Posted: Aug 29, 2010 8:05 pm
by tytalus
Interesting how steve extracts a single phrase at a time to attack, ignoring the rest of the paragraph that incidentally answers the disingenuous questions in his argument. Smacks of quote mining.

"the common ancestor of all tetrapods already had a highly developed visual system" (Where did they get it from? And ALL of the other systems they had to have to pass on all organs/systems extant and common to their descendants? The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".)

And to think, halucigenia went on to say

So the common ancestor of tetrapods did not have to evolve that particular system it inherited it form the common ancestor of all organsims that have that particular visual system, those organisms include tetrapods but are not exclusively tetrapods as fish and all vertebrates have that same visual system. Therefore there does not have to be a single common ancestor that had to evolve all those systems you mention, it is perfectly plausible they inherited them form their own ancestors or that they did not evolve until after that specific ancestor.

steve seems intent on fabricating the straw man of a single common ancestor species that had to evolve some ridiculous amount of features all in one species; that would be easier to bash down than REALITY (caps lock being cruise control for cool). Just another chunk of the edifice of incredulity, I suppose. :)