Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#361  Postby CADman2300 » Sep 01, 2010 1:22 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!"
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: :banghead: :banghead:

To be continued...


Ditto :roll: :roll: :roll:
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#362  Postby stevebee92653 » Sep 01, 2010 6:53 am

halucigenia wrote:
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.


S9 are new comments:

halucigenia 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 –

S9:Completely incorrect. I asserted that the systems could not migrate from species to species, necessitating the evolution of all systems in a single CA.

halucigenia The different vision systems that different groups of organisms have evolved, evidenced by the different eye types that they have evolved.

S9:The “different systems” is NOT evidence that vision systems came about by evolution. Flawed logic.

halucigenia: 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).

S9: As stated by others on this thread? Is that your evidence, your backup? I don’t care what others stated on this thread. They don’t know the origin of vision any more than you or I do.

halucigenia 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?
A9: I am sorry but this is a very stupid remark. What on earth would make you think this?

stevebee92653 And their descendants should be eyeless today.
halucigenia Not necessarily, different vision systems have evolved different eye types. The origin of these different vision systems would have been in a different ancestor.

S9: So you think nearly identical visual systems evolved in a slew of different species independently? You also then have to believe that a slew of other systems evolved independently in a huge number of different species: hepatic systems, auditory systems, blood/heart/lung/brain controller/vessel system. All evolved nearly alike in a huge number of different species.

halucigenia No, they could be very similar, or very different, not necessarily almost identical, but evolved separately.

S9: Since almost all visual systems function identically, the evolution of these systems would have to be also nearly identical. Do you have any idea what kind of odds there are against a single eyeless species, utilizing NS and RM, inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining a complete and complex visual system composed of two eyeballs, two optic nerves, a visual cortex, and complex code.? Now multiply that number times the number of species common ancestors that would be required to spread vision to all of the species that have it today. I am sure you think the odds here are about 2:1 in favor. Right? No big deal. Me? I think it isn’t possible for evolution to accomplish this beyond incredible task. NOT possible.

stevebee92653 wrote:Your CA3 evolved complex lungs
halucigenia No, my scenario was that CA3 evolved rudimentary lungs specifically allowing for CA4 to evolve swim bladders. As stated above - s8 or

halucigeniawent 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.

S9: I am glad that you can just assert that there are no problems. There are huge problems, but you can just make them go away by evo-asserting.

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.
halucigenia 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.

S9: Here we are in a discussion about who evolved what organ, when that isn’t the problem for you at all. You don’t get the challenge that I posed. It’s about how organs migrated from the species that evolved the organ to the other species that needed it. So what does your lung discussion have to do with the question?

halucigenia 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.

S9: what does all of this have to do with the question? You are thinking on auto pilot. halucigenia “I will just throw out a bunch of evolution stuff at stevebee, and maybe he will accept that as an answer, since I really don’t have one.”

stevebee92653: 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.
halucigenia 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.

S9: More dogma. How the eyes evolved is NOT the question.


halucigenia 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.

S9: You can’t see how anything is a “problem” for evolution. You dismiss every question with “I can’t see how that is a problem.” A simple evo-declaration removes the problem. Right?

stevebee92653 wrote:Another problem for you is that each organ/system had to evolve in a single species.

halucigeniaWhy? 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?

S9: Do I have to explain this again? If an organ system was partially formed, and a speciation occurred, the partial organs would not be able to evolve identically and complete the formation of the organs in two separate species. There would certainly be a lot of indicators on the organs as to where the speciations occurred by looking at strange difference in organs/systems in descendants of a common ancestor.

stevebee92653: 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.
halucigenia: 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.

S9: The lung systems you are talking about here may be simple, but they are fully operable and complete. They are not a 1/10 or 1/200 lung system, which evolution would require.

stevebee92653: 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?
halucigenia 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.

S9: Again, a verbal dismissal of a problem. Just declare it isn’t a problem, “it actually explains it quite sufficiently” and the problem goes away. I wish I knew that ploy when I was in college! I could have not studied, and just declared all problems answered. They would have had to give me all A’s!

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

S9: Gawd awful example. A species cannot have multiple common ancestors, and this answer is horrible. It has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing.

halucigenia 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.

S9: Isn’t victory by declaration fun? Your discussion doesn’t touch my challenge, and you have no idea. So, you just declare refutation, and all problems go away!

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

S9: You are the one that keeps bringing up the respect thing.

stevebee92653 You should learn to let your discussion speak for itself.
halucigenia Well, I for one, think that it does.

S9: Not when you need to constantly tell me you debunked me and my conclusions are wrong, because you say so. How many times in this response did you do that? I don’t want to count.

halucigenia 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

S9: You didn’t come remotely close to answering my challenge. Your answer shows that you have no idea what the true problem is. You spout dogma, stuff you have memorized, but that doesn’t work for me. Your problem is you have no answer because evolution has none either. There is simply no possible way evolution and the rules of nature can combine to form organ/systems, and spread those organ/systems to all of the species that own them. No absolute way. Nice for you that shunk and cali will congratulate you on a fine job, and say that you really bitchslapped me. So, in this make believe world you will always win. Are you evos like that in sports? Always the winner? By declaration? Your own?
stevebee92653: 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.
halucigenia 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.

S9: A pity? This is a pity:

Shrunk: 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.)


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!"
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#363  Postby GenesForLife » Sep 01, 2010 7:06 am

What part of inheritance do you not get, Steve, simple question.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#364  Postby ADParker » Sep 01, 2010 11:34 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
S9 are new comments:

Oh, do learn to respond with quates properly (it isn't that hard you know.)

stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia 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 –

S9:Completely incorrect. I asserted that the systems could not migrate from species to species, necessitating the evolution of all systems in a single CA.

So it's a False Dilemma of either:
1. ISP as you put it, which you declare impossible, or
2. Evolution of one "system" from one ancestor.

Ignoring the understood phenomenon of convergent evolution. Where due to similarity of features (from common ancestry) and similarity of habitat/environment/niche two or more distant species can (and do) evolve similar features. But not identical, using different genes and so forth to do roughly the same job.

As well as ignoring common ancestry with divergence relatively early on, such that for example, the descendants of a species with photosensitive cells (photoreceptors) each evolve independently from those beginning to form eyes (as a result of the advantages of photoreceptors and many mutations upon those) but due to their differing mutations etc. form different kinds of eyes, and/or similar eye types through different pathways.

stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia The different vision systems that different groups of organisms have evolved, evidenced by the different eye types that they have evolved.

S9:The “different systems” is NOT evidence that vision systems came about by evolution. Flawed logic.

They are actually, deny it as much as you like.

stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia: 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).

S9: As stated by others on this thread? Is that your evidence, your backup? I don’t care what others stated on this thread. They don’t know the origin of vision any more than you or I do.

That's your favourite fall back assertion isn't it?

stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia 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?
A9: I am sorry but this is a very stupid remark. What on earth would make you think this?

stevebee92653 And their descendants should be eyeless today.
halucigenia Not necessarily, different vision systems have evolved different eye types. The origin of these different vision systems would have been in a different ancestor.

S9: So you think nearly identical visual systems evolved in a slew of different species independently? You also then have to believe that a slew of other systems evolved independently in a huge number of different species: hepatic systems, auditory systems, blood/heart/lung/brain controller/vessel system. All evolved nearly alike in a huge number of different species.

Honestly now, what are you talking about?! You keep going on about these "nearly identical systems", but does this have anything to do with reality?
Because the reality is that different kinds of eye (etc.) show signs of sharing common ancestry with almost all other kinds (convergent evolution being a possibility in some cases) up to a certain point. eyes A and B perhaps diverged after pinhole eyes evolved, while A and C way back at the photoreceptor only stage. And they are precisely as similar and dissimilar as one would expect if common ancestry through natural selection was true.
You on the other hand appear to be arguing against some odd kind of Straw Man, not the reality of teh situation.

stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia No, they could be very similar, or very different, not necessarily almost identical, but evolved separately.

S9: Since almost all visual systems function identically, the evolution of these systems would have to be also nearly identical. Do you have any idea what kind of odds there are against a single eyeless species, utilizing NS and RM, inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining a complete and complex visual system composed of two eyeballs, two optic nerves, a visual cortex, and complex code.? Now multiply that number times the number of species common ancestors that would be required to spread vision to all of the species that have it today. I am sure you think the odds here are about 2:1 in favor. Right? No big deal. Me? I think it isn’t possible for evolution to accomplish this beyond incredible task. NOT possible.

You really don't want to get it do you?

Do you have an actual example of such "nearly identical" systems you seem to think couldn't have been the result of common ancestry? Because otherwise you really are making no sense.

NO, all eye systems don't nearly all function identically. Although that "all" is quite telling and important. Instead they share as much in common as the level of their shared ancestry would suggest. Insects are very distantly related to mammals (such as we) and lo and behold our eyes are vastly different. Reptile eyes are far more similar, bust still distinct from us mammals, and not surprisingly (if the theory evolution is correct) we are far more closely related as well!

stevebee92653 wrote:S9: I am glad that you can just assert that there are no problems. There are huge problems, but you can just make them go away by evo-asserting.

But you can make them real by just asserting that they are , right? :nono:

stevebee92653 wrote:S9: Here we are in a discussion about who evolved what organ, when that isn’t the problem for you at all. You don’t get the challenge that I posed. It’s about how organs migrated from the species that evolved the organ to the other species that needed it. So what does your lung discussion have to do with the question?

Then the problem with your "challenge" is that it also makes claims of fact as it's basis that are simply false. Your challenge it seems (as you have a real problem with proposing your claims or arguments clearly or fully) presupposes that one organism got lungs, and that somehow co-existing species also got lungs. Which is of course just silly, and not a fact, theory or hypothesis of anything, anywhere.

The answer to your challenge as here posed is simple:
You have posed a Complex Question (another logical fallacy - look it up this time before trying to use the term with no understanding of its meaning) as the answer is that there is no way in which organs "migrate" from one existing species to any other already existing species - because this doesn't happen. And evolutionary theory never even hinted that it does. As such there is no need to explain HOW something happens that DOESN'T in fact happen.

stevebee92653 wrote:
S9: Do I have to explain this again? If an organ system was partially formed, and a speciation occurred, the partial organs would not be able to evolve identically and complete the formation of the organs in two separate species.

Correct. It might (and did, if we are looking back from the perspective that what you call the "complete" organ - by which I must assume the human eye, lung etc. Because anthropocentricism is so tiresomely common - does exist) evolved to the "complete" form down one line. And evolve in a different direction down the other.

For example one line might lead to human eyes, the other to those of Cephalopods, or insects. All sharing certain traits in common (such as the use of photoreceptor cells and Hox genes) but differing in others (compound eyes etc.)

stevebee92653 wrote:There would certainly be a lot of indicators on the organs as to where the speciations occurred by looking at strange difference in organs/systems in descendants of a common ancestor.

And there are.

stevebee92653 wrote:
S9: The lung systems you are talking about here may be simple, but they are fully operable and complete. They are not a 1/10 or 1/200 lung system, which evolution would require.

Sorry no.
The half an eye, half a wing concept is nothing but a creation of creationist apologetics. Reality doesn't work like that. Reality doesn't give us 1/10th of a lung, it gives us a rudimentary lung, an organ that has some (perhaps simpler, less complete) features of human lungs, but lacking others. And functioning fully in the organism in which it is found, just not in the same was that our different lung does in us.

Insect tracheal systems for example exchange gasses, as mammalian lungs do, but are far less efficient at it, and that is one major reasons why all insects are so small in realtion to many mammals. (and interestingly why the evidence shows that at one point they grew much larger - a point of time in which the levels of oxygen in the atmospher reached a high as 60%!)

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

S9: Gawd awful example. A species cannot have multiple common ancestors, and this answer is horrible. It has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing.

Of course they can stevebee92653. And halucigenia (and I) explained that simply and perfectly well.

Unless of course by "common ancestor" you have chosen to define it as something quite distinct from...well reality.

As I don't know if you have any siblings (and fear you may have trouble if I diverge from reality in any way) I will explain this way:
You have a father.
You have a grandfather, who is also your father's father.
This man is BOTH your ancestor (grandparent) and your father's ancestor (parent) - you have this Ancestor in common.
= Common ancestor number 1.

You also have a great grandmother, who is also you father's grandmother
This man is BOTH your ancestor (great grandparent) and your father's ancestor (grandparent) - you have this Ancestor in common.
= Common ancestor number 2.

And that's it; multiple ancestors. Contrary to your assertion that "A species cannot have multiple common ancestors" Yes I know this is not species, but individual, but the same applies* {Sigh} I have to spell it out don't I? Fine:

Our species and that of chimpanzees each evolved from a common ancestor. Let's call it Lucy (just for convenience though.)
Common ancestor Number 1.

Lucy however herself evolved from ancestors. One of those ancestor species had offspring, one of whom eventually became Lucy, and then chimpanzees and humans, but also another that led to Gorillas (or next closest relatives.)
That species is an ancestor, through Lucy to us and chimpanzees (As well as an ancestor of Gorillas,) just like Lucy is.
Common ancestor number two.

Again Multiple Common Ancestors.


Is it that you have fixed on the erroneous notion that "Multiple Common Ancestors" must mean more than one co-existing (cousin) ancestor?! As if it is like saying that you dad and your uncle are your ancestors?!
If so; then your problem is not that multiple common ancestry is impossible, but that you don't understand what it means, yet think that you do.

stevebee92653 wrote:
S9:
<snip>
There is simply no possible way evolution and the rules of nature can combine to form organ/systems, and spread those organ/systems to all of the species that own them. No absolute way.

You are correct there. Yet no one has said anything different. You made up that notion, pretend (or have convinced yourself that it is evolution, when it is not, and thus think that what you are refuting is evolution, as opposed to what it really is.
And what is it, you might ask? Well that is what is known as a straw man; a made up object which one pretends is the real thing.

Organs don't spread to other species, period. They are inherited by descendants. Just as you inherited certain traits from your parents and ancestors.

stevebee92653 wrote: Nice for you that shunk and cali will congratulate you on a fine job, and say that you really bitchslapped me. So, in this make believe world you will always win. Are you evos like that in sports? Always the winner? By declaration? Your own?

I would congratulate him too. But that fact is; he didn't win...you lost.
The difference? You lost all by yourself, you had already lost before he said a word. All he did was point out how you had already lost.


For your benefit stevebee92653, as you say you don't appreciate them, I didn't respond to the comments that where just insulting and rude dismissals. Even though they all happened to be from you.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#365  Postby Shrunk » Sep 01, 2010 12:57 pm

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.
"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?

#366  Postby halucigenia » Sep 01, 2010 5:07 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:Completely incorrect. I asserted that the systems could not migrate from species to species,
Well, you are right in that assertion, when you take “migrate from species to species” to mean ISP. But as I have been showing you that does not need to occur when you understand how species pass on the systems through inheritance passing them on from ancestor to descendant.
stevebee92653 wrote:necessitating the evolution of all systems in a single CA.
But when you understand that the single common ancestor of two species or any group of species itself has ancestors which it shares in common with other species and groups of species in a nested hierarchical structure then that is not a necessity at all.
stevebee92653 wrote:S9:The “different systems” is NOT evidence that vision systems came about by evolution. Flawed logic.
Different eye types is evidence of different vision systems is it not? How is that flawed logic?
stevebee92653 wrote:As stated by others on this thread? Is that your evidence, your backup? I don’t care what others stated on this thread. They don’t know the origin of vision any more than you or I do.
No, I was just acknowledging other posters contributions.
But there are mountains of evidence that do back this up. I could produce papers but I know that you don't like “argument by volume of scientific literature”. Let's just try logic instead. We may not know for sure what the origin of vision actually is, however, we can think about it in a logical manner and conclude that if different vision systems exist and all of these vision systems have common controlling genes that, although the systems are different and evolved different eye types from different tissues etc., that they all have a common origin. The different vision systems evolving in different lineages but all originating from an earlier common ancestor which evolved the propensity for the functionality of vision. So, all species with a particular vision system have a common ancestor in which this particular vision system evolved, and all species with vision, whatever vision system they have also have an earlier common ancestor in which the propensity for vision evolved. Logical, no?
stevebee92653 wrote: I am sorry but this is a very stupid remark. What on earth would make you think this?
I thought this because you stated that “all descendants of CA1 (s-1 to s-4) unfortunately missed vision. “ Implying that s1 to s4 were all of the descendants of CA1. I was just pointing out that all descendants did not miss out on vision, (no doubt CA1 itself had a rudimentary vision system) they did not even miss out on the vision system A as the species above CA2 have both CA2 and CA1 as their common ancestors. To be correct you should have stated that the few descendants of CA1 (s1 to s4) missed out on the specific vision system A.

stevebee92653 wrote: So you think nearly identical visual systems evolved in a slew of different species independently? You also then have to believe that a slew of other systems evolved independently in a huge number of different species: hepatic systems, auditory systems, blood/heart/lung/brain controller/vessel system. All evolved nearly alike in a huge number of different species.
Not at all, I thought that I had explained this with the quote you used below.

halucigenia wrote: No, they could be very similar, or very different, not necessarily almost identical, but evolved separately.
Of course nearly identical visual systems had their origin in a single common ancestor to all the species that have that nearly identical vision system. But even within these species with a single common ancestor from which they inherited their vision system the vision system and any other inherited system can vary.

stevebee92653 wrote:Since almost all visual systems function identically, the evolution of these systems would have to be also nearly identical.
Really? Insect vision systems with compound eyes function identically to vertebrate vision systems with single lens eyes do they? I would hope that you can reference some research that shows that this is the case to back up that assertion.
stevebee92653 wrote:Do you have any idea what kind of odds there are against a single eyeless species, utilizing NS and RM, inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining a complete and complex visual system composed of two eyeballs, two optic nerves, a visual cortex, and complex code.?
Again, you use the assertion that it had to happen within a single species. Why do you keep asserting this when I have explained you how evolution happens over several species in a lineage over time? Any visual system took time to evolve in a sequence of species comprising ancestors and their descendants. Ultimately, however, any group of species that has a specific vision system inherited it from a single common ancestor, this common ancestor did not have to evolve the whole kit and caboodle in that one single species as it is within the lineage that evolved the system. It's simply that any of the common ancestors own ancestors were not the species that exclusively spawned the group in question or the common ancestors ancestor diverged into that common ancestor and other species less closely related to the group in question. Alternatively, the common ancestors own ancestors did not produce any species that survived to the present day, so we do not see those alternative variations on that specific vision system that it could have spawned.
stevebee92653 wrote:Now multiply that number times the number of species common ancestors that would be required to spread vision to all of the species that have it today. I am sure you think the odds here are about 2:1 in favor. Right? No big deal. Me? I think it isn’t possible for evolution to accomplish this beyond incredible task. NOT possible.
The simple solution to your problem that it was not possible is that it did not have to happen like that, the spread of vision, or any particular vision system, was achieved through the inheritance of these characteristics from ancestor to descendant.
stevebee92653 wrote:I am glad that you can just assert that there are no problems. There are huge problems, but you can just make them go away by evo-asserting.
so on reasoned argument from you then?
stevebee92653 wrote:Here we are in a discussion about who evolved what organ, when that isn’t the problem for you at all. You don’t get the challenge that I posed. It’s about how organs migrated from the species that evolved the organ to the other species that needed it. So what does your lung discussion have to do with the question?
You asserted that “s1 to s8 would have to evolve their own set of lungs” while the diagram clearly indicates that s1 to s8 never evolved lungs therefore migration of organs to these species is not a problem.
stevebee92653 wrote: what does all of this have to do with the question? You are thinking on auto pilot. halucigenia “I will just throw out a bunch of evolution stuff at stevebee, and maybe he will accept that as an answer, since I really don’t have one.”
I am not “throwing out stuff” I am proposing a reasoned argument which you obviously cannot appreciate as I have to keep correcting you on what I actually meant and what the diagram actually depicts with the aid of the examples stated above. Your assertion this time was that there was a complex web of interrelated organs (or at least that’s how I understood it), therefore I tried to explain how these interrelated organs could have evolved using the examples in the diagram. I will endeavour to draw you another picture to help explain the above reasoning and post it later.
stevebee92653 wrote:More dogma. How the eyes evolved is NOT the question.
As I understood your comment the question was about “the notion that vision came from an earlier ancestor” and how you did not understand that this was depicted on the diagram. I was only responding to try and explain your misunderstanding.
stevebee92653 wrote: You can’t see how anything is a “problem” for evolution. You dismiss every question with “I can’t see how that is a problem.” A simple evo-declaration removes the problem. Right?
Sorry if I give you this impression but I was just pointing out that the diagram not having an absolute time-frame is not a problem for the way it helps explain common ancestry.
stevebee92653 wrote:Do I have to explain this again? If an organ system was partially formed, and a speciation occurred, the partial organs would not be able to evolve identically and complete the formation of the organs in two separate species. There would certainly be a lot of indicators on the organs as to where the speciations occurred by looking at strange difference in organs/systems in descendants of a common ancestor.
That in no way explains what process prevents the development of an organ within a lineage of species. It is simply a re-assertion of your faulty reasoning. The fault is in your assertion that partial organs would even need to evolve identically in two separate species, as what we actually see is that different species do in fact show variation in the organs that they have even if they derived these organs from a common ancestor. Yes they all may have a liver, for example, but many different species have differences in their livers which are able to cope with the organisms different diets for example. While this may look strange to you it is perfectly explained by common ancestry and the divergence of species from the common ancestor depending on the different environmental pressures the different species have undergone.
stevebee92653 wrote:The lung systems you are talking about here may be simple, but they are fully operable and complete. They are not a 1/10 or 1/200 lung system, which evolution would require.
And there's another misconception – evolution does not require partially operable incomplete systems to operate, in fact the theory would be falsified if such a system was found – evolution requires all stages to be suitable for survival, which means whatever develops must be operable otherwise it would be of no benefit and would not be passed on. Of course vestigial organs - ones that are no longer used for their original function are able to deteriorate over time, or find another function, and still be present and neutral mutations that confer neither advantage nor disadvantage are also able to occur.
stevebee92653 wrote: Again, a verbal dismissal of a problem. Just declare it isn’t a problem, “it actually explains it quite sufficiently” and the problem goes away. I wish I knew that ploy when I was in college! I could have not studied, and just declared all problems answered. They would have had to give me all A’s!
I am not merely “verbally dismissing” your so called problems, I am going to great pains to explain why they are not problems when you actually understand what the theory of evolution proposes.
stevebee92653 wrote: Gawd awful example. A species cannot have multiple common
ancestors, and this answer is horrible. It has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing.
It would be helpful if you could explain why you think that it is a “gawd awful” example. As far as I can see it ancestry is ancestry, whether its within a species or within related species. You have your own multiple ancestors don't you? several of which you have in common with different members of your family – do you deny that you have several common ancestors within your family tree depending on which family members you are comparing yourself with?

Or try this one The most recent common ancestor of all humans is a common ancestor it just happens to be within one species let's call that CA00. Now if humans share ancestry with the other apes, then they have one common ancestor with their closest relatives the chimp that's human CA01. But humans sharing ancestry with apes means that they are also related to gorillas, and so are chimps, so humans and chimps share a common ancestor with gorillas that's CA02. But humans sharing ancestry with apes means that they are also related to orangs, and so are chimps and gorillas, so that's CA03. I could go on but surely you get the point – when one species is compared with another species and those species are related they invariably have a common ancestor, compare that original species with another related species and another common ancestor is found. So any one species can have multiple common ancestors, it just depends which other species you compare them with. Strictly speaking a single species when looked at in isolation does not have any common ancestors in other species, only within it's own species e.g. CA00, you have to compare it with many other species before you find many other common ancestors.

OK, if you still don't understand the explanation above, as stated I will post another diagram an explain again using that diagram, I must be able to get you to understand somehow.
stevebee92653 wrote: Isn’t victory by declaration fun? Your discussion doesn’t touch my challenge, and you have no idea. So, you just declare refutation, and all problems go away!
OK then how about explaining why my discussion does not touch your challenge instead of just re-asserting your false dilemmas and strawman arguments - I have explained why they are false dilemmas, given alternatives to them and explained what the theory of evolution actually proposes so it is pointless to continue to thrash at those strawmen.

Oh and while I applaud you for trying to answer as I asked, that was difficult to pick through, please learn to use the quote tags – here's how:-

put my name between quote marks e.g. "halucigenia"
precede that with quote= e.g. quote="halucigenia"
And enclose the whole thing in square braces [ ] e.g.
Code: Select all
[quote="halucigenia"]

then end the quote with [/quote] e.g.
Code: Select all
[quote="halucigenia"]halucigenia wrote these words[/quote]


Nested quotes like it looks like you were trying to use can be done like this
Code: Select all
[quote="steeviebee"]Hey hal you wrote this[quote="halucigenia"]halucigenia wrote these words[/quote]I don't agree and here's why[/quote]

Example:
steeviebee wrote:Hey hal you wrote this
halucigenia wrote:halucigenia wrote these words
I don't agree and here's why

When you press the quote button function the whole post is quoted this way but you then have to go through it enclosing the particular bits you want to quote as in the example above.

Oh, and don't forget to use the preview button at the bottom of the post a reply screen to see how it looks before posting.

and keep a copy by on your PC, saving the text using a text editor before hitting submit in case there are any problems submitting it.
Take your time, I'm not going anywhere.
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#367  Postby stevebee92653 » Sep 01, 2010 9:00 pm

halucigenia: You don't think out your own answer. I KNOW you are intelligent enough to figure out why your answer isn't an answer. Why your grnadma-grandpa example fails horribly. I KNOW you are smart enough. Your problem is you MUST defend evolution at all cost. No matter how absurd your answers are, you will post them, and throw in lots of dogma icing, to make it look like you have answered. You can't miss, because all of your buddies here will back you up. They can't answer either, but they MUST defend as well. Otherwise, your belief system crashes like the house of cards it is. It has crashed already, but you are hanging on to the life raft. I can't keep re-answering the same stuff over and over. Your response will be the exact same. What amazes me is you can't look at this problem and conclude that, "Yes this is a challenge for evolution. I can't answer it, but I still think evolution is the way things happened." I would have a lot more respect for that type of answer than I do for your failed attempt that we both KNOW is a failed attemp. You are willing to post anyway.
I didn't use the quote system because there was way too much stuff to wade through. I tried and it was going to be a giant mess. Don't waste your time with any other diagrams. You can't do better than you did. I am going to write a page on this subject with my own diagrams, so feel free to have a look and comment on my site in a week or so. Bye
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#368  Postby hackenslash » Sep 01, 2010 9:07 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJp_EO2C220[/youtube]
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21386
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#369  Postby theropod » Sep 01, 2010 10:27 pm

I thought Steve had chosen to leave us because we were all so indoctrinated. What the fuck are all these new posts about then?

Since Steve is convinced that he knows what the modern ToE posits, even when shown that his notions are not accurate, at what point does his postings become detrimental to the forum?

Steve has no peer reviewed literature to support his rantings, and much like Mr. Byers he refuses to alter his self perceived correctness in the face of refuting work. Such "debate" serves only as platform for the likes of Steve to sound their own horn. To my ear this tune has become much like a compact disc being misread and creating an infinite repeating loop. Is this the course we really want to take with this community?

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#370  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 01, 2010 11:44 pm

theropod wrote:I thought Steve had chosen to leave us because we were all so indoctrinated. What the fuck are all these new posts about then?

Since Steve is convinced that he knows what the modern ToE posits, even when shown that his notions are not accurate, at what point does his postings become detrimental to the forum?

Steve has no peer reviewed literature to support his rantings, and much like Mr. Byers he refuses to alter his self perceived correctness in the face of refuting work. Such "debate" serves only as platform for the likes of Steve to sound their own horn. To my ear this tune has become much like a compact disc being misread and creating an infinite repeating loop. Is this the course we really want to take with this community?

RS


Well, if it highlights the vacuousness and intellectual bankruptcy of evolution deniers, not to mention the intellectual dishonesty perpetrated by a good number of them, then it serves a useful purpose to those who come here without ideological blinkers super glued to their faces. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22008
Age: 57
Male

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

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#371  Postby tytalus » Sep 01, 2010 11:55 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia: You don't think out your own answer. I KNOW you are intelligent enough to figure out why your answer isn't an answer. Why your grnadma-grandpa example fails horribly. I KNOW you are smart enough.

I don't know if steve is smart enough for whatever, but I do know that he didn't demonstrate anything with these baseless claims. :)

Your problem is you MUST defend evolution at all cost. No matter how absurd your answers are, you will post them, and throw in lots of dogma icing, to make it look like you have answered. You can't miss, because all of your buddies here will back you up. They can't answer either, but they MUST defend as well. Otherwise, your belief system crashes like the house of cards it is. It has crashed already, but you are hanging on to the life raft. I can't keep re-answering the same stuff over and over. Your response will be the exact same.

And more undemonstrated claims, possibly intended to be inflammatory...

What amazes me is you can't look at this problem and conclude that, "Yes this is a challenge for evolution. I can't answer it, but I still think evolution is the way things happened." I would have a lot more respect for that type of answer than I do for your failed attempt that we both KNOW is a failed attemp. You are willing to post anyway.

IOW, the more we agree with steve, the more he would respect us. Just checking, does anyone here actually care about that?

I didn't use the quote system because there was way too much stuff to wade through. I tried and it was going to be a giant mess.

Image

Don't waste your time with any other diagrams. You can't do better than you did. I am going to write a page on this subject with my own diagrams, so feel free to have a look and comment on my site in a week or so. Bye

Nothing like information control on his own blog, eh? :) See you next time. Shakey shakey shakey!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CocgDJJCBFI[/youtube]
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
User avatar
tytalus
 
Posts: 1228
Age: 47
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#372  Postby theropod » Sep 02, 2010 12:02 am

Cali,

Well, yes, there is always that benefit, but how many such examples do we need to establish these patterns?

Oh well, I'm just tired, grumpy and fed up with this type of rhetoric. I just wish we could apply acetone to that cyanoacrylate once and for all. I suppose I might as well wish for something REALLY amazing.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#373  Postby Sityl » Sep 02, 2010 12:04 am

This all boils down to...

Mathematician: "0.999... = 1"
Creationist: "I just don't believe that"
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 38
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#374  Postby CADman2300 » Sep 02, 2010 12:10 am

stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia: You don't think out your own answer. I KNOW you are intelligent enough to figure out why your answer isn't an answer. Why your grnadma-grandpa example fails horribly. I KNOW you are smart enough. Your problem is you MUST defend evolution at all cost. No matter how absurd your answers are, you will post them, and throw in lots of dogma icing, to make it look like you have answered. You can't miss, because all of your buddies here will back you up. They can't answer either, but they MUST defend as well. Otherwise, your belief system crashes like the house of cards it is. It has crashed already, but you are hanging on to the life raft. I can't keep re-answering the same stuff over and over. Your response will be the exact same. What amazes me is you can't look at this problem and conclude that, "Yes this is a challenge for evolution. I can't answer it, but I still think evolution is the way things happened." I would have a lot more respect for that type of answer than I do for your failed attempt that we both KNOW is a failed attemp. You are willing to post anyway.

It never ceases to amaze how SteveBee loves to play the victim and act like he's the only sane person in a world gone mad, which pretty much sums up this entire paragraph.

I didn't use the quote system because there was way too much stuff to wade through. I tried and it was going to be a giant mess. Don't waste your time with any other diagrams. You can't do better than you did. I am going to write a page on this subject with my own diagrams, so feel free to have a look and comment on my site in a week or so. Bye

Taxonomy and cladistics seem to be SteveBee's worst enemy right now and it's always a hoot to see him dismiss these areas of research while offering not a hint of reason why.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#375  Postby jparada » Sep 02, 2010 1:11 am

That guy is bent on beating himself on how much he can distort whatever response he gets, apparently.
User avatar
jparada
 
Posts: 269

Colombia (co)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#376  Postby ADParker » Sep 02, 2010 4:30 am

stevebee92653 wrote:.

No I won't bother quoting it.

But stevebee92653, you could have just saved yourself the bother; there is a single smily available that would have said all of that for you:

" :whine: "
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#377  Postby halucigenia » Sep 02, 2010 9:18 am

Before you go Steviebee, as I promised here's another diagram I don't think that it will be a waste of our time to look at it. I think that it will also prevent us from going round in circles re-answering the same stuff over and over again if you could please answer the questions about it below. I would like you to have a look at the following updated and extended diagram that shows the evolution of another vision system that gets passed on by CA5 to its descendants and the complex lung that gets passed on by CA6 to its descendants and try and understand how it shows that the propagation of these new systems can be explained by by common ancestry and that evolution does not require ISP to operate.
The structure of the original diagram is kept intact, rather than rearranged, to make it clear that it is the same diagram but modified. (the species numbered 8 and 9 at the top of the original diagram have been renumbered 10 and 11 correcting the original mistake)
Code: Select all

                          ----------------------------s16
                         |
                   ---CA4-----------------------------s11
                  |
                  |       ----------------------------s15
                  |      |
                  |---CA6|----------------------------s14
                  |      |
                  |       ----------------------------s10
                  |
             ---CA3-----------------------------------s9
            |
            |-----------------------------------------s8
            |
            |-----------------------------------------s7
            |
            |-----------------------------------------s6
            |
       ---CA2-----------------------------------------s5
      |
      |       ----------------------------------------s13
      |      |
      |---CA5|----------------------------------------s12
      |      |
      |       ----------------------------------------s4
      |
      |-----------------------------------------------s3
      |
      |-----------------------------------------------s2
      |
    CA1-----------------------------------------------s1

CA5 evolved another passed on to it's descendants vision system B which had been evolving since it branched off from CA1 (note the change in wording, where I have used the strike through, I think that part of your problem in understanding what we are saying is that you think that for example vision system B magically appeared in a single species represented by CA5 whereas there was actually a lineage of ancestors and descendants in between CA1 and CA5 which are inferred but not actually shown on the diagram. The species s1 to s15 are simply meant to represent the endpoints in a long succession of descent and not the immediate descendants of the common ancestors. For example, along the dashed line between CA1 and s13 there could have been millions of individuals and tens of thousands of species in the lineage represented by the dashed lines in between them.)
CA5 is the common ancestor of s4,12, and 13 all these species share the same vision system. They also share the circulatory system passed on by CA1 with all species on the diagram as CA1 is the common ancestor of all species on the diagram.
s4,s12, and s13 do not have vision system A which was passed on by CA2 , nor do they have a rudimentary lung (or any lung) or swim bladder as they do not share any common ancestor other than CA1 with any other species on the diagram.

CA6 evolved complex lungs passed on to it's descendants complex lungs which had been evolving since it branched off from CA3.
CA6 is the common ancestor of s10, s14 and s15 and all of these species share the same complex lung. They also share the circulatory system which was passed on by CA1 with all species on the diagram. They share the vision system A passed on by CA2 and their complex lung is derived from the rudimentary lung which was passed on to them by CA3. They do not have a swim bladder as this was passed on by CA4 which they do not share as a common ancestor with s11 and s16. They do not share the vision system B with S4,12 and 13 as CA5 is not an ancestor in common with them.

As stated in my previous post, the diagram could be extended to show any chain of common ancestry leading to any biological system without much difficulty.
It does not involve a web of nightmares, gets closer to reality and the nightmare does not expand exponentially. It's based on the simple principle of common ancestry, which refutes the false dichotomy that biological systems cannot arise without ISP or design.

Stevebee, why is it that you think such a diagram is impossible when it is presented in front of you? You can't have understood the simplicity and power of the concept of common ancestry, or you can't have tried very hard.

Now I will change tack and ask some direct questions about the diagram to see if you actually understand what it represents, and I expect you to answer them truthfully.

Do you deny that there are several common ancestors illustrated on the diagram?

Do you deny that s11 has 4 common ancestors shown on the diagram namely CA1, CA2, CA3 and CA4?

Do you deny that S15 also has 4 common ancestors shown on the diagram namely CA1, CA2, CA3 and CA6?

Do you deny that CA1 is a common ancestor shared with all other species on the diagram?

Do you deny that CA2 is shared with s5, s6, s7, s8, s9, s10, s11, s14, s15, and s16?

Do you deny that CA3 is shared with 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 ?

Do you deny that CA4 is shared with s11 and s16?

Do you still deny that species can have more than one common ancestor?

Do you still deny that it is possible to draw out a diagram which represents common ancestry?

Do you still claim that multiple species would have had to evolve the same biological systems in parallel rather than from ancestor to descendant as shown in the diagram?
If so, please explain precisely what is wrong with the diagram.

Can you provide an actual, real life example to illustrate your claim that it can't have happened by common ancestry as illustrated in the diagram – please use examples of actual species that contain the same biological system that could not have inherited it from a common ancestor. You can and choose any biological system that you like to illustrate your claim. (thanks Shrunk)
Give reasons and evidence why the organisms that you choose cannot have had a common ancestor.
Also, don't forget to explain the mechanisms that prevent organisms from passing biological systems down a lineage from ancestor to descendant.


I am waiting with baited breath for your response, please don't disappoint me and run away again.

I look forward to seeing the new pages on your blog and starting another thread here to discuss those pages. However, while you are constructing the new pages why don't you post some of those diagrams here just to show me where you think that I have been going wrong?

Edited impossible to read possible
Edited question - Do you deny that CA3...
Edited question - Do you deny that CA2...
Added by edit question - Do you deny that CA4...
changed several "evolved in" to "passed on by"
changed cannot to can, thanks again shrunk
Last edited by halucigenia on Sep 02, 2010 7:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1224

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#378  Postby Macros1980 » Sep 02, 2010 9:51 am

:popcorn: Om-nom-nom!
To presume that your one-in-64-million chance thing is a miracle is to significantly underestimate the total number of... things... that there are. -Tim Minchin
User avatar
Macros1980
 
Posts: 737
Age: 39
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#379  Postby Rumraket » Sep 02, 2010 3:15 pm

I made another Diagram for Steve, or tbh, mostly for my own enjoyment.
Image
I suppose it's pretty self-explanatory.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13142
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#380  Postby Macros1980 » Sep 02, 2010 3:38 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's pretty and self-explanatory. :grin:
To presume that your one-in-64-million chance thing is a miracle is to significantly underestimate the total number of... things... that there are. -Tim Minchin
User avatar
Macros1980
 
Posts: 737
Age: 39
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest