Why stevebee is wrong

hotshoe · **#161** by **hotshoe** » Nov 01, 2010 4:42 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
The single common ancestor to all members of any group, say mammals, had to have all of the organs and bio-systems extant and common to that now modern group. Map it out yourself. Organs and bio-system cannot be "picked up along the tree branch", or those O and BS would miss many of the modern species, and we would see a very strange mix of organs and bio-systems today in that one group.

But that's exactly true. The single common ancestor to all mammals - as you say - had all of the organs and biosystems already. Heart, yep, circulatory system, yep, lungs, yep, liver, yep, stomach and excretory tube to anus, yep, backbone, yep, spinal cord and brain, yep, two eyes, yep, two ears, yep ...

Well, you should be able to get the drift. All of those "complicated" biosystems were already present in the very first mammal; all of its various mammal descendants inherited them and did not have to evolve them separately, no matter where they moved to or when exactly they evolved.

Did you really not know this already ? Did you really think that two different mammal species each separately evolved nipples ?

Please confirm that you understand this now.

halucigenia · **#162** by **halucigenia** » Nov 01, 2010 7:42 am

stevebee92653 wrote:The single common ancestor to all members of any group, say mammals, had to have all of the organs and bio-systems extant and common to that now modern group. Map it out yourself. Organs and bio-system cannot be "picked up along the tree branch", or those O and BS would miss many of the modern species, and we would see a very strange mix of organs and bio-systems today in that one group. Draw it out yourself. Or check my page 36 on my blog if you like. Or gloss over it like you are doing. It isn't that tough to get.

Well I can't add much to what hotshoe already explained and it is obvious that you are not reading and understanding my responses.

But, as for "Organs and bio-system cannot be "picked up along the tree branch"". Sorry, but yes they can, it's simply from that point onwards along that particular branch only the descendants of the ancestor that "picked them up" will have those features passed on to them constituting a more specific group. Yes, the species that are not descendants of the ancestor that "picked them up" will not have those features, and that is exactly what we see in extant (and fossil) organisms and this is how we can group them by their features in a nested hierarchical structure which just so happens to also correspond to common descent (remember Linnaeus?). We have discussed this before, for example we do see strange organisms with, not mixes as such, but slightly different organs and biosystems within a larger group e.g. mammals include monotremes and marsupials with different reproductive systems than other mammals. It should now be quite clear to you why - the early mammals split and some went on to develop the typical mammalian reproductive system (they picked it up after the split) while others, the monotremes retained egg laying and marsupials developed pouches etc. but they all have milk glands (not necessarily nipples in the case of monotremes) which evolved before the split, as did other organs such as livers for example.

This has been explained to you over and over again, do you just not understand these explanations of why you are wrong. Why are you still clinging to these false dilemmas after it being pointed out to you why they are false?

sam_j · **#163** by **sam_j** » Nov 01, 2010 9:50 am

stevebee92653 wrote:

The single common ancestor to all members of any group, say mammals, had to have all of the organs and bio-systems extant and common to that now modern group.

This is true, and is exactly how cladistics and phylogeny work. This is how ancestors are traced. This is what those phylogenetic trees you object to are actually mapping. Did you really not understand that the ancestors to all mammals had a heart and lungs? Seriously???

Calilasseia · **#164** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 01, 2010 10:38 am

Hang on, Steve thinks that evolutionary theory postulates that early mammals didn't have a full set of organs such as those seen in modern mammals?

:picard:

I knew that vertebrate organs were postulated to have appeared in early chordates at least 500 million years ago when I was attending biology classes at 12 years of age. :doh:

Steve, look up 'deuterostome' versus 'protostome'. And please, go and learn some real biology instead of filling your head with made up creationist shit.

Shrunk · **#165** by **Shrunk** » Nov 01, 2010 12:50 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:The single common ancestor to all members of any group, say mammals, had to have all of the organs and bio-systems extant and common to that now modern group. Map it out yourself. Organs and bio-system cannot be "picked up along the tree branch", or those O and BS would miss many of the modern species, and we would see a very strange mix of organs and bio-systems today in that one group. Draw it out yourself. Or check my page 36 on my blog if you like. Or gloss over it like you are doing. It isn't that tough to get.

It's not at all tough to get. That's why every single person in this thread, with one prominent exception, gets it.

You need to re-read that page yourself, without "glossing over" the challenge that ADParker put to you:

Here is what you have to provide to do so:
1. A pair of organism that share an organ in common.
2. A description of that organ (four chambered heart, mammalian lung etc.)
and either:
3a. The identity of their MRCA species, which does not have this organ, or
3b. Evidence that teach organism (detailed in 1. above) has ancestors, after the split and/or that are not shared by the other, which does not have this organ.

This is all you have to do to demonstrate your point is valid. And yet you continue to refuse to do so. Why is that, Steve?

dreamweaver · **#166** by **dreamweaver** » Nov 01, 2010 7:49 pm

Having read this entire thread (and the other one...) and thus being highly entertained (and educated) I only have one request of Stevebee - you want "links"? Look at the skeletons.There you will find your "links".

The skeletons of horses and whales are particularly fascinating. Could you please explain the entirely useless vestigial limbs and toes seen therein? Why would a creator leave them there? :scratch:

theropod · **#167** by **theropod** » Nov 01, 2010 10:06 pm

Don't ask, it's too hard to figure out. Nobody can figure it out. If you think you have it figured out you are actually so indoctrinated you can't see that you haven't got it figured out.

Right, Steve?

RS

Calilasseia · **#168** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 01, 2010 10:11 pm

So Steve's entire argument, at bottom, consists of "nobody knows how X happened, therefore the scientists who perform the actual research into X are making shit up, and anyone who accepts their empirical findings is 'indoctrinated' ..."???

This has to be one of the most retarded pseudo-arguments I've ever seen erected against valid science. As the cross examining lawyer in the Dover Trial said about the IDists, this amounts to "don't bother learning anything, it's too hard, just accept whatever mythology says and shut down your brain". Or whatever Steve happens to be substituting for mythology, which, despite being pressed repeatedly to inform us, he has failed to do so.

spottyb · **#169** by **spottyb** » Nov 01, 2010 10:32 pm

So far, every single poster I have read either here or on RDF who does not accept evolutionary theory turns out not to understand it. Have you guys come across anyone who rejects evolution, having actually understood the theory?

Shrunk · **#170** by **Shrunk** » Nov 01, 2010 10:59 pm

theropod wrote:Don't ask, it's too hard to figure out. Nobody can figure it out. If you think you have it figured out you are actually so indoctrinated you can't see that you haven't got it figured out.

Right, Steve?

That's his standard answer to such questions. If you understand and accept evolution, it's a simple question to answer. If you're hell-bent on rejecting evolution, it becomes inexplicable. That's exactly what Dobzhansky meant by his famous quote, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

theropod · **#171** by **theropod** » Nov 02, 2010 12:04 am

So the thread dies, unless Steve can provide something close to evidence, or perhaps he wants to be presented with the newly founded "Tweets From the Short Bus" award. In which case his current heading will put him aground soon enough. :lol:

RS

Calilasseia · **#172** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 02, 2010 1:18 am

spottyb wrote:So far, every single poster I have read either here or on RDF who does not accept evolutionary theory turns out not to understand it. Have you guys come across anyone who rejects evolution, having actually understood the theory?

Richard Dawkins documented the case of Kurt Wise. Who actually studied geology under no less a tutor than Stephen Jay Gould. He conducted a bizarre exercise in which he took a copy of the bible, cut out with a pair of scissors everything that would have to be ditched if one accepted the scientific world view, and the end result was complete shreds. Apparently he then decided that he was going to abandon a career in science, and accept mythology instead. Dawkins describes him as the only honest creationist he knows, but at the same time, Dawkins is utterly bewildered by Wise's assertions that it wouldn't matter how much real world evidence contradicted mythology, it wouldn't change his mind about putting mythology before reality.

When you hear about something like this, you realise just how utterly venomous and neurotoxic creationist ideology is.

BlackRogueDreams · **#173** by **BlackRogueDreams** » Nov 02, 2010 1:32 am

It's stories like that, that make me fear for our species.

halucigenia · **#174** by **halucigenia** » Nov 02, 2010 7:17 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
halucigenia wrote:"The argument from geographical separation" ...

The single common ancestor to all members of any group, say mammals, had to have all of the organs and bio-systems extant and common to that now modern group..

OK Steve, since there's no response to my previous reply to this, I'll make it simple for you. Let's concentrate on your "argument from geographical separation" as that is what I was specifically referring to this time to show you why you were wrong.

Since you seem to agree that a common ancestor has the organs and biosystems shared by all of it's descendants, as quoted above, then I take it that you concede that this is still true if the descendants migrate after the split from the common ancestor thereby refuting your own "argument from geographical separation".

To put it plainly; If a common ancestor contains a specific inventory of organs and biosystems, then no matter where in the world it's descendants are found these organisms will also share the same inventory of organs and biosystems (baring any subsequent vestigiality).

And please, if you don't agree that you concede this explain why, otherwise I will take this particular assertion, that of "The argument from geographical separation", to be refuted.

Shrunk · **#175** by **Shrunk** » Nov 02, 2010 10:39 am

Calilasseia wrote:
spottyb wrote:So far, every single poster I have read either here or on RDF who does not accept evolutionary theory turns out not to understand it. Have you guys come across anyone who rejects evolution, having actually understood the theory?

Richard Dawkins documented the case of Kurt Wise. Who actually studied geology under no less a tutor than Stephen Jay Gould. He conducted a bizarre exercise in which he took a copy of the bible, cut out with a pair of scissors everything that would have to be ditched if one accepted the scientific world view, and the end result was complete shreds. Apparently he then decided that he was going to abandon a career in science, and accept mythology instead. Dawkins describes him as the only honest creationist he knows, but at the same time, Dawkins is utterly bewildered by Wise's assertions that it wouldn't matter how much real world evidence contradicted mythology, it wouldn't change his mind about putting mythology before reality.

When you hear about something like this, you realise just how utterly venomous and neurotoxic creationist ideology is.

Then there's also Todd Charles Wood, who wrote this on his creationist blog:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Calilasseia · **#176** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 02, 2010 12:58 pm

And with those words, Todd Charles Wood has effectively said "I don't care if reality disagrees with my favourite mythology, I'm going to accept that my favourite mythology is unconditionally true, and if reality disagrees with my mythology, then reality is wrong".

Which once again is nonsense even from the standpoint of the pseudo-discipline of theology. Because if you're going to accept the following assertions as constituting "axioms" about the world:

[1] That an invisible magic man exists;

[2] That the invisible magic man asserted to exist in [1] was responsible for the instantiation of the universe and all its contents;

[3] That the invisible magic man asserted to exist in [1] is purportedly "perfect" (however this is defined for the purpose);

[4] That humans are inherently fallible and untrustworthy;

then as a corollary of accepting those assertions, when given the choice of paying attention to a book of myths that has been subject to rampant human interference in its production, and paying attention to the universe that was purportedly the 'creation' of your magic man, and purportedly 'created' without human interference, then the logically consistent choice is the latter. But logic has never been a strong point with creationists.

Blood · **#177** by **Blood** » Nov 02, 2010 2:26 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Then there's also Todd Charles Wood, who wrote this on his creationist blog:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Keep in mind Todd Wood teaches at Bryan College, a Christian school located in Dayton, Tennessee -- the city made infamous for the Scopes "Monkey" trial in 1925. It appears nothing has changed there in the past 85 years.

Wood has to say this nonsense, otherwise he'd be out of a job.

hotshoe · **#178** by **hotshoe** » Nov 02, 2010 7:18 pm

Actually, Wood is an honest creationist. He really does read the journal articles, he doesn't quotemine them, he explains why other creationists' attempt to wave away the evidence fail ... I don't know how he keeps from going crazy with the evidence that his faith in creationism does not match the science which he agrees is valid -- but as far as I know, Todd Wood never lies about it. And in the creationist world where outright lying and quotemining and fraud are as common as illicit sex, Todd Wood is an upstanding role model. Yep, he's a nut. But he's also a hero for telling the truth about evolution in a venue where it is completely acceptable to totally lie about it.

Shrunk · **#179** by **Shrunk** » Nov 02, 2010 7:52 pm

I actually started a thread on him on the old board called something like "The Only Honest Creationist." Maybe that's why we don't hear as much of him as the outright liars like Behe, Dembski, Hovind, Ham et al.

"Hero" is going a bit far, though, I think.

stevebee92653 · **#180** by **stevebee92653** » Nov 02, 2010 7:56 pm

hotshoe wrote:
stevebee92653 wrote:
The single common ancestor to all members of any group, say mammals, had to have all of the organs and bio-systems extant and common to that now modern group. Map it out yourself. Organs and bio-system cannot be "picked up along the tree branch", or those O and BS would miss many of the modern species, and we would see a very strange mix of organs and bio-systems today in that one group.

But that's exactly true. The single common ancestor to all mammals - as you say - had all of the organs and biosystems already. Heart, yep, circulatory system, yep, lungs, yep, liver, yep, stomach and excretory tube to anus, yep, backbone, yep, spinal cord and brain, yep, two eyes, yep, two ears, yep ...

Well, you should be able to get the drift. All of those "complicated" biosystems were already present in the very first mammal; all of its various mammal descendants inherited them and did not have to evolve them separately, no matter where they moved to or when exactly they evolved.

Did you really not know this already ? Did you really think that two different mammal species each separately evolved nipples ?

Please confirm that you understand this now.

And, YEP (I love that one) that means that one common ancestor of all mammals (for example, or any bio-group) had to evolve the entire set of organs and bio-systems extant and common to all modern mammals ....all in that one ancient species CA. Because the specific set of organs and bio-systems couldn't evolve in many different species then coalesce in that single CA. And if you think they did coalesce, or that NS and RM is capable of forming all of those organs in one species, I say good for you. I did astoundingly, but sure don't now.

Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

Who is online