Evolution: An Objective Look

(1) Round Two with EvoBiologist

• I got into a second round of discussions with EvoBiologist. He bobs and weaves, but is nearly impossible to pin down.  He answers all of my questions with dogma, or he ignores the question entirely. I finally did pin him down. For example ha bragged about how evolution has all of the precursor steps for the evolution of livers and kidneys.  I asked him if he has the same for the Krebs cycle, the energy providing cycle that occurs in every cell in the bodies of every animal on Earth.  There was no response. By discussion started with DiDedan.  EvoBiologist chimed in, and off we went.  (EvoBiologist is an instructor in the biology department of his university.  He was working on his PhD several years ago when we first discussed, so I assume he is now a full PhD.  So it’s most likely Dr. EvoBiologist.) Again, I am stevebee92653.

  Here is the start of my discussion:

  • To sum it up: evolution can be proven by observable data and thus is a science.Great video!

    DjDedan 1 week ago

  • Keep saying that to yourself ten times every day when you get up. You will believe!

    stevebee92653 in reply to DjDedan (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • hmm pretty obvious troll – you should at least try to be a bit more subtle about it.

    DjDedan in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • Ah, the “troll strategy”! Commonly used by evolution’s indoctrinates when they have nothing of interest to say. I think it’s your best strategy, since you have nothing of interest to say.

    stevebee92653 in reply to DjDedan (Show the comment) 1 week ago

  • more trolling i see. Nothing you have said leads to a constructive discussion – thus you are trolling. If i had nothing interesting to say why did you even reply if not to troll??? Let me repeat my point because you probably forgot: this video shows observable data that supports evolution. Now you can either support what i said or refute it you can’t just say something abrasive and obnoxious and not expect to be called a troll. so here’s your second chance – make us proud – i believe in you!

    DjDedan in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 6 days ago

  The phylogenetic tree is bullshit and so is this vid. If the tree is valid, then it would not be possible for newly evolved organs and biological systems to spread to all of the modern species that have them. This is evolution’s paradox. So all this discussion about genes being similar is moot. There you go. See if you can actually think independently and figure out why. Here is the problem: You won’t figure it out on your own, as you have been too indoctrinated. If I told you, you would block.

  stevebee92653 in reply to DjDedan (Show the comment) 6 days ago

• Perhaps, Steve, you could provide us with an example of a case where it is clear that a particular organ’s distribution across the tree is not explained by common ancestry. I’ve taught Zoology and Comparative Anatomy labs, so I know that the study of organ distribution across the phylogenetic tree has been one of the strongest arguments for evolution from the beginning.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 6 days ago

• You taught what you were trained to teach. You didn’t think out the parameters. Organ and biological system distribution isn’t possible with the P. Tree. Figure it out for yourself. If you are so smart you can teach, figuring it out should be a cinch for you. If you give up, feel free to check my blog evillusion d n p.36.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 5 days ago

• I have looked at your blog. I’ve compiled a few of the points you’ve made in a document file, but with other obligations in my life, I haven’t gotten around to trying to address the wide and varied claims you make. One thing that sticks out is that you don’t understand how biologists think evolution works, which makes it hard for you to argue against the science effectively.

  We asked you for an example of an organ that violates the phylogenetic tree. Please stop dancing around and wasting time.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 5 days ago

• Ah, you are too obligated and busy to answer. As expected. You have no answers. When you have time I will sure be interested in your scientific response. I have a hunch your response will be one of those “hell freezes over” things. It will never happen because you have no answers. Your “steve doesn’t understand evolution” tactic is so typical of evo indoctrination. When you have no answer, put down the person who asked. Perfect.

  Organs that violate the P. Tree: Livers, pancreas, kidneys. There

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 4 days ago

• All vertebrates share the organs you mentioned, so they would’ve evolved in the ancestor of vertebrates. How is this a problem for the phylogenetic tree?

  I’m sorry if I offended you by pointing out that you don’t understand what biologists have concluded so far regarding evolution. It isn’t an easy subject to understand without formal schooling because the public has tons of misconceptions about evolution that are widely propagated. You made many flawed claims which I will answer at my leisure.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 4 days ago

• Do I need to review with you the impossibility of an entire set of organs forming and collecting in a single species common ancestor to all vertebrates? You evos can’t show evidence of even one organ evolving in any species. But an entire set in a singlel species? The impossible becomes more impossible. But you teach it anyway. Right?

  Your strategy of telling people they don’t understand evolution is typical and condescending. You have done that with other commenters. Bad strategy.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 3 days ago

• You just took my shorthand FAR too literally and in the process proved my point about not knowing what biologists actually claim about how evolution works. No one thinks all those organs formed in a single species, but in the LINEAGE that is ancestral to vertebrates. Your blog indicates the same misunderstanding. Non-vertebrate chordates show the beginnings of the organs you mentioned, though less complex. Their complexity increases throughout the vertebrate tree as well.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 3 days ago

• You and I both know organs don’t show up in the fossil record. You didn’t think out your answer, as is usual. If you read my paper you would know your “lineage” was thoroughly discussed, and biologically not possible

  Let me know how the entire inventory of vertebrate organs evolved in one single MRCA species for vertebrates, and I will bow. Generalizations like you gave aren’t an answer.

  Are there “less complex” livers? Pancreas? Kidneys? I’d love to see. Or are you making stuff up.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 3 days ago

• Not fossils, living organisms. Living organisms are the tips of the phylogenetic branches. By comparing them, we can determine the order in which their lineages diverged, and which adaptations arose during which time segments simply based on the pattern of diversity of the descendants. Google kidney evolution. The first link is to evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s blog, where he very clearly discusses some of the evidence for kidney evolution. Why don’t we start with that one? Cool?

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 3 days ago

• Ah. Embryological development=kidney evolution. Sorry. Not cool. You have skipped over my question about YOUR answer. Lineage. Which is no answer, nor is Coyne’s. You use modern species as examples of evolution. So I asked you if there are simple kidneys, aka proto-kidneys in existence in modern species. You avoided the answer. Are there simple Krebs cycles? Or even embryonic Krebs? You are cherry picking. Can’t you answer on your own? Why refer me to someone who has no idea either. Like Coyne?

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 3 days ago

• No, you clearly didn’t read Coyne’s blog. It mentions several animals that have primitive kidneys, then goes on to explain how tetrapods go through developmental stages where their kidneys resemble these primitive versions in other more distant chordate relatives. So, no, I didn’t avoid the answer – we do see simple kidneys and progressively more complex ones (as requested), both forming a nested hierarchy (a tree) as well as being reiterated in development. Why repeat Coyne when I can site him?

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• The greased pig syndrome. All vertebrates have fully functioning kidneys. Proto-kidneys do not exist. Sorry for you. Embryonic kidneys do you no good. But you are so devoid of evidence, you need to cite what obviously has nothing to do with evolution. In fact your evidence goes completely against evolution, since there is no evo explanation for fertilization of the ovum and the beginning of embryonic formation. You smartly avoided Krebs. Good job!

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• I notice you made no mention of any of the other organisms with more primitive kidneys mentioned by Coyne. I don’t see why I should go to the trouble of composing a treatise on the evidence for the evolution of every complex structure or chemical pathway when you won’t even read 1 blog post on 1 organ. Clearly, you didn’t read the evolution literature before creating your own blog, or you wouldn’t keep incorrectly guessing what biologists claim in an attempt to refute it. Read the literature.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• All kidneys are fully functioning, loaded with tubes and blood vessels, and connected to the other equipment that is necessary to make them work. There is no examples of kidneys forming from non kidney cells. Again, you try the put down technique. It doesn’t work with me. I know what the lit says. I have read many, and reviewed many. You should try it yourself. evillusion d n p.5

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• You’re missing something fundamental. If I’m wrong, then I’m sorry, but it is hard to believe that someone who has read the literature would say something like this: “Mammals in the southern hemisphere of the earth have the same organ inventory and design as mammals in the northern hemisphere. A liver evolved independently in the southern hemisphere would have to be matched by a liver evolved identically in the northern hemisphere, not a rational possibility. So, why are they the same?”

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• YOU are missing something fundamental. If evo is valid, all organs had to not only evolve in the single common ancestor of all vertebrates, (or it’s direct lineage) but also in a single geographic location.Otherwise there would be different inventories of organs in different locations of the planet. Is that real tough for you to understand?

  If you think all vertebrate organs evolved in a single species CA or lineage of that species,and in a single geographic location on earth, then you are easy.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• Evolution of all organs wouldn’t have to happen in one geographic location. They could develop gradually in a lineage over time. That lineage could relocate for millions of years through different environments while these organs were evolving. All that then needs to happen is that the descendants of this lineage then dispersed to different environments after the organs evolved. No one is claiming that livers arose separately in mammals in different hemispheres. Look up lancelet anatomy.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• You have no idea how absurd your statements are. So organs arose in different species? And in different locations? If a “lineage” evolved an organ, how was that transferred to another species; or better yet to all species that have the organ. You try to talk over me,but you fail.You think you can fool me like you do your students. They don’t ask questions. I do. You need to really think this stuff out and find the flaws instead of again referring me to some Google source that has no idea either.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• Yes and yes. Your surprise at my answer (and your questions) further reinforces my claim that you wrote a huge treatise on evolution without ever knowing what the biological consensus on evolution actually is. Jerry Coyne is widely regarded as one of the top evolutionary biologists in the world, not “some google source”. Organs were transferred to other species in exactly the same way your eye color was transferred to you (inheritance from ancestors). All of this fits into a family tree.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• There is no point in going further. Even eye color cannot be transferred to other species. Your arguments are pure dogma. You don’t think them out because you can’t. Either your indoctrination is too great, or being a teacher you know you would get you ass fired if you do think and discuss critically. You need to figure out which. The bio-consensus is that species can’t procreate with other species, which makes the spread of organs not possible.I couldn’t care less about Coyne,a full on BS’er.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 2 days ago

• Coyne has spent a career studying the empirical genetic basis for the reproductive and physiological barriers to gene flow. You could learn a thing or two from him about species and genetics. Such work is useful regardless of your views on evolution.

  Inheritance through common ancestry doesn’t ever require the transfer of traits between two distinct species. Again, this is Evolution 101. You keep attacking claims that evolution doesn’t make, yet you keep saying you know what evolution claims.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

• It’s too simple to not get. So you pretend you don’t get it. I won’t waste my time explaining to you again. You repeat dogma just like a Sunday School teacher. No different. All answers: “Inheritance through common ancestry!” Someday maybe you will actually think it out. Not now though, which I find strange for such a well educated person. What you could learn from Coyne is don’t waste your time on a fantasy.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 1 day ago

• I think I do understand what you’re trying to say, but you’re right – it’s too simple. You’re relying on an inaccurate oversimplification of evolution, and you’re running into problems because of it. Let me see if I can clarify how this works: A species has a liver. Some members of that species migrate. Now you have 1 species w/ 2 separate populations (both w/ livers). Slowly these populations diverge until one day, when they meet again, they can’t interbreed, so they are now 2 species.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

• Again you aren’t thinking out your explanation. Why? Your problems with this explanation are immense. There is, unfortunately for you, an entire inventory of organs you need to account for, Not just a single liver. Since all vertebrates have the same inventory of major organs, fit your explanation into into that fact. “One species has all organs, and it separates into two populations…..” Problem #1, which is on evillusion d n, how did all organs evolve in one single species? Have fun.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 1 day ago

• No one organ had to evolve in one species, much less all organs. All evolved slowly through a lineage. Take the heart, for example. Some worms have no blood vessels at all. Worm-like chordates called “lancelets” have a circulatory system resembling primitive fish, except without a true heart. In hagfish, we see variations on simple heart chambers. Fish have 2 chambers, amphibians and reptiles have 3, though some have a flap as well creating a partial 4th chamber. Mammals have 4. Gradualism!

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

• You’re not going to think. I’m not going to write. Bye

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 1 day ago

• This is why I never got around to responding to your blog. You are unwilling to work through one point to its conclusion. I put a lot of time and thought into my responses to you, and you tell me I am not thinking. You said I was condescending to you for pointing out that your statements and questions indicate to me that you don’t know what biologists actually claim. I never said you don’t think. There’s nothing wrong with ignorance if there is an interest in learning. Goodbye and good luck.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 22 hours ago

• There is nothing wrong with ignorance? And you say you are not condescending? Well you are. That’s part of your indoctrination. You are supposed to be condescending, because you must defend an indefensible scientific fable. So it’s you only choice.

  There IS something wrong with not thinking. You spout dogma, you never think out the perameters of your “answers”.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

• Again, you are being INCREDIBLY condescending. I have thought about all of this stuff IN DEPTH. It’s my field of specialty for Christ’s sake. Maybe try spelling “parameters” correctly the next time you use it in a sentence to insult someone’s intelligence.

  If you have studied the biologists claims, then why ask how mammals in the two hemispheres have the same organs? You ought to already know that the ancestor of all mammals had those organs, and that no inter-species mating was required.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 18 hours ago

• Wait. you tell me I’m ignorant, and you then are hurt by my condescension? You’re kidding. Right? I am not demeaning at all. I just tell the facts. You repeat non-answers that I am supposed to accept. Just like you did again here.Like the average indoctrinate. You state that “the ancestors had those organs” and you are way too intelligent to not be able to figure out the problems with your answer. So what’s to discuss? You are like arguing with a religious person who repeats God did it. Equal.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 18 hours ago

• Not hurt, just less inclined to treat you with civility. I was just telling “the facts” when I pointed out that your questions and statement make it appear that you don’t know the claims coming from the scientists. What are the problems with my answers? Every time you start to get at this, you can’t help but hurl insults and make statements that sound like you’re missing something major about the way evolution works – like this insistence on the need for inter-species organ transfers. Explain.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 17 hours ago

• Nothing wrong with ignorance? And you say you aren’t condescending? Your answers show such a lack of thought. “Slowly through lineage?” Is that your idea of a good “non ignorant” answer? The answer shows a complete lack of thought. It’s only dogma that you have been taught, that you are passing along to your students, unfortunately. Every question I posed was answered with dogma.. My point is how did a CA attain a full inventory of organs. “Lineage!” is your ignorant response. You are a clone.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

• …also, my answers are concise due to the constraints of the medium, as well as those I place on myself. If “dogma” is the best supported explanation based on the data analyses in the literature, then it’s a good idea to spout “dogma”. I’ve looked at the studies critically, and don’t agree with every conclusion I’ve read. Why not instead of attacking me when you don’t like my answers, try asking the question differently, add a follow-up for clarity, or explain specifically any errors seen?

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 18 hours ago

• Again, and again, the errors “seen” is there is no possible way to form a full invntory of organs and biological systems in a single CA species. You OBVIOUSLY didn’t read my blog page on the subject. You also know biology well enough to figure out your problem all by yourself. So why pretend you can’t figure it out? Not impressive.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 12 hours ago

• Again, no single species had to form all organs and systems. Also, no, I did read your blog page, and your arguments don’t address the processes actually claimed by biologists to be occurring. I don’t know how to keep getting that across without insulting you each time. Most biologists agree that the ancestors of bilaterally symmetrical animals were worms. Modern worms show a range of complexity from basically no organs or systems to elaborate systems. Some animals can live without organs.

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

• They’re called bacteria and protists. They have organelles. And colonies can live without organs. But I know of no worms that have no organs. C. Elegans is the smallest, and it has organs.

  No matter what you will not or cannot see the point I make. You talk over my questions with your “gradualness, lineage” answers. You cannot satisfy my question, you will either pretend you don’t understand it or you defend evo to the end. So there is no use discussing. Maybe you will figure it out someday.

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

• Bacteria don’t have organelles, only eukaryotes do. Cnidarians (some of which, like hydras, are very worm-like) are thought to have diverged early from other mammals, representing an early form. The have no organs. Flatworms have some basic organs, but no heart, liver, kidneys, etc. and have no trouble living without them.

  Okay, now that I’ve clarified, can you clarify your point about organs having to appear all in one species. We see that some animals don’t need livers etc, so why this claim?

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

• Here is my very last shot with simple clear concise yes/no questions:

  (1) Do modern vertebrates have a single most recent common ancestor species?

  (2) If so,did that MRCA species have the the full complement of organs and biological systems that are present and common in modern vertebrates?

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

• 1) Yes

  2) Yes

  EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

• (3) Did the MRCA of all vertebrates or its linear predecessors evolve the entire set of co-dependent organs and biological systems common in all modern vertebrates?

  stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

  • 3) Yes, a lineage of predecessor populations of the most recent common ancestor of all vertebrates gradually built up organs and systems based on processes that were already occurring at the cellular level derived from even earlier ancestors (going back to single cells). That lineage of predecessor populations can be arbitrarily divided in retrospect into different “species”, but at no time point did members of this population progressing through time belong to more than one species.

    EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 8 hours ago

  • So the MRCA, which is really tantamount to a single species since it could not have speciated during the formation of its organs, evolved the entire set of modern interdependent vertebrate organs. Obviously speciation had to have been shut off during those millions of years or else we would see incomplete organ sets today.

    So you think RM and NS+ was capable of not only evolving single complex organs, but an entire inventory of codependent organs in a single species/lineage.

    stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist 7 hours ago

  • We do see incomplete organ sets. In my response to question 4, I mention flatworms. Flatworms are able to handle many organ functions on a cellular and tissue, rather than organ or system, level of complexity. The living biological record is stuffed with organisms that have structures and chemistries that are intermediate between species in one consistent branching pattern. If you want to know what gradual evolutionary changes are thought to look like, examine a comparative anatomy text.

    EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 6 hours ago

  • RE: like lungs, which came from swim bladders, which are an outgrowth of the esophagus in some fish.

  • Who made this up? Not you? It’s nothing more than a guess about a fable. That’s what makes evo such a great science. Anyone can make up anything. It gets recorded as real science, and off it goes into the classroom!

    stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 5 hours ago

  • Ah. Now I get it. There must have been an organism with a liver and no blood system to feed it. Or kidneys with no bladder or ureter. Or muscle tissue with no nutrition system. THEN they added bladders, ureters, digestive tracts, blood systems. Is that your take?

    stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 5 hours ago

  • 5) Vertebrates evolved after most of the major organ systems were fairly well established and codependent. We do, however, see a family tree set of differences, complexities, and modifications that create new organs in vertebrates (like lungs, which came from swim bladders, which are an outgrowth of the esophagus in some fish). Where we see the most differences are in closely related invertebrates, and again, they form a family tree pattern consistent with DNA.

    EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 6 hours ago

  • 4) No. Organs did not all evolve in a coordinated fashion. They are codependent in vertebrates, which have evolved in many ways since those organs first arose that have made them totally dependent on all of them. These organs are only necessary in animals that are too big to do all of this at the cellular level using diffusion. Nutrition, then blood, then we see the others. Look at the flatworm anatomy.

    EvoBiologist in reply to stevebee92653 (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

  • Pt. 3: BTW, since you want to be picky, bacteria have ribosomes and other primitive organelles. Don’t give your membrane lecture please. Also, I didn’t have my glasses, and my spell ck on my new computer is somehow off. 😀

    stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

  • Pt. 2 Questions:

    (4) Did all organs evolve in coordinated fashion, as livers cannot live without blood systems, blood systems cannot survive without nutritional systems, none can survive without lung/oxygenating systems+++ Since they are all codependent, did they evolve in concert, all together?

    (5) If a speciation event did occur during that evolution when only a partial inventory of organs was present, if that is possible, shouldn’t there be vertebrates now with very different inventories?

    stevebee92653 in reply to EvoBiologist (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

    EvoBiologist 6 days ago

    4) No. Organs did not all evolve in a coordinated fashion. They are codependent in vertebrates, which have evolved in many ways since those organs first arose that have made them totally dependent on all of them. These organs are only necessary in animals that are too big to do all of this at the cellular level using diffusion. Nutrition, then blood, then we see the others. Look at the flatworm anatomy.

    Reply ·in reply to stevebee92653

    stevebee92653 6 days ago

    Ah. Now I get it. There must have been an organism with a liver and no blood system to feed it. Or kidneys with no bladder or ureter. Or muscle tissue with no nutrition system. THEN they added bladders, ureters, digestive tracts, blood systems. Is that your take?

    Reply ·in reply to EvoBiologist

    EvoBiologist 6 days ago

    No, as I said, blood vessels came before livers (please look at flatworm anatomy like I requested), and nutrition came before that. In smaller, less complex animals, cellular processes handle the functions of absorption, digestion, excretion, and a number of other things that require organs in larger animals. In these simple animals, the evolution of organs could make things more efficient, enabling the evolution of larger, more complex animals, with bodies closed off from their environments.

    Reply ·in reply to stevebee92653

    stevebee92653 6 days ago

    I use vertebrates because their organ set is universal in modern species. You cite a flatworm because of its “simpler” internal anatomy. Bad strategy. Your flatworm has (1) the same problem as my vertebrates only on a smaller scale, and (2) has inhabited the Earth for over 500,000,000 years without evolving.

    Blood first then liver? Kidneys first, then bladder? Then ureters? Then urethra? I’m sure you have lab tests and fossils that show this order. You have vertebrates with partial inventories?

    Reply ·in reply to EvoBiologist

    EvoBiologist 6 days ago

    As I said, liver, kidneys, etc. evolved BEFORE the first vertebrates, which is why I brought up flatworms. By the time the first vertebrates evolved, these organs were well established and codependent. Blood first, then liver (flatworms have blood vessels, but no liver). Look at lamprey anatomy, and you’ll see a urogenital system with an incomplete organ set and a primitive version of the kidneys. What makes you say flatworms haven’t evolved? They’re made of soft tissue, but you’ve seen fossils?

    Reply ·in reply to stevebee92653

    stevebee92653 5 days ago

    You KNOW livers and kidneys evolved before cardiac systems? “They’re made of soft tissue, but you’ve seen fossils?”

    You have completely left the questions I posed. You write as if “they all evolved the same organs sets in lots of different species”. Again you are unable to comprehend the question I asked.

    All phyla showed up in the Cambrian, so the flatworm or its very similar ancestor had to be present 500MYA. YOU are using the flatworm as your early example, not me.

    Reply ·in reply to EvoBiologist(Show the comment)

    Round and Round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.