Brian Jordan wrote:I think Frank might keep quiet now that specific genes involved in evolutionary changes are being discussed.
A question for you. Do you believe that heart valves evolved before cardiac conduction, like Christine Janis claims?!
Below is the latest summary of Janis' totally failed attempt to explain the evolutionary origin of the cardiovascular system:
1. She now claims that she is only describing ‘anatomy’ and is not describing the evolutionary origin of the CV system because I would not understand it. Of course the real reason why no evolutionary explanations for the CV system are provided is because none exist.
2. Doesn’t even understand how the CV system functions. Claims that the heart evolved in this sequence: myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction. The heart won’t function without cardiac conduction, so the vertebrate would be dead.
3. Begins with a lancelet, which has a functioning circulatory system with pulsing arteries. No explanation of how this animal supposedly evolved is provided. The most crucial explanation required is how blood is pumped via a closed system of blood vessels to meet the metabolic needs of stationary body cells. Janis fails to provide any explanation at all.
4. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.
5. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.
6. Claims that because a single celled zygote can develop into a multicellular organism, it should therefore be possible for bacteria to evolve into multicellular life over time. The analogy is false and is not supported by genetics.
7. Ignores pathophysiology and seems to be oblivious to the adverse effects of abnormalities to structural and functional changes to body systems and organs.
8. Fails completely to take into account the overall complexity of the CV system.
9. Always evades providing any explanation when confronted with the details of the anatomical structure of the CV system. Waves the magic evolutionary wand repeatedly to evolve body systems.
10. Repeatedly cuts and pastes from articles (that explain the evolutionary origin of nothing) in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that she cannot even attempt to provide evolutionary explanations for the detailed functioning of the CV system.
11. Claims that both anatomical CV similarities and anatomical CV differences are evidence for evolution. So any similarities or differences in CV systems (all possibilities) are used to support evolution, which means it cannot be falsified. For example, the claim is made that because human embryos have six aortic arches and fish also have six aortic arches, this indicates common ancestry. However fish and humans have vastly different body structures, yet evolutionists claim they are related. So both similarities and differences are used to support evolutionary theory. No doubt if humans had five, seven, or any other number of aortic arches then this would be used to support evolutionary theory also. The argument is meaningless.
12. It was pointed out that autonomic innervation involves receptors, neural processing, a preganglionic neuron, a ganglion, a postganglionic neuron, and signal transmission at chemical synapses via neurotransmitter molecules. Janis has failed to provide an evolutionary explanation for autonomic innervation of the CV or respiratory systems.
13. States that hagfish have no sympathetic or parasympathetic innervation of the heart and tries to use this as an excuse for not having to explain how the sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation of the human heart supposedly evolved.
14. No evolutionary explanation for the origin of the closed system of coronary blood vessels is provided. Each coronary artery and vein in humans has three layers – tunica adventitia, tunica media and tunica intima, in addition to neural innervation of these vessels for vasodialation. It is claimed that coronary vessels evolved four separate times, which makes this evolutionary scenario orders of magnitude even more absurd.
15. Fails to provide any explanation of the regulation of blood pressure, and the regulation of haemoglobin levels with erythropoietin and its negative feedback system.
16. No evolutionary explanation for the origin of erythrocytes (red blood cells) required for the CV system in vertebrates is provided. Janis fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for erythrocytes by mentioning that lampreys and hagfishes have red blood cells without a skeletal system. The fact remains that there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of erythrocytes for the CV system in vertebrates or invertebrates.
17. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the renal system, which is used to filter blood for the CV system. This includes the mesonephric kidney of fish and amphibians and the metanephric kidney of reptiles, birds and mammals.
18. Fails to explain the origin of the respiratory system, which is used for oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange for the CV system. The human diaphragm which is used for respiration is innervated by spinal nerves C3 – C5 and the external and internal intercostals are innervated by the thoracic spinal nerves T2 – T12.
19. Resorts to logical fallacies including circular reasoning (begging the question), the ad hominen fallacy (name-calling), the either-or fallacy, and the strawman argument.
20. Fabricates totally fictitious dialog between myself and her in a vain attempt to win the (strawman) argument. This has occurred at least twice.
21. Doesn’t understand the difference between origins science and operations science.
She cites examples of repeatable embryological development (neural innervation of the diaphragm) which is determined by pre-programmed genetic and epigenetic information that has nothing to do with origins science.
22. Phylogenetics only shows nested hierarchies of biological characteristics. It depicts a simplistic view of the internal structure of living organisms and it fails to demonstrate evolution. An ancestor-descendant relationship could be imagined between a spoon, knife and fork but it fails to demonstrate how one of these supposedly evolved into another.
23. Falsely accuses me of ‘quote mining’ when the only quote I included was one from evolutionist Franklin Harold in his book: ‘The Way of the Cell’.
24. Commits the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The argument is in this form:
1. if p then q
3. therefore, p
and is fallacious. Although the truth of p ensures the truth of q, the reverse is not necessarily so, as the proposition q could be true even if p is false. So the argument is a fallacy. Here is one example:
1. If the earth was flat, we’d expect that the horizon is flat when observing from the coastline. (if p then q)
2. The horizon is flat when observing from the coastline. (q)
3. Therefore, the earth is flat. (therefore p)
The argument is fallacious. Here is Janis’ example:
1. If evolution were true, we’d expect that organisms would share some similar anatomical structures. (if p then q)
2. Organisms do share some similarity in their anatomical structures. (q)
3. Therefore, evolution is true. (therefore p)
The argument is fallacious because similar anatomical structures are predicted by intelligent design.
It seems that you don't have anything to contribute in this supposedly ''science only" forum about the evolutionary origin of the cardiovascular system.