Posted: Sep 02, 2010 9:18 am
Before you go Steviebee, as I promised here's another diagram I don't think that it will be a waste of our time to look at it. I think that it will also prevent us from going round in circles re-answering the same stuff over and over again if you could please answer the questions about it below. I would like you to have a look at the following updated and extended diagram that shows the evolution of another vision system that gets passed on by CA5 to its descendants and the complex lung that gets passed on by CA6 to its descendants and try and understand how it shows that the propagation of these new systems can be explained by by common ancestry and that evolution does not require ISP to operate.
The structure of the original diagram is kept intact, rather than rearranged, to make it clear that it is the same diagram but modified. (the species numbered 8 and 9 at the top of the original diagram have been renumbered 10 and 11 correcting the original mistake)
CA5 evolved another passed on to it's descendants vision system B which had been evolving since it branched off from CA1 (note the change in wording, where I have used the strike through, I think that part of your problem in understanding what we are saying is that you think that for example vision system B magically appeared in a single species represented by CA5 whereas there was actually a lineage of ancestors and descendants in between CA1 and CA5 which are inferred but not actually shown on the diagram. The species s1 to s15 are simply meant to represent the endpoints in a long succession of descent and not the immediate descendants of the common ancestors. For example, along the dashed line between CA1 and s13 there could have been millions of individuals and tens of thousands of species in the lineage represented by the dashed lines in between them.)
CA5 is the common ancestor of s4,12, and 13 all these species share the same vision system. They also share the circulatory system passed on by CA1 with all species on the diagram as CA1 is the common ancestor of all species on the diagram.
s4,s12, and s13 do not have vision system A which was passed on by CA2 , nor do they have a rudimentary lung (or any lung) or swim bladder as they do not share any common ancestor other than CA1 with any other species on the diagram.
CA6 evolved complex lungs passed on to it's descendants complex lungs which had been evolving since it branched off from CA3.
CA6 is the common ancestor of s10, s14 and s15 and all of these species share the same complex lung. They also share the circulatory system which was passed on by CA1 with all species on the diagram. They share the vision system A passed on by CA2 and their complex lung is derived from the rudimentary lung which was passed on to them by CA3. They do not have a swim bladder as this was passed on by CA4 which they do not share as a common ancestor with s11 and s16. They do not share the vision system B with S4,12 and 13 as CA5 is not an ancestor in common with them.
As stated in my previous post, the diagram could be extended to show any chain of common ancestry leading to any biological system without much difficulty.
It does not involve a web of nightmares, gets closer to reality and the nightmare does not expand exponentially. It's based on the simple principle of common ancestry, which refutes the false dichotomy that biological systems cannot arise without ISP or design.
Stevebee, why is it that you think such a diagram is impossible when it is presented in front of you? You can't have understood the simplicity and power of the concept of common ancestry, or you can't have tried very hard.
Now I will change tack and ask some direct questions about the diagram to see if you actually understand what it represents, and I expect you to answer them truthfully.
Do you deny that there are several common ancestors illustrated on the diagram?
Do you deny that s11 has 4 common ancestors shown on the diagram namely CA1, CA2, CA3 and CA4?
Do you deny that S15 also has 4 common ancestors shown on the diagram namely CA1, CA2, CA3 and CA6?
Do you deny that CA1 is a common ancestor shared with all other species on the diagram?
Do you deny that CA2 is shared with s5, s6, s7, s8, s9, s10, s11, s14, s15, and s16?
Do you deny that CA3 is shared with 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 ?
Do you deny that CA4 is shared with s11 and s16?
Do you still deny that species can have more than one common ancestor?
Do you still deny that it is possible to draw out a diagram which represents common ancestry?
Do you still claim that multiple species would have had to evolve the same biological systems in parallel rather than from ancestor to descendant as shown in the diagram?
If so, please explain precisely what is wrong with the diagram.
Can you provide an actual, real life example to illustrate your claim that it can't have happened by common ancestry as illustrated in the diagram – please use examples of actual species that contain the same biological system that could not have inherited it from a common ancestor. You can and choose any biological system that you like to illustrate your claim. (thanks Shrunk)
Give reasons and evidence why the organisms that you choose cannot have had a common ancestor.
Also, don't forget to explain the mechanisms that prevent organisms from passing biological systems down a lineage from ancestor to descendant.
I am waiting with baited breath for your response, please don't disappoint me and run away again.
I look forward to seeing the new pages on your blog and starting another thread here to discuss those pages. However, while you are constructing the new pages why don't you post some of those diagrams here just to show me where you think that I have been going wrong?
Edited impossible to read possible
Edited question - Do you deny that CA3...
Edited question - Do you deny that CA2...
Added by edit question - Do you deny that CA4...
changed several "evolved in" to "passed on by"
changed cannot to can, thanks again shrunk
The structure of the original diagram is kept intact, rather than rearranged, to make it clear that it is the same diagram but modified. (the species numbered 8 and 9 at the top of the original diagram have been renumbered 10 and 11 correcting the original mistake)
- Code: Select all
----------------------------s16
|
---CA4-----------------------------s11
|
| ----------------------------s15
| |
|---CA6|----------------------------s14
| |
| ----------------------------s10
|
---CA3-----------------------------------s9
|
|-----------------------------------------s8
|
|-----------------------------------------s7
|
|-----------------------------------------s6
|
---CA2-----------------------------------------s5
|
| ----------------------------------------s13
| |
|---CA5|----------------------------------------s12
| |
| ----------------------------------------s4
|
|-----------------------------------------------s3
|
|-----------------------------------------------s2
|
CA1-----------------------------------------------s1
CA5 evolved another passed on to it's descendants vision system B which had been evolving since it branched off from CA1 (note the change in wording, where I have used the strike through, I think that part of your problem in understanding what we are saying is that you think that for example vision system B magically appeared in a single species represented by CA5 whereas there was actually a lineage of ancestors and descendants in between CA1 and CA5 which are inferred but not actually shown on the diagram. The species s1 to s15 are simply meant to represent the endpoints in a long succession of descent and not the immediate descendants of the common ancestors. For example, along the dashed line between CA1 and s13 there could have been millions of individuals and tens of thousands of species in the lineage represented by the dashed lines in between them.)
CA5 is the common ancestor of s4,12, and 13 all these species share the same vision system. They also share the circulatory system passed on by CA1 with all species on the diagram as CA1 is the common ancestor of all species on the diagram.
s4,s12, and s13 do not have vision system A which was passed on by CA2 , nor do they have a rudimentary lung (or any lung) or swim bladder as they do not share any common ancestor other than CA1 with any other species on the diagram.
CA6 evolved complex lungs passed on to it's descendants complex lungs which had been evolving since it branched off from CA3.
CA6 is the common ancestor of s10, s14 and s15 and all of these species share the same complex lung. They also share the circulatory system which was passed on by CA1 with all species on the diagram. They share the vision system A passed on by CA2 and their complex lung is derived from the rudimentary lung which was passed on to them by CA3. They do not have a swim bladder as this was passed on by CA4 which they do not share as a common ancestor with s11 and s16. They do not share the vision system B with S4,12 and 13 as CA5 is not an ancestor in common with them.
As stated in my previous post, the diagram could be extended to show any chain of common ancestry leading to any biological system without much difficulty.
It does not involve a web of nightmares, gets closer to reality and the nightmare does not expand exponentially. It's based on the simple principle of common ancestry, which refutes the false dichotomy that biological systems cannot arise without ISP or design.
Stevebee, why is it that you think such a diagram is impossible when it is presented in front of you? You can't have understood the simplicity and power of the concept of common ancestry, or you can't have tried very hard.
Now I will change tack and ask some direct questions about the diagram to see if you actually understand what it represents, and I expect you to answer them truthfully.
Do you deny that there are several common ancestors illustrated on the diagram?
Do you deny that s11 has 4 common ancestors shown on the diagram namely CA1, CA2, CA3 and CA4?
Do you deny that S15 also has 4 common ancestors shown on the diagram namely CA1, CA2, CA3 and CA6?
Do you deny that CA1 is a common ancestor shared with all other species on the diagram?
Do you deny that CA2 is shared with s5, s6, s7, s8, s9, s10, s11, s14, s15, and s16?
Do you deny that CA3 is shared with 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 ?
Do you deny that CA4 is shared with s11 and s16?
Do you still deny that species can have more than one common ancestor?
Do you still deny that it is possible to draw out a diagram which represents common ancestry?
Do you still claim that multiple species would have had to evolve the same biological systems in parallel rather than from ancestor to descendant as shown in the diagram?
If so, please explain precisely what is wrong with the diagram.
Can you provide an actual, real life example to illustrate your claim that it can't have happened by common ancestry as illustrated in the diagram – please use examples of actual species that contain the same biological system that could not have inherited it from a common ancestor. You can and choose any biological system that you like to illustrate your claim. (thanks Shrunk)
Give reasons and evidence why the organisms that you choose cannot have had a common ancestor.
Also, don't forget to explain the mechanisms that prevent organisms from passing biological systems down a lineage from ancestor to descendant.
I am waiting with baited breath for your response, please don't disappoint me and run away again.
I look forward to seeing the new pages on your blog and starting another thread here to discuss those pages. However, while you are constructing the new pages why don't you post some of those diagrams here just to show me where you think that I have been going wrong?
Edited impossible to read possible
Edited question - Do you deny that CA3...
Edited question - Do you deny that CA2...
Added by edit question - Do you deny that CA4...
changed several "evolved in" to "passed on by"
changed cannot to can, thanks again shrunk