Posted: Aug 28, 2010 11:00 pm
by CADman2300
stevebee92653 wrote:Thanks for the rare intelligent answer and discussion. I really wish more people here could discuss as you have. This really is such a fun and fascinating subject. Discussing it should be open and respectful. But oh well.

He pretty much ruins his opening intro-paragraph with that last sentence. But, at least we now know that he was kidding when he said he was giving up on this forum.

You run into HUGE problems right at the start. Your explanation is clear, but not correct. The common ancestor to all tetrapods with the visual system you example, also had to evolve ALL of the other organs and systems common to all tetrapods.

Okay, who in their right mind ACTUALLY thinks that everything has to evolve all at once, other than Stevie here? Do I have any takers?

Hepatic systems, multi-chambered heart/lung/blood/blood vessel/brain controller/cardiac muscle systems, pancreas, gastro-intestinal system, auditory, and on and on, all in one species.

Steve seems to forget that multi-chambered hearts are found only birds, crocodiles, and mammals, while lepidosaur reptiles and amphibians are still using older three-chambered hearts. This renders this entire point invalid.

You can't simply choose to isolate and discuss one system without addressing all systems. Do you actually think all systems extant and common to all tetrapods evolved in that one single species CA?

See the above point Stevie. The systems you pointed out are NOT found in ALL land vertebrates.

Now we must multiply everything that so that all CA's of all modern groups must have evolved all systems common and extant to all species in each CA's descendant groups. Your problem is you isolate one single system, vision, and tell me that that single CA spread that one system to all future tetrapods.

Wrong again. This one common ancestor spread its highly successful one-lens visual system to its descendant species ONLY. There are still chordate creatures alive today that are still using outdated visual systems.

You totally ignore the fact that there are many systems to deal with in many different species groups. For example, vision had to evolve independently in each one of those SINGLE species common ancestors to all eyed groups of species.

There's a process known as Convergent Evolution that makes it possible for unrelated animals to develop similar attributes such as flight and quadrupedal locomotion but the chances of them developing the same one-eyed system is pretty slim. The Common Ancestry model explains this quite well but Stevie here refuses to let go of his own unfounded idea that it all had to come about in everything all at once.

According to you, the approximately 36 phyla would each have to have their own single CA, and each single CA would have to evolve all of the organ/systems extant and common to that phylum.

Yes, they would all have to have their own common ancestor otherwise they wouldn't have anything in common to begin with and not be part of their respective phyla.
And No, they would not have to evolve all their extant organs in one fell swoop because evolution would neither produce that or allow it. Baby steps Stevie, you keep forgetting that.

If that was not the case, then you run into the problem again of multiple species evolving multiple organs\systems and then having to somehow spread those systems around to other species. And then getting all of those organ/systems, that evolved in multiple species, tucked into that one common ancestor.

Sigh. Mostly just a repeat of the nonsense in his ISP video.

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

The taxonomic classification system used by modern biologists seems to work just fine. ... enetics_02 ... enetics_04 ... enetics_05
The good folks at Berkeley didn't seem to get stuck.

BTW, of course you realize that the ISP thing is Tongue In Cheek. I placed "TIC" twice in the vid in case someone thinks it's serious. But the point of the vid IS serious.

The point of the video is to misrepresent science in the worst possible manner and the good people who stand up for science do seem to have a good reason to take it seriously, especially since there are people gullible enough to take the video as literal truth.

I'm almost certain that there are other people on this forum who can tackle these points better than I can and I encourage it.