common biological systems, therefore those systems must have evolved in the common ancestors of that group. We also we find that only some classes of any particular higher grouping share a common biological system where other classes don't have this particular system therefore those systems must have evolved in a common ancestor to only that sub group of classes as the system is not shared by all classes of that group etc.etc. - a nested hierarchical suture of sub groups within groups. It just happens that to conveniently delineate these groups that we distinguish that we align the break points to coincide with major biological evolutionary innovations.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
I am sure that there are plenty of examples of cladistic diagrams that have already been drawn up, some examples of which you have been shown or pointed to already. Now, if you have any examples of where you personally get stuck when following these examples I am sure that we could discuss those but it's not worth my while to go to the trouble of drawing a diagrammatic representation just for you to summarily dismiss it. Just try to understand my explanations and how they refute your false dilemma argument for now.stevebee92653 wrote:If you disagree, pencil out a diagrammatic tree and try and track where the organs and systems would go. You will get stuck quickly.
Of course I do, love the winking jellyfish BTW, but you are claiming that it's either ISP or ID whereas, once you actually understand it, the concept of nested hierarchies and common descent for the various biological systems actually explains how these systems were propagated to all the species that posses them quite easily and, IMHO, simply, though if you don't understand it after that mammoth explanation I suppose I only have myself to blame, unless you are being wilfully ignorant or simply trolling.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
GenesForLife wrote:Now, ADParker , CITATION PLEASE
Abstract
The emergence of terrestrial life witnessed the need for more sophisticated circulatory systems. This has evolved in birds, mammals, and crocodilians into complete septation of the heart into left and right sides, allowing separate pulmonary and systemic circulatory systems, a key requirement for the evolution of endothermy1–3. However, the evolution of the amniote heart is poorly understood. Reptilian hearts have been the subject of debate in the context of the evolution of cardiac septation: do they possess a single ventricular chamber or two incompletely septated ventricles4–7? We examined heart development in the red-eared slider turtle, Trachemys scripta elegans (a chelonian), and the green anole, Anolis carolinensis (a squamate), focusing on gene expression in the developing ventricles. Both reptiles initially form a ventricular chamber that homogenously expresses the T-box transcription factor gene Tbx5. In contrast, in birds and mammals, Tbx5 is restricted to left ventricle precursors8,9. In later stages, Tbx5 expression in the turtle (but not anole) heart is gradually restricted to a distinct left ventricle, forming a left-right gradient. This suggests that Tbx5 expression was refined during evolution to pattern the ventricles. In support of this hypothesis, we show that loss of Tbx5 in the mouse ventricle results in a single chamber lacking distinct identity, indicating a requirement for Tbx5 in septation. Importantly, misexpression of Tbx5 throughout the developing myocardium to mimic the reptilian expression pattern also results in a single mispatterned ventricular chamber lacking septation. Thus, ventricular septation is established by a steep and correctly positioned Tbx5 gradient. Our findings provide a molecular mechanism for the evolution of the amniote ventricle, and support the concept that altered expression of developmental regulators is a key mechanism of vertebrate evolution.
Abstract
Moorman, Antoon F. M., and Vincent M. Christoffels. Cardiac Chamber Formation: Development, Genes, and Evolution. Physiol Rev 83: 1223-1267, 2003; 10.1152/physrev.00006.2003.—Concepts of cardiac development have greatly influenced the description of the formation of the four-chambered vertebrate heart. Traditionally, the embryonic tubular heart is considered to be a composite of serially arranged segments representing adult cardiac compartments. Conversion of such a serial arrangement into the parallel arrangement of the mammalian heart is difficult to understand. Logical integration of the development of the cardiac conduction system into the serial concept has remained puzzling as well. Therefore, the current description needed reconsideration, and we decided to evaluate the essentialities of cardiac design, its evolutionary and embryonic development, and the molecular pathways recruited to make the four-chambered mammalian heart. The three principal notions taken into consideration are as follows. 1) Both the ancestor chordate heart and the embryonic tubular heart of higher vertebrates consist of poorly developed and poorly coupled "pacemaker-like" cardiac muscle cells with the highest pacemaker activity at the venous pole, causing unidirectional peristaltic contraction waves. 2) From this heart tube, ventricular chambers differentiate ventrally and atrial chambers dorsally. The developing chambers display high proliferative activity and consist of structurally well-developed and well-coupled muscle cells with low pacemaker activity, which permits fast conduction of the impulse and efficacious contraction. The forming chambers remain flanked by slowly proliferating pacemaker-like myocardium that is temporally prevented from differentiating into chamber myocardium. 3) The trabecular myocardium proliferates slowly, consists of structurally poorly developed, but well-coupled, cells and contributes to the ventricular conduction system. The atrial and ventricular chambers of the formed heart are activated and interconnected by derivatives of embryonic myocardium. The topographical arrangement of the distinct cardiac muscle cells in the forming heart explains the embryonic electrocardiogram (ECG), does not require the invention of nodes, and allows a logical transition from a peristaltic tubular heart to a synchronously contracting four-chambered heart. This view on the development of cardiac design unfolds fascinating possibilities for future research.
Theory without fact is fantasy, but fact without theory is chaos.
C. O. Whitman (334)
halucigenia wrote:Thanks for the compliment, and I will try very hard not to insult you personally, your ideas and way of thinking is another matter entirely, these are fair game in a debate and if someone spouts nonsense I would expect them to get called on it.stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the rare intelligent answer and discussion. I really wish more people here could discuss as you have.Well I guess you can respect the person without respecting their arguments but as everyone here knows that is a bit of a sham simply for the sake of the decorum of the forum. It is extremely difficult to respect someone who believes in ludicrous ideas, promotes false information and are themselves disrespectful to whole swathes of the scientific and rational community, but of course I say this in all respect and apply it as a generalism to people who do these things and do not direct it specifically at youstevebee92653 wrote:This really is such a fun and fascinating subject. Discussing it should be open and respectful. But oh well..
Anyway before I show any disrespect to you personally I'd better move on.I would agree that it may not be correct and I am open to discussion on exactly how it may not be correct in detail, however it was only meant to be an example of the reasoning behind the argument for common ancestry as the solution to your false dilemma. I am sure that there are many people here on this forum that could correct any mistakes I have made in my outline, however I will continue to show you how you misunderstand or deliberately misconstrue my argument.stevebee92653 wrote:You run into HUGE problems right at the start. Your explanation is clear, but not correct.There's a misunderstanding straight away, what I actually suggested was that the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system, that the visual system evolved in the common ancestor of all vertebrates. So the common ancestor of tetrapods did not have to evolve that particular system it inherited it form the common ancestor of all organsims that have that particular visual system, those organisms include tetrapods but are not exclusively tetrapods as fish and all vertebrates have that same visual system. Therefore there does not have to be a single common ancestor that had to evolve all those systems you mention, it is perfectly plausible they inherited them form their own ancestors or that they did not evolve until after that specific ancestor.stevebee92653 wrote: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.I did not isolate a single system but discussed more than one to get my point across. Although I did not discuss all the systems you mention, this was done simply to simplify the explanation, we could go on to address all the other systems if you want, but the principle is the same, the origins of any biological system will be found to be in a particular species which then goes on to become the common ancestor of all subsequent species that have that particular system. The fact that these systems are currently integrated systems is a consequence of evolution and not evidence that they had to be developed at the same point in time within the same species. Take for example the integration of the circulatory and respiratory system, as per my example, though I did not explicitly state it above, the circulatory system evolved as species gained an advantage in being larger, necessitating a system to supply oxygen to internal tissues, of course this evolved long before lungs as these organisms were aquatic. It was not until aquatic creatures found themselves in an environment in which they benefited from extracting oxygen form the air that the rudimentary lung evolved, with already evolved circulatory systems that were already in place and used to convey oxygen to internal tissues that these lungs could then be integrated with. And of course the tissues that the rudimentary lung was developed from were already integrated with the circulatory system as part of the digestive system (which is a whole other page in the book of evolution and developed in other ancestral species).stevebee92653 wrote:You can't simply choose to isolate and discuss one system without addressing all systems.Er, no, that would be part of your false dilemma and a strawman that no one actually holds to be true.stevebee92653 wrote:Do you actually think all systems extant and common to all tetrapods evolved in that one single species CA?Well you could be right if you take that ambiguous statement, which almost describes the nested hierarchies that we do see, to mean that they did not have to evolve all systems at the same time, some earlier common ancestors to larger groups, that for example all have a circulatory system, evolved that system, while the common ancestors of the later groups which already had that system then went on to evolve other systems like for example the respiratory system. So, you could say that all common ancestors had to evolve all systems common and extant to all species in the common ancestors descendant groups, and still be correct, it's just that there were several common ancestors to all extant groups, along the time-line of the ancestry of that group - not that they existed at the same time, the earlier ancestors being the ones which evolved the systems that are extant in many groups spanning more groups in the hierarchy, the more recent ancestors being the ones which evolved the systems that are extant in fewer of the groups so spanning less groups in the hierarchy.stevebee92653 wrote: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.No, you totally ignore the fact that I specifically chose more than one system to illustrate the solution to your false dilemma.stevebee92653 wrote: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.Well the statement “those SINGLE species common ancestors” makes no sense whatsoever, a common ancestor must be common to more than one species, however, I will try and interpret that the way you are trying to convey that is that the common ancestor of several species is itself a single species which is what I alluded to. So since a common ancestor is in itself a single species there can be only one species in which a particular vision system evolved, this single common ancestor being common to all those groups that have that particular vision system, so it's not necessary to invoke independent evolution of any particular vision system in many different species at the same time. Your dilemma therefore is overcome by postulating that, as we observe, there are several vision systems each of which has a separate common ancestor species which evolved different vision systems and different types of eyes such as the vertebrate eye type and the cephalopod eye type – superficially similar but different enough in detail to postulate separate common ancestors which evolved these eyes independently. And of course completely different eye types such as the compound eye type seen in insects for example also evolved in a different common ancestor which propagated the possibility of using that eye type to all it's descendants.stevebee92653 wrote:For example, vision had to evolve independently in each one of those SINGLE species common ancestors to all eyed groups of species.Of course the species (and Classes, Orders, Families, and Genus) within each of those phyla had the same common ancestor but there are also different common ancestor species for each of the other levels of the nested hierarchy such as Class, Order, Family, and Genus, as well as different points along the way where different biological systems evolved – they don't have to all evolve in the same species that was the common ancestor of any particular level of the hierarchy. What we actually do see is that several groups can have common biological systems, therefore those systems must have evolved in the common ancestors of that group. We also we find that only some classes of any particular higher grouping share a common biological system where other classes don't have this particular system therefore those systems must have evolved in a common ancestor to only that sub group of classes as the system is not shared by all classes of that group etc.etc. - a nested hierarchical suture of sub groups within groups. It just happens that to conveniently delineate these groups that we distinguish that we align the break points to coincide with major biological evolutionary innovations.stevebee92653 wrote: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.I am sure that there are plenty of examples of cladistic diagrams that have already been drawn up, some examples of which you have been shown or pointed to already. Now, if you have any examples of where you personally get stuck when following these examples I am sure that we could discuss those but it's not worth my while to go to the trouble of drawing a diagrammatic representation just for you to summarily dismiss it. Just try to understand my explanations and how they refute your false dilemma argument for now.stevebee92653 wrote:If you disagree, pencil out a diagrammatic tree and try and track where the organs and systems would go. You will get stuck quickly.Of course I do, love the winking jellyfish BTW, but you are claiming that it's either ISP or ID whereas, once you actually understand it, the concept of nested hierarchies and common descent for the various biological systems actually explains how these systems were propagated to all the species that posses them quite easily and, IMHO, simply, though if you don't understand it after that mammoth explanation I suppose I only have myself to blame, unless you are being wilfully ignorant or simply trolling.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
"the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system" (Where did they get it from? And ALL of the other systems they had to have to pass on all organs/systems extant and common to their descendants? The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".)
So the common ancestor of tetrapods did not have to evolve that particular system it inherited it form the common ancestor of all organsims that have that particular visual system, those organisms include tetrapods but are not exclusively tetrapods as fish and all vertebrates have that same visual system. Therefore there does not have to be a single common ancestor that had to evolve all those systems you mention, it is perfectly plausible they inherited them form their own ancestors or that they did not evolve until after that specific ancestor.
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
stevebee92653 wrote:
What a disappointment your are. Gee, if the "respect" rules were not in place, you would revert to evo-demeaning that is always so thoughtful, scientific, and intelligent?
stevebee92653 wrote:I thought you would do better, but your answer is a FAILURE of logic, science, thought, and reasoning.
stevebee92653 wrote:The real killer for your explanation, and what is most telling is: "it's not worth my while to go to the trouble of drawing a diagrammatic representation just for you to summarily dismiss it." You won't diagram because you can't. I would dismiss it because that diagram isn't possible.
stevebee92653 wrote: You won't think it out because your belief system prevents that thought. So you spout dogma:
stevebee92653 wrote:"an example of the reasoning behind the argument for common ancestry as the solution to your false dilemma." (CA kills the "solution"; it doesn't answer anything. It's a curse for you. If ISP were possible, you would have hope. But, no ISP, no hope for your belief.)
stevebee92653 wrote:"the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system" (Where did they get it from? And ALL of the other systems they had to have to pass on all organs/systems extant and common to their descendants? The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".)
stevebee92653 wrote:This is such a simple concept. It amazes me the hoops you will jump through to pretend like it's not a problem. You blind yourself to reality.
stevebee92653 wrote:You came on my blog and respectfully requested a conversation, which is why I came back for only discussion with you. Being as that has failed, I won't make the same mistake again. You are welcome to come to my blog to discuss any time. Try the diagram thing for yourself; not for me. I know the result. You won't do it. You can't. You don't want to know the result.
stevebee92653 wrote: "the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system" (Where did they get it from? And ALL of the other systems they had to have to pass on all organs/systems extant and common to their descendants? The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".)
This is such a simple concept. It amazes me the hoops you will jump through to pretend like it's not a problem. You blind yourself to reality.
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.
That’s hardly what I meant. I would never follow rules just for the sake of the rules. Of course I intend to discuss the topic thoughtfully and in a scientific, intelligent and most of all rational manner. It’s simply that I do not have to “respect” someone personally to be able to do that. Which part of my response do you object to from a personal disrespect point of view? I will edit it if you wish. Anyway, let’s just move on from the argument about respect and continue with the matter at hand.stevebee92653 wrote:What a disappointment your are. Gee, if the "respect" rules were not in place, you would revert to evo-demeaning that is always so thoughtful, scientific, and intelligent? I thought you would do better, but your answer is a FAILURE of logic, science, thought, and reasoning.
OK, I’ll draw a diagram, however, you have been shown such diagrams before and I don’t think it’s going to help the discussion much. However, it might be instructive to you for me to “draw you a diagram” as you don’t seem to be able to understand my argument from my explanations alone.stevebee92653 wrote:The real killer for your explanation, and what is most telling is: "it's not worth my while to go to the trouble of drawing a diagrammatic representation just for you to summarily dismiss it." You won't diagram because you can't. I would dismiss it because that diagram isn't possible. You won't think it out because your belief system prevents that thought. So you spout dogma:
CA4------------------------------------s9
|
|--------------------------------------s8
|
CA3--------------------------------------s9
|
|----------------------------------------s8
|
-------------------------------------------s7
|
|------------------------------------------s6
|
CA2------------------------------------------s5
|
|--------------------------------------------s4
|
-----------------------------------------------s3
|
|-----------------------------------------------s2
|
CA1-----------------------------------------------s1
It’s no good just asserting that “CA kills the "solution" and “it doesn't answer anything” and not addressing the argument itself. Please explain why my argument is not the solution to your false dilemma.
As I have been showing you, postulating ISP is unnecessary, if you could explain why my explanation does not work then you would have a case. Merely re-asserting your flawed argument does nothing to move the discussion on.If ISP were possible, you would have hope. But, no ISP, no hope for your belief.)
I told you where – from an earlier ancestor. Please tell my why this is not a sufficient explanation.
I have already explained this, all systems did not need to evolve in the same ancestor at the same point in time, just let me know what the problem is with my explanation.stevebee92653 wrote:And ALL of the other systems they had to have to pass on all organs/systems extant and common to their descendants?
Yes any recent ancestor of a species (or group of species) with several systems has to have them all to pass them on, however, as I explained, for any particular species (or group of species) there are several common ancestors over time, not just one. I think that you are confusing the concept of the most recent common ancestor of any two species (or groups of species) of which there is only one, with, again as I have explained, the concept that there are nested hierarchies of common ancestors each of these passing on the systems that they or their ancestors have evolved to their descendants, the older ancestors passing on systems to the more recent ancestors, hence any single common ancestor does not require to evolve all of these systems at once.stevebee92653 wrote:The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".
It’s too simplistic, the reality is that of multiple ancestors evolving different systems over time in serial, not in parallel as your spoof ISP concept would have it.stevebee92653 wrote:This is such a simple concept.
I have taken great pains to explain to you why it’s not a problem – are you going to address my explanations or simply continue to assert the same refuted false dichotomies over and over again?It amazes me the hoops you will jump through to pretend like it's not a problem. You blind yourself to reality.
And I have discussed the topic in a “respectful” way. As stated above I will edit my post of anything that you consider disrespectful – PM me about it.stevebee92653 wrote:You came on my blog and respectfully requested a conversation, which is why I came back for only discussion with you. Being as that has failed, I won't make the same mistake again.
If you will not continue here, I might just take you up on that.stevebee92653 wrote:You are welcome to come to my blog to discuss any time.
see above and please comment on it. – also see links to other cladistic diagrams given by other posters on how common ancestry works and tell me what you think is wrong with them.stevebee92653 wrote:Try the diagram thing for yourself; not for me. I know the result. You won't do it. You can't. You don't want to know the result.
halucigenia wrote:That’s hardly what I meant. I would never follow rules just for the sake of the rules. Of course I intend to discuss the topic thoughtfully and in a scientific, intelligent and most of all rational manner. It’s simply that I do not have to “respect” someone personally to be able to do that. Which part of my response do you object to from a personal disrespect point of view? I will edit it if you wish. Anyway, let’s just move on from the argument about respect and continue with the matter at hand.stevebee92653 wrote:What a disappointment your are. Gee, if the "respect" rules were not in place, you would revert to evo-demeaning that is always so thoughtful, scientific, and intelligent? I thought you would do better, but your answer is a FAILURE of logic, science, thought, and reasoning.OK, I’ll draw a diagram, however, you have been shown such diagrams before and I don’t think it’s going to help the discussion much. However, it might be instructive to you for me to “draw you a diagram” as you don’t seem to be able to understand my argument from my explanations alone.stevebee92653 wrote:The real killer for your explanation, and what is most telling is: "it's not worth my while to go to the trouble of drawing a diagrammatic representation just for you to summarily dismiss it." You won't diagram because you can't. I would dismiss it because that diagram isn't possible. You won't think it out because your belief system prevents that thought. So you spout dogma:
- Code: Select all
CA4------------------------------------s9
|
|--------------------------------------s8
|
CA3--------------------------------------s9
|
|----------------------------------------s8
|
-------------------------------------------s7
|
|------------------------------------------s6
|
CA2------------------------------------------s5
|
|--------------------------------------------s4
|
-----------------------------------------------s3
|
|-----------------------------------------------s2
|
CA1-----------------------------------------------s1
sx - species
CA1 - common ancestor of all groups and species on the diagram
Example - evolved a circulatory system,
all species and groups in this diagram inherit this circulatory system.
all species and groups in the s2 to s4 lineage have a circulatory system but do not have vision system A, do not have rudimentary or more complex lungs, hepatic system, multi chambered heart etc.etc.etc. do not have swim bladders, as all these things evolved in different lineages.
the s2 to s4 lineage may have evolved a different vision system, different respiration system etc. this is not shown on this diagram, if the diagram was extended it could show those lineages and the common ancestors required for those features/systems.
CA2 - common ancestor of all groups and species shown above that point
Example - evolved a specific vision system A
All species and groups in the lineage above this point in inherit this vision system
CA3 - common ancestor of all groups and species shown above this point
Example - evolved rudimentary air breathing lungs
All species and groups in the lineage above this point inherit rudimentary air breathing lungs or modifications of them
CA4 - common ancestor of all groups and species above this point but not shown.
Example - evolved swim bladder from rudimentary air breathing lung
All species and groups in the lineage above this point inherit swim bladder
no species in this lineage evolve complex air breathing lungs
s8 or s9 - lineage evolve more complex lungs,hepatic system, multi chambered heart etc.etc.etc. This is not shown on this diagram for sake of brevity but I am sure that you can envisage extending the diagram along the same lines of nested hierarchies of ancestral lineages and the diagram can be extended in the same way as the rest of the diagram for any list of features/systems you care to choose.It’s no good just asserting that “CA kills the "solution" and “it doesn't answer anything” and not addressing the argument itself. Please explain why my argument is not the solution to your false dilemma.As I have been showing you, postulating ISP is unnecessary, if you could explain why my explanation does not work then you would have a case. Merely re-asserting your flawed argument does nothing to move the discussion on.If ISP were possible, you would have hope. But, no ISP, no hope for your belief.)I told you where – from an earlier ancestor. Please tell my why this is not a sufficient explanation.I have already explained this, all systems did not need to evolve in the same ancestor at the same point in time, just let me know what the problem is with my explanation.stevebee92653 wrote:And ALL of the other systems they had to have to pass on all organs/systems extant and common to their descendants?Yes any recent ancestor of a species (or group of species) with several systems has to have them all to pass them on, however, as I explained, for any particular species (or group of species) there are several common ancestors over time, not just one. I think that you are confusing the concept of the most recent common ancestor of any two species (or groups of species) of which there is only one, with, again as I have explained, the concept that there are nested hierarchies of common ancestors each of these passing on the systems that they or their ancestors have evolved to their descendants, the older ancestors passing on systems to the more recent ancestors, hence any single common ancestor does not require to evolve all of these systems at once.stevebee92653 wrote:The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".It’s too simplistic, the reality is that of multiple ancestors evolving different systems over time in serial, not in parallel as your spoof ISP concept would have it.stevebee92653 wrote:This is such a simple concept.I have taken great pains to explain to you why it’s not a problem – are you going to address my explanations or simply continue to assert the same refuted false dichotomies over and over again?It amazes me the hoops you will jump through to pretend like it's not a problem. You blind yourself to reality.And I have discussed the topic in a “respectful” way. As stated above I will edit my post of anything that you consider disrespectful – PM me about it.stevebee92653 wrote:You came on my blog and respectfully requested a conversation, which is why I came back for only discussion with you. Being as that has failed, I won't make the same mistake again.If you will not continue here, I might just take you up on that.stevebee92653 wrote:You are welcome to come to my blog to discuss any time.see above and please comment on it. – also see links to other cladistic diagrams given by other posters on how common ancestry works and tell me what you think is wrong with them.stevebee92653 wrote:Try the diagram thing for yourself; not for me. I know the result. You won't do it. You can't. You don't want to know the result.
Here's a nice detailed example - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fe_SVG.svg
Also, why don’t you show me your attempt at a diagram, and I’ll show you how your misconceptions about the theory of evolution make it impossible for you to draw one.
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
Varangian wrote:The debate so far:
Stevebee: "The scientists are wrong and lying, and you are all indoctrinated! I am right! Here's why!"
Everyone else: "You've got it all wrong. There are tons of science that tell that the theories are correct. Here's why."
Stevebee: "The scientists are wrong and lying, and you are all indoctrinated! I am right! Here's why! I'm leaving now!"
Everyone else: "You've got it all wrong. There are tons of science that tell that the theories are correct. Here's why."
Stevebee: "The scientists are wrong and lying, and you are all indoctrinated! I am right! Here's why!I'm leaving now!"
Everyone else: "You've got it all wrong. There are tons of science that tell that the theories are correct. Here's why."
Stevebee: "The scientists are wrong and lying, and you are all indoctrinated! I am right! Here's why!I'm leaving now!"
Everyone else: "You've got it all wrong. There are tons of science that tell that the theories are correct. Here's why."
Stevebee: "The scientists are wrong and lying, and you are all indoctrinated! I am right! Here's why!I'm leaving now!"
Everyone else:![]()
![]()
To be continued...
OK,it's a discussion of a hypothetical scenario, and I'll try to keep any jargon to the minimum necessary. However, my scenario can actually be backed up by what we have found out by studying the species and groups in question so, if you assert that X can't happen I should at least be able to counter that assertion by giving an actual example where it did.stevebee92653 wrote:For ease of discussion, let’s say your organs were generalized organ systems. Labeling them A, B, C and D would be far easier, but since you used actual organs, let’s go with them as EXAMPLES. I don’t want to get into a “thing” here about “Stevie doesn’t know feeblefitzers have a “simple” lung, while aeolopiles have a “more complex” lung,” which for sure will happen anyway.
As I have already stated the process occurs throughout the classification system therefore phyla have common ancestors within Kingdom and Classes have common ancestors within Phyla etc. But whatever, let's carry on and see what you have to say.stevebee92653 wrote:And let’s say we are talking in the neighborhood of phyla.
No, that looks like a bait and switch to me – you originally asserted that the evolution of biological systems could not happen without ISP, I would argue that vision is a function of several biological systems – the different vision systems that different groups of organisms have evolved, evidenced by the different eye types that they have evolved. What I actually stated was that a particular vision system evolved at this point - CA2. The origin of vision itself, as has been stated by others on this thread, was way back ancestral history as evidenced by organisms with very different types of eyes/vision systems having the same genes controlling the development of those different eyes/vision systems (PAX6 etc.- a hint for those of us that are not jargon illiterate).stevebee92653 wrote:Of course your problem is huge. Vision evolved in your CA2, which means that all descendants of CA1 (s-1 to s-4) unfortunately missed vision.
Not necessarily, different vision systems have evolved different eye types. The origin of these different vision systems would have been in a different ancestor.stevebee92653 wrote:And their descendants should be eyeless today.
No, as stated above,stevebee92653 wrote:Else CA1 OR s1, s2, s3,and s4 had to evolve vision independently.
Don't you read what I have written?halucigenia wrote:the s2 to s4 lineage may have evolved a different vision system.
No, they could be very similar, or very different, not necessarily almost identical, but evolved separately. I was thinking of my previous example of the differences between the vertebrate eye and the cephalopod eye, which quite obviously, when looked at in detail, evolved from a different ancestor as different tissue types and arrangements of those tissues have been co-opted to form the eye.stevebee92653 wrote:And that (those) vision system(s) would have to be almost identical to the vision system CA2 evolved.
No, my scenario was that CA3 evolved rudimentary lungs specifically allowing for CA4 to evolve swim bladders. As stated above - s8 or s9 went on to evolve complex lungs not CA3 (oops, I just noticed the top s8 and s9 should read s10 and s11). Again, read what I have written and try to understand before asserting problems where there are none.stevebee92653 wrote:Your CA3 evolved complex lungs
No, complex lungs do not feature on the diagram at all, I would have to extend the diagram to include the common ancestor in which complex lungs evolved.stevebee92653 wrote:which means complex lungs would miss all descendants s1 to s8.
CA1 and CA2 did not evolve any lungs, complex lungs evolved off the current diagram.stevebee92653 wrote:CA1 and CA2 would then have to evolve nearly identical complex lungs for its descendants.
s1 to s8 never evolve lungs, they are meant to indicate organisms that did not have an ancestor in which lungs evolved, however, they must have evolved some other respiratory system not shown on the diagram.stevebee92653 wrote:Or s1 to s8 would have to evolve their own set of lungs, and those lungs would also have to be almost identical to the lungs evolved by CA3.
The diagram is necessarily incomplete, for brevity and to explain the concept of nested hierarchies of ancestors. However, it would be possible to extend the diagram to include the other attributes that you mention. In the diagram, CA1 is meant to be the point at which the circulatory system evolved, as such it has already evolved (possibly rudimentary but present) heart, vessels, blood, heart musculature and valves, nerve connections, brain controllers etc. which as you rightly say are also required for lungs as well. Also as stated above this circulatory system was required to oxygenate internal tissues and evolved to do so in conjunction with a system to supply oxygen, which in these early ancestors would have been some form of gills as the organisms in question would have been aquatic. Furthermore the rudimentary lung, which evolved later, evolved from an adaption of the gut which was already integrated with the circulatory system and nervous system so, as usually is the case with evolution, it was adapted from modifications of existing structure and integrated with already functioning systems.stevebee92653 wrote:Now add in all of the other entangled web of organs and systems needed by the lungs:
hearts, vessels, blood, heart musculature and valves, nerve connections, brain controllers, diaphragm (et al), and your diagram fails badly.
It is quite close to reality, and adding the detail would not be so difficult, it just means extending the existing nested hierarchical structure to include these other adaptions.stevebee92653 wrote:You have a web of nightmares here, and this is a simple diagram. As it got closer to reality, the nightmare would expand exponentially.
The possibility of evolving any specific vision system relies on the fact that functionality of vision evolved in an earlier ancestor than that specific system (system A in the diagram) evolved in. Of course the CA that evolved that specific vision system that is represented in the diagram had to have an earlier ancestor in which light sensitive cells etc. evolved. However, these already evolved light sensitive cells could be co-opted into any of many specific vision systems, only one of which is indicated as an example on the diagram. Also, the diagram is meant to represent relationships and purposefully has no absolute time-frame, it just indicates that CA1 comes before CA2 etc. I can’t see how that is a problem, the process that it illustrates still refutes your false dilemma that it has to be ISP or design.stevebee92653 wrote:Your notion that vision came from an “earlier ancestor” crashes just like your diagram. The “earlier ancestor” is represented by your diagram, since there is no time frame, and it has the same problems.
Why? Why can’t an organ develop over a period of time within multiple species within a lineage, each change getting passed on from one species to another in succession from ancestor to descendant? Obviously a specific form of an organ is passed down from a common ancestor to all its descendants that have that specific form, but that does not prevent variations on that organ being passed to other species of another lineage from an earlier ancestor in which the rudimentary form of organ evolved. Can you outline the process that prevents this from happening?stevebee92653 wrote:Another problem for you is that each organ/system had to evolve in a single species.
My example takes this specifically into account. The rudimentary lung, partially formed compared to the mammalian lung for example, but fully functional for the purpose that it was used for, was propagated from the common ancestor CA3 to all the species that were the descendants of that ancestor. However, some went on to retain the rudimentary lung (only a few % evolved compared to complex lungs if you like) while others developed a complex lung and still others, after CA4 evolved it from the rudimentary lung, had a swim bladder instead. No two different species (or groups of species) require to complete (not that completing anything that evolves makes any sense – organs continue to evolve and I would never use the word complete for any organ) the remaining 80% as you put it, any group of organisms that have a similar complex lung necessarily inherited it form a single common ancestor (not that this single common ancestor had to evolve the organ de-novo – see above). Organisms that branched off before this particular type of complex lung evolved necessarily have a different form of lung, a swim bladder, a rudimentary lung, or if they branched off before the rudimentary lung evolved – no lung at all.stevebee92653 wrote:If a system was 20% formed, then a speciation took place, we would now have two species that would have to finish the remaining 80% evolution of those organ system independently; an unthinkable complexity.
Your scenario of entire systems evolving de-novo in single species, partially formed organs being completed in multiple lineages to form identical organs etc. is unrealistic so of course could not evolve the organs/systems that we see to day. My scenario, that of common ancestry, once you actually understand it rather than presenting a strawman version of it actually explains it quite sufficiently.stevebee92653 wrote:Multiply this complexity by a million and you get the idea. I hope. Can you imagine if that scenario actually took place….what organ systems would look like today?
Agreed, absurd, unrealistic and an entirely unnecessary proposition once you understand how evolution actually works.stevebee92653 wrote:And of course the notion of two different species coalescing with their partially evolved systems is absurd, and ISP would be required again.
I did, and I explained how it works, you still don’t get it yet do you?stevebee92653 wrote:Re: “A species can have multiple commons ancestors?” Draw that one out.
No, and that’s not what I am proposing.stevebee92653 wrote:Can multiple species coalesce into a single species?
Each lineage has its own set of branches converging on common ancestors, species diverge from those common ancestors and as you quite rightly say do not coalesce. But I am not suggesting that they need to coalesce.stevebee92653 wrote:Each species has its own independent branches, and combining any is not possible without ISP.
No they can’t and I’m not suggesting that they are, this is simply a misunderstanding, or misrepresentation on your part. CA1 and CA2 are both, however, common ancestors of s5 and all above.stevebee92653 wrote:Can CA1 and CA2 be common ancestors to any of s1, through s8? Unless there is some huge feat of science that I am not familiar with, I don’t think so.
Your arguments are flawed and I have provided alternatives to your false dilemmas as anyone reading this should be able to see for themselves, only you don’t seem to understand how my arguments refute your assertions.stevebee92653 wrote:For you to continue describing my argument as “flawed”, and my dilemma as “false”
Just leave the respect issue out of it will you, it does not advance the discussion at all.stevebee92653 wrote:and that you don’t “respect” the way I think is disingenuous at best.
Well, I for one, think that it does.stevebee92653 wrote:You should learn to let your discussion speak for itself.
I am up for any one that can read this forum to comment on any errors that I may have made in my arguments, I am confident that others will understand the explanations that I put forward and hope that it is quite apparent how they refute your assertions, if not, as I say I am open for discussion about any of it from anyone, unlike you – see below.stevebee92653 wrote:Let others decide if your argument beats mine. What better place for you to do that than RS, since it’s usually 20 against me, and 20 for you. You can’t lose on this site. I have already lost this discussion by vote count before anyone even reads it. I am sure it will be Stevie 0, hal 20.
I am sure that they will chime in and it would be a pity for you not to respond to any of their messages but that will not stop me from challenging you with any of them that take my fancy that I may not have thought about myself.stevebee92653 wrote:And as I said, you are the only person on this thread I will respond to, due only to your request for conversation on my site. So if anyone else wants to chime in, they can chime to you.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest