Christine Janis wrote:I do have to note that his quotation from Franklin Harold "The Way of the Cell" is a totally bogus one found on creationist sites. It's an old creationist classic, and proves that Frank never read this book, just copied it off a site. In this book the author clearly states (p 16): <snip>
No doubt your claim that my quote is “totally bogus” is deliberately vague. I have a copy of the book and here is an extended version of the quote from page 205:
‘We have no better alternative to offer the enquirer, and in the absence of time travel we may never discover what actually happened and so a modicum of doubt necessarily persists. We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (16); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. There is room for discovery here, and for reflection too; nowhere is the appeal of Gould’s “pluralistic Darwinism” more keenly felt than in the study of cell evolution.’ (Franklin M. Harold, The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205, 2001).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with my quote from Franklin Harold’s book.
Christine Janis wrote:Now, I do have answers to some of these questions, and will post them this weekend (not that Frank will accept any answers from science, because he already knows the answer and is just here to mock)*.
Your cutting and pasting of a brief article about the sinoatrial node fails to explain the evolutionary origin of anything. Once again, all the article does is mention anatomical similarities; it fails completely in explaining any evolutionary explanation. As I explained before, it is the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
Likewise your attempt to explain the evolutionary origin of the vascular system, again by cutting and pasting, fails totally:
Christine Janis wrote:“...and KANK gene duplication and diversification may facilitate the evolutionary origin of vertebrate vascular vessels.”
No science here, just pleading, as it apparent by the word “may”. Once again, your explanation fails totally because it does not take into account the overall complexity of the CV system. Blood vessels won’t function without a pumping heart or blood, so your evolutionary explanation of blood vessels is useless nonsense.
And your attempt to explain the evolutionary origin of Ventricular Septation, once again by cutting and pasting, does not even make the slightest attempt to explain the origin of the dual circulation CV system from the single circulation CV system. This is the crucial issue which is totally ignored (as usual), so the explanation is meaningless.
Earlier you wrote:
Christine Janis wrote:...as all you know about (or, at least, can copy and paste about) is the human condition.
You certainly are in no position to accuse anyone of cutting and pasting, as that is all you have done in your last four posts. I checked my previous posts and noticed that the only thing you have attempted to answer is the evolutionary origin of the diaphragm (cut and pasted), which I will refute in my next post. No doubt the reason that you have cut and pasted articles (which explain the evolutionary origin of nothing), is because you are desperate and want to hide the fact that you simply cannot answer me on anything I wrote previously. For example, I wrote:
“...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.”
And you made no attempt to answer. So when the details of the functioning of the CV system are presented, you simply cannot answer. This has happened so many times.
It is important to note that the cardiovascular system could not have evolved for any reason or purpose. However the cardiovascular system performs the crucial, life sustaining purpose of maintaining life by meeting the metabolic needs of stationary body cell. Evolution is totally irrational nonsense. This type of argument can be used for any of the body systems.
My summary of your failed attempt to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the cardiovascular system has reached 24 points and will no doubt continue to increase.