Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible

[ProfessorTertius]

I'm impressed by the speed, skill, and thoroughness of the rebuttals of Dr. Janis' posts from Frank & Co. since she posted on May 30.

And Cowardly Cowboy Bob's mastery of science in a wide variety of fields is being displayed on his Facebook pages and blogs on a daily basis. (I don't think scientists have yet catalogued the ever growing number of C.C. Bob websites. In the quality versus quantity category, I think it is safe to say that C.C. Bob has clearly made his choice of prefered strategies.)

No doubt in both the case of Frank and C.C. Bob, their well-known modesty has led them to hold back and ration their impressive displays of scientific knowledge and insightful thinking in order to avoid alienating the average reader who is gasping just to keep up with them.

This kind of "modesty" among science-denialists, especially the Young Earth Creationists like C.C. Bob, has been necessary because of the steady stream of professional and academic honors bestowed upon "creation science" advocates over the past half century. And even the relatively new Intelligent Design movement has the countless scientific discoveries of the aptly named "Discovery Institute" to reflect upon with pride. It is easy to see why they and their supporters have had to restrain their gloating whenever the achievements of their "scientists" are lauded in the press.

Yes, when the CVs and streams of scientific papers are so impressive, it is easy to see why they must make extra effort to appear humble. And how often has C. C. Bob demanded that readers become aware of the academic credentials of his opponents rather than his own? (One never sees any mention of Bob's academic and publishing accomplishments. Truly, if everyone followed Bob's example as a scientific pioneer and educator, the scientific world would be a very different place!) And who has not read C. C. Bob's websites while considering how well they model the meaning of truly Christ-like behavior and overwhelming love for even his enemies? I can honestly say that I've never read C. C. Bob's descriptions of me without feeling truly blessed and thankful. It often brings to mind the old saying, "There, but by the grace of God, go I." Yes, reading his carefully chosen words always leaves me feeling just a little better about my life's work. Thank you, C. C. Bob.

I also thank Frank for giving readers such clearly defined choices. I think it is safe to say that---thanks to Frank---the choices couldn't be any more clear.

[MisterGordons]

I'm impressed by the speed, skill, and thoroughness of the rebuttals of Dr. Janis' posts from Frank & Co. since she posted on May 30.

And Cowardly Cowboy Bob's mastery of science in a wide variety of fields is being displayed on his Facebook pages and blogs on a daily basis. (I don't think scientists have yet catalogued the ever growing number of C.C. Bob websites. In the quality versus quantity category, I think it is safe to say that C.C. Bob has clearly made his choice of prefered strategies.)

No doubt in both the case of Frank and C.C. Bob, their well-known modesty has led them to hold back and ration their impressive displays of scientific knowledge and insightful thinking in order to avoid alienating the average reader who is gasping just to keep up with them.

This kind of "modesty" among science-denialists, especially the Young Earth Creationists like C.C. Bob, has been necessary because of the steady stream of professional and academic honors bestowed upon "creation science" advocates over the past half century. And even the relatively new Intelligent Design movement has the countless scientific discoveries of the aptly named "Discovery Institute" to reflect upon with pride. It is easy to see why they and their supporters have had to restrain their gloating whenever the achievements of their "scientists" are lauded in the press.

Yes, when the CVs and streams of scientific papers are so impressive, it is easy to see why they must make extra effort to appear humble. And how often has C. C. Bob demanded that readers become aware of the academic credentials of his opponents rather than his own? (One never sees any mention of Bob's academic and publishing accomplishments. Truly, if everyone followed Bob's example as a scientific pioneer and educator, the scientific world would be a very different place!) And who has not read C. C. Bob's websites while considering how well they model the meaning of truly Christ-like behavior and overwhelming love for even his enemies? I can honestly say that I've never read C. C. Bob's descriptions of me without feeling truly blessed and thankful. It often brings to mind the old saying, "There, but by the grace of God, go I." Yes, reading his carefully chosen words always leaves me feeling just a little better about my life's work. Thank you, C. C. Bob.

I also thank Frank for giving readers such clearly defined choices. I think it is safe to say that---thanks to Frank---the choices couldn't be any more clear.

This clearly has nothing to do with science despite the unenforced rules of the forum.

[Christine Janis]

"This clearly has nothing to do with science despite the unenforced rules of the forum."

So why don't you post some science, Mr. Gordons? Tell you what: contacting my department chair, as you did recently in an email in an attempt to make trouble for me, would be appropriate here, as he might be able to teach you some science. Well, he might try, at any rate.

[ProfessorTertius]

This clearly has nothing to do with science despite the unenforced rules of the forum.

Think again, Gordon. The title of this thread is "Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible", so our thread topic is a prime example of science-denialism and obfuscation via pseudo-science. Moreover, the acronym of this website forum is "British Centre for Science Education." How can we discuss science education without dealing head-on with science-denialism and all that is destructive to the progress of science education?

So instead of whining yet again about the alleged unfairness of it all, why not demonstrate to us that Gordon, Frank, and Cowardly Cowboy Bob can intelligently post and discuss the topics of science and science education?

I can't speak for conditions in the United Kingdom, but in the USA we are facing an ongoing crisis in science education. A science-literate citizenry is of ever-growing importance in a democracy where voters will either support or thwart intelligent solutions to enormous problems which our government must address. The disastrous consequences of climate change are just one example. And isn't it interesting that the same kinds of science-illiteracy which leads to climate change denial also brought us evolution-denial?

Yes, by all means, let's do discuss the science: the science which supports evolutionary biology, climate change, and The Laws of Thermodynamics which so baffle C.C. Bob and his clownish colleagues.

[ProfessorTertius]

So why don't you post some science, Mr. Gordons? Tell you what: contacting my department chair, as you did recently in an email in an attempt to make trouble for me, would be appropriate here, as he might be able to teach you some science. Well, he might try, at any rate.

Incredible.

I see that Cowardly Cowboy Bob is not alone among the cowardly science-denialists who do their mischief from safer venues. Mister Gordons and C.C. Bob can't be troubled to take the time to defend their pseudo-science rubbish in public via scientific discussion forums like this one, but they do have the time to connive and attack in the lowest of cowardly ways. What a silly little man you are.

But with that now firmly established, will you please post here some descriptions of the scientific evidence which you think supports your desperate position? (You had to be feeling pretty desperate if you were willing to subject yourself to that kind of whiny humiliation.) Or should the reader conclude---if anybody hasn't already---that your childish tactic of contacting Dr. Janis' department chair is your de facto concession that you realized that you had no scientific basis for your position, and that a petty complaint to her academic colleague was the only card you had left to play?

[MisterGordons]

I quoted some of what was not related to science and did not belong in this thread. You made additional statements that are not science. Attacking people instead of ideas is contrary to science but are common on this forum.

[Christine Janis]

Attacking people instead of ideas is contrary to science but are common on this forum.

That's certainly what Frank does, for a start, however guilty any else of us might (or might not) be.

[ProfessorTertius]

Mister Gordons wrote:

I quoted some of what was not related to science and did not belong in this thread. You made additional statements that are not science. Attacking people instead of ideas is contrary to science but are common on this forum.

No. The only material that was NOT about science was the pseudo-science and general whining from science-denialists.

Tell us, Mister Gordons, when you complained to the chair of Dr. Janis' academic department, did you restrict your remarks to science topics only?

Meanwhile, are you EVER going to address any scientific evidence in your posts here? Or are you only restricting your remarks to complaints that others are posting about Science Education topics (which are entirely topical to this forum, despite your deliberate confusion about this)?

[ProfessorTertius]

Meanwhile, notice that Dr. Janis' mention of Mister Gordon's email to her academic department chair is also entirely topical to this forum because it is a prime example of the harassment and unwarranted attacks on science educators by science-denialists and anti-evolution activists.

For a tenured and now retiring professor like Dr. Janis, Mister Gordon's shenanigans are little more than the annoying buzz of a mosquito sans proboscis. (And no doubt her department chair got a good chuckle out of Gordons' silly email. In my day, whoever was department chair---we annually took turns with an administrative position nobody enjoyed----perpetuated the tradition of posting the funniest unsolicited complaints from the general public on a special bulletin board in the departmental lounge/break-room.) Yet, for the average high school science teacher and their administrations and school boards, such petty harassment wastes everyone's time and can effectively silence all but the most minimal coverage of one of the very most essential foundations of the biological sciences. So I'm not surprised that Mister Gordons virtually by reflex reaction chose to lower himself to such pettiness by employing a favorite tactic of so many Young Earth Creationism activists in the U.S. (I don't care if Mister Gordons calls himself a YECist or IDist or a pink unicorn. When someone decides to quack like a duck, he should expect to find people annoyed by the all too familiar quacking.)

Let's admit out loud what we all know: When Frank posted his "Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible" thread OP, he adapted familiar copy-and-paste fodder we've all been seeing on anti-evolution, creationist websites for many years now. His objective was not to improve scientists' understanding of cardiovascular systems. No, he thought that he could somehow sneak into a science education forum a series of Arguments from Personal Incredulity and Arguments from Ignorance and nobody would see through it. LOL.

Mister Gordons', you still have one more opportunity to redeem yourself: You could demonstrate that you are capable (???) of posting actual scientific evidence to support your position---instead of continuing your tiresome whining that exposure of pseudo-science nonsense has nothing to do with Science Education and this forum.

Science education which fails to expose pseudoscience for what it is will fail to address that which is the greatest impending threat to a science-literate citizenry: ignorance.

[Frank]

Whenever I describe the details of the functioning of the CV system, it shows how irrational evolution is and you cannot answer."

I guess my response to you here "whenever I describe how the CV system could have evolved, you switch the topic to the renal system, or the mammalian diaphragm" or something else because you have no response to science.

My updated summary of your failed attempt to explain how the CV system evolved has been appended to my original post. It is readily apparent that you have failed totally in providing any explanation of the CV system. The reason I include the respiratory system and the renal system is because these body systems are interdependent with the CV system. As I said before, what you call “science” is nothing more than waving the magic evolutionary wand.

If only your buddy Bob was correct, and I were indeed a "pretend professor". Then I'd have oodles of time to pen a detailed response to you statements, which basically consist of describing the human CV system as if it was unique among organisms (which, of course, it is not). I will respond...

This is nothing but a total copout. It seems you have had plenty of time since my last response in adding numerous responses that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion. No, your problem is not with time, your problem is that you cannot answer me. Here is part of what I wrote previously that you have failed to answer:

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

1 If evolution were true, we’d expect that organisms would share some similar anatomical structures. (if p then q)
2 Organisms do share some similarity in their anatomical structures. (q)
3 Therefore, evolution is true. (therefore p)

No, Frank, that is not my argument, it's your parody of it.

This is your argument. All you have done is explain some anatomy, as you are now admitting yourself. When challenged to how the CV actually evolved, you have no answers and you left waving the magic evolutionary wand repeatedly.

Meanwhile, here is one example of the debates that I have had with you.
Frank. Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible because it would be impossible to have an animal that had a double circulatory system with a lung without a divided heart.
Me: Here is are examples of animals living today that have exactly that system. Basal ray-finned fish such as Polypterus (reed fish), Amia (bowfin), Lepisosteus (garpike), and many basal teleosts.
Frank: That's irrelevant because you can't explain how the lung evolved.

This is nothing but a straw man argument as I never wrote this. It is truly pitiful that you need to resort to rubbish such as this. There is no evolutionary explanation for the regulation of blood pressure, which is controlled by the nervous system and by hormonal negative feedback systems. There is also no evolutionary explanation for the regulation of haemoglobin levels with erythropoietin and its negative feedback system. These are a few more arguments that you cannot answer. No wonder you need to resort to straw man arguments.

[Frank]

It was pointed out that autonomic innervation involves receptors, neural processing, a preganglionic neuron, a ganglion, a postganglionic neuron, and signal transmission at chemical synapses via neurotransmitter molecules. Janis has failed to provide an evolutionary explanation for autonomic innervation of the CV system

It was pointed out to you that hagfish lack any kind of autonomic innervation of the heart, and that fish (over half the vertebrate species alive today) lack sympathetic innervation of the heart. Yet you persist in claiming that a heart cannot function without the type of innervation seen in humans. You are wrong.

Here is what I wrote previously:

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

So once again you have failed to answer me and all you can do is repeat the same argument and hope that my previous response gets lost amongst all the unregulated rubbish that is posted here. Is it going to be the third time you cannot answer? Using the same reasoning as yours, it could be claimed that there is no need to explain the evolutionary origin of nearly anything. What irrational nonsense it is to believe that neural innervation of the heart (the cardiac plexus), which is vital in regulating cardiac output, just happened to originate by chance.

[Frank]

3. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.
4. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.

What I've done here is to provide anatomical descriptions of living vertebrates that possess the anatomical systems that you deem impossible.

Providing ‘anatomical descriptions’ is not what is required. What is required is providing detailed, credible evolutionary explanations for the origin of the CV system.

I could indeed provide an evolutionary explanation for these structures. What would be the point, as you would then claim that I'm just '`waving my evolutionary wand"? Hence, I have been sticking to the anatomy, something that you, strangely, accuse me of avoiding.

I never accused you of avoiding anatomy. My claim has always been that your evolutionary explanations are so superficial so as to be worthless and are not based on anything that is observed in the real world. An example is where you claim that sympathetic innervation of the heart is “added” in some vertebrates. No exactly a convincing argument, is it?!

But, in any case, it's clear to me that you lack the knowledge in comparative anatomy to understand any evolutionary description here that I could give.

This is another ad hominen argument. It is plainly clear that you simply have no evolutionary explanations, which merely confirms what the evolutionist Franklin Harold (quoted earlier) claims about the theory of evolution. At least you are now admitting that you have not provided evolutionary explanations for the origin of the CV system.

...You're simply not equipped for a debate about this topic, as all you know about (or, at least, can copy and paste about) is the human condition.

This is nothing but a complete copout. So why don’t you present your detailed evolutionary explanations for the CV system so at least others can read what you have to say? Perhaps it should be remembered that you claimed that heart valves evolved before cardiac conduction, and that embryological development of the neural innervation of the diaphragm as an example of evolution. Anyone who writes such nonsense is not equipped for the debate on the origin of the CV system.

[Frank]

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.

So I asked: “What was the order in which the following parts...”. Notice the word **order** in my question. And your response was “...Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction...” So anyone reading your response would assume that you were placing these heart components in the order that you believe that they evolved in. So my argument stands and you did claim that heart valves evolved before cardiac conduction. Also, I am not quoting anyone here. In fact for this post on the CV system I have only quoted Franklin Harold once. So much for your claim that I am ‘quote mining’.

So where is your evolutionary explanation for the origin of the two chambered fish heart, which has an atrium and ventricle, two valves and cardiac conduction? A properly shaped atrium and ventricle, properly functioning valves and correct cardiac conduction are required for pumping a one way flow of blood to the tissues. Once again, it should be pointed out that it is totally irrational nonsense to believe that the CV system just happened to evolve by chance to meet the metabolic requirements of the body cells.

[Frank]

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...<snip>

To put this in context, you have not made the slightest attempt to defend your previous argument where you claimed that embryonic development of the neural innervation of the diaphragm was an example of evolution. I refuted your nonsense argument by stating that parents already have a functioning diaphragm with neural innervation, and the embryological development of the diaphragm is controlled by genetic and epigenetic information and has nothing to do with the evolutionary development of anything. You simply don’t have any good arguments, so out of desperation you resort to irrational arguments such as this. Here is what I wrote before about the diaphragm, which you have made no attempt to answer:

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

and this:

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

So let us see the ‘real professor’ provide a scientific evolutionary explanation for the diaphragm, as described above. You are always running for cover when presented with scientific details of the functioning of body systems.

[Frank]

...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. <snip>

You are just repeating yourself. Taken from my summary, here is what you have failed totally in explaining with regards to the origin of the CV system:

3. Begins with a lancelet, which has a functioning circulatory system with pulsing arteries. No explanation of how this animal supposedly evolved is provided. The most crucial explanation required is how blood is pumped via a closed system of blood vessels to meet the metabolic needs of stationary body cells. Janis fails to provide any explanation at all.
4. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.
5. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.

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. <snip>

You have made absolutely no attempt to answer the most important thing I have written above, namely: ‘...it fails to demonstrate how one machine supposedly transformed itself into another.’ Relevant to this topic, you have failed to show how heart chambers, heart valves or cardiac conduction supposedly evolved. Nor have you shown how a single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.