Posted: Sep 01, 2010 11:34 am
Oh, do learn to respond with quates properly (it isn't that hard you know.)
stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia 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 –
S9:Completely incorrect. I asserted that the systems could not migrate from species to species, necessitating the evolution of all systems in a single CA.
So it's a False Dilemma of either:
1. ISP as you put it, which you declare impossible, or
2. Evolution of one "system" from one ancestor.
Ignoring the understood phenomenon of convergent evolution. Where due to similarity of features (from common ancestry) and similarity of habitat/environment/niche two or more distant species can (and do) evolve similar features. But not identical, using different genes and so forth to do roughly the same job.
As well as ignoring common ancestry with divergence relatively early on, such that for example, the descendants of a species with photosensitive cells (photoreceptors) each evolve independently from those beginning to form eyes (as a result of the advantages of photoreceptors and many mutations upon those) but due to their differing mutations etc. form different kinds of eyes, and/or similar eye types through different pathways.
stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia The different vision systems that different groups of organisms have evolved, evidenced by the different eye types that they have evolved.
S9:The “different systems” is NOT evidence that vision systems came about by evolution. Flawed logic.
They are actually, deny it as much as you like.
stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia: 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).
S9: As stated by others on this thread? Is that your evidence, your backup? I don’t care what others stated on this thread. They don’t know the origin of vision any more than you or I do.
That's your favourite fall back assertion isn't it?
stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia 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?
A9: I am sorry but this is a very stupid remark. What on earth would make you think this?
stevebee92653 And their descendants should be eyeless today.
halucigenia Not necessarily, different vision systems have evolved different eye types. The origin of these different vision systems would have been in a different ancestor.
S9: So you think nearly identical visual systems evolved in a slew of different species independently? You also then have to believe that a slew of other systems evolved independently in a huge number of different species: hepatic systems, auditory systems, blood/heart/lung/brain controller/vessel system. All evolved nearly alike in a huge number of different species.
Honestly now, what are you talking about?! You keep going on about these "nearly identical systems", but does this have anything to do with reality?
Because the reality is that different kinds of eye (etc.) show signs of sharing common ancestry with almost all other kinds (convergent evolution being a possibility in some cases) up to a certain point. eyes A and B perhaps diverged after pinhole eyes evolved, while A and C way back at the photoreceptor only stage. And they are precisely as similar and dissimilar as one would expect if common ancestry through natural selection was true.
You on the other hand appear to be arguing against some odd kind of Straw Man, not the reality of teh situation.
stevebee92653 wrote:halucigenia No, they could be very similar, or very different, not necessarily almost identical, but evolved separately.
S9: Since almost all visual systems function identically, the evolution of these systems would have to be also nearly identical. Do you have any idea what kind of odds there are against a single eyeless species, utilizing NS and RM, inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining a complete and complex visual system composed of two eyeballs, two optic nerves, a visual cortex, and complex code.? Now multiply that number times the number of species common ancestors that would be required to spread vision to all of the species that have it today. I am sure you think the odds here are about 2:1 in favor. Right? No big deal. Me? I think it isn’t possible for evolution to accomplish this beyond incredible task. NOT possible.
You really don't want to get it do you?
Do you have an actual example of such "nearly identical" systems you seem to think couldn't have been the result of common ancestry? Because otherwise you really are making no sense.
NO, all eye systems don't nearly all function identically. Although that "all" is quite telling and important. Instead they share as much in common as the level of their shared ancestry would suggest. Insects are very distantly related to mammals (such as we) and lo and behold our eyes are vastly different. Reptile eyes are far more similar, bust still distinct from us mammals, and not surprisingly (if the theory evolution is correct) we are far more closely related as well!
stevebee92653 wrote:S9: I am glad that you can just assert that there are no problems. There are huge problems, but you can just make them go away by evo-asserting.
But you can make them real by just asserting that they are , right?
stevebee92653 wrote:S9: Here we are in a discussion about who evolved what organ, when that isn’t the problem for you at all. You don’t get the challenge that I posed. It’s about how organs migrated from the species that evolved the organ to the other species that needed it. So what does your lung discussion have to do with the question?
Then the problem with your "challenge" is that it also makes claims of fact as it's basis that are simply false. Your challenge it seems (as you have a real problem with proposing your claims or arguments clearly or fully) presupposes that one organism got lungs, and that somehow co-existing species also got lungs. Which is of course just silly, and not a fact, theory or hypothesis of anything, anywhere.
The answer to your challenge as here posed is simple:
You have posed a Complex Question (another logical fallacy - look it up this time before trying to use the term with no understanding of its meaning) as the answer is that there is no way in which organs "migrate" from one existing species to any other already existing species - because this doesn't happen. And evolutionary theory never even hinted that it does. As such there is no need to explain HOW something happens that DOESN'T in fact happen.
stevebee92653 wrote:
S9: Do I have to explain this again? If an organ system was partially formed, and a speciation occurred, the partial organs would not be able to evolve identically and complete the formation of the organs in two separate species.
Correct. It might (and did, if we are looking back from the perspective that what you call the "complete" organ - by which I must assume the human eye, lung etc. Because anthropocentricism is so tiresomely common - does exist) evolved to the "complete" form down one line. And evolve in a different direction down the other.
For example one line might lead to human eyes, the other to those of Cephalopods, or insects. All sharing certain traits in common (such as the use of photoreceptor cells and Hox genes) but differing in others (compound eyes etc.)
stevebee92653 wrote:There would certainly be a lot of indicators on the organs as to where the speciations occurred by looking at strange difference in organs/systems in descendants of a common ancestor.
And there are.
stevebee92653 wrote:
S9: The lung systems you are talking about here may be simple, but they are fully operable and complete. They are not a 1/10 or 1/200 lung system, which evolution would require.
Sorry no.
The half an eye, half a wing concept is nothing but a creation of creationist apologetics. Reality doesn't work like that. Reality doesn't give us 1/10th of a lung, it gives us a rudimentary lung, an organ that has some (perhaps simpler, less complete) features of human lungs, but lacking others. And functioning fully in the organism in which it is found, just not in the same was that our different lung does in us.
Insect tracheal systems for example exchange gasses, as mammalian lungs do, but are far less efficient at it, and that is one major reasons why all insects are so small in realtion to many mammals. (and interestingly why the evidence shows that at one point they grew much larger - a point of time in which the levels of oxygen in the atmospher reached a high as 60%!)
stevebee92653 wrote:
stevebee92653 Re: “A species can have multiple commons ancestors?” Draw that one out.
halucigenia I did, and I explained how it works, you still don’t get it yet do you?
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.
S9: Gawd awful example. A species cannot have multiple common ancestors, and this answer is horrible. It has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing.
Of course they can stevebee92653. And halucigenia (and I) explained that simply and perfectly well.
Unless of course by "common ancestor" you have chosen to define it as something quite distinct from...well reality.
As I don't know if you have any siblings (and fear you may have trouble if I diverge from reality in any way) I will explain this way:
You have a father.
You have a grandfather, who is also your father's father.
This man is BOTH your ancestor (grandparent) and your father's ancestor (parent) - you have this Ancestor in common.
= Common ancestor number 1.
You also have a great grandmother, who is also you father's grandmother
This man is BOTH your ancestor (great grandparent) and your father's ancestor (grandparent) - you have this Ancestor in common.
= Common ancestor number 2.
And that's it; multiple ancestors. Contrary to your assertion that "A species cannot have multiple common ancestors" Yes I know this is not species, but individual, but the same applies* {Sigh} I have to spell it out don't I? Fine:
Our species and that of chimpanzees each evolved from a common ancestor. Let's call it Lucy (just for convenience though.)
Common ancestor Number 1.
Lucy however herself evolved from ancestors. One of those ancestor species had offspring, one of whom eventually became Lucy, and then chimpanzees and humans, but also another that led to Gorillas (or next closest relatives.)
That species is an ancestor, through Lucy to us and chimpanzees (As well as an ancestor of Gorillas,) just like Lucy is.
Common ancestor number two.
Again Multiple Common Ancestors.
Is it that you have fixed on the erroneous notion that "Multiple Common Ancestors" must mean more than one co-existing (cousin) ancestor?! As if it is like saying that you dad and your uncle are your ancestors?!
If so; then your problem is not that multiple common ancestry is impossible, but that you don't understand what it means, yet think that you do.
stevebee92653 wrote:
S9:
<snip>
There is simply no possible way evolution and the rules of nature can combine to form organ/systems, and spread those organ/systems to all of the species that own them. No absolute way.
You are correct there. Yet no one has said anything different. You made up that notion, pretend (or have convinced yourself that it is evolution, when it is not, and thus think that what you are refuting is evolution, as opposed to what it really is.
And what is it, you might ask? Well that is what is known as a straw man; a made up object which one pretends is the real thing.
Organs don't spread to other species, period. They are inherited by descendants. Just as you inherited certain traits from your parents and ancestors.
stevebee92653 wrote: Nice for you that shunk and cali will congratulate you on a fine job, and say that you really bitchslapped me. So, in this make believe world you will always win. Are you evos like that in sports? Always the winner? By declaration? Your own?
I would congratulate him too. But that fact is; he didn't win...you lost.
The difference? You lost all by yourself, you had already lost before he said a word. All he did was point out how you had already lost.
For your benefit stevebee92653, as you say you don't appreciate them, I didn't respond to the comments that where just insulting and rude dismissals. Even though they all happened to be from you.