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 Roger Stanyard » Sat May 28, 2016 10:36 am

Frank wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:I see that that expert (in propaganda) 'Cowboy Bob Sorensen' got out of bed on the wrong side on Saturday morning: <snip>

Here are some of the forum rules:

‘Stay on topic - if you wish to discuss something different, start a new thread, don't hijack someone else's discussion.
No Personal attacks - discuss the science, not the person.’

It would be appreciated if the forum rules were adhered to here and irrelevant, ad hominen attacks were not made. Perhaps you forgot that discussion here is supposed to be ‘Science Only’, and related to the topic.


So why are you pushing a religious position in this group?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Sat May 28, 2016 3:43 pm

He's also clearly a complete arsehole (as we would say in English English) ;-)


Yes, Frank and Cowardly Cowboy Bob are big piles of astatine sulfide.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby MisterGordons » Sat May 28, 2016 5:02 pm

Christine Janis wrote:I would just like to note that I made a very brief comment on Bob Sorenson's Facebook page, to rebut his accusation that as an `"evolutionary biologist" I could know nothing about medical matters (commented that I'd been teaching this stuff to premedical students for years, and thus was certainly in a position to know what I was talking about). Sorenson wrote back that many evolutionary biologist who came on his forum wrote outdated science, to which I tried to reply "not those who write the textbooks", but found that, after a single post, any replies from me had been blocked

Now I'm getting a barrage of emails forwarded from Facebook accusing me of writing no science on here, only personal attacks on Frank.

Ashley is right, Sorenson is a coward who blocks anybody who disagrees with him and then claims "victory" over his silenced opponent. And, as usual, we're seeing that what creationists mean by "ad hominem" is "somebody who posts facts that disagree with my beliefs". Unlike Ashley, I won't bother with Sorenson and his crew any more unless they have the balls to discuss something in an open forum where they can't censor the content to make it look as if they're winning. And I shall tackle Frank's comments further when I have the time (I believe I have another year, 2 months and 27 days ---- right?)


Hello is all right. You have given false information. You have not been blocked. People who are familiar with the operations of Facebook know that a blocked person's comments are no longer visible to the general public. Your comments are visible and have had replies. https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Super ... 6447245228
MisterGordons
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 28, 2016 6:54 pm

Sorensen groupie and professional troll Gordons rides again. This individual NEVER EVER discusses any science.

And how does Gordons know in detail what is happening on Sorensen's facebook page?

Yes, Christine informed me 12 hours ago that Sorensen had banned her from his facebook page (assuming that's correct, what an absolute coward and fraud he is).

But Sorensen says he did not ban her. In fact Prof Tertius has just suggested to both of us by email: "Something I've seen several YECs do is block me from their pages after a single post---but then restore access after I've given up and left. That way they can pretend they never blocked me. I'll bet that that is what Cowboy Bob did with you".

This is the page:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
(I've taken screenshots of the discussion re 'Evolution's Achilles Heels' as it currently appears - it includes false and malicious comments by the low-life scum Curtis Long)

Sorensen and his rabble are definitely trying to derail this thread and the one about 'Evolution's Achilles Heels'.

I am trying to ignore them but at present their antics simply cannot be ignored.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8043
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 28, 2016 7:08 pm

ProfessorTertius wrote:
He's also clearly a complete arsehole (as we would say in English English) ;-)


Yes, Frank and Cowardly Cowboy Bob are big piles of astatine sulfide.


NO.

I think it's unfair on Frank to compare him with the fraud Sorensen. The evidence so far does not justify that.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8043
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Sat May 28, 2016 7:12 pm

Hello is all right. You have given false information. You have not been blocked. People who are familiar with the operations of Facebook know that a blocked person's comments are no longer visible to the general public. Your comments are visible and have had replies. https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Super ... 6447245228


People who are familiar with Facebook, like myself, know that when you write a comment and then hit "return", your comment appears on the screen. My first comment appeared. My second one did not. I have no further interest in investigating this page.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Sat May 28, 2016 7:20 pm

Christine, I've heard from several Bible.and.Science.Forum associates who visited Cowardly Cowboy Bob's Facebook page after reading my bulletin. Two of them reported being unable to post there because of Bob still having them on banned status due to their comments of long ago. One had simply asked Bob to clarify one of his many self-contradictions. But I told them to recheck their status whenever anyone has commented on C.C. Bob's blocking penchant. He will release the blocks just before posting his "Who? Me? Block people? No I didn't!" whine.

Notice that the Cowardly Cowboy (aka The Cowardly Lyin') likes Jason Lisle's "ultimate proof of God" where he claims that the universe is logical, consistent, and reliable so that the academic discipline of science itself is thereby possible---and therefore "proves" God---but then Bob turns around and complains about the deficiencies of uniformitarian science because it expects the universe to be logical, consistent, and reliable! So, "historical science" is reliable or unreliable at any given moment based on whether or not it seems to supports YECism. I posed that same question to anti-unformitarian Tas Walker some years ago and his stammering dance around the question was priceless.

The "101 Evidences for a Young Earth" is one of the very best compendiums of arguments against YECism that one will ever find. The self-defeating brochure distributed by the "Question Evolution Project" is also an entertaining classic. (Of course C.C. Bob endorses both.) What I enjoy most about the Question Evolution Project is that so few of the equations have anything to do with evolution. That was another question I asked the Cowardly Cowboy to address some years ago.

We've all noticed that Bob rarely leaves the safety of his own webpages. He gets panic attacks whenever he realizes that he doesn't control the censorship button on every webpage.

Moreover, it took Cowardly Cowboy Bob 40 days and 40 nights to finally figure out why I associated him with astatine sulfide. (To decode it, he finally defied the prohibitions of his cult and consulted an actual scientist.)
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Sat May 28, 2016 7:29 pm

I think it's unfair on Frank to compare him with the fraud Sorensen. The evidence so far does not justify that.


A proctologist who used to read the old Bible.and.Science.Forum newsletter strongly objected to calling Ken Ham the American version of "arsehole". He posted a dozen amazing facts about the anal sphincter and masterfully convinced us that it is entirely worthy of our respect---while Ken Ham, on the other hand, was not.

So I should probably be more careful about my rash comparisons. (Hmmm, in this context a "rash comparison" sounds like an all-too-easy, natural setup for the next quip. But like all weary professors, "I leave that one as an exercise for the reader.")
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Sat May 28, 2016 7:39 pm

Dr. Janis wrote:
People who are familiar with Facebook, like myself, know that when you write a comment and then hit "return", your comment appears on the screen. My first comment appeared. My second one did not. I have no further interest in investigating this page.


But remember: that would smack of Empiricism, which is contrary to C.C. Bob's religion.

It also suffers from the failures of "historical science". After all, just because Facebook behaved in a particular way yesterday does not mean it will respond that way today. Uniformitarian methodology in science is worthless because the universe can never be trusted. Right, Bob?
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 28, 2016 11:35 pm

Christine has highlighted that 'Frank' has amended his original post of 9 Sept 2013 (THREE times and as recently as 20 May 2016 - presumably in order to try and deal with her answers, that he doesn't like, retrospectively ie he mentions her before she ever even posted in the thread).

For instance the current version contains "Note: Christine Janis has made a futile attempt to refute what I have written above. She has failed to explain the evolutionary origin of the cardiovascular system. Here is a summary why this attempt has failed:" and "In summary, Janis’ response is just the typical evolutionist’s superficial story-telling about what she imagines happened in the past."

Pretty underhand looking behaviour (which I for one neither realised nor suspected).

He probably hoped Christine wouldn't notice. If he is so sure of his claims, why not post them 'upfront'?! (Or maybe he did that too on 26 May 2016? His posts are so long that I don't have the energy to verify whether he did.)

So why exactly are you defending him Bob? Is he is fact one of your 'disciples'?

Or perhaps you too did not notice the underhand behaviour. Behaviour which is rather like yours - though unlike you he does admit to hastily amending/adding to previous text if you look in the right place.

And then Sorensen writes on 21 May that "what I'd like you to see is how atheopaths attack "Frank", misrepresent what he said, resorted to ridicule, and so on...". As usual a total lack of specific examples of what the Bob the Cowboy Builder is alleging from afar.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8043
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Sun May 29, 2016 9:01 pm

Before making any other reply to Frank’s revised set of posts claiming victory before I even replied to him (see at least an initial one below), I need to right a claim that he makes repeatedly about something that I said, which he uses as his main evidence that I don’t understand the CV system.

In his first post (p. 1) he lists:

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.


This response from me was the result of his demanding that I tell him what order features of the heart evolved in (p.2)

What was the order in which the following parts of the vertebrate cardiovascular system supposedly evolved in: myocardium, coronary arteries and veins, heart valves, cardiac conduction, erythrocytes, plasma proteins and a closed system of blood vessels?

To which I replied (also on p. 2).

I believe it's clear from my writings here. Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction and (likely, I'd need to look this up) plasma proteins are present in amphioxus, a non-vertebrate chordate. Erythrocytes are added in all vertebrates, and a completely closed system in all vertebrates above the level of the hagfish. Coronary vessels are acquired independently in teleost fish, mammals, and archosaurs.


Frank then later, claims several times (but I’m noting one in particular on p. 5) that I reveal that I know nothing about the CV system because I claim that myocardium and heart valves evolved before a cardiac conduction system.

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.


Now, I don’t know whether this is Frank practicing the age-old creationist gambit of quote mining (as it is clear from my original writing, from the words after the ones he cites, that there is no order implied within those three words, and that the only contained order is in their order in the sentence), or whether he is simply incapable of understanding anything that I write. Neither option reflects well on him.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Sun May 29, 2016 9:08 pm

Frank claims victory here (especially in precognition) because he thinks that a list of the details of the anatomical features of the human heart is, by itself, an argument for intelligent design. And, amusingly, he seems to think that this list somehow reveals stuff that I don’t know, as if they weren’t simply facts which anybody could cut and paste from a website.

But the problem is that no answer that I could give would satisfy Frank. He seems to think that, if evolutionary science could explain the human CV system, then it would be able to explain exactly how every single piece of it was “designed” and put together, a type of explanation that is beyond any form of science. (Note that there is no need, in Frank’s eyes, to explain exactly how his designer did this --- it’s simply the “default option”.)

But the real problem here is that Frank simply doesn’t understand how science works, or what science can tell us, as also revealed by his frequent reference to “origins” science and “operations” [sic] science, a creationist giveaway if ever there was one, because these terms do not exist within science. And for good reason. Because no science (as opposed to, say engineering or technology) is “operational” in this sense.

No science is direct observation leading to a “proof”: all science is inference via extrapolation from incomplete data, based on various preexisting assumptions. All of it ---- even the science that uses multi-billion dollar machines that go Ping. So, all of my attempts to explain to Frank how we scientists approach and understand issues such as the evolution of the vertebrate CV system fall on deaf ears, because this way of thinking, the way that real scientists do science, is not what he imagines science to be.

As an example of how science works by inference, using incomplete data and incorporating assumptions, and how Frank’s mode of thinking could be applied to another issue in science, let’s take one of the simplest examples of science: the high school chemistry experiment of making hydrochloric acid, something that would surely fit the "operations" definition of Frank. This is a description from the web.

"The synthesis is rather simple, we generate hydrogen chloride gas by mixing together 140g of sodium bisulfate and 60g of sodium chloride salt and then heating. 20mL of water can be added to lower the temperature required but this is optional. Hydrogen chloride gas will be produced. This gas is lead into distilled water to produce hydrochloric acid."


So, here's a question. How can anyone know at the end that what you have is actually hydrochloric acid?

Let's imagine how a different Frank, let’s call him CDFrank (for chemistry-denying Frank) might critique this. He could claim that I have only *assumed* that the liquid that results is HCl because of the *assumed* properties of the chemicals based on their position in the periodic table. But the periodic table is a human construct ---- like a phylogeny ---- it can’t actually tell you what chemical reactions have happened. I’ve merely *inferred* that the solution obtained is HCl because it turns litmus paper red ---- I’ve waved my magic chemistry wand because of that old discredited notion of a “litmus test” (which only detects pH levels, not the presence of any specific acid). But can I actually *see* the change in molecular structure --- actually see for myself that the position of hydrogen and chloride atoms have exchanged between the original chemicals to make a new chemical?? No, I cannot --- -thus I have no proof whatsoever that HCl has been produced, and it’s just a reflection of my belief in chemical theory.

See --- even this simple experiment involves inferences, assumptions, and references to human constructions such as the Periodic Table. There is no direct observation of the molecular structure of the liquid. So, according to CDFrank, this is not science. And ID wins by default (as Frank notes on p. 5, though quite why the designer would be bothering with a high school chemistry experiment is another matter entirely).

I shall address the specific science of the evolution of the vertebrate CV system in a later post (or posts).
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby ProfessorTertius » Mon May 30, 2016 1:12 pm

Frank claims victory here (especially in precognition) because he thinks that a list of the details of the anatomical features of the human heart is, by itself, an argument for intelligent design.


Indeed, to the typical IDer audience, one only needs a few "sciencey" terms in a list to qualify as "an argument for intelligent design."

And, amusingly, he seems to think that this list somehow reveals stuff that I don’t know, as if they weren’t simply facts which anybody could cut and paste from a website.


Of course, if these kinds of "ID arguments" had any merit, the top Christian philosophers would seize upon them as arguments for God. Yet, most do not. I wonder why? (But only very briefly.)

Meanwhile, I began my day with this look at science education in the USA:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/creationism_in_louisiana_public_school_science_classes_school_boards_and.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

...under the headlines:

"Dismissing Darwin"
"Records show teachers and school board members conspiring to teach creationism in public school science class."

Take a look at the photo. It includes Governor Bobby Jindal. Am I alone in thinking Gov. Jindal looks very much like Mad Magazine cultural icon Alfred E. Neuman?

That said, I'd be happy to discuss scientific arguments for Intelligent Design---if only someone will post them.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Mon May 30, 2016 9:08 pm

OK, so I thought that I would tackle more directly some of Frank’s objections to the science I’ve been posting. First of all, I should emphasize that I’m not using the cardiovascular system to attempt to prove evolution (as if science was about “proving” anything, anyway). After all, Frank’s claim was not that “evolution is impossible” but “evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible”. And, in actuality, evidence from the CV system could indeed pose a problem for evolution: if, for example, the hearts of mammals were completely different from, and non-homologous with (at the anatomical, developmental, and genetic levels) those of other vertebrates, then this could constitute falsification of evolution. But, of course, it because nothing like this is ever observed in nature that evolution remains unfalsified.

I should also note that I shall be referring to the “mammalian heart”. Frank wants to stress the unique, complicated nature of the human heart, but I very much doubt that there is any difference between humans and other mammals (at the very least, any other placental mammals), a fact which already casts doubt on Frank’s insistence on the divine uniqueness of the human condition.

What I intend to do here is to address Frank’s misconceptions about phylogenetics. Let’s start with what he says on p. 3

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 two-wheeled motorbike, a three-wheeled motorbike and a four-wheeled automobile, but it fails to demonstrate how one machine supposedly transformed itself into another.


Of course, a phylogeny doesn’t depict anything about any nature of an organism, any more than the periodic table shows the nature of chemical reactions. And Frank saying that phylogenies depict an “ancestor-descendent” relationship only serves to emphasize his lack of understanding on this issue. Of course one could draw up a “phylogeny” to link different forms of transport --- in this case we know the underlying mechanism, which is human technology. Phylogenies of organisms are drawn up, independent of assumptions about mechanisms, so that they can then be used to test mechanisms. And an important point about phylogenies of organisms is that the same results (more or less) can be obtained by using very different data ------ anatomy, genomic DNA, mitochondrial DNA, etc. A phylogeny of transport based on the number of wheels would be unlikely to be similar to another one employing other characteristics.

In my next post I shall illustrate a specific way in which a phylogeny (or at least a phylogenetic approach) can be used to understand the distribution of characters in the CV system.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Mon May 30, 2016 9:11 pm

Here is something that Frank claims is impossible, on p.3

Christine Janis wrote: "Coronary vessels are acquired independently in teleost fish, mammals, and archosaurs".

I have refuted this superficial evolutionary story-telling earlier. So the magic evolutionary wand is waved three independent times and three times coronary vessels appear. No one has ever observed anything like this occurring, it only occurs in the minds of evolutionists, not in the real world.


Let me explain how scientists have figured this out.

First of all, an inherent problem in heart “design”. The myocardium of the heart cannot obtain much oxygenated blood from within the heart itself (and the more active an animal, the more profound this problem). Coronary vessels serve to provide oxygen to the heart muscle in some, but not all vertebrates.


If we look at the distribution of coronary vessels in vertebrates, we can see that it is a disjunct one. They are present in birds, crocodiles (including alligators), mammals, some (but not all) teleost fish (the derived ray-finned bony fish), and some, but not all, of the cartilaginous fish (some sharks). These vertebrates are also more derived on other anatomical grounds (and are also the most active ones --- the most in need of a well-oxygenated myocardium), and represent separate branches of the vertebrate phylogeny (derived from any type of character that you can imagine --- morphological or molecular).

From this pattern we can conclude that the general condition, as seen in most vertebrates (jawless fish, most cartilaginous fish, most bony fish, all amphibians, and all reptiles except crocodiles), is for the absence of coronary vessels, and that their presence in more specialized vertebrates is a derived condition. Because these animals (with one exception) are not closely related to each other among the vertebrates, the conclusion is that coronary vessels were acquired independently in these groups. Because birds and crocodiles are each others closest relations among extant vertebrates (both archosaurs), the most simple (i.e., most parsimonious) explanation here is that coronary vessels were acquired once in their common ancestor (which also fits with many other observations about similar conditions of the CV system and lungs in birds and crocodiles).

This is how science can understand that the distribution of coronary vessels in vertebrates represents several cases of convergent evolution. What Frank needs to explain is, if the heart is “intelligently designed”, why this system of coronary circulation is so imperfect that humans are so prone to heart attacks from blocked coronary arteries. The evolutionary explanation is easy ---- the human heart is a jury-rigged system: a fish heart to which things have been added ---- if it had been “designed” from scratch it would not be subject to the type of anatomical compromises that are apparent today. Why couldn’t the designer do a better job?
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron