Posted: Aug 28, 2010 8:17 am
by halucigenia
The video regarding inter-species procreation is simply a false dilemma fallacy.
Your false choice is that either inter-species procreation is responsible for the spread of biological systems across species or intelligent design is responsible, and of course everyone (who actually understands evolutionary theory) knows that inter-species procreation is not responsible so they would of course agree with you that inter-species procreation is not responsible, however, no one but you is suggesting that it could be.
But of course there is an alternative which you dismiss summarily without any explanation whatsoever.

That alternative is common descent.

Whatever attributes we look at, whether it is what you term bio-systems or whatever, what we find through genetics, comparative anatomy, physiology, fossil succession etc. the evidence always points to common descent, and whatever is analysed the same pattern of phylogeny, the one that is the most parsimonious and shows a nested hierarchical structure is one that emerges. This pattern showing a nested hierarchy is explained perfectly well by common ancestry and no other explanation comes close to being an explanation. Now you may assert that common design explains this, but that leads us down an un-falsifiable and therefore unscientific path as no matter what pattern one found one could assert that it was the will of the designer to produce such a pattern.

Just in case you really do not know how the theory does explain the way in which bio-systems are actually propagated to all species that have them I will explain:

Whatever biological system arises, its origins are in a single species and this species' descendants are the only organisms to share the same biological system (ignoring any lateral gene transfer that may be possible). Take for example the respiratory system common to all tetrapods. What we find is that in all species derived from all tetrapods common ancestor the same respiratory system, albeit with some modification, exists. You don't, for instance, get active expiration and negative pressure inspiration in any other forms of life such as insects as they branched off long before the first species that developed the potential to evolve the active respiratory system existed.
So, you see there's no need to even postulate inter-species procreation to propagate the respiratory system the propagation was all from one initial ancestor to all of it's descendants.
The same goes for any biological system you care to name, whether that be the visual system, the circulatory system, the hepatic system or even your favourite subject – teeth.

Oh, and contrary to your assertions over on youtube and your blog, no these various bio-systems did not all have to evolve at the same time in the same common ancestor. If you actually look into it you will see, for example, all vertebrates share the same vision system, so the common ancestor of all vertebrates evolved the vertebrate vision system and propagated that vision system to all it's descendants including the common ancestor of all tetrapods. Therefore, while all vertebrates share the same vision system they do not share the same respiratory system.
For example all fish share the same visual system (along with other vertebrates), however, they do not share the same respiratory system common to all tetrapods. Some fish have a rudimentary lung with which they are able to breathe air, so the most likely share the same common ancestor with all tetrapods and modern lungfish which retain this rudimentary lung split off before the common ancestor of all tetrapods. However, some fish, the cartilaginous fish, have no rudimentary air breathing respiratory system, so their lineage must have split off before this air breathing ability evolved i.e. they have an earlier common ancestor with the other fish and tetrapods than the one that evolved a rudimentary lung. And of course, we have the ray finned fish which have swim bladders, which were most likely derived from the rudimentary lung but are used in those fish for buoyancy rather than breathing, the teleost fish having a swim bladder that is entirely disconnected form the gut which has to be filled by gas internally rather than breathed so these fish must constitute another lineage that, while having a common ancestor with ones that evolved a rudimentary lung, are a separate lineage from that that was the common ancestor of all tetrapods. However, all these lineages share the same visual system, so which came first, quite obviously the vision system, then the rudimentary lung, then the tetrapod respiratory system and in another lineage the swim bladder.

So to sum up:-
Common ancestor 1 evolved the vertebrate vision system which was inherited by all it's subsequent descendants including all fish and tetrapods.
Cartilaginous fish then branched off – they have the same vision system but no air breathing respiratory system or swim bladder.
Common ancestor 2 evolved a rudimentary lung common to all fish except Cartilaginous fish
Ray finned fish then branched of and evolved their swim bladder which was then further specialised in the teleost fish.
Common ancestor 3 evolved a more complex air breathing respiratory system common to all tetrapods but not seen in any fish, especially not those with swim bladders.
Note that no organism has both a swim bladder and a more complex air breathing respiratory system.
Also note that all of these organisms had the vertebrate vision system inherited from common ancestor 1.
Also note that this explanation produces a nested hierarchical structure, each descendent obtaining the characteristics evolved from an earlier ancestor but not obtaining any characteristics that evolved in a different lineage after that common ancestor e.g. no swim bladder in the common ancestor of all tetrapods, i.e. no ISP, exactly like we see in nature no matter which attributes we choose to look at.

Why you fail to acknowledge this simple solution to your false dilemma is beyond me, surely you could explain your objection to us especially in light of my hopefully clear explanation of what is actually proposed by the theory of evolution.

Oh, and as per the other thread Debunking stevebee92653 youtube video
, it does not matter that no one personally observed any of this happening that does not automatically make it false, that would be argumentum ad ignorantiam. As long as we can postulate a plausible alternative to your false dichotomy that is all that is needed to refute the assertion of your video.

Please come back and discuss this rationally Stevebee, I promise not to rag on you.