Posted: Aug 31, 2010 6:08 pm
OK,it's a discussion of a hypothetical scenario, and I'll try to keep any jargon to the minimum necessary. However, my scenario can actually be backed up by what we have found out by studying the species and groups in question so, if you assert that X can't happen I should at least be able to counter that assertion by giving an actual example where it did.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
As I have already stated the process occurs throughout the classification system therefore phyla have common ancestors within Kingdom and Classes have common ancestors within Phyla etc. But whatever, let's carry on and see what you have to say.stevebee92653 wrote:And let’s say we are talking in the neighborhood of phyla.
No, that looks like a bait and switch to me – you originally asserted that the evolution of biological systems could not happen without ISP, I would argue that vision is a function of several biological systems – the different vision systems that different groups of organisms have evolved, evidenced by the different eye types that they have evolved. What I actually stated was that a particular vision system evolved at this point - CA2. The origin of vision itself, as has been stated by others on this thread, was way back ancestral history as evidenced by organisms with very different types of eyes/vision systems having the same genes controlling the development of those different eyes/vision systems (PAX6 etc.- a hint for those of us that are not jargon illiterate).stevebee92653 wrote: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.
Oh, and did you miss the fact that all the species and groups above CA1 are in fact descendants of CA1? You just don't get the concept of nested hierarchies yet, do you?
Not necessarily, different vision systems have evolved different eye types. The origin of these different vision systems would have been in a different ancestor.stevebee92653 wrote:And their descendants should be eyeless today.
No, as stated above,stevebee92653 wrote:Else CA1 OR s1, s2, s3,and s4 had to evolve vision independently.
Don't you read what I have written?halucigenia wrote:the s2 to s4 lineage may have evolved a different vision system.
No, they could be very similar, or very different, not necessarily almost identical, but evolved separately. I was thinking of my previous example of the differences between the vertebrate eye and the cephalopod eye, which quite obviously, when looked at in detail, evolved from a different ancestor as different tissue types and arrangements of those tissues have been co-opted to form the eye.stevebee92653 wrote:And that (those) vision system(s) would have to be almost identical to the vision system CA2 evolved.
No, my scenario was that CA3 evolved rudimentary lungs specifically allowing for CA4 to evolve swim bladders. As stated above - s8 or s9 went on to evolve complex lungs not CA3 (oops, I just noticed the top s8 and s9 should read s10 and s11). Again, read what I have written and try to understand before asserting problems where there are none.stevebee92653 wrote:Your CA3 evolved complex lungs
No, complex lungs do not feature on the diagram at all, I would have to extend the diagram to include the common ancestor in which complex lungs evolved.stevebee92653 wrote:which means complex lungs would miss all descendants s1 to s8.
CA1 and CA2 did not evolve any lungs, complex lungs evolved off the current diagram.stevebee92653 wrote:CA1 and CA2 would then have to evolve nearly identical complex lungs for its descendants.
s1 to s8 never evolve lungs, they are meant to indicate organisms that did not have an ancestor in which lungs evolved, however, they must have evolved some other respiratory system not shown on the diagram.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
The diagram is necessarily incomplete, for brevity and to explain the concept of nested hierarchies of ancestors. However, it would be possible to extend the diagram to include the other attributes that you mention. In the diagram, CA1 is meant to be the point at which the circulatory system evolved, as such it has already evolved (possibly rudimentary but present) heart, vessels, blood, heart musculature and valves, nerve connections, brain controllers etc. which as you rightly say are also required for lungs as well. Also as stated above this circulatory system was required to oxygenate internal tissues and evolved to do so in conjunction with a system to supply oxygen, which in these early ancestors would have been some form of gills as the organisms in question would have been aquatic. Furthermore the rudimentary lung, which evolved later, evolved from an adaption of the gut which was already integrated with the circulatory system and nervous system so, as usually is the case with evolution, it was adapted from modifications of existing structure and integrated with already functioning systems.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
It is quite close to reality, and adding the detail would not be so difficult, it just means extending the existing nested hierarchical structure to include these other adaptions.stevebee92653 wrote:You have a web of nightmares here, and this is a simple diagram. As it got closer to reality, the nightmare would expand exponentially.
The possibility of evolving any specific vision system relies on the fact that functionality of vision evolved in an earlier ancestor than that specific system (system A in the diagram) evolved in. Of course the CA that evolved that specific vision system that is represented in the diagram had to have an earlier ancestor in which light sensitive cells etc. evolved. However, these already evolved light sensitive cells could be co-opted into any of many specific vision systems, only one of which is indicated as an example on the diagram. Also, the diagram is meant to represent relationships and purposefully has no absolute time-frame, it just indicates that CA1 comes before CA2 etc. I can’t see how that is a problem, the process that it illustrates still refutes your false dilemma that it has to be ISP or design.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
Why? Why can’t an organ develop over a period of time within multiple species within a lineage, each change getting passed on from one species to another in succession from ancestor to descendant? Obviously a specific form of an organ is passed down from a common ancestor to all its descendants that have that specific form, but that does not prevent variations on that organ being passed to other species of another lineage from an earlier ancestor in which the rudimentary form of organ evolved. Can you outline the process that prevents this from happening?stevebee92653 wrote:Another problem for you is that each organ/system had to evolve in a single species.
My example takes this specifically into account. The rudimentary lung, partially formed compared to the mammalian lung for example, but fully functional for the purpose that it was used for, was propagated from the common ancestor CA3 to all the species that were the descendants of that ancestor. However, some went on to retain the rudimentary lung (only a few % evolved compared to complex lungs if you like) while others developed a complex lung and still others, after CA4 evolved it from the rudimentary lung, had a swim bladder instead. No two different species (or groups of species) require to complete (not that completing anything that evolves makes any sense – organs continue to evolve and I would never use the word complete for any organ) the remaining 80% as you put it, any group of organisms that have a similar complex lung necessarily inherited it form a single common ancestor (not that this single common ancestor had to evolve the organ de-novo – see above). Organisms that branched off before this particular type of complex lung evolved necessarily have a different form of lung, a swim bladder, a rudimentary lung, or if they branched off before the rudimentary lung evolved – no lung at all.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
Your scenario of entire systems evolving de-novo in single species, partially formed organs being completed in multiple lineages to form identical organs etc. is unrealistic so of course could not evolve the organs/systems that we see to day. My scenario, that of common ancestry, once you actually understand it rather than presenting a strawman version of it actually explains it quite sufficiently.stevebee92653 wrote: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?
Agreed, absurd, unrealistic and an entirely unnecessary proposition once you understand how evolution actually works.stevebee92653 wrote:And of course the notion of two different species coalescing with their partially evolved systems is absurd, and ISP would be required again.
I did, and I explained how it works, you still don’t get it yet do you?stevebee92653 wrote:Re: “A species can have multiple commons ancestors?” Draw that one out.
How many ancestors do you have? Innumerable amounts, yes? How many common ancestors do you have with your(hypothetical) sister? How many common with your cousin? How many common with your second cousin twice removed? How many common ancestors does that make it that you have? Think about it, then revisit the diagram.
No, and that’s not what I am proposing.stevebee92653 wrote:Can multiple species coalesce into a single species?
Each lineage has its own set of branches converging on common ancestors, species diverge from those common ancestors and as you quite rightly say do not coalesce. But I am not suggesting that they need to coalesce.stevebee92653 wrote:Each species has its own independent branches, and combining any is not possible without ISP.
No they can’t and I’m not suggesting that they are, this is simply a misunderstanding, or misrepresentation on your part. CA1 and CA2 are both, however, common ancestors of s5 and all above.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
Your arguments are flawed and I have provided alternatives to your false dilemmas as anyone reading this should be able to see for themselves, only you don’t seem to understand how my arguments refute your assertions.stevebee92653 wrote:For you to continue describing my argument as “flawed”, and my dilemma as “false”
Just leave the respect issue out of it will you, it does not advance the discussion at all.stevebee92653 wrote:and that you don’t “respect” the way I think is disingenuous at best.
Well, I for one, think that it does.stevebee92653 wrote:You should learn to let your discussion speak for itself.
I am up for any one that can read this forum to comment on any errors that I may have made in my arguments, I am confident that others will understand the explanations that I put forward and hope that it is quite apparent how they refute your assertions, if not, as I say I am open for discussion about any of it from anyone, unlike you – see below.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
I am sure that they will chime in and it would be a pity for you not to respond to any of their messages but that will not stop me from challenging you with any of them that take my fancy that I may not have thought about myself.stevebee92653 wrote: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.
Oh, and please don’t just quote the whole post and comment below it. If you have issue with any particular points please quote and respond to them individually, it will make the discussion flow much better and make it easier for others to follow.