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 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:56 am

So a naturalistic abiogenesis is practically impossible, implies Batten.
http://creation.com/origin-of-life
Thus if God started life, it must have been a supernatural 'miracle' (producing 'instant' complex creatures as well as microbes). Which might show why YECs are so anti-science. For Batten's Conclusion does not offer a scientific theory for how God created life. He just asserts that a super high intelligence, over and above human intelligence, is required for this to have happened.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:11 am

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:"...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

Truth is not determined by any “scientific consensus”. Your google search has just found numerous examples of the evolutionary “wishful speculations” that Franklin Harold alludes to. Also, Franklin Harold is not the only one who believes this, by any means.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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.

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. Likewise your attempt to explain the evolution of the cardiovascular system by phylogenetics fails also. All you have done is show some structural differences in the cardiovascular systems of some vertebrates, then you wave the magic evolutionary wand to transform one CV system into another. Events such as this don’t occur in the real world, only in the imagination of evolutionists.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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.

My original post described the main differences in the cardiovascular systems between the different vertebrates which shows that I do have an understanding of the CV systems of vertebrates. So how did the coronary arteries and veins, which form a closed system for the heart, supposedly evolve?! Each coronary artery and vein in humans has three layers – tunica adventitia, tunica media and tunica intima, so remember to explain how these layers supposedly evolved. Neural innervation of the coronary vessels provides vasodialation, which needs to be explained as well. Of course the consequence of having limited blood flow to the coronary vessels (myocardial infarction) cannot be ignored.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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

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.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: 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? <snip>

No, I am not proposing the evolution of anything. I am claiming that the supposed evolution of any heart by slow, gradual changes is impossible because the supposed intermediate steps simply won’t function.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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).

You certainly are clutching at straws here. The sinoatrial node of the heart in mammals is only a small part of the overall functioning of the heart. Your argument is as absurd as claiming that a spark plug is homologous with a car engine because a car engine has spark plugs. Also, the only reason to claim that accessory hearts are lost in lamphreys and other vertebrates is to first assume that evolution is true, which is known as “begging the question”.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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.

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. 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.

Christine Janis wrote: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.

Your statement above is nothing but fictitious story-telling about what you believe happened in the past. As usual, no details are provided, just superficial, hand-waving story-telling. It is not science.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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 have failed to show that hagfish have a vertebral column, so my argument stands. Claiming that “…rudiments of haemal arches of a vertebral column in the tail” is hardly a vertebral column. What shoddy rubbish you write. Besides, what you have written above is nothing but another red-herring.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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.

With lanclets, blood is pumped by the pulsing of arteries. There is no true pulsing heart. The heart has no separate chambers, valves, endocardium, or epicardium. Once again you have waved the magic evolutionary ward and erythrocytes required for the circulatory system appear. What preposterous nonsense! Typically, you have failed to specify how these cells were “added”. Also, the origin of the circulatory system of amphioxus is unexplained, but no doubt you will wave the magic evolutionary ward as you always do for an explanation.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: 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.

Yes, it is true and you have given absolutely no evolutionary explanation for the origin of red blood cells that are synthesized in the skeletal system.

Christine Janis wrote: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.

Once again, your logical fallacy is apparent because you are begging the question by assuming that evolution is true to start with. 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.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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.

You have failed completely in explaining the evolutionary origin of the kidneys. You have merely waved the magic evolutionary ward and they have appeared and “acquired further functions”. So much for evolutionary “science”.

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 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. 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. Neural innervation of the diaphragm is required for the diaphragm to function, so the magic evolutionary wand must be waved again. But what is the problem for evolutionists?! After believing in countless absurd evolutionary scenarios, believing in a few more hardly makes any difference, does it?!

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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.<snip>

Perhaps you don’t understand what the expression “red-herring” means. You have evaded giving an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the renal system found in vertebrates. That is what I meant by “red-herring”, and I was writing about the renal system.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Christine Janis wrote: Note that there is also an evolutionary/phylogenetic structure to the acquisition of autonomic innervation of the heart.

But how this acquisition occurred, you have failed to explain. No details of what autonomic innervation involves (receptors, neural processing and neurons). You are just waving the magic evolutionary ward again.

Christine Janis wrote: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).

But this does not even attempt to give a detailed explanation for the evolutionary origin of sympathetic neurons of the heart. You are supposed to explain how it supposedly evolved, not why.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: 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.

But this fails to explain how the dual circulation CV system supposedly evolved. All you have done is move the problem elsewhere. This is a typical tactic of evolutionists who cannot provide explanations.

Christine Janis wrote: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.

To state the obvious, you have failed to provide any evolutionary explanation as to how the dual circulation CV system supposedly evolved. Evolution is supposed to occur via slow, gradual changes. However slow, gradual changes to a single-circulation CV system will not develop into a dual-circulation CV system, it will result in death and extinction. Reality makes complete nonsense out of your fictitious evolutionary nonsense. Once again, you have waved the magic evolutionary ward and lungs have magically appeared, complete with their vascular system, in addition to the dual-circulation CV system!

Christine Janis wrote: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.

As usual, you are merely telling stories; your statement is devoid of any science.

Christine Janis wrote: 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

Yes, that it all it is, a “story”. It is not science. No one has ever observed anything like this ever occurring, and no doubt the reason that you did not tell the “story” is because it is nothing but total nonsense. 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. The futile arguments you use to try to show that evolution is true could be used to show that anything is true.

Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote: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."

You have not made the slightest attempt here to explain how the dual-circulation CV system supposedly evolved. This is plain for everyone to see.

Christine Janis wrote:It is not essential to have a divided atrium in order to have a dual systemic and pulmonary circulation. <snip>

Whether the dual-circulation CV system has one or two atrium, evolution by slow and gradual changes over time cannot explain how this closed system could develop without introducing lethal changes that would lead to extinction. That is the fatal flaw in your argument, and there is no hiding from this fact.
Frank
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Frank » Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:21 am

a_haworthroberts wrote: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.

The six branches of the aorta in humans: brachiocephalic trunk, right subclavian artery, internal thoracic artery, vertebral artery, axillary artery and the brachial artery provide blood to the upper parts of the body including the arms and head. They are not “merely connecting pipes”, they are required for life. Also, the statement above assumes evolution to start with, which means the argument is circular reasoning.

a_haworthroberts wrote: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).

Design and design alone provides an explanation for the branches of the aorta. The reason that this design would be used in different vertebrates is because it is a good design. If the six branches of the aorta in vertebrates is supposedly “strong evidence” of their common ancestry, then the fact that some vertebrates have two, three and four chambered hearts and single and dual circulation CV systems is strong evidence that these vertebrates do not have common ancestry. This supposed “strong evidence” is nothing but hand-waving nonsense. No explanation of how the CV system evolved is provided above.

a_haworthroberts wrote: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."

A feeble argument if ever there was one. Absolutely no explanation is provided as to how the CV system supposedly evolved by gradual changes. To claim that vertebrates share common ancestry because they have six aortic branches is a logical fallacy. The bone structure of the human leg and arm is remarkably similar, yet they are not related according to evolutionary theory. The body structure of a shark (fish) and a dolphin (mammal) are remarkably similar, yet they are unrelated according to evolutionary theory. So much for similarities being evidence for evolution.

a_haworthroberts wrote: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 ...".

So how did the booklet describe the “gradual modification” of the single circulation CV system of fish to the dual circulation CV system of other vertebrates? Of course the booklet has no such explanation of any such evolutionary transition because anyone who has the slightest understanding of the functioning of these two CV systems would realise that it is absolutely impossible. Your quote about the pulmonary artery curving awkwardly behind the aorta does absolutely nothing to refute my claim that the evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible (the topic of my post), nor does it show the mammalian heart is badly designed because you have failed to provide a better design, let alone test that another design is indeed superior. No, this argument is nothing but the typical evolutionist’s smokescreen to hide the fact that evolutionism fails as an explanation for life. Perhaps you should present arguments in your own words instead of cutting and pasting the work of others.
Frank
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:49 am

Frank wrote:
Christine Janis wrote:
Frank wrote:"...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

Truth is not determined by any “scientific consensus”. Your google search has just found numerous examples of the evolutionary “wishful speculations” that Franklin Harold alludes to. Also, Franklin Harold is not the only one who believes this, by any means.


Why has it taken you some nine months to reply to Janis?

Do tell us what is your alternative explanation of the differences between species.

In particular, when were the species "created".

Who created them?

What processes are involved when the "intellgent designer" "creates new species?

Who often do they occur?

Where did they occur?

Where can we see those processes in operation today?

A nine-month wait for a reply won't do.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:51 am

Frank wrote:Perhaps you should present arguments in your own words instead of cutting and pasting the work of others.


Jeez, this is from a creationist!
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:50 pm

Frank wrote:Perhaps you should present arguments in your own words instead of cutting and pasting the work of others.


Sure. So we shouldn't follow your own practice then?

Such as cut and past quoting of Franklin Harold, where you claim he wrote: ‘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.’

What he actually wrote was ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; 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,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.)

Harold is not, of course, a proponent of Inelligent Design or creationism but you have selectively misquoted him to support your opinions on Intelligent Design. And then accused others of cut and past rather than writing in their own words. Why should anyone believe anything you say?

But then [mis]quote mining (selective cut and past) has been standard practice for creationists for years.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:53 pm

"So how did the booklet describe the “gradual modification” of the single circulation CV system of fish to the dual circulation CV system of other vertebrates? Of course the booklet has no such explanation of any such evolutionary transition because anyone who has the slightest understanding of the functioning of these two CV systems would realise that it is absolutely impossible. Your quote about the pulmonary artery curving awkwardly behind the aorta does absolutely nothing to refute my claim that the evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible (the topic of my post), nor does it show the mammalian heart is badly designed because you have failed to provide a better design, let alone test that another design is indeed superior. No, this argument is nothing but the typical evolutionist’s smokescreen to hide the fact that evolutionism fails as an explanation for life. Perhaps you should present arguments in your own words instead of cutting and pasting the work of others."

I could not spot such an explanation. Elsewhere the (lengthy) booklet mentioned that "at one stage in mammalian development gill slits appear that resemble those of fish embryos". Maybe this will help (see the start of the section on Other Animals):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulator ... er_animals

As for cutting and pasting from sources who understand the topic better than myself, I do not see what is wrong with that. As long as I think for myself when doing so, and offer related comments rather than just saying "read this".

I think much of Frank's argument may result from him reading this or something like it:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=980

I admit that I do not have a detailed answer to his belated question.

Creationists normally abhor making such admissions.

PS After such a delay, I do not intend going through the quotes that Frank attributes to me (accidentally I think) but which were actually ME quoting from Biologos after Brian had previously done so (my post of 20 Sept 2013).
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 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:47 am

One small comment, because I'm busy and don't feel like dealing with a creationist loony.

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.


As usual, you are merely telling stories; your statement is devoid of any science.


How can I be "telling stories" when I am describing what is the condition in living animals. Jawless fishes (e.g., lampreys) and cartilaginous fishes (e.g., sharks) lack lungs. Lungs are the generalized condition for bony fishes: they are seen in basal ray-finned fishes (the reed fish, Polypterus, the garpike, Lepisosteus, and the bowfin, Amia, as well as basal teleosts (in more derived teleosts, as well as in sturgeons and coelacanths, the lung is now a swim bladder). Lungs are also, of course, seen in lungfishes (lobe-finned fishes, as are coelacanths, of course [actually fossil coelacanths show evidence of a lung rather than a swim bladder]). So, more basal fish (with respect to tetrapods) lack lungs, and more derived fishes (bony fishes) have lungs. And, in those fishes that have lungs, there is a dual circulation (systemic and pulmonary), just as there is in us.

Thus, the human supposedly "unique" system is the same as in many fish that also have gills. How can this possibly be explained by any other means but by common descent? I don't think that Frank even invokes "common design" (which would be pretty bogus here, because why build our circulatory system on a fish model?). It's all just a big mystery as far as he is concerned: and who cares about any condition but the human one, that was obviously divinely inspired.

Take this as an example of the entire vacuity of Frank's 9 month old "retort" (the gestation period didn't help much). Maybe if I have time and energy I'll tackle some more of his vacuous, devoid of science knowledge, comments.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:57 am

Oh, but one more:

The six branches of the aorta in humans: brachiocephalic trunk, right subclavian artery, internal thoracic artery, vertebral artery, axillary artery and the brachial artery provide blood to the upper parts of the body including the arms and head. They are not “merely connecting pipes”, they are required for life. Also, the statement above assumes evolution to start with, which means the argument is circular reasoning.


Hello --- those "six branches" are not the same as the six original aortic arches. Just because Frank can count to six in both cases shows nothing but ignorance of comparative anatomy. There is no adult equivalent of the embryonic components of arches 1, 2 and 5.

Here's an interesting tidbit. Aortic arch 1 forms in all vertebrates, yet is retained in no extant adult vertebrate. This embryological fact led past anatomists to infer that the original vertebrate condition was for 6 gill openings. (In jawless vertebrates, the first opening is lost entirely, as it is in many fishes. In some fishes, and in tetrapods, the first opening is retained as the spiracle [= the eustachian tube + middle ear cavity in tetrapods ---- no, not a piece of science fantasy, in both sharks and humans this is the fate of the cavity of the first pharyngeal pouch in development]).

So, no extant vertebrate has this "predicted" generalized condition, prior to the greater (and divergent) specialization of the first pharyngeal pouch in extant vertebrates. BUT, the newly discovered Early Cambrian vertebrates (Haikouichthyes and Myllokumingia) *do* appear to have this hypothesized basal type of anatomy.

Enough, off to bed. Busy because I'm organizing and packing to move back to England --- hopefully in 2015 I can be more of a local presence.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:19 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Frank wrote:Perhaps you should present arguments in your own words instead of cutting and pasting the work of others.


Sure. So we shouldn't follow your own practice then?

Such as cut and past quoting of Franklin Harold, where you claim he wrote: ‘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.’

What he actually wrote was ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; 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,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.)

Harold is not, of course, a proponent of Inelligent Design or creationism but you have selectively misquoted him to support your opinions on Intelligent Design. And then accused others of cut and past rather than writing in their own words. Why should anyone believe anything you say?

But then [mis]quote mining (selective cut and past) has been standard practice for creationists for years.



You will be unsurprised to see CMI also quote-mining Harold in the first section of this article:
http://creation.com/humanist-censorship
(I can't be bothered to read the whole of this treatise - which targets the BHA rather than the BCSE.)
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 » Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:20 am

OK, one more tonight:

Christine Janis wrote:

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


Frank replied: "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 have failed to show that hagfish have a vertebral column, so my argument stands. Claiming that “…rudiments of haemal arches of a vertebral column in the tail” is hardly a vertebral column. What shoddy rubbish you write. Besides, what you have written above is nothing but another red-herring."


Hmm, so Frank thinks that the definition of the subphylum Vertebrata is the presence of a vertebral column. Despite the name of this subphylum (which is sometimes also called Craniata) this has not been any type of definition of the subphylum within my lifetime (which is a long while). The fact that he does not recognize the actual morphological features that define the subphylum, but calls it "shoddy rubbish", only serves to show that his knowledge of comparative anatomy is less than zero.

The "haemal arches in the tail" is actually a rather important issue, as it shows that hagfishes, like lampreys (and, as best can be judged from the available evidence, the Early Cambrian vertebrates) do indeed have segmental structures associated with the nerve chord. This may be the best evidence to date that some sort of "vertebrae" are indeed a feature of the subphylum. But neither lamprey or hagfish have the more complete (i.e., surrounding the notochord) vertebrae seen in jawed vertebrates.

One has to laugh at Frank: when presented with more up to date information, of which he is completely incognisant, he terms it "shoddy rubbish". Hey, Frank, when *you* write the textbooks in this area, then perhaps you may get to determine what type of science is shoddy or not.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:51 pm

Christine Janis wrote:
One has to laugh at Frank: when presented with more up to date information, of which he is completely incognisant, he terms it "shoddy rubbish". Hey, Frank, when *you* write the textbooks in this area, then perhaps you may get to determine what type of science is shoddy or not.


Hiow about a good larf at his fellow US creationist, Rick Joyner, who has proclaimed from on high and from no obvious rationality, that the existance of mules proves evolution is "impossible".

See http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/r ... possible-0

Joyner is a pastor, self appointed prophet and hard line wannabe theocrat (dominionist) who appears to be as dim as the proverbial Toc H lamp when throwing light on science.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Christine Janis » Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:12 am

One more

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.


Actually, it is *highly* amusing that Frank sticks to the creationist creed that, because of a little embroidery of some figures by a Victorian scientist well over a century ago, the entire science of embryology is discredited. What is very cool today is that the classic embryological arguments have gained nothing but strength from the recent infusion of molecular biology and genomics, so we now understand the homologies at the genetic level as well as at the morphological level. Frank only shows his complete ignorance of the advances in modern biology by this silly statement.

And I wonder what Frank means by a "partially developed CV system". After all, compared with humans (because, after all, the only comparisons any creationist cares about are with humans), all fishes have a "partially developed" cardiovascular system, with only 2 major heart chambers (one atrium and one ventricle)*. And humans at one stage in development, before the formation of the intratrial and intraventricular septa, also have this impossible "partially developed" system --- how on earth do they survive in the womb?

*Of course, out of the fishes, lungfish have a divided atrium --- and, coincidentally, all of the other evidence shows that lungfish are the fish most closely related to humans (out of the extant fishes). But wait, there's more! The hearts of extant amphibians look almost exactly like those of lungfishes, and when they retain the gills (as in all amphibian larvae, and in those adults that retain gills such as the Axolotl) the vascular system of circulation to those gills is almost identical to that of lungfishes.

How can all these "partially developed" animals survive, one wonders.
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:43 am

Frank wrote:You are totally confused between origins science and operations science in claiming that embryological development has anything to do with supposed evolutionary development.


Frank gives the game away here. Nobody in science distinguishes between "origins" and operations" science. It's a thoroughly discredited distinction pushed by the likes of Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) and Creation Ministries International. Frank is clearly a young earth creationist.

Go on, then Frank. Tells us what the definition of a "kind" is and how many kinds were there on Noah's Ark. What did Noah do about the sharks and the dolphins?

Seeing as how you think the whole of evolutionary biology is rubbish, what is your alternative explanation of the differences between species?

Oh, and precisely what are your scientific credentials (apart from attending Sunday school lessons)?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:45 pm

Let Frank come on here and account for what is observed during embryological development from biblical creationist perspective.

Hopefully before May 2015.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron