rationalskepticism.org

Shrunk wrote:Just a reminder, Steve:

Shrunk wrote:Steve, you keep trying to demonstrate your case by using imaginary examples. For instance, if I understand correctly, this is what your are claiming:

According to evolutionary theory, CA1 had a circulatory system, and gave rise to S1, S2, and S3, all of which also have circulatory systems that they inherited from CA1.

However, there is also CA2, which is not descended from CA1, and which gave rise to to S4, S5 ad S6.

CA2 did not have a circulatory system, but S4, S5 and S6 do have circulatory systems. How could this be? The only way this could happen is if they somehow inherited circulatory systems from CA1 or one of its descendents. But that is not possible.

I agree, if this scenario existed, (and if it represented the actual emergence of the same trait in parallel lineages and not just convergent evolution) it would provide a serious challenge to evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately for you, however, I am not aware of any such scenario that actually exists, and you have yet to provide one. All you have provided are hypothetical fictitious examples such as the one I concocted above.

So the challenge for you is to provide an actual, real life example to illustrate your claim. Instead of "CA1, CA2, S1, S2, etc", replace them with the names of actual species (living or extinct) and instead of "circulatory system" you can use any other trait (or "biosystem" if you prefer) that supports your claim. You say you have already done this, so it should be a piece of cake.

Again, ball's in your court, Steve.