Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#381  Postby Shrunk » Sep 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Shrunk wrote:Just a reminder, Steve:

Shrunk wrote: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.


So I take it you won't be answering this one, Steve? Or is it more accurate to say that you can't?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#382  Postby Shrunk » Sep 02, 2010 3:48 pm

halucigenia wrote: Do you still deny that species cannot have more than one common ancestor?


Fixed. (Just being persnickety. I'm sure everyone knew what you meant. Great post.)
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#383  Postby Shrunk » Sep 02, 2010 3:58 pm

Rumraket wrote:I made another Diagram for Steve, or tbh, mostly for my own enjoyment.
Image
I suppose it's pretty self-explanatory.


It is pretty. However, I could see Steve getting confused (Ha!) in thinking that the same colour represents identical "biosystems", whereas they seem to represent "biosystems" that have the same degree of complexity, but differ in their specific structures. Otherwise, he's liable to pull out his ISP nonsense again, saying that the two "reds" on separated terminals represent traits "jumping" between ancestral lines.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#384  Postby Rumraket » Sep 02, 2010 4:01 pm

I'm quite convinced that it would not be possible to provide an explanation Steve would not somehow be able to intentionally misinterpret :)
In the off chance that he's going to be actually interested in learning something I can clarify that the given colour at any given point on any line, evolved "along the line" from the colour before it in time. The squares are the present, MLUCA is somewhere within an 800 million year past. So time moves from left to right, with biosystems(of various sorts, represented in complexity by colour) evolving accordingly through lineages, along the lines, from blue("simple"), through purple, pink, then red(modern, "complex").
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13145
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#385  Postby halucigenia » Sep 02, 2010 7:33 pm

Shrunk wrote:
halucigenia wrote: Do you still deny that species cannot have more than one common ancestor?


Fixed. (Just being persnickety. I'm sure everyone knew what you meant. Great post.)
Thanks, I should not post when I have a fever, I had to edit that post several times already as I could not think quite straight today, but with time on my hands being off work what else could I find to do with my time today.

And it's pernickety BTW, but I knew what you meant. :mrgreen:
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#386  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 03, 2010 1:55 am

Actually, my old diagram that I used to illustrate the inheritance of ERVs can be pressed into service here too:

Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Originally, I used the coloured markers to illustrate endogenous retroviral insertions in chromosomes, in order to illustrate the point about how inheritance from common ancestors explains the observed patterns seen in real genomes, but "special creation" has NO explanation for this phenomenon. However, the diagram can be used to illustrate the appearance of new features in new lineages as well. The species at the bottom of the tree starts off with simple features, the next species add a small degree of extra complexity, and the next species add yet another small degree of complexity, building up incrementally with each new cladogenesis event. Of course, the "size" of each incremental stage (however that is defined) need not be a fixed constant between any given pair of ancestors and descendants. One lineage could proceed in very small steps, incrementally acquiring small changes in the genome that do not manifest any major phenotypic changes, until that lineage suddenly gives rise to a descendant that acquires a mutation facilitating new building upon what has gone before, whereupon, in that most recent descendant, we see what appears to be a major phenotypic change. On the other hand, a second lineage could acquire genotype changes that result in fairly major phenotypic changes in a short period of time.

And, of course, we have an extant example of major phenotypic change available in pet shops throughout the developed world, in the form of Betta splendens, the Siamese Fighting Fish. Which, in around 100 years of selective breeding by humans, has gone from this:

Image

to this:

Image

More to the point, however, aquarium bred specimens in the 1970s turned up exhibiting a radical new mutation, the Double Tail mutation:

Image

This mutation results in the appearance of:

[1] Increased numbers of dorsal fin rays over the 'standard' fish;

[2] Twin tails arranged in "over-under" shotgun fashion.

The two tails are not merely a single tail split to the caudal peduncle - anatomically, fishes with this mutation are true two-tailed fishes. They possess two caudal plates from which the fin rays emanate, and hence a double caudal peduncle.

The fun part, though, is that the mutation responsible takes place in a single gene, and that gene exhibits classic Mendelian recessive inheritance. So we have here an instance of a mutation in a single gene resulting in a major phenotypic change.

I've known about this mutation since it first appeared in the 1970s - the first specimen I saw was on page 9 of the November 1977 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine (yes, I still have the magazine!) - but the Double Tail mutation was in circulation amongst specialist Betta breeders for some years before this. I know this for a fact, because the specimen exhibited in that photograph is a "melano black" Double Tail, an extremely rare combination that even today requires special effort to produce, and Double Tails of other colours certainly existed beforehand in order to produce that "melano black" specimen. For those unfamiliar with this topic, "melano black" Bettas are difficult to produce because females homozygous for this recessive mutation are infertile (in some cases, the mutation is lethal in females), though there exists a "fertile black" mutation which is less intense, and consequently less desirable colour wise than the intense "melano black". Consequently, you have to go to the trouble of producing individuals that are heterozygous for both the "melano black" gene and the Double Tail gene, then cross them to produce a "melano black" Double Tail male, which is hard. Turn up at a Betta show with a good quality "melano black" Double Tail, and you'll walk away with a prize.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#387  Postby Made of Stars » Sep 03, 2010 8:19 am

Calilasseia wrote:...Which, in around 100 years of selective breeding by humans, has gone from this:

Image

to this:

Image

OMG, I cant belive it. u must be indocternated to belive something so unbelivable!11!1

And dont try to talk 'evidence', evilushinist.

:roll:
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#388  Postby stijndeloose » Sep 03, 2010 8:44 am

Made of Stars wrote:OMG, I cant belive it. u must be indocternated to belive something so unbelivable!11!1

And dont try to talk 'evidence', evilushinist.

:roll:


Iz stilla phish! :rolleyes:
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#389  Postby Varangian » Sep 03, 2010 1:16 pm

stijndeloose wrote:
Made of Stars wrote:OMG, I cant belive it. u must be indocternated to belive something so unbelivable!11!1

And dont try to talk 'evidence', evilushinist.

:roll:


Iz stilla phish! :rolleyes:


...of the phish kind!
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 54
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#390  Postby Shrunk » Sep 03, 2010 1:17 pm

halucigenia wrote: And it's pernickety BTW, but I knew what you meant. :mrgreen:


:doh:

Touche!
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#391  Postby GenesForLife » Sep 03, 2010 1:57 pm

Apparently both Pernickety and Persnickety are permissible.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#392  Postby Made of Stars » Sep 03, 2010 2:20 pm

If not necessary
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#393  Postby GenesForLife » Sep 03, 2010 2:36 pm

If something is to be deemed necessary it must meet the necessitations that were necessitated by that which was used necessarily to necessitate necessity... sorry, my head hurts now.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#394  Postby Paul » Sep 03, 2010 2:56 pm

GenesForLife wrote:If something is to be deemed necessary it must meet the necessitations that were necessitated by that which was used necessarily to necessitate necessity... sorry, my head hurts now.


You're not John Prescott are you?
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 61
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#395  Postby GenesForLife » Sep 03, 2010 5:03 pm

No, I'm lean and lanky...
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#396  Postby CADman2300 » Sep 08, 2010 8:40 pm

News Alert: SteveBee just updated his blog with the article he said he was going to write about Taxonomic charts and such.
http://www.evillusion.net/
The article is called "Phylogenetic Trees, Organs, and Bio-Systems" and it's located right below articles 1 and 1A. For some reason it has the same URL as his main page so linking it might be a little tricky.
The whole article is a joke and not a very funny one either. He still sticks with his Straw Man about inter-species procreation and still shoots it down.
Then there's this:

(4) A single species common ancestor to the entire extant group would have had to evolve all organs common to the entire modern group. Not a rational possibility. The notion that a single species could evolve an organ or biological system without planning is absurd. A single species evolving an entire inventory of organs and biological systems extant and common to a modern group isn’t worth discussion.

He still sticks with the outdated idea that nature has some kind of ultimate goal and that the development of organs needs to be predetermined. He's told that evolution is an ongoing process and that organs look the way they do now because we're all in the present and that's just what they look like so far. Who knows what they'll look like in another 20 million years.

The best answer I have received from evolutinauts when discussing this subject is, “Oh, that would be common ancestry! Case closed!” I hope some evolutionaut will read this page and let me know where I am wrong. What the answer is to this conundrum. What am I not seeing. I will make any changes, and correct any errors that an evolutionaut finds. And if they can prove me wrong, I will even eat humble pie, and write a retraction. Since this entire page is from my own thinking and observations, and I certainly know I am not perfect, I sincerely am open to criticism and modification.

After reading the entire article, a better question would be "Where am I right?". If I know him as well as I think, he'll probably just attack the whoever points out his errors and leave the article unchanged.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#397  Postby lucek » Sep 09, 2010 1:57 am

I'll take the challenge. The following was sent to him. I know nothing will come of it (he already shot down the eye example and called the person proposing it a troll) but who here thinks that they are changing a raving lunatics mind?

The digestive system Started as a simple indentation that could absorb nutrients. As it got deeper it could absorb more dew to increased surface area. Eventually this indentation went to the other side witch allowed the organism to excrete waste matter out of it's body. This tube connecting what can now be called a mouth and anus is the first organ in the system. From this a simple sphincter would form allowing food to remain in the body longer. The tissues surrounding the tube slowly became better at absorbing nutrients. From this more sphincters separated a section of the tube witch slowly swelled and became a stomach. The stomach formed better ways of breaking down food, while the remaining tube became still better at absorbing nutrients and removing waste from the body. Certain cells in the wall of the tube start to specialize in producing different fluids. They clump together and slowly form larger structures as this is more energy efficient then having them wasting there fluids and having them in the intestines. That's an evolutionary pathway of one of the larger organ systems. Every step gives a benefit.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#398  Postby hotshoe » Sep 09, 2010 3:47 am

It's good to note that tube-shaped digestive system did evolve before lungs, complicated nervous system, backbone, etc. Tube-shaped digestive system organism is the common ancestor of most animals -- that is, not just the large furry things we think of as "animals", not just all the vertebrates, but the simpler creepy crawlies, too. As it was more successful than simpler animals which didn't have a tube, it gave rise to many descendants which spread, were in turn successful in various places, and started their own families, who diversified into many of the different phyla - still existing or extinct - which non-scientists never learn of (because we generally pay attention to the ones that are at least a little like us, the ones who at least have backbones and central nervous systems ...). Tube-shaped digestion predates the beginning of our phylum, the Chordata, by at least 500 million years.
So that was eons in which to add the next systems of interest to us, like nerve cord and closed blood vessels. Whichever tube-digestion ancestor managed to evolve the first primitive nerve-cord is the one who is the ancestor of all the chordates; every other tube-digestion animal is either the ancestor of a different phylum than Chordates, or else died out completely.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#399  Postby robinhood » Sep 09, 2010 3:54 am

oh cool. We used to have beta fish. All of them lived about 4 years. Cool little boogers. (funny behavior when you put a mirror in front of them)
You can't reason with the religious. Otherwise there would be no religious people- Dr. House
User avatar
robinhood
 
Name: shawn (not vfx/pcs)
Posts: 329
Age: 27
Male

Country: U.S.A
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#400  Postby Shrunk » Sep 09, 2010 10:15 am

Again, Steve shows that he can get some of the basic facts right, then jump to a completely unwarranted conclusion that "evillusion" is wrong based on his own doctrinal preconceptions. His hypothetical phylogenetic chart near the top, with the A's, B's and C's, is actually a fairly correct representation, and then for some reason he says this couldn't happen. He continues to avoid the challenge I put to him, that he substitute the letters with actual traits and demonstrate how these don't line up with actual phylogenetic trees.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest