34b: Discussing Phylogenetic Trees with an Evolutionaut: The Test

Shrunk’s “test”:

An unbelievably staunch evolutionaut who calls himself Shrunk has been hounding me to answer a “simple question” for him.  It’s his “test” that he posted on www.rationalskepticism.org , where we have been “discussing” origins.   I have been hounded by Shrunk and his minions to answer.  Amazingly, my ignoring of his “test” is really a huge attack point for them.  Shrunk actually thinks this “test” will demonstrate whether I am well schooled on evolution. Somehow, he actually thinks this single question will tell him how much I know, as evolutionauts always agree in unison, that anyone who challenges their divine thinking must be uneducated and/or moronic. I don’t take tests for evolutionauts. The notion that an indoctrinated evolutionaut can give me at test at their whim  is beyond the pale; just plain silly and naive. I have an incredible amount of information about my thinking both on this blog and in my vids.  All answers are already in place right here.  Indoctrinates that want to give me a “test” are usually just plain too lazy to read and then challenge my thinking.  Which describes Shrunk, who never brings up a challenge that I have on this blog. He is a stock arguer for his belief system.  There’s always an ulterior motive with evolutionauts anyway.  Shrunk obviously has no idea about the immense amount of information I have placed on this blog.  He somehow thinks this is his chat room.  His “test” is certainly a three card monte. No matter which answer I choose, it will be wrong.  DING! And a giant online celebration will commence when he copies my answer over to his protective home at rs.org. Even if , by some miracle of Darwin, I happen to get the answer correct, this chapter will be over between us, and they and he will skip on to some other evo-subject and begin an entirely new rant.  So, it really matters not which answer I give.  I can only lose in their minds.  I might add that out of three multiple choice answers, I have about a 1 in 100,000 chance selecting the correct one. 

I decided to go against better judgment, and answer Shrunk, because doing so will give me a fun addition to this page.  Plus, it’s always entertaining to see new and improved evolutionaut trashing and ragging.  What new form of trashing will commence from Shrunk’s group of evolutionauts and uni-thinkers who are so fooled they actually think they know how all of nature formed?

In my answer I make light of  his mis-count of species groups he examples in his question, only to demonstrate to readers here and Shrunk what it’s like to try to communicate with these people.  Ragging on minor errors is, of course, not my modus operandi.  Everyone makes them, of course.  Evolutionauts always utilize any error by an evo-denier as a HUGE event, and rag on for pages.  So this is my fun.  Getting Shrunk back just a tiny bit.  I can already predict what he will say.   “You make errors too…..stevebee is going crazy…..blah blah”.  The best thing he could do is apologize for the way he and his friends treat people who don’t think like he does.  But apologies are NEVER allowed in the world of evolution. Lest one looks weak in front of his evo-peers. Here is my response, including his question:

The BIG question:

Need I remind you. Steve, of this question that you have repeatedly avoided answering on RatSkep, and which is crucial to the point you try to make on p. 36? (It’s “crucial”? What a laugh. Hey Shrunk, it’s answered on this very page, which I referred you to.) It seems I do:

Let’s take three groups of organisms: (Three groups?)

Mammals

Birds

Reptiles

Amphibians

I hope we can all agree these groups share what you term “organ systems” in common. They all have skeletal systems with skulls, jaws, ribs, vertebral columns, four limbs, etc. The all have central and peripheral nervous systems. They have lungs, circulatory systems, digestive tracts, kidneys, etc. Moreover, although there are obvious variations in the configurations of these systems, they are by and large highly similar between the various groups, having roughly the same structure at both the gross anatomical and cellular level, and being found in more or less the same location in the various species.

Now, Steve, what do you understand is the evolutionary explanation for this is? How did these various groups obtain these “bio-systems”? It’s a multiple choice question.

A) Each group inherited these “bio-systems” from its own common ancestor, and each of these common ancestors had to “evolve” these bio-systems on their own separately.

B) These groups are all descended from a single common ancestor who already had these “bio-systems”

C) None of the above.

That’s it. All you need to do is reply A, B or C.

You can feel free to append a rant against “evolutionauts,” as is your wont, but all that is required is a single letter. (Required? Is this Shunk school? Shrunk needs to get a grip on reality.)

If you choose C, you may elaborate on what you think the explanation is if you wish, but that’s not necessary. (I may elaborate? Thanks! So benelovent of you.  What a good teacher!)

Remember, I am not asking what you believe the correct answer to be. I am asking what you believe we “evolutionauts” hold to be the correct answer, in accordance with your extensive knowedge of the claims of evolutionary theory.

I look forward to your response.

My response:

Shrunk, can’ t you even count. Back to the second grade for you. You said THREE, then you listed FOUR. My gawd, what moronic writing. Maybe kindergarten would be a better place for Shrunk to start his education. You can’t count, and you are trying to rag on my education? And you think you know biology?  What a joke. Hey everybody, Shunk says he is a psychiatrist, but can’t even count. What a laugh. He’s not qualified to even discuss this stuff. Is he REALLY a psychiatrist as he asserts?  Did he really have a pre-med education? A medical one? Is Shrunk his real name?***

My answer:
(1) Well let’s see Shrunk. According to evolution, each group had to have a their own single CA that had all organs and bio-systems common and extant in the modern versions, otherwise the organs and bio-systems would have missed all modern versions.  Requiring the totally independent evolution of identical organs and bio-systems in different species groups on different branches of your tree, at different times.  Which isn’t possible unless you believe in 150 yr. old fables. Which you do, for some strange reason. So, “on their own separately” is absurd enough to be believed by evolutionauts.  As you will believe anything evo. But…..
(2) But, ah, according to evolution, all  four groups had to have a single common ancestor as well, which had to have all organs and bio-systems common and extant to all four modern groups; or they would have missed many/most of their modern descendants. Requiring the totally independent evolution of identical organs and bio-systems on different branches of your tree at different times by different species.  They would have had to “fill in” the missing organs and bio-systems by evolving identical versions to those systems already evolved. Fat chance. Not possible unless you believe in 150 yr. old fables. Which you do, for some strange reason. You,Shrunk, would probably like this choice the most.
(3) The best answer is, of course, (C), since (A) and (B) are not possible. Any intelligent objective evolutionaut, if there is such a thing, or human being, would pick this one, and would remain very puzzled as to how all organs and bio-systems common and extant in modern species got there.  They would be able to discuss the conundrum intelligently, which is not possible with evolutionauts.  The  indoctrination of most evolutionauts overwhelms reason.
So you as an evolutionaut have to figure out how all of those organs and bio-systems got into that common ancestor to all four groups.  Did the single CA evolve all organs and bio-systems common and extant in all THREE, I mean FOUR modern versions? If a single line of “speciating” species did evolve all organs and bio-systems leading up to the CA for the four/three groups, that would mean that no branching could have occurred during this incredible and miraculous formation. Or all branches would have had to die out, leaving, perfectly in place, the one central line of species that evolved all systems. And this scenario would have to be repeated many times for all species groups, not just the four.  Did many different species evolve partial sets of the organs and bio-systems and somehow transport those organs and bio-systems into that one common ancestor? (I jokingly call it ISP: Inter-Spcies Procreation) Not a possible scenario. And what if a species on one side of the earth evolved a bio-system, or organ, and several on the other side did as well. How did those meld into one species CA since they not only had to migrate thousands of miles with their new organ, but find a way to perfectly meld the perfect inventory into one species CA? And since virtually all organs are co-dependent on other organs and bio-systems, how could one organ evolve independently of all others?  Singly? It couldn’t.  The basics? All organs need blood (or “proto-blood” as you would make up) and a proto-lung to proto-oxygenate the proto-blood so the proto-organ could proto-survive and proto-function.
So, there is your answer. Have fun. Copy paste all you want, but be sure and include your inability to count.  No quote mining now!
You are incapable of answering any of the challenges put fourth on p. 36, so I guess, since you can’t even count to four, that’s to be expected. Isn’t playing pretend fun? BTW, now that you have your answer, how about an answer to my challenge.
Compare and contrast the importance of:
(1) Richard Dawkins admitting coelacanth didn’t evolve.** And suggesting the reason why coelacanth didn’t evolve, which he then said no one really suggested.  My paraphrasing Dawkins on this subject.  Anything Dawkins said about coelacanth.  My using colored text to write at RS.org.  My not using the “quote” function the way the evolutionauts at RS.org use it in unison.
(2) The fact the coelacanth didn’t evolve a lick, (except for the fantasy evolution cited at RS), in 410,000,000 years.
I look forward to your response. Strange that your objective and hyper-scientific friends at RS.org didn’t once ask you to answer my question which was answered on p. 36. They ragged on endlessly about me not answering your inane question. What do you have to say about that oversight?

***This is a hint of what it’s like to communicate with you and your wonderful friends. Like it?

**Note: the part of the question on coelacanth, a fish that has existed on earth for 410,000,000 years without evolving a bit brings huge questions about the veracity of evolution.  I paraphrased Richard Dawkins discussion on the subject.  I don’t care to spend much time looking up anything to suit these people, as they will just start ragging on something else.  Here is the “discussion”:

Re: The dental expertise of Stevebee

Postby Shrunk » Nov 23, 2010 4:11 am

Are you quite sure he said that in The Blind Watchmaker? I can find no mention of it there. And in The Ancestors Tale he uses the coelacanth to illustrate the point that degree of genetic change does not necessarily correlate with degree of morphological change, which is directly opposed to the point you claim he has made. Maybe you should double check your facts.
stevebee92653 wrote: Yes, quite sure. He says coelacanth swims at 3,000 ft. Too deep for the sun’s rays to cause mutations. Great excuse, right? As always. What difference does it make anyway. You accept everything and anything, no matter how absurd. You don’t really care to dig. You care to go on the defense and make excuses. That’s how you are wired and you will be for your entire life.

Shrunk: I’ve found the passage you are referring to. It’s on page 247 of the 2006 edition:
RIchard Dawkins wrote:It is conceivable that coelacanths stopped evolving because they stopped mutating – perhaps because they were protected from cosmic rays at the bottom of the sea!- but nobody, as far as I know, has seriously suggested this, and in any case this is not what punctuationists mean when they talk about species having built-in resistance to evolutionary change.http://books.google.ca/books?id=sPpaZnZ … &q&f=false
Chalk up another quote mine for Steve. Either that, or just more evidence that he doesn’t understand the things he reads.

Poor Shrunk doesn’t even know what a “quote mine” is. Quote mines require quotes.  I didn’t quote, ergo……I paraphrased. And my paraphrase was exactly as stated by Dawkins.  It was HIS suggestion and HIS attempt to explain why coelacanth didn’t evolve, and obviously his alone.  Dawkins:  “It is conceivable that coelacanths stopped evolving because they stopped mutating – perhaps because they were protected from cosmic rays at the bottom of the sea!” Dawkins made the notion up himself.  This paraphrase yielded oodles of attacking from the friendly folks at rs.org. Also I received a “warning for “quote mining” from the friendly board there as well!  They don’t know what a quote mine is either.

To help my accusers, Wikipedia says: “The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.”  Do you see any distortion or change of intended meaning here on my part? Only an evolutionaut will. So, if you are one, you do.

OK, so I received a response from Shrunk.  And here it is.  It follows my prediction to a tee:

Steve says: “Shrunk, can’ t you even count. Back to the second grade for you. You said THREE, then you listed FOUR.”

Well, by golly, you’re right! Although,strictly speaking reptiles and birds are not separate clades, so I’ll use that as my excuse. Just kidding, well caught! Can’t sneak one past you.

Steve says: “1) Well let’s see Shrunk. According to evolution, each group had to have a their own single CA that had all organs and bio-systems common and extant in the modern versions, otherwise the organs and bio-systems would have missed all modern versions. Requiring the totally independent evolution of identical organs and bio-systems in different species groups on different branches of your tree, at different times. Which isn’t possible unless you believe in 150 yr. old fables. Which you do, for some strange reason. So, “on their own separately” is absurd enough to be believed by evolutionauts. As you will believe anything evo. But…..”

BZZT!

I guess I spoke too soon. Remember, this question was asking about what the theory of evolution states. And the theory does NOT state choice (A). This is wrong. “Evolutionauts” do not believe this. However, you seem to believe that this is what they DO believe, and have constructed an entire page of your blog (p.36) based on that misunderstanding.

You have confirmed that you do not understand the basics of the very theory you have spent so much effort trying to disprove.

We’re already done here, but let’s see what else you have to say:

Steve says: “(2) But, ah, according to evolution, all four groups had to have a single common ancestor as well, which had to have all organs and bio-systems common and extant to all four modern groups; or they would have missed many/most of their modern descendants. Requiring the totally independent evolution of identical organs and bio-systems on different branches of your tree at different times by different species. They would have had to “fill in” the missing organs and bio-systems by evolving identical versions to those systems already evolved. Fat chance. Not possible unless you believe in 150 yr. old fables. Which you do, for some strange reason. You, Shrunk, would probably like this choice the most.”

Well, this is the correct answer but, incredibly, you still seem to be talking about choice (A). What you seem to be saying here, incredible as it may seem from someone who claims to understand evolutionary theory, is that there are four “branches” on the tree that join together to form a single common ancestor, and then separate back out again into the same separate four branches.

Do you even understand what is meant by a “common ancestor”? Obviously not, or you wouldn’t have written the drivel quoted above.

What “different branches” are you talking about? Those branches all ORIGINATE from the common ancestor. They don’t exist before it. Have you ever looked at a tree? Do the various twigs and branches, as they are growing, join up to each other to form limbs and then a trunk which then again separates out to form more branches and twigs? Of course not, but that is what you are saying above.

It’s now obvious why you tried to avoid answering that question for as long as you did. You were better off sticking with that tactic.

My response to Shrunk:

Shrunk, BTW, you are a both a quote miner AND liar.
This is exactly what I said:
Re: Choice (A) “Which isn’t possible unless you believe in 150 yr. old fables.”

Re: Choice (B) “You, Shrunk, would probably like this choice the most.”

Your lie: What you seem to be saying here, incredible as it may seem from someone who claims to understand evolutionary theory, is that there are four “branches” on the tree that join together to form a single common ancestor, and then separate back out again into the same separate four branches.

I never said any of this this. Period. And it’s a second lie to say that I “seem to be talking about choice A” when I am discussing B.

What I said: “Did many different species evolve partial sets of the organs and bio-systems and somehow transport those organs and bio-systems into that one common ancestor? (I jokingly call it ISP: Inter-Spcies Procreation) Not a possible scenario.”

This, Shrunk, is an out and out lie. Can’t you read?
You, Shrunk, are a bold liar and quote miner. Both.

What do you have to say for yourself? You are issued a warning for BOTH lying AND quote mining.

Thanks Shrunk. You gave me a few fun paragraphs for my p. 36! There is absolutely no chance that I could pass your unbelievably intelligent test. As predicted. Be sure and read the section dedicated to you and your evo-pals at rs.org.  I gave myself a 1 in 100,000 chance of picking the 1 in 3 answer correctly. It seems I overestimated my odds. More like one in a trillion would have been better.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: