Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Fri May 20, 2016 3:46 am

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:Same old nonsense from Janis. Once again, this is known as the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. By saying “the six original aortic arches” you are assuming evolution to start with, which means your argument is circular. Understand?! Here is what you should have responded to

There is nothing wrong with my saying "the six original aortic arches" as they are the ones that form in the embryos of all vertebrates. Thus they were the original ones in you and me, as well as every other vertebrate. Whether or not one chooses to make the strong inference from this that the common ancestor had six arches (as can perhaps also be inferred from the Early Cambrian vertebrates), the word "original" here is pertinent.

Sorry, I did not think you were referring to embryonic development here. However there are problems with inferring that the six aortic arches in vertebrates is evidence for evolution, because evolution involves changes in body structure over time. So why would all vertebrates have six aortic arches? Surely at least some vertebrates would have evolved to have a different number of aortic arches?! Also, because the mammalian heart develops before the circulatory system, this must be evidence that mammals are not related to other vertebrates, by your own reasoning.
Christine Janis wrote:I note that you made no attempt to correct your misinterpretation of what I meant by six "aortic arches". Those are the embryonic arches, retained in you and me as the carotid (the 3rd arch), the systemic = aorta (the 4th arch) and the pulmonary (the sixth arch). Instead you name six branches of the aorta in adult humans. Could it be that you failed to understand the issue?

Yes, you are correct. I was mistaken in referring to the human aortic branches, however as I have explained, to claim that the six aortic arches is somehow evidence for evolution is a case of selectively choosing some data, and totally ignoring conflicting data.
Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:The sinoatrial node in the human heart is a group of autorhythmic cells that acts as the pacemaker of the heart. It is only a very small part of the human heart. The amphioxus “heart” has no valves, no separate chambers, no endocardium and no epicardium. Fluid is pumped by the pulsing of arteries. So much for the amphioxus “heart” being homologous with the human heart."

I never said that the entire heart of amphioxus is homologous to the human heart. I said that, even in this primitive chordate, there is an element of the pumping heart (the sinus venosus = sinoatrial node) that is indeed homologous (and I'd wager that the genetic evidence shows that too).

As I said above, the amphioxus “heart” has no valves, no separate chambers, no endocardium, no epicardium and it pumps fluid by the pulsing of arteries. Hence your claim of homology here is extremely superficial and your conclusion that this is evidence for evolution is the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. If the excitation wave from the sino-atrial node travelled through the atria and straight into the ventricles, then there would not be enough time for the ventricles to fill with blood properly before contracting. The atrial impulses converge on the atrio-ventricular node and from there are directed along specialised conducting tissue, the bundle of His, which travel into the ventricular septum and then spread out into the ventricular myocardium. These specialised conducting fibres are ordered specifically to ensure that the contraction of the ventricular muscle fibres occurs in a precise manner, starting from the tips of the ventricles. Without this conducting system, the atria and ventricles would contract out of sequence and cause severe problems with blood circulation. The science of Anatomy and Physiology exposes your evolutionary story-telling as the complete nonsense that it is.

Christine Janis wrote:Your original argument was that hearts could not exist without all of the components.

Not true at all. Read my original post to see what I wrote.

Christine Janis wrote:And, in the heart of amphioxus, fluid is most certainly not "pumped by the pulsing of arteries". It's pumped by the the sinus venosus and the various accessory hearts (some of which can be seen in hagfish, but not in other vertebrates).

The description of amphioxus I read stated that they have pulsing arteries, with no true pulsing heart. However my main argument, which you have not answered, is that there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of the closed system of vessels where blood is pumped to meet the metabolic needs of the stationary body cells. Events such as this don’t occur in the real world.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:Typical of evolutionists, you have failed completely to specify what is required for sympathetic innervation of the heart.

Irrelevant, as fishes have many homologous elements of the human heart yet lack sympathetic innervation of this organ.

The only reason you claim it is irrelevant is because you cannot answer it. Sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation is required for the proper functioning of the human heart. As I explained carefully before (and you did not answer), is that autonomic innervation involves receptors, neural processing, a preganglionic neuron, a ganglion and a postganglionic neuron. You belief that such functionality arose by chance is nonsense. There is simply no evolutionary explanation for neural innervation of the heart, either the parasympathetic or the sympathetic branch in any vertebrate. The human heart is innervated by the cardiac plexus, which is a complex network of sympathetic and parasympathetic neurons. There is nothing simplistic about anatomy.

Christine Janis wrote:To remind you --- your original point was that hearts cannot function without all of the components seen in humans.

Another strawman argument, as I never said such a thing. This is nothing but a copout because you cannot even attempt to provide an evolutionary explanation for the neural control of the CV system. The cardiovascular centre in the brain controls the neural and hormonal negative feedback systems that regulate blood pressure and blood flow. The cardiovascular centre receives input from higher brain regions and from sensory receptors (proprioceptors, baroreceptors and chemoreceptors). There is neural regulation of blood pressure (via baroreceptors and chemoreceptors) and hormonal regulation of blood pressure. This is vital for the functioning of the human heart and is totally relevant. The evolutionary wand will need be waved rigorously to account for the neural control of the CV system.

Christine Janis wrote:Sure the system in humans is complex, but declaring "intelligent agency" without looking at the comparative information on related species is simple assertion without application of the scientific method.

Intelligent Design is the default explanation for the origin of the CV system. Your so-called scientific method amounts to claiming similarities as evidence for evolution and differences as evidence for evolution also. When examined critically, your arguments collapse like a house of cards.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:"The fallacy of your argument is assuming that similarities show evolutionary relationships. Dolphins have a similar body structure to sharks, however dolphins are mammals and sharks are fish, which are not related according to evolutionary theory.

My argument, or rather the argument of legitimate science, is not that "similarities" show evidence of relationship, but that *homologies* do. <snip>

Of course what I meant was that according to evolutionary theory, dolphins are not ancestors of sharks and sharks are not ancestors of dolphins, yet they have similar body structures. Of course that is irrelevant because evolutionists (as you claim) also believe that coronary vessels evolved four separate times. It seems that nothing is improbable for evolutionists; such is their faith.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:Also, if similarities supposedly show evolutionary relationships, then conversely non-similarities must show that animals are not related, such the large difference between the single circulation CV system of fish and the dual circulation CV system of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles."

..Also, you seem to have forgotten that lungfish, and a number of primitive bony fishes (Polypterus [reed fish], Amia [bowfin] and Leipsosteus [garpike] do indeed have this dual circulatory system that you think is unique to tetrapods. But that's typical of trying to explain anything to creationists: they simply ignore the facts that you present, pretend that they don't exist, and then go on to making up their own set of "facts" in a vain attempt to win the argument.

I have already answered this. It is the supposed evolution of the dual circulatory system from the single circulatory system that needs to be explained. And once again you have failed to provide any explanation for this powerful argument against evolution. No, it is not the creationists that are ignoring the facts.
Frank
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Fri May 20, 2016 4:09 am

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:"Also, you have provided absolutely no evolutionary explanation for the origin of red blood cells in lamphreys or hagfish. So in effect you have made the situation twice as impossible to answer as I described with the origin of the erythrocytes in the skeletal system."

Well, now the goal posts have shifted from the heart to the red blood cells. Obviously this is not a question that is easy to address, but you're invoking the God of the Gaps argument in that, "if science can't produce the answer within 5 seconds of my snapping my fingers, that means that God did it and I win." However, a simple google search on the issue turned up this:

http://bloodcenter.stanford.edu/blog/ar ... cs-ev.html

Here's what the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health has to say: "The most primitive blood cell may have been a protohemocyte which was first involved in phagocytosis and nutrition. <snip>

This is nothing but speculation, as is evidenced by the word “may”. But more importantly, as any person capable of critical thinking would realize, to meet the metabolic needs of the stationary cells of the body, a closed system of blood vessels to pump the blood around the body is required. Of course, the article you quoted from fails to explain this. Blood cells without a circulatory system are useless.
Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:"This must be the ultimate hand-waving argument. To state the obvious, you have failed to even mention the respiratory system that is found in vertebrates that is used for the ventilation and perfusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You have failed to explain (or even mention) how the respiratory system of mammals supposedly evolved. No mention of lungs, the bronchial tree, alveoli or breathing.

Mammals again. Does nobody else have lungs? <snip>

I am talking about the human respiratory system here. The diaphragm is innervated by the phrenic nerve, which contains axons from cervical spinal nerves (C3 – C5) and the external and internal intercostals are innervated from the thoracic spinal nerves T2-T12. The rhythm of respiration is controlled by the respiratory centre in the brain stem, with respiration being modified by cortical influences, chemical stimuli, proprioceptor input, and the inflation reflex. Chemoreceptor regulation of respiration also occurs. The bronchial tree is innervated by the pulmonary plexus, which is a complex network of sympathetic and parasympathetic neurons.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:Simply wave the magic evolutionary ward and these structures appear. But the magic evolutionary wand must be waved again to produce a diaphragm, because this is needed for breathing.

...The diaphram is merely a muscularized version of the septum that divides the peritoneal cavity in all vertebrates with lungs. No great mystery there.

Amphibians, non-crocodilian reptiles and birds do not have a partition between the chest and abdominal contents. A partially evolved diaphragm would result in herniation of intestines into the chest, resulting in collapse of the lung, causing death. Also, muscle tissue that simply lies across the body won’t function as a diaphragm since contraction would pull the ribs inwards, resulting in deflation, rather than inflation of the lungs. As I described above, respiration for humans is very complex and is controlled by the nervous system for which there is absolutely no evolutionary explanation. What totally preposterous nonsense it is to believe that the diaphragm, which is crucial for breathing, just happened to originate by chance to meet the respiratory needs of mammals. This is just another absurd miracle that evolutionists are required to believe.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:Neural innervation of the diaphragm is required for the diaphragm to function, so the magic evolutionary wand must be waved again.

As a medical specialist you should know that any structure that grows during development will attract the accompanyment of nervous tissue. Muscle tissue growing into the peritoneal septum carries with it its own nerve supply.

Your argument is complete and utter nonsense. What you are describing is operations science (not origins science) and is controlled by pre-existing genetic and epigenetic information. Why do you think children have the same anatomy as their parents? This is desperate argument if ever there was one.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:"What completely ridiculous nonsense! For starters, you have started off with a lancelet which has a closed circulatory system with pulsing arteries. You have failed to provide an evolutionary explanation for this animal. So the magic evolutionary ward is waved and an atriam and ventricle and two heart valves supposedly evolved?! Heart valves work in conjunction to provide a one-way flow of blood through the circulatory system. So you are claiming that cardiac conduction evolved after heart valves supposedly evolved?! Without cardiac conduction, there will be no pumping of blood (even with valves) and death will occur; this is stating the obvious."

Er, no. I'm proposing, as you seem to have forgotten, that the cardiac conduction system (the sinoatrial node) actually precedes the vertebrate heart, as this structure is seen in amphioxus, and is the major pacemaker of blood pumping in all chordates. Interesting that, if you are indeed a medical specialist, that you misspell "atrium". Makes me wonder if you're not just copying out big words from a medical textbook.

This is what you wrote previously about the sequence in the supposed evolution of the heart: “I believe it's clear from my writings here. Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction...”, so you did state that you believed that heart valves evolved before cardiac conduction, which is complete nonsense.

Christine Janis wrote:This is a nice article that shows that the pacemaker cells in the hearts of tunicates (which molecular data now show to be more closely related to vertebrates than is amphioxus) are homologous with the ones in humans. <snip>

Your response does not even attempt to answer what I wrote above. You cannot even attempt to explain how the closed circulatory system of the lancet supposedly evolved to meet the metabolic requirements of the stationary body cells. Nor have you answered anything else I have written above. Once again, merely showing some anatomical similarities does not show that evolution is true. It is the logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent.
Frank
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Fri May 20, 2016 4:22 am

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:It is rather amusing that you need to resort to the discredited pseudoscience of Ernst Haeckel (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”). You are totally confused between origins science and operations science in claiming that embryological development has anything to do with supposed evolutionary development. How an animal supposedly survived in its environment with a partially developed CV system is not addressed.

And I wonder what Frank means by a "partially developed CV system".<snip>
Frank wrote:If you read what I had written previously it would be obvious to nearly anyone. Hint: closed circulatory system, blood, pumping heart with valves and cardiac conduction for the CV system alone are required.

As i noted, hagfishes lack a completely closed circulatory system and also lack any autonomic innervation of the heart (although they do have a cardiac conduction system). Amphioxus (and tunicates) have an open circulatory system and, of course, blood, and also a cardiac conduction system (see above about the tunicate pacemaker cells). But they don't have a valved heart. So, we have extant animals, which molecular data shows to be related to vertebrates, that lack some of the components that you deem to be essential for a cardiovascular system to function. And they survive quite well in their environment. So I guess that I don't need to explain anything here.

Of course no circulatory system could be a completely closed system because of the need to exchange substances between the blood and the interstitial fluid around body cells. This is achieved with capillaries in the human body. However the human circulatory system is closed in the sense that the blood vessels form a closed loop. No doubt hagfish similarly have a closed circulatory system otherwise they would haemorrhage to death. Once again, the evolutionary explanation for how the closed system of blood vessels, with blood being pumped around the body to meet the metabolic requirements of the animal, simply does not exist.
Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:The statement of yours above is the kind of nonsense expected of someone who believes that heart valves supposedly evolved before cardiac conduction.

If you read my posts, I clearly don't "believe" this, seeing as a cardiac conduction system is seen in all chordates, but heart valves are only seen in vertebrates. Ergo, a cardiac conduction system is the more generalized condition, and the possession of heart valves the more specialized one, within our own phylum.

Here is the exact quote of yours: “I believe it's clear from my writings here. Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction...”. So my claim stands. You have failed to explain how the human CV cardiac conduction and heart valves supposedly evolved. I have explained previously how the cardiac conduction system is complex and defies any evolutionary explanation and I don’t need to repeat it here. At the bottom of my original post I have summarized why your attempt to explain the evolution of the cardiovascular system has failed completely.
Frank
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Fri May 20, 2016 9:15 pm

I welcome the appearance of this "Frank" fellow. Hilarious! At first I thought him a parody of a YECist who has no clue what evolution is and how it operates. But the more I read, the more I think that he's the real thing. Wow. What a great example of the sketical C student sitting at the back of the classroom who truly believes he has figured out all sorts of science which the world's top PhDs of the science academy have yet to consider.

This is like a practicum in NPD and the Kruger-Dunning Effect.

Of course, he will demand that I waste my time writing a point-by-point remedial tutorial explaining his errors to him. That's how their game works. The denialists always want someone to spoon-feed them. (After all, it is all about them and everyone else owes them personalized tutoring.) No thanks. If I still wanted to keep teaching clueless undergrads who weren't interested in learning, I wouldn't have retired.

Frank, this will suffice: (1) Find relevant textbooks on evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy. (2) Read them. (3) Rinse. (4) Repeat.

Now, you can have the last word and complain about what I posted.

P.S. "Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible" is called the Argument from Personal Incredulity, supplemented by the Argument from Ignorance. Thus, even someone totally uninformed about the biology would recognize your logical fallacies.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Fri May 20, 2016 9:39 pm

What I find frustrating with dealing with creationists with a little knowledge, is their lack of understanding of how little that knowledge is. Here Frank has a little knowledge of medical anatomy, and so assumes that that knowledge is sufficient to cover all of vertebrate anatomy, developmental biology, and evolutionary biology, and that in talking with somebody like myself he is dealing with a "Darwinist" who doesn't have the knowledge that he possesses.

Now, as a practicing scientist, I am very well aware of what little knowledge I have in science. My knowledge of the evolution of the vertebrate cardiovascular system does not come from being a primary expert in this area: rather it comes from teaching this subject, writing about it in textbooks, and keeping up with scientific the literature. One needs to have some expertise in science to realize how ignorant one is in most areas outside of one's own research specialty. But to give Frank a glimpse of the type of research that is going on in areas such as this ---- how developmental and molecular biology have combined to provide insights into the evolution of vertebrate anatomy that are way above and beyond what was even known a decade ago, I can recommend this recent issue of "Nature". There is no article here that deals specifically with the cardiovascular system, but it provides a flavour of the type of research into these areas that creationists are completely unaware of, in the main.

http://www.nature.com/nature/supplement ... index.html

The articles themselves are behind a paywall, but even perusal of the abstracts is highly illuminating, this one in particular

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14435.html

It has been more than 30 years since the publication of the new head hypothesis, which proposed that the vertebrate head is an evolutionary novelty resulting from the emergence of neural crest and cranial placodes. Neural crest generates the skull and associated connective tissues, whereas placodes produce sensory organs. However, neither crest nor placodes produce head muscles, which are a crucial component of the complex vertebrate head. We discuss emerging evidence for a surprising link between the evolution of head muscles and chambered hearts — both systems arise from a common pool of mesoderm progenitor cells within the cardiopharyngeal field of vertebrate embryos. We consider the origin of this field in non-vertebrate chordates and its evolution in vertebrates.


It would be nice if Frank would take the time to become acquainted with some of the recent science in vertebrate evolution and development before trying to engage a scientist in these forums. I don't expect this to happen, though, as he is convinced that his knowledge from his days as a medical student is all that one needs to combat the tidal wave of increasing knowledge in science. I will endeavour to answer some of the specifics over the next few days. However, seeing as Frank demands nothing less than a point by point explanation of exactly how every single little thing happened in evolutionary terms, this won't be easy. So much easier to assume that it was all designed by his God ---- and so hard to believe this when one knows a little about the comparative biology, how much other animals differ from the "human ideal", and how much knowledge we have from the ongoing scientific investigations in this area.
.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun May 22, 2016 3:23 pm

It's a while since I followed this thread and I'm surprised that it's still running. Thanks Christine, for battling on so long. I'm afraid, however, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear - whether via a vertebrate head or not! As for where they speak from...
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4179
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Sun May 22, 2016 6:28 pm

Hi Brian

This just started up again, and Ashley alerted me to it.

Glad to see that somebody else is reading this! I'll respond to Frank over the next week or so ---- if for no other reason but to have a record of rebuttals for others to use. Frank, of course, is long gone for another year or so.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 23, 2016 4:26 pm

I see that that expert (in propaganda) 'Cowboy Bob Sorensen' got out of bed on the wrong side on Saturday morning:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
"Here's an example of anti-creationist "logic" in action. I'm going to drop you in the middle of this long discussion, but what I'd like you to see is how atheopaths attack "Frank", misrepresent what he said, resorted to ridicule, and so on. (Up to you if you want to go back to Page 1 and do the whole thing, I don't have time.) Note the pretend "Professor" on Page 5 does not contribute science to this "Science Only" board, but only ridicule. Also, Haywire the Stalker chimes in with a worthless comment that gets ignored.
What Frank does is counter their arguments, and in one case, calls out an Admin for his lack of serious discussion and asks if he wants to stay on topic. Evolutionists detest being kept on topic, and they are infuriated when their pseudoscience is refuted. Straw man, ad hominem — well, count the fallacies. Thanks to WHY?Outreach for the image. -CBB
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewto ... 5&start=45"
This from a coward who refuses ALL direct debate about science with critics - because his lies keep getting exposed (it happened again last week on email but I didn't bother boring readers of this page with it all as Bob rather likes publicity even if it is bad publicity).
And of course his accusations were enjoyed by another expert, one Curtis Long.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Tue May 24, 2016 2:41 am

I'd be happy to debate the Science with Cowardly Cowboy Bob. The last time he complained about me on another forum, I challenged him to a debate on his claim that the Theory of Evolution violated The Laws of Thermodynamics. He ran for cover and haven't heard from him since---other than him spewing his usual complaint that I'm not a professor and not a Christian. (He seems to prefer those topics to The Laws of Thermodynamics.)
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 25, 2016 7:55 pm

The cowardly and ignorant propaganda merchant strikes again:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
"A bit of a follow-up to a couple of things. First, the other day I posted something from the bigoted anti-creationist BCSE forum. The section is called "Science Only", and "Frank" came in and argued science. The atheopaths used bad logic, misrepresented him, and even lied outright. There was a great deal of ridicule and non-science, but the Admin did not enforce the "science only" rules.
Because I posted the link to that here, another supporter and I were attacked on there as well. (Off-topic MUCH, bigots?) I saw this post shortly after I got up this morning. There are several criteria for a serious debate, and I have yet to see any of them met.
Apparently I was challenged to a debate from this character in the past and "ran away". When? Where? Did I acknowledge reading this alleged challenge? He demands that I debate thermodynamics. I never claimed to have that as an area of expertise. When you want to debate someone, you read your opponent's material, listen to interviews, and so forth. There is little indication that this "professor" (who claims to be a former creationist but refuses to reveal his real name because biblical creationists are out to get him him, and persistently exhibits ignorance of biblical creation science ) has read my material as much has he has claimed elsewhere, else he would have seen the link below. For someone who is supposedly too old and infirm to keep up his Weblog, he sure can crank out e-mail and comments in the cause of Darwin, blessed be. Whenever I see material from this supposed professor, he sides with atheists. Indeed, he even linked to a libelous hit piece at (ir)Rational Wiki to ridicule me. He ridicules biblical creationists in general, so I lack belief that he's even a Christian.
When you debate, you also show your opponent respect, your own expertise on a subject, your credentials — and realize that a debate is not a way for you to get even, slap down, humiliate, or publicly ridicule someone. In listening to Dr. James White, and my conversation with Rich Pierce, it's clear that debates are for both sides to present their cases in the best possible manner, and for opponents to discuss weaknesses in the other's position. Respectfully. Dr. White is friends with many people that he's debated. He also knows who they really are.
No, I'm not doing it. See the link below for more about debates.
My article on debate challenges: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2016/03 ... enges.html"

PS 'Frank' appears to be willing to discuss science. Unlike Cowardly Bob who is 'trolling' from afar ie without daring to post right here.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Thu May 26, 2016 2:05 am

I'm still willing to debate the science---whether it be The Laws of Thermodynamics or some other scientific topic. Yes, Cowardly Cowboy Bob will continue to "debate" from afar within the safety of his own webpages. He doesn't have the scientific knowledge nor the courage to debate these topics on a website where he can't control and censor.

If someone wants to debate the science, they can post here and no doubt Ashley will let me know. Are there no science-denialists willing to debate me?
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Thu May 26, 2016 2:58 am

Cowardly Cowboy Bob's hypocrisy in matters of science can be quite amusing. Bob complains on his website that I'm unfairly expecting him to debate his claims about The Laws of Thermodynamics. Here's what Cowboy Bob said:

He demands that I debate thermodynamics. I never claimed to have that as an area of expertise.


You probably got the impression from Bob's complaint that I had absolutely no basis for expecting him to defend a claim that the Theory of Evolution is denied by The Laws of Thermodynamics. But if you have any familiarity with Bob's track record for "honesty", you would suspect that I had very good reason to challenge Bob----because Bob has indeed on several occasions claimed at least enough expertise on The Laws of Thermodynamics to tell the entire science academy that he knows better about both evolution and the LOTs! Of course, you'd be correct to suspect that.

As an example of his hypocrisy and dishonesty, here's what Cowboy Bob wrote on Monday, July 2, 2012:

Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 1
Edited Introduction 7-09-2012

Evolution is not against the law of the land by any means. Instead, it is encouraged by secularists. (Intelligent Design and creation science have laws construed against them.) Evolution violates several laws of science. In this case, Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is running down.


There you have it, in Bob's own words. You'll find that and more at http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/search/label/Thermodynamics

Now, I will agree with Bob on one thing: Bob has no expertise on the subject of thermodynamics. But for Bob, not knowing anything about a topic never gets in the way of a good anti-science rant on his blog. Apparently, even though The Laws of Thermodynamics are not within his areas of expertise, he is nevertheless quite willing to tell his readers exactly what they should think about the LOTs and how they should assume that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes biological evolution impossible!

Bob reads these posts---before complaining about them on his website---so I'm going to repeat this reality:
Bob is willing to ponderously preach and pompously pontificate and tell Christians that they must deny the Theory of Evolution because the 2nd LOT allegedly makes evolution impossible---but just don't expect Bob to defend his claim because he doesn't have any expertise on thermodynamics! Does that sound reasonable to anybody? (Perhaps Bob could explain that mystery to his readers.)

What DOES sound entirely reasonable is Cowardly Cowboy Bob's fear of debating and defending the pseudo-science claims he posts on his website. I'm right here, Bob, ready to explain to you why the pseudo-science nonsense which fills your webpages is nothing but total rubbish which even you know better than to try and defend here. (If this were a theology discussion forum, I'd also explain how your pseudo-science is also unbiblical and theologically flawed---but I'll bet you've already been told that all too many times. So I'm entirely content to debate and shred your ignorance of science.)
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Thu May 26, 2016 10:22 am

ProfessorTertius wrote:Frank, this will suffice: (1) Find relevant textbooks on evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy. (2) Read them. (3) Rinse. (4) Repeat.

It seems that you have nothing to contribute to this post, hence your comment above. Of course if textbooks have answers to my arguments, then by all means present these arguments, in your own words. Otherwise, stop wasting your time. This forum is supposed to be ‘Science Only’.

ProfessorTertius wrote:P.S. "Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible" is called the Argument from Personal Incredulity, supplemented by the Argument from Ignorance. Thus, even someone totally uninformed about the biology would recognize your logical fallacies.

Your ‘Argument from Personal Incredulity’ is the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning, because it made in the context of evolution being true to start with. Also my arguments are based on my studies of the cardiovascular system, not ignorance. Your response shows that you either don’t have any proper understanding of the cardiovascular system, or you simply cannot answer me by providing any evolutionary explanation for the CV system. If you want to challenge me on this, then expect a barrage of scientific arguments showing that the evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible.
Frank
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Thu May 26, 2016 10:25 am

Christine Janis wrote:...There is no article here that deals specifically with the cardiovascular system, but it provides a flavour of the type of research into these areas that creationists are completely unaware of, in the main. http://www.nature.com/nature/supplement ... index.html

The topic of discussion here is the cardiovascular system, so it would be appreciated if you would make an attempt to answer what I have written, which is related to the functioning of the CV system. Whenever I describe the details of the functioning of the CV system, it shows how irrational evolution is and you cannot answer. As I mentioned before, evolutionists are certainly desperate when they need to cite embryological development (operations science) as evidence for evolution, and this is the type of argument you used to explain the neural innervation of the diaphragm.
Frank
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Thu May 26, 2016 10:28 am

Brian Jordan wrote:It's a while since I followed this thread and I'm surprised that it's still running. Thanks Christine, for battling on so long. I'm afraid, however, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear - whether via a vertebrate head or not! As for where they speak from...

Perhaps you forgot about your failed attempt to provide an evolutionary explanation for the CV system. Here is a summary of Christine Janis’ failed attempt (so far) which is included in the original post now:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.
4. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 system.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 is innervated by spinal nerves C3 – C5 and the external and internal intercostals are innervated by the thoracic spinal nerves T2 – T12.
12. Resorts to logical fallacies including circular reasoning (begging the question), the ad hominen fallacy (name-calling) and the strawman argument.
13. Doesn’t understand the difference between origins science and operations science.
She cites examples of repeatable embryological development which is determined by pre-programmed genetic and epigenetic information that has nothing to do with origins science.
14. 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.
15. Commits the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The argument is in this form:
1. if p then q
2. 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.
Frank
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron