Posted: Aug 31, 2010 5:17 am
halucigenia wrote:That’s hardly what I meant. I would never follow rules just for the sake of the rules. Of course I intend to discuss the topic thoughtfully and in a scientific, intelligent and most of all rational manner. It’s simply that I do not have to “respect” someone personally to be able to do that. Which part of my response do you object to from a personal disrespect point of view? I will edit it if you wish. Anyway, let’s just move on from the argument about respect and continue with the matter at hand.stevebee92653 wrote:What a disappointment your are. Gee, if the "respect" rules were not in place, you would revert to evo-demeaning that is always so thoughtful, scientific, and intelligent? I thought you would do better, but your answer is a FAILURE of logic, science, thought, and reasoning.OK, I’ll draw a diagram, however, you have been shown such diagrams before and I don’t think it’s going to help the discussion much. However, it might be instructive to you for me to “draw you a diagram” as you don’t seem to be able to understand my argument from my explanations alone.stevebee92653 wrote:The real killer for your explanation, and what is most telling is: "it's not worth my while to go to the trouble of drawing a diagrammatic representation just for you to summarily dismiss it." You won't diagram because you can't. I would dismiss it because that diagram isn't possible. You won't think it out because your belief system prevents that thought. So you spout dogma:
- Code: Select all
CA4------------------------------------s9
|
|--------------------------------------s8
|
CA3--------------------------------------s9
|
|----------------------------------------s8
|
-------------------------------------------s7
|
|------------------------------------------s6
|
CA2------------------------------------------s5
|
|--------------------------------------------s4
|
-----------------------------------------------s3
|
|-----------------------------------------------s2
|
CA1-----------------------------------------------s1
sx - species
CA1 - common ancestor of all groups and species on the diagram
Example - evolved a circulatory system,
all species and groups in this diagram inherit this circulatory system.
all species and groups in the s2 to s4 lineage have a circulatory system but do not have vision system A, do not have rudimentary or more complex lungs, hepatic system, multi chambered heart etc.etc.etc. do not have swim bladders, as all these things evolved in different lineages.
the s2 to s4 lineage may have evolved a different vision system, different respiration system etc. this is not shown on this diagram, if the diagram was extended it could show those lineages and the common ancestors required for those features/systems.
CA2 - common ancestor of all groups and species shown above that point
Example - evolved a specific vision system A
All species and groups in the lineage above this point in inherit this vision system
CA3 - common ancestor of all groups and species shown above this point
Example - evolved rudimentary air breathing lungs
All species and groups in the lineage above this point inherit rudimentary air breathing lungs or modifications of them
CA4 - common ancestor of all groups and species above this point but not shown.
Example - evolved swim bladder from rudimentary air breathing lung
All species and groups in the lineage above this point inherit swim bladder
no species in this lineage evolve complex air breathing lungs
s8 or s9 - lineage evolve more complex lungs,hepatic system, multi chambered heart etc.etc.etc. This is not shown on this diagram for sake of brevity but I am sure that you can envisage extending the diagram along the same lines of nested hierarchies of ancestral lineages and the diagram can be extended in the same way as the rest of the diagram for any list of features/systems you care to choose.It’s no good just asserting that “CA kills the "solution" and “it doesn't answer anything” and not addressing the argument itself. Please explain why my argument is not the solution to your false dilemma.As I have been showing you, postulating ISP is unnecessary, if you could explain why my explanation does not work then you would have a case. Merely re-asserting your flawed argument does nothing to move the discussion on.If ISP were possible, you would have hope. But, no ISP, no hope for your belief.)I told you where – from an earlier ancestor. Please tell my why this is not a sufficient explanation.I have already explained this, all systems did not need to evolve in the same ancestor at the same point in time, just let me know what the problem is with my explanation.stevebee92653 wrote:And ALL of the other systems they had to have to pass on all organs/systems extant and common to their descendants?Yes any recent ancestor of a species (or group of species) with several systems has to have them all to pass them on, however, as I explained, for any particular species (or group of species) there are several common ancestors over time, not just one. I think that you are confusing the concept of the most recent common ancestor of any two species (or groups of species) of which there is only one, with, again as I have explained, the concept that there are nested hierarchies of common ancestors each of these passing on the systems that they or their ancestors have evolved to their descendants, the older ancestors passing on systems to the more recent ancestors, hence any single common ancestor does not require to evolve all of these systems at once.stevebee92653 wrote:The CA species had to have them ALL, or extant species descendants of the CA would be missing "things".It’s too simplistic, the reality is that of multiple ancestors evolving different systems over time in serial, not in parallel as your spoof ISP concept would have it.stevebee92653 wrote:This is such a simple concept.I have taken great pains to explain to you why it’s not a problem – are you going to address my explanations or simply continue to assert the same refuted false dichotomies over and over again?It amazes me the hoops you will jump through to pretend like it's not a problem. You blind yourself to reality.And I have discussed the topic in a “respectful” way. As stated above I will edit my post of anything that you consider disrespectful – PM me about it.stevebee92653 wrote:You came on my blog and respectfully requested a conversation, which is why I came back for only discussion with you. Being as that has failed, I won't make the same mistake again.If you will not continue here, I might just take you up on that.stevebee92653 wrote:You are welcome to come to my blog to discuss any time.see above and please comment on it. – also see links to other cladistic diagrams given by other posters on how common ancestry works and tell me what you think is wrong with them.stevebee92653 wrote:Try the diagram thing for yourself; not for me. I know the result. You won't do it. You can't. You don't want to know the result.
Here's a nice detailed example - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fe_SVG.svg
Also, why don’t you show me your attempt at a diagram, and I’ll show you how your misconceptions about the theory of evolution make it impossible for you to draw one.
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. And let’s say we are talking in the neighborhood of phyla.
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. And their descendants should be eyeless today. Else CA1 OR s1, s2, s3,and s4 had to evolve vision independently. And that (those) vision system(s) would have to be almost identical to the vision system CA2 evolved. Your CA3 evolved complex lungs which means complex lungs would miss all descendants s1 to s8. CA1 and CA2 would then have to evolve nearly identical complex lungs for its descendants. 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. 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. You have a web of nightmares here, and this is a simple diagram. As it got closer to reality, the nightmare would expand exponentially.
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. Another problem for you is that each organ/system had to evolve in a single species. 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. 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? And of course the notion of two different species coalescing with their partially evolved systems is absurd, and ISP would be required again.
Re: “A species can have multiple commons ancestors?” Draw that one out. Can multiple species coalesce into a single species? Each species has its own independent branches, and combining any is not possible without ISP. 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.
For you to continue describing my argument as “flawed”, and my dilemma as “false” and that you don’t “respect” the way I think is disingenuous at best. You should learn to let your discussion speak for itself. 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.
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.