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 a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:49 pm

From the latter part of the article on the Biologos website that Brian posted:
"First, the retention of “aortic arch arteries” (or “branchial arch arteries”) in non-aquatic vertebrates serves no respiratory function. They are merely connecting pipes. Their sole purpose is to be used as building blocks to construct modified circulatory elements which function in the species which possess them. But remember, in principle, such “building blocks” might have been constructed in any manner whatsoever. The fact that all living vertebrates retain a set of six arch arteries during their development is strong evidence that they have inherited this pattern of development from a common ancestor, one which did use these arteries to develop functional respiratory structures (i.e. gills).
Second, given a set of six arch arteries, there is no logical or structural reason why the 3rd artery must contribute to the carotid circulation, the 4th artery must supply blood to the body, and the 6th artery must contribute to the circulation to the lungs. Why not use different arch arteries for different final structures in various vertebrates? The conclusion is inescapable – successor organisms have inherited a set of instructions for development from ancestral organisms, and are not free to deviate readily from it. Rather, since evolution is a historical process, it is a necessity that the descendant organisms follow the same general pattern of development used by their ancestors."

Also, coincidentally, last night I read part of a booklet on Evolution (part of a series 'Science made Simple' given away with the Independent newspaper several years ago) which stated "the design of the mammal heart and circulation has bizarre features that reflect a history of gradual modification from a system that originally functioned to pump blood from the heart round the gills of a fish, and then to the rest of the body" and (referring to a diagram of the mammalian heart) "note how the pulmonary artery ... curves awkwardly back behind the aorta ... and the superior vena cava ...".

Also, I'm not sure that Frank has really addressed Cathy's question.

At a quick glance and for what it's worth, 'Explore Evolution' (that ID publication that some of us have read) appears not to make any arguments relating to the cardiovascular system of vertebrates.

I suggest btw that those YECs in the US of A who view these threads and then proclaim on their blogs or Facebook pages "there's no science on the BCSE website" should kindly stop LYING thus. After all, a fellow YEC is discussing science with us - right here, right now.

EDIT: I made a working assumption that Frank is a YEC.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:03 am

The science of anatomy and physiology shows clearly that vertebrate evolution is impossible. To explain the origin of the vertebrate cardiovascular system from an invertebrate, the basic requirements need to be specified. These include:

1. A complex closed network of vessels for transporting blood to the body cells.
2. A pumping mechanism (heart) with valves for transporting oxygen-rich blood in a one-way direction throughout the body.
3. A system for exchanging oxygen and carbon-dioxide (lungs/gills) functioning with the cardiovascular system.
4. A filtration (renal) system to maintain acid/base and electrolyte balance and to eliminate excess water.
5. Blood cells and plasma proteins.

No evolutionary explanation exists as to how the single circulation cardiovascular system found in fish supposedly evolved.


If we consider the circulatory system of the cephalochordate, Amphioxus, we see a more simple system than in extant fishes, but still basically similar. (Note that medical scientists study the hearts of other chordates, such as Amphioxus and tunicates, to understand the human condition --- check on Google Scholar

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=tun ... CCkQgQMwAA

Amphioxus has a single-chambered "heart", which contains the pulsatile component (and is homologous with the sinoatrial node in our right atrium). The blood passes out of the heart ventrally, circulates through the gills, and then progresses down the dorsal aorta, returning via a ventral vein. Amphioxus does not have capillaries, so does not have a closed circulatory system, and has several "accessory hearts". Interesting, a similar system (although there is some capillary network), but with large blood sinus and additional hearts, exists in the undoubted modern vertebrates, the hagfishes. It is true that all vertebrates have red blood cells and hemoglobin, but there is no reason to assume that these can't be added to an existing circulatory system, which is what is basically seen in Amphioxus.

Note that the various renal functions don't apply to the earliest vertebrates. Like the modern hagfish, they probably had body fluids that were iso-osmotic with sea water. Thus no need for osmotic regulation. Plus no fish has a kidney that controls acid/base regulation -- this is a tetrapod issue, arising from the problems with getting rid of carbon dioxide on land.

With regard to gas exchange --- Amphioxus basically uses the skin. Any membrane system that brings blood vessels in contact with water or air will result in exchange of gases due to simple diffusion. So, this can be complicated to increase the amount of surface area available in a more specialized area.

I was going to go on about this, but it's basically useless. This is simply "I don't believe evolution can happen" from someone ignorant about the range of diversity seen in living animals. Such as the pulmonary system that is in primitive ray-finned fish (e.g. Polypterus, the reed fish), that has a pulmonary artery and vein with a normal fish-like two chambered heart (i.e., undivided atria and ventricles) -- let alone three-chambered heart of lungfishes with a divided atrium.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:19 am

Thanks Christine. It's now pretty clear that Frank's studies of anatomy and physiology have been... shall we say?... not quite complete.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:51 am

jon_12091 wrote:
Frank wrote:
jon_12091 wrote:What about the core argument of ID, 'evolution can not explain this aspect of animal physiology, therefore there must be an intelligent designer'?

What about providing an explanation for the supposed evolutionary development of the vertebrate cardiovascular system? This is the topic of my original post.

Don't have too. If the hyothesis is "the evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible" then in the abscence of evidence that either demonstrates that, or the alternate, then the status quo prevails. And no even if you proved the evolution of the cardiovascular system impossible by the process of evolution as we understand it currently it would not 'prove' an intelligent designer. That requires a different set of questions, which coming back to my original comment, ID proponents seem unable to formulate, but then if you will attempt to build a scientific discpline on a PR strategy document you get what you deserve?

But evolutionary theory fails to explain the origin of the cardiovascular system or any other body system. Evolutionist Franklin Harold admits:

"...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." (Franklin M. Harold, The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205, 2001).

jon_12091 wrote:The development of soft tissue systems is always going to be tricky area due to lack of preservation in the fossil record or should we deduce that they didn't actually have any....

This is nothing but a total copout. The problem is that the science of anatomy and physiology shows that life is a top-down design, not a bottom-up design as evolutionary theory claims. Why do you think that there is no evolutionary explanation for vertebrate heart valves? The reason is because all of reality denies it, that is why.
Frank
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:06 am

Brian Jordan wrote:Without reading the article again, IIRC it was using embryos as an example of the range of possible functional circulatory systems and how the anatomical transition between them can take place. It showed that there are two, three and four-chambered hearts in living animals and that intermediate forms between them function as working hearts.

You are certainly clutching at straws and you have failed totally in answering anything I wrote previously. What the article describes is how a human four-chambered, dual circulation heart develops in the uterus. The human parent has this heart structure and the offspring have the same heart structure, and so on. So how is this describing the evolution of the cardiovascular system?! A human begins as a single cell, so of course it undergoes enormous structural changes during development. You are totally confused between origins science and operations science. During development, the heart is not functional outside the uterus, so no functional intermediates have been explained as such. As I said before, this argument is so bad that most evolutionists don't even use it. I emailed the author of this article about four weeks ago and pointed out the logical fallacies in his brief article; he has not responded. I don't think this person even has any qualifications in science.

Brian Jordan wrote:You might have studied human anatomy and physiology and read about animal anatomy and physiology but so what? Has any of that shown you that intermediate forms are impossible? Or are you refusing to believe in them until you can see them?

Are you serious?! A cardiovascular system won't function without heart valves, cardiac conduction, coronary blood vessels, myocardium, etc., for starters. Do you have any understanding of medical science?!
Frank
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:27 am

Christine Janis wrote:If we consider the circulatory system of the cephalochordate, Amphioxus, we see a more simple system than in extant fishes, but still basically similar. (Note that medical scientists study the hearts of other chordates, such as Amphioxus and tunicates, to understand the human condition --- check on Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholarq=tuni ... CCkQgQMwAA

So what does “…understand the human condition” mean, in relation to my post, when amphioxus does not have a pumping heart that is found in vertebrates such as humans?!

Christine Janis wrote:Amphioxus has a single-chambered "heart", which contains the pulsatile component (and is homologous with the sinoatrial node in our right atrium).

This homology argument of yours is superficial nonsense. This "heart" (the quote is yours) does not resemble the vertebrate heart, which has myocardium, heart valves, cardiac conduction, coronary arteries and veins and sympathetic and parasympathetic innervations that are required to pump blood in a single direction throughout the circulatory system.

Christine Janis wrote:The blood passes out of the heart ventrally, circulates through the gills, and then progresses down the dorsal aorta, returning via a ventral vein. Amphioxus does not have capillaries, so does not have a closed circulatory system, and has several "accessory hearts".

But the "accessory hearts" (the quote is yours) have no resemblance to the pumping heart of vertebrates, as I have explained above. Also, vertebrates have a complex closed system of blood vessels, controlled by the autonomic nervous system, required for the metabolic needs of cells, so mentioning that amphioxus do not have such a circulatory system fails to refute what I have written. Nor have you even attempted to explain the supposed evolutionary origin of the respiratory system that the vertebrate cardiovascular system is dependent upon.

Christine Janis wrote:Interesting, a similar system (although there is some capillary network), but with large blood sinus and additional hearts, exists in the undoubted modern vertebrates, the hagfishes.

Hagfish don’t have a vertebral column, so are not vertebrates such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

Christine Janis wrote:It is true that all vertebrates have red blood cells and hemoglobin, but there is no reason to assume that these can't be added to an existing circulatory system, which is what is basically seen in Amphioxus.

You seem to be confused here. Amphioxus does not have a pumping heart, blood cells or haemoglobin. Also, red blood cells are synthesized in the skeletal system, however the skeletal system is vascular and requires red blood cells for metabolism; another vicious circle which makes total nonsense out of evolution by step-wise, bottom-up changes.

Christine Janis wrote:Note that the various renal functions don't apply to the earliest vertebrates. Like the modern hagfish, they probably had body fluids that were iso-osmotic with sea water. Thus no need for osmotic regulation. Plus no fish has a kidney that controls acid/base regulation -- this is a tetrapod issue, arising from the problems with getting rid of carbon dioxide on land.

But what you conveniently fail to mention is that the kidneys in freshwater and saltwater fish are required to manage solute concentrations and the amount of interstitial fluid (water) in the body of fish. This fact of science makes complete nonsense out of your argument.

Christine Janis wrote:With regard to gas exchange --- Amphioxus basically uses the skin. Any membrane system that brings blood vessels in contact with water or air will result in exchange of gases due to simple diffusion. So, this can be complicated to increase the amount of surface area available in a more specialized area.

This is a typical red-herring argument used by evolutionists. It fails to even mention the supposed evolutionary origin of the renal system found in vertebrates.

Christine Janis wrote:I was going to go on about this, but it's basically useless. This is simply "I don't believe evolution can happen" from someone ignorant about the range of diversity seen in living animals.

Not true. Mentioning diversity in animals does nothing to explain the supposed evolutionary origin of the vertebrate cardiovascular system. You have failed to even mention the components required for a functioning vertebrate CV system. 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? Of course the respiratory system, renal system and neural innervation of the heart and blood vessels also needs to be explained. The science of anatomy and physiology makes nonsense out of evolution by slow, gradual changes.

Christine Janis wrote:Such as the pulmonary system that is in primitive ray-finned fish (e.g. Polypterus, the reed fish), that has a pulmonary artery and vein with a normal fish-like two chambered heart (i.e., undivided atria and ventricles) -- let alone three-chambered heart of lungfishes with a divided atrium.

So where is the evolutionary explanation here? You have failed totally in providing an evolutionary explanation for the single circulation cardiovascular system of fish, or the dual circulation cardiovascular system of amphibians and reptiles. A dual circulation CV system is much more different from a single circulation CV system than having a divided atrium. There is a separate system for the systemic circulation and the pulmonary circulation. Merely dividing the atrium will result in a non-functioning CV system that will result in death. It is very convenient for you to omit this fact!
Frank
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:50 pm

Well, at a quick glance Frank does not appear to be acknowledging or challenging anything I've recently posted...

Just others, including Christine (hope she does not mind me posting this link):
https://research.brown.edu/research/pro ... 1100924395
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:08 pm

Frank said
"...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." (Franklin M. Harold, The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205, 2001).


So, one scientist says this. Most of the several thousand other scientists currently practicing would disagree. The scientific consensus is the issue, not the words of one lone scientist. And besides, this is not true. A quick Google search reveals many discussions of this nature. Here is one, for example

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 ... C40Scholar
About 3,850 results

The problem is that the science of anatomy and physiology shows that life is a top-down design, not a bottom-up design as evolutionary theory claims.


Yes, so you keep saying. But actual scientists doing the research would not agree with you. If this were true then there would be no use of phylogenetics in our understanding of physiology and anatomy, whereas there are entire journals devoted to the use of phylogenetics in the study of evolutionary issues.

A cardiovascular system won't function without heart valves, cardiac conduction, coronary blood vessels, myocardium, etc., for starters. Do you have any understanding of medical science?!


I don't know if Brian has any understanding of medical science, but you clearly have no understanding of comparative anatomy. Many vertebrates (amphibians, all reptiles except crocodiles, all fish except teleosts) have no coronary vessels.

So what does “…understand the human condition” mean, in relation to my post, when amphioxus does not have a pumping heart that is found in vertebrates such as humans?!


Amphioxus does indeed have a single-chambered pumping heart, that comparative anatomy shows is homologous with the sinoatrial node in the human right atrium (genomic studies also show the heart to be homologous, see:
"Gene Regulatory Networks in the Evolution and Development of the Heart" Eric N. Olson, et al. Science 313, 1922 (2006);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1132292

This "heart" (the quote is yours) does not resemble the vertebrate heart, which has myocardium, heart valves, cardiac conduction, coronary arteries and veins and sympathetic and parasympathetic innervations that are required to pump blood in a single direction throughout the circulatory system.


Aha. I see the problem. Are you proposing the independent evolution of the heart in every single vertebrate lineage? Because if the human heart cannot possibly function in a simpler form, then a heart rather like the human heart, but lacking some derived features, must have evolved convergently many times in vertebrates: how likely is that? No, the heart of Amphioxus does not look exactly like a human heart, but it does possess myocardium (heart muscle ---- derived from lateral plate mesoderm as in ourselves) plus heart valves. Amphioxus does have arteries and veins, but not a decent capillary network. All vertebrate except hagfishes have parasympathetic innervation of the heart and a complete capillary network. All tetrapods gain sympathetic innervation of the heart. These increasing complications to the basic simple chordate heart plot quite nicely on a phylogeny, showing the derivation of a more complex system in ourselves. (As a medically-oriented person the term "phylogeny" will probably be unfamiliar to you, but scientists use it a lot. Look it up.)

But the "accessory hearts" (the quote is yours) have no resemblance to the pumping heart of vertebrates, as I have explained above.


They indeed do not. Read what I said. These accessory hearts are lost in lampreys and more derived vertebrates. But the basic single heart of Amphioxus is homologous with the sinus venosus (= sinoatrial node in mammals and birds).

Also, vertebrates have a complex closed system of blood vessels, controlled by the autonomic nervous system, required for the metabolic needs of cells, so mentioning that amphioxus do not have such a circulatory system fails to refute what I have written.


Yes, vertebrates are more complex than amphioxus. But there are a number of actual blood vessels in amphioxus (aortic arches going to the gills, dorsal aorta, etc.), which have the same anatomical relationship to the heart and overall circulation as in vertebrates. What you then have to do is to get rid of the big blood sinuses and join them up via a capillary network. Fortunately the living hagfish retains an intermediate anatomy in this respect, capturing what must have happened in evolution.

Hagfish don’t have a vertebral column, so are not vertebrates such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.


Hagfishes are likely the most primitive of the vertebrates, which is defined as animals included within the subphylum Vertebrata, which is diagnosed by a number of features, including the possession of a cranium, neural crest tissue in development, and a duplication of the number of Hox genes. Hagfishes have, however, recently been shown to possess rudiments of haemal arches of a vertebral column in the tail (much as the way that lampreys possess rudiments of neural arches). So even that objection of yours is defunct.

You seem to be confused here. Amphioxus does not have a pumping heart, blood cells or haemoglobin.


The confusion is yours. The post says that Amphioxus has the basic heart and circulatory pattern of vertebrates, but that red blood cells and haemoglobin are added in vertebrates.

Also, red blood cells are synthesized in the skeletal system, however the skeletal system is vascular and requires red blood cells for metabolism: another vicious circle which makes total nonsense out of evolution by step-wise, bottom-up changes


Well, that is true for mammals. But lampreys and hagfishes both have red blood cells and haemoglobin but lack a skeletal system (if I had more time and/or patience I'd go and look up which tissues make the RBCs in these vertebrates). So, clearly, the origin of manufacture of the RBCs was not the skeleton, which rather nicely removes your "vicious circle" argument.

But what you conveniently fail to mention is that the kidneys in freshwater and saltwater fish are required to manage solute concentrations and the amount of interstitial fluid (water) in the body of fish.


I was talking about the original vertebrate condition, as seen today in the hagfish, where the body fluids were/are isoosmotic with sea water. Obviously kidneys acquired further functions in more derived vertebrates. Note, however, than many marine teleosts today have aglomerular kidneys that are not used for fluid regulation.

Christine Janis wrote:With regard to gas exchange --- Amphioxus basically uses the skin. Any membrane system that brings blood vessels in contact with water or air will result in exchange of gases due to simple diffusion. So, this can be complicated to increase the amount of surface area available in a more specialized area.


This is a typical red-herring argument used by evolutionists. It fails to even mention the supposed evolutionary origin of the renal system found in vertebrates.



Not a red herring at all. I was responding to what you originally wrote, was that cardiovascular system requires "A system for exchanging oxygen and carbon-dioxide (lungs/gills) functioning with the cardiovascular system." Because if the animal is small and sluggish enough to breathe via diffusion, then this need not be part of the original system. Note that CO2 loss in fishes is still largely via diffusion over the body surface and does not involve the gills. No, the red herring here is yours, bringing in a complaint that I don't address the origin of the renal system in a post about the respiratory system.

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?


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. Note that there is also an evolutionary/phylogenetic structure to the acquisition of autonomic innervation of the heart. Parasympathetic innervation is present in all vertebrates except hagfishes, but sympathetic innervation is seen only in tetrapods (probably because of the much greater energetic exertion required to locomote on land).

So where is the evolutionary explanation here? You have failed totally in providing an evolutionary explanation for the single circulation cardiovascular system of fish, or the dual circulation cardiovascular system of amphibians and reptiles.


Your original post claimed that the dual circulation of tetrapods could not be derived from the single circulatory system of fishes. I pointed out that many fishes do, in fact, have a dual circulation. The clumsy, dual system in ourselves is due to the fact that lungs are an "add on" to the basic single system, where the heart supplied first the gills (to pick up oxygen) and then delivered the oxygen to the rest of the body via single circuit. The fact that lungs and a dual system can be seen in a number of fish today, including lungfish which, on other criteria (both anatomical and genetic) are the closest relatives to tetrapods among fishes, shows that your basic point is invalid.

Fishes evolve a single system because the source of oxygen pick up is at the gills. Lungs are added *within the fish condition*, at which point a double circulatory system is acquired, one to the lungs and one to the gills. Blood that had already passed through the gills would be at too low of a pressure to also pass through the capillary bed of the lungs and then on to the capillary beds of the body. Would you like me to explain how this dual circulation arose in terms of tinkering with the aortic arches supplying blood to the gills? It's an elegant story, and can be seen repeated in our own embryology

A dual circulation CV system is much more different from a single circulation CV system than having a divided atrium. There is a separate system for the systemic circulation and the pulmonary circulation. Merely dividing the atrium will result in a non-functioning CV system that will result in death. It is very convenient for you to omit this fact!


This was what I originally said, the meaning of which you have manged to mangle. "Such as the pulmonary system that is in primitive ray-finned fish (e.g. Polypterus, the reed fish), that has a pulmonary artery and vein with a normal fish-like two chambered heart (i.e., undivided atria and ventricles) -- let alone three-chambered heart of lungfishes with a divided atrium."

It is not essential to have a divided atrium in order to have a dual systemic and pulmonary circulation. The ray-finned fish that retain the original bony fish system (that is polypterids, bowfins, garpike, and some basal teleosts) do not have a divided atrium, but do have a dual systemic and pulmonary circulation (sigh: I guess I have to spell it out). The system is homologous with ours, as shown via embryology: these fish, as in the human condition, the carotid artery is formed from the 3rd embryonic arch, the systemic (i.e., aorta) from the 4th, and the pulmonary from the 5th. The cardinal veins return the venous blood to the sinus venosus (the first heart chamber, homologous to the single heart of Amphioxus and our sinoatrial node). Only in lungfishes is there a divided atrium, with the venous blood leading directly into the right atrium, as in ourselves. Also, as in ourselves (and in other tetrapods, but not in other fishes), the blood from the body returns to the heart via a single posterior vena cava, rather than simply by paired posterior cardinal veins (as see not only in most fishes, but also in us in early development --- blood is originally returned by the posterior cardinal veins, which later form the azygous and hemiazygous veins).
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:19 pm

It's not difficult to take down creationist arguments when you know the subject that they're talking about, it's just time consuming and annoying. Well, maybe some people will appreciate the hour or so I put into this. Now back to work ------
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:46 pm

Christine Janis wrote:I don't know if Brian has any understanding of medical science,
Not the sort of "understanding" of medical science - or should that be biblically inspired "science"? - that Frank has, thank goodness. I doubt I'd have lasted long in the medical world if I'd entered it with such fixed, superficial and mistaken ideas as Frank has. Especially if I'd started by insisting that everyone but me was out of step.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby cathy » Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:28 pm

Brilliant Christine and thanks. I think our old resident creationist tried to bring up the same arguments so hopefully he will have read your replies as well.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:39 pm

I'm posting this here as it probably doesn't require a new thread.

http://letterstocreationists.wordpress. ... mment-2885
I think I've spotted a bigoted idiot in the comments here. If you don't agree with his nonsense you are 'ignorant'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:42 pm

No, it doesn't require a thread at all. Too old-hat! Rarely - outside the world of creationism - has such a magnificent collection of irrelevant experts been gathered.
WACO, Texas, Aug. 12, 2013 — “This is by far the most rigorous and in-depth re-examination of the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian theory. Never have so many well-credentialed scientists, representing so many disciplines, united so effectively to look beyond the standard mutation-selection paradigm.” – The Editors
WACO, Texas, Aug. 12, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — World Scientific Publishing has just released the proceedings of a symposium held in the spring of 2011, where a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:52 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:No, it doesn't require a thread at all. Too old-hat! Rarely - outside the world of creationism - has such a magnificent collection of irrelevant experts been gathered.
WACO, Texas, Aug. 12, 2013 — “This is by far the most rigorous and in-depth re-examination of the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian theory. Never have so many well-credentialed scientists, representing so many disciplines, united so effectively to look beyond the standard mutation-selection paradigm.” – The Editors
WACO, Texas, Aug. 12, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — World Scientific Publishing has just released the proceedings of a symposium held in the spring of 2011, where a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.


From the link that the critic of Scott Buchanan's blog post supplied:
"Biological Information
New Perspectives
Proceedings of the Symposium
Cornell University, USA, 31 May – 3 June 2011
edited by: Robert J Marks II (Baylor University, USA) edited by: Michael J Behe (Lehigh University, USA) edited by: William A Dembski (Discovery Institute, USA) edited by: Bruce L Gordon (Houston Baptist University, USA) edited by: John C Sanford (Cornell University, USA)".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby jon_12091 » Wed Nov 13, 2013 6:31 am

Frank wrote:What about providing an explanation for the supposed evolutionary development of the vertebrate cardiovascular system? This is the topic of my original post.
jon_12091 wrote:Don't have too. If the hyothesis is "the evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible" then in the absence of evidence that either demonstrates that, or the alternate, then the status quo prevails. And no even if you proved the evolution of the cardiovascular system impossible by the process of evolution as we understand it currently it would not 'prove' an intelligent designer. That requires a different set of questions, which coming back to my original comment, ID proponents seem unable to formulate, but then if you will attempt to build a scientific discpline on a PR strategy document you get what you deserve?

But evolutionary theory fails to explain the origin of the cardiovascular system or any other body system. Evolutionist Franklin Harold admits:

"...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." (Franklin M. Harold, The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205, 2001).

So what that still doesn't answer 'is there an Intelligent Designer?'

jon_12091 wrote:The development of soft tissue systems is always going to be tricky area due to lack of preservation in the fossil record or should we deduce that they didn't actually have any....

Frank wrote:This is nothing but a total copout.

Yes, but accepting of the current palynological status quo rather than just inventing a conclusion that suits our ideological prejudices.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron