Remember Stevebee?

ADParker · **#341** by **ADParker** » Aug 29, 2010 9:54 am

Can't find the bloody thing now. :facepalm:

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

halucigenia · **#342** by **halucigenia** » Aug 29, 2010 11:25 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the rare intelligent answer and discussion. I really wish more people here could discuss as you have.

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:This really is such a fun and fascinating subject. Discussing it should be open and respectful. But oh well.

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 you

.
Anyway before I show any disrespect to you personally I'd better move on.

stevebee92653 wrote:You run into HUGE problems right at the start. Your explanation is clear, but not correct.

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: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.

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:You can't simply choose to isolate and discuss one system without addressing all systems.

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:Do you actually think all systems extant and common to all tetrapods evolved in that one single species CA?

Er, no, that would be part of your false dilemma and a strawman that no one actually holds to be true.

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.

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: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.

No, you totally ignore the fact that I specifically chose more than one system to illustrate the solution to your false dilemma.

stevebee92653 wrote:For example, vision had to evolve independently in each one of those SINGLE species common ancestors to all eyed groups of species.

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: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.

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:If you disagree, pencil out a diagrammatic tree and try and track where the organs and systems would go. You will get stuck quickly.

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: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.

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.

Rumraket · **#343** by **Rumraket** » Aug 29, 2010 12:14 pm

GenesForLife wrote:Now, ADParker , CITATION PLEASE

Could it be this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753965/
Full pdf.

Reptilian heart development and the molecular basis of cardiac chamber evolution

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.

And then there's all this:
http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/4/1223

Cardiac Chamber Formation: Development, Genes, and 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)

GenesForLife · **#344** by **GenesForLife** » Aug 29, 2010 3:04 pm

The first one looks good, but only ADParker can confirm if the paper and the study in the documentary he watched are the same.

stevebee92653 · **#345** by **stevebee92653** » Aug 29, 2010 7:46 pm

halucigenia wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the rare intelligent answer and discussion. I really wish more people here could discuss as you have.
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:This really is such a fun and fascinating subject. Discussing it should be open and respectful. But oh well.
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 you .
Anyway before I show any disrespect to you personally I'd better move on.
stevebee92653 wrote:You run into HUGE problems right at the start. Your explanation is clear, but not correct.
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: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.
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:You can't simply choose to isolate and discuss one system without addressing all systems.
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:Do you actually think all systems extant and common to all tetrapods evolved in that one single species CA?
Er, no, that would be part of your false dilemma and a strawman that no one actually holds to be true.
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.
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: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.
No, you totally ignore the fact that I specifically chose more than one system to illustrate the solution to your false dilemma.
stevebee92653 wrote:For example, vision had to evolve independently in each one of those SINGLE species common ancestors to all eyed groups of species.
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: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.
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:If you disagree, pencil out a diagrammatic tree and try and track where the organs and systems would go. You will get stuck quickly.
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: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.
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.

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. 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:

"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.)
"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.

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.

Varangian · **#346** by **Varangian** » Aug 29, 2010 7:55 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:You blind yourself to reality.

tytalus · **#347** by **tytalus** » Aug 29, 2010 8:05 pm

Interesting how steve extracts a single phrase at a time to attack, ignoring the rest of the paragraph that incidentally answers the disingenuous questions in his argument. Smacks of quote mining.

"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".)

And to think, halucigenia went on to say

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.

steve seems intent on fabricating the straw man of a single common ancestor species that had to evolve some ridiculous amount of features all in one species; that would be easier to bash down than REALITY (caps lock being cruise control for cool). Just another chunk of the edifice of incredulity, I suppose.

Calilasseia · **#348** by **Calilasseia** » Aug 29, 2010 10:37 pm

And of course, he erects that strawman after I cited the existence of whole phyla of multicellular organisms that don't possess the full range of complex organs seen in modern vertebrates. Indeed, one of the reasons for examining the genomes of organisms such as Monosiga brevicollis, Caenorhabditis elegans and various demosponges, is to elucidate the nature of the transitions between simpler antecedent systems and modern, derived systems at the molecular and genetic level.

ADParker · **#349** by **ADParker** » Aug 30, 2010 5:17 am

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?

And that after he tried so hard to be respectful.
Seriously stevebee92653; how can you expect anything close to a hight degree of respectful dialogue, when you respond to people like you do here?! Are you intentionally engaging in Trollish behaviour?

stevebee92653 wrote:I thought you would do better, but your answer is a FAILURE of logic, science, thought, and reasoning.

I disagree. It is you who seem woefully ignorant (in relation to the confidence in your rhetoric) of what the theory of evolution has to say about common ancestry.

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.

I think anyone else can read for themselves precisely why he chose not to do it just then. And how you just confirmed his suspicions.

Any common ancestry diagram would do to highlight the basics:
Such as this 'little' one here (Grossly over simplified of course - you may notice that our closest relative there is Mus Musculus [The common house mouse - and the true source of the nickname "Mus" of an old friend of mine. :lol:

])

Note that every point of divergence there represents a common ancestor (most recent common ancestor to be precise) or those lines that follow from it.

stevebee92653 wrote: You won't think it out because your belief system prevents that thought. So you spout dogma:

You are projecting now. You can't help making such 'religious' accusations. This is why many think your main aim is to provoke not engage in debate.

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.)

See? You just repeat the same old nonsense, without paying any real attention to what is being said. Common ancestry - many many differing cases of common ancestry is the solution to what you claim to be such a problem, one solved I don't know how many decades ago.

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".)

Where did they get it from? Well as he answered in the very next 'breath': FIsh.
That is the ancestors of tetrapods (without a shadow of a doubt due to a plethora of evidence) were bony fish, and fish have and had quite developed eyes...and kidneys and some of them had lungs...

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.

It's not a problem, at least what you are saying in not a problem except a problem of YOUR understanding of the science.

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.

How quick you are to dismiss. I thought halucigenia bent over backwards to accommodate you. Only to blow him off so glibly. :nono:

You want REAL information of evolution, of those organs etc.? Then why not make the effort to look them up. Some examples:
Lungs, air breathing.
Jellyfish eye genes suggest a common origin for animal eyes
This on Tetrapods includes this snippet:
"It is now clear that the common ancestor of the bony fishes had a primitive air-breathing lung (later evolved into a swim bladder in most ray-finned fishes). This suggests that it evolved in warm shallow waters, the kind of habitat the lobe finned fishes were living and made use of their simple lung when the oxygen level in the water became too low."

The basics of the evidence clearly shows that photo-sensitivity (the starting point of eyes) started way way back, such that even some unicellular organism have such features (spots.) Over innumerable generations more advanced eyes evolved. Due to divergences of many different lines of evolution, this resulted in many (40 or more) essentially different evolutionary paths to different kinds of eyes - albeit from this same far simpler origin (common ancestor.) Take a look at insect vs, mammalian eyes as a prime example of the differences.
One stumbling block you seem to have is some kind of assumption that one single species suddenly evolved a complex version of an eye, heart or whatever. For starters single species don't evolve all that much, certainly not complex features in most cases (there are rare exceptions.) Such evolutionary change usually takes more than the changes within a single species.
And before you go on about only using one organ.; Well that is only the start of it. I chose eyes because their origins appear very early indeed, before any organs at all (if you can take calling a photosensitive spot on a cell an "eye" of course, the key is to realise that complex structures "become", they grow and develop, not suddenly appear [again with rare exceptions.])
As eyes evolved along their various pathways, other unrelated (or less directly related) mutations and resulting variation and natural selection etc. of course continued to take place. As such other things like 'improvements' in fluid/chemical/hormone... transfer around the evolving organisms - I.e. the formation of more and more advanced circulatory systems. Including the evolution of differing kinds of body fluid pumps (hearts) breathing systems (gills, lungs, tracheal systems [insects]) and so on. All of these features (organs/traits...) evolved somewhat in tandem.
The best way to try to track down the origin of any one feature is to look back and find what organisms have it, and from there surmise that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all those (probably diverse) creatures has that feature as well (at least to the same extent as that shared by all those organisms) and either it was the first to have that feature to that degree, or itself inherited it from it's ancestors. But not so far back as to be shared by those ancestors that lead to that MRCA and other known organisms (current living ones for example) that don't share that feature (eyes, lungs of whatever.) This is one way that that "Tree of life" (simplified i the link above) is formed in the first place. The fascinating thing is that looking at different features (eye, lung, skelatl structures etc.) as well as vastly different types of evidence such as biogeography (where different varieties are), innumerable different genetic traits, the fossils, embryology... ALL give the exact same diagram (of course some filling in parts not found in every other methodology, but also confirming many others as well.)
It isn't that complicated, really it isn't.

Here's a question for you stevebee92653 (because I was just reminded of it by the book I am reading; Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True):
Why do you think embryos go through the stages they do? (and yes they do this)
Why do all vertebrates start out with an embryo essentially identical. Braicial arches and so on.
With Fish stopping there and basically only growing in size to be born as Fish.
While the rest of us go through the same distortions of those systems, losing some features and moving the rest around.
With Amphibians stopping there and basically only growing in size to be born as Amphibians.
While the rest of us go through even more distortions of those systems, losing some features and moving the rest around.
With Reptiles stopping there and basically only growing in size to be born as Reptiles.
While finally the rest of us go through even more adjustments in order to finally be born as mammals?

In other words; why do fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals share the same initial embryonic states,
but only amphibians, reptiles and mammals share the next (second) stage (with fish remaining at the first state to keep those features as adults)
and only reptiles and mammals sharing the next (third) stage,
and only mammals the last (fourth) stage?

Why do mammals share all the reptile's states but never the other way around?! (insert any number of such "paradoxes" as possible.) It makes perfect sense in the light of evolution (Because that is the evolutionary path taken: Fish -> Amphibians -> Reptiles -> Mammals, as confirmed by other independent lines of evidence as well, for example mammals have mammalian on top of reptile brains, not the other way around) but by no other means! Doesn't that just seem bizarre to you UNLESS evolution is in fact true?! I know it does to me!

Shrunk · **#350** by **Shrunk** » Aug 30, 2010 10:49 am

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.

And how is this a problem? Let's again quote your post to which hallucigenia was responding:

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 your problem right there. You can't seem to understand that each of those 36 CA for those phyla are also related by common descent. They didn't all have to "evolve" organ systems on their own. They already inherited from their ancestors.

You keep challenging us to draw phylogenetic trees demonstrating the genetic inheritance of these "organ systems", yet you have yet to provide an example of where this seems not to make sense to you. For instance, if your beliefs were correct, we should see the same "organ systems" appearing in various phyla that were not present in any of their respective CA's.

For instance, we should find an "organ system" developing in, say, nematodes that was not present in the CA of all nematodes, and the same organ system also developing in chordates, and/or arthropods and/or flat worms etc that was also not present in their respective CA's. You say you've already worked all this out, so it should be no problem for you to provide abundant examples of such "spread of organ systems" that would require intraspecies procreation.

Ball's in your court, Steve.

Made of Stars · **#351** by **Made of Stars** » Aug 30, 2010 11:26 am

True to form, Steve claims a personal attack when someone goes to the effort of making a comprehensive post. What a waste of time and space.

Steve's got form guys, he doesn't want to give up his cosy ignorance on origins. He uses it to prop up his belief system, so don't expect him to credit anything that might take his blanky away.

halucigenia · **#352** by **halucigenia** » Aug 30, 2010 6:54 pm

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.

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: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:

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.

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.

stevebee92653 wrote:
halucigenia 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.

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.

If ISP were possible, you would have hope. But, no ISP, no hope for your belief.)

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.

stevebee92653 wrote:
halucigenia wrote:"the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system"
Where did they get it from?

I told you where – from an earlier ancestor. Please tell my why this is not a sufficient 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?

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:The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".

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:This is such a simple concept.

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.

It amazes me the hoops you will jump through to pretend like it's not a problem. You blind yourself to reality.

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?

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.

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 are welcome to come to my blog to discuss any time.

If you will not continue here, I might just take you up on that.

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.

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.
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.

stevebee92653 · **#353** by **stevebee92653** » Aug 31, 2010 5:17 am

halucigenia wrote:
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.
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: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:
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.
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.
stevebee92653 wrote:
halucigenia 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.
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.
If ISP were possible, you would have hope. But, no ISP, no hope for your belief.)
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.
stevebee92653 wrote:
halucigenia wrote:"the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system"
Where did they get it from?
I told you where – from an earlier ancestor. Please tell my why this is not a sufficient 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?
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:The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".
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:This is such a simple concept.
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.
It amazes me the hoops you will jump through to pretend like it's not a problem. You blind yourself to reality.
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?

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.
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 are welcome to come to my blog to discuss any time.
If you will not continue here, I might just take you up on that.
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.
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.
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.

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. And let’s say we are talking in the neighborhood of phyla.
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. And their descendants should be eyeless today. Else CA1 OR s1, s2, s3,and s4 had to evolve vision independently. And that (those) vision system(s) would have to be almost identical to the vision system CA2 evolved. Your CA3 evolved complex lungs which means complex lungs would miss all descendants s1 to s8. CA1 and CA2 would then have to evolve nearly identical complex lungs for its descendants. 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. 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. You have a web of nightmares here, and this is a simple diagram. As it got closer to reality, the nightmare would expand exponentially.
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. Another problem for you is that each organ/system had to evolve in a single species. 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. 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? And of course the notion of two different species coalescing with their partially evolved systems is absurd, and ISP would be required again.
Re: “A species can have multiple commons ancestors?” Draw that one out. Can multiple species coalesce into a single species? Each species has its own independent branches, and combining any is not possible without ISP. 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.
For you to continue describing my argument as “flawed”, and my dilemma as “false” and that you don’t “respect” the way I think is disingenuous at best. You should learn to let your discussion speak for itself. 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.
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.

tytalus · **#354** by **tytalus** » Aug 31, 2010 5:41 am

Yes, I suppose one might complain about descriptions of an argument as "flawed". But then, that person might not also say in return that "Of course your problem is huge."

And I wonder why two species that had "20%" of a system, like an eye, would "have" to go on developing it. Since we find species with varying development of, for example, eyes, is there some compelling reason why they would have to go on developing it? Do they know that they could see better if they just try? And if one species develops 30% of an eye, might it not supplant the other, possibly? One wonders.

So steve sets up special conditions for who he will and will not respond to. Doesn't bother me. It's not as if a response is required to debunk his arguments.

Varangian · **#355** by **Varangian** » Aug 31, 2010 7:00 am

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!"
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!"
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!"
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!"
Everyone else: :banghead:

To be continued...

hackenslash · **#356** by **hackenslash** » Aug 31, 2010 7:02 am

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...

FIFY.

natselrox · **#357** by **natselrox** » Aug 31, 2010 7:04 am

The bad penny...

Shrunk · **#358** by **Shrunk** » Aug 31, 2010 11:13 am

Steve, you keep trying to demonstrate your case by using imaginary examples. For instance, if I understand correctly, this is what your are claiming:

According to evolutionary theory, CA1 had a circulatory system, and gave rise to S1, S2, and S3, all of which also have circulatory systems that they inherited from CA1.

However, there is also CA2, which is not descended from CA1, and which gave rise to to S4, S5 ad S6.

CA2 did not have a circulatory system, but S4, S5 and S6 do have circulatory systems. How could this be? The only way this could happen is if they somehow inherited circulatory systems from CA1 or one of its descendents. But that is not possible.

I agree, if this scenario existed, (and if it represented the actual emergence of the same trait in parallel lineages and not just convergent evolution) it would provide a serious challenge to evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately for you, however, I am not aware of any such scenario that actually exists, and you have yet to provide one. All you have provided are hypothetical fictitious examples such as the one I concocted above.

So the challenge for you is to provide an actual, real life example to illustrate your claim. Instead of "CA1, CA2, S1, S2, etc", replace them with the names of actual species (living or extinct) and instead of "circulatory system" you can use any other trait (or "biosystem" if you prefer) that supports your claim. You say you have already done this, so it should be a piece of cake.

Again, ball's in your court, Steve.

halucigenia · **#359** by **halucigenia** » Aug 31, 2010 6:08 pm

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.

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:And let’s say we are talking in the neighborhood of phyla.

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: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.

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).
Oh, and did you miss the fact that all the species and groups above CA1 are in fact descendants of CA1? You just don't get the concept of nested hierarchies yet, do you?

stevebee92653 wrote:And their descendants should be eyeless today.

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:Else CA1 OR s1, s2, s3,and s4 had to evolve vision independently.

No, as stated above,

halucigenia wrote:the s2 to s4 lineage may have evolved a different vision system.

Don't you read what I have written?

stevebee92653 wrote:And that (those) vision system(s) would have to be almost identical to the vision system CA2 evolved.

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:Your CA3 evolved complex lungs

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:which means complex lungs would miss all descendants s1 to s8.

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:CA1 and CA2 would then have to evolve nearly identical complex lungs for its descendants.

CA1 and CA2 did not evolve any lungs, complex lungs evolved off the current 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.

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: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.

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:You have a web of nightmares here, and this is a simple diagram. As it got closer to reality, the nightmare would expand exponentially.

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: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.

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:Another problem for you is that each organ/system had to evolve in a single species.

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: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.

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: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?

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:And of course the notion of two different species coalescing with their partially evolved systems is absurd, and ISP would be required again.

Agreed, absurd, unrealistic and an entirely unnecessary proposition once you understand how evolution actually works.

stevebee92653 wrote:Re: “A species can have multiple commons ancestors?” Draw that one out.

I did, and I explained how it works, you still don’t get it yet do you?
How many ancestors do you have? Innumerable amounts, yes? How many common ancestors do you have with your(hypothetical) sister? How many common with your cousin? How many common with your second cousin twice removed? How many common ancestors does that make it that you have? Think about it, then revisit the diagram.

stevebee92653 wrote:Can multiple species coalesce into a single species?

No, and that’s not what I am proposing.

stevebee92653 wrote:Each species has its own independent branches, and combining any is not possible without ISP.

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: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.

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:For you to continue describing my argument as “flawed”, and my dilemma as “false”

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:and that you don’t “respect” the way I think is disingenuous at best.

Just leave the respect issue out of it will you, it does not advance the discussion at all.

stevebee92653 wrote:You should learn to let your discussion speak for itself.

Well, I for one, think that it does.

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 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: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.

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.

Oh, and please don’t just quote the whole post and comment below it. If you have issue with any particular points please quote and respond to them individually, it will make the discussion flow much better and make it easier for others to follow.

Shrunk · **#360** by **Shrunk** » Aug 31, 2010 6:22 pm

Just for the benefit of halucigenia and anyone else who wants to help Steve grasp the elementary concepts he is still missing: I already had a good go around with him on the topic on this page of his blog. Just so you know what you might be getting yourself into. Maybe someone can think of something I didn't try.

Just a pointer: It's not just evolutionary biology that Steve can't understand. It's basic inheritance and sexual reproduction.

(As a special bonus, of course, you get to witness to origin of the "chihuahua" running gag.)

Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Ads by Google

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Ads by Google

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Ads by Google

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Re: Remember Stevebee?

Who is online