Darweenie conspiracy theory in evolution of the heart.

A

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Starting off without heart fossils. 2,3,4 chamber designs.
No species displaying transition
Not a lick of credentials in cardiology and electrophysiology

Evolution of a vascular and circulation system is a mental construct.

Any changes in a heart, end up in a deadly heart attack.

EvoStory can do drawings to sustain their speculationism.

The Vertebrate Animal Heart: Unevolvable, whether Primitive or Complex

www.ideacenter.org

As soon as Darwinists babble , we must conclude they have not even a whiff of the complexity of the circulation systems.

I can walk you all thru the basic steps we go thru "to go on the pump" for open heart surgery. Inject thrombin inhibitors and post-op deheparinize. Never want to be "on the pump over an hour"
Harvesting veins from the legs for by-pass etc.

Which brings me to the key point most will not understand. Evolution of a 2 or 3 chamber heart would require a lot of mutations to ANTICIPATE THE requirements of a 4 chamber pumper.
The next issue is EP. (the P-wave and QRS complex consists of three waves: Q, R and S. followed by the T-wave)

You can't run a V-8 car using a 4-cylinder ignition system. Even the "plumbing' routes switch over from a 2 chamber system. How?


How many open heart surgeries have you performed, assisted observed?
Abdominal aortic aneurysm cases?
Pacemaker cases?
Reverse popliteal grafts?

I won't even touch on the "smart system" and what we look at in blood gases and body regulation of blood gases.

I won't touch on intelligent designed blood. How blood cells are grown and many of their complicated functions.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Starting off without heart fossils. 2,3,4 chamber designs.
No species displaying transition
Not a lick of credentials in cardiology and electrophysiology

Evolution of a vascular and circulation system is a mental construct.

Any changes in a heart, end up in a deadly heart attack.

EvoStory can do drawings to sustain their speculationism.

The Vertebrate Animal Heart: Unevolvable, whether Primitive or Complex

www.ideacenter.org

As soon as Darwinists babble , we must conclude they have not even a whiff of the complexity of the circulation systems.

I can walk you all thru the basic steps we go thru "to go on the pump" for open heart surgery. Inject thrombin inhibitors and post-op deheparinize. Never want to be "on the pump over an hour"
Harvesting veins from the legs for by-pass etc.

Which brings me to the key point most will not understand. Evolution of a 2 or 3 chamber heart would require a lot of mutations to ANTICIPATE THE requirements of a 4 chamber pumper.
The next issue is EP. (the P-wave and QRS complex consists of three waves: Q, R and S. followed by the T-wave)

You can't run a V-8 car using a 4-cylinder ignition system. Even the "plumbing' routes switch over from a 2 chamber system. How?


How many open heart surgeries have you performed, assisted observed?
Abdominal aortic aneurysm cases?
Pacemaker cases?
Reverse popliteal grafts?

I won't even touch on the "smart system" and what we look at in blood gases and body regulation of blood gases.

I won't touch on intelligent designed blood. How blood cells are grown and many of their complicated functions.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming to be some sort of cardiac expert?

Strange how someone claiming such a high level of education doesn't even understand averages.
 
For a very comprehensive review of the evolution of heart, which utterly destroys the claims of the OP, see here:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective

Convergence is the tendency of independent species to evolve similarly when subjected to the same environmental conditions. The primitive blueprint for the circulatory system emerged around 700–600 and exhibits diverse physiological adaptations ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
The Pixie said:
For a very comprehensive review of the evolution of heart, which utterly destroys the claims of the OP, see here:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective

Convergence is the tendency of independent species to evolve similarly when subjected to the same environmental conditions. The primitive blueprint for the circulatory system emerged around 700–600 and exhibits diverse physiological adaptations ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
Your idiots have NO ancient hearts to study None.

So you are relying on military grade cluelessnes,'
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Your idiots have NO ancient hearts to study None.

So you are relying on military grade cluelessnes,'
Click to expand...
No, we are relying on science.

Did you read the article? I guess not. It actually talks about modern animals with primitive hearts. Exactly those things you said do not exist in your OP.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Evolution of a 2 or 3 chamber heart would require a lot of mutations to ANTICIPATE THE requirements of a 4 chamber pumper.
Click to expand...
....and there is no explanation of how the so-called beneficial mutations could happen at just the right time in just the right place for the heart to develope more chambers.
 
The Pixie said:
For a very comprehensive review of the evolution of heart, which utterly destroys the claims of the OP, see here:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective

Convergence is the tendency of independent species to evolve similarly when subjected to the same environmental conditions. The primitive blueprint for the circulatory system emerged around 700–600 and exhibits diverse physiological adaptations ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
You gotta love the article...nothing but coloring book science.

From the article...
The first heart‐like organ appeared in our biological history over 500 million years ago (Mya) and has undergone many changes and adaptations during its evolution from a single‐layered tube with own contractility supporting an open circulatory system, to a powerful four‐chambered muscular pump devoted to loading and unloading a large amount of blood around a closed, valved circuit circulatory system. The vertebrate heart is biologically specific to a species and is the product of millions of years of fine tuning.

Pure speculation. The article later on informed us with more speculation and assertions that:

The glimpse of the first circulatory primordium most likely occurred in an ancestral bilaterian (Bishopric, 2005; Olson, 2006) approximately 500 Mya (Olson, 2006). This system most likely resembled that of the most primitive urchordates (e.g. tunicate) or cephalochordate (e.g. amphioxus);

... I could go on and on....as we all know this speculation isn't science.
 
This article explains what happens in a baby's heart after birth.
The important step is this:

The oxygen rich blood goes through one of the two extra connections in the fetal heart that will close after the baby is born.

How did this system of providing oxygen to the unborn baby evolve...then radically change once the baby was born?

Psalms 139:13 For You formed my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
 
CrowCross said:
The glimpse of the first circulatory primordium most likely occurred in an ancestral bilaterian (Bishopric, 2005; Olson, 2006) approximately 500 Mya (Olson, 2006). This system most likely resembled that of the most primitive urchordates (e.g. tunicate) or cephalochordate (e.g. amphioxus);
Click to expand...
Is it those scientists saying that some conclusion is (merely) most likely that makes you think it isn't science? If not that, what?
 
CrowCross said:
This article explains what happens in a baby's heart after birth.
The important step is this:

The oxygen rich blood goes through one of the two extra connections in the fetal heart that will close after the baby is born.

How did this system of providing oxygen to the unborn baby evolve...then radically change once the baby was born?

Psalms 139:13 For You formed my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Click to expand...
I had previously asked you,

Gus Bovona said:
A question is not a stumbling block. Unanswered questions are not refutations. If a question was shown to be impossible to be answered, then that would be a refutation, but asking a question that has not been answered is not showing that the question is impossible to be answered.
Click to expand...

and you had replied,

CrowCross said:
A question is a stumbling block...especially when evo's such as you claim evo-ism is possible...Then, STUMBLE when you can't provide an adequate answer.
Click to expand...
But your reply doesn't say *why* an unanswered question is a stumbling block, and you didn't try to refute the idea that unanswered questions are not refutations. Can you say why an unanswered question is a refutation, if that's what you think?
 
CrowCross said:
God forbid I ever use that term in describing something dealing with creation science.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, when talking about complex systems, a scientist with a little knowledge of the details would use phrases such as "most likely" to account for variability and a host of other factors. Phrases such as "most likely" would actually give a small amount of credibility to whatever claims you're making about "creation science".

Most likely.
 
CrowCross said:
God forbid I ever use that term in describing something dealing with creation science.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that is the appeal. Creation science works on dogma; the illusionary assurance that its faith-based claims are fact, fact, fact!

Real life, of course, is not like that. There are things we do not know, things we cannot be certain of. A lot of people do not like uncertainty, so maybe this is why they are attracted to creation science.
 
mikeT said:
On the contrary, when talking about complex systems, a scientist with a little knowledge of the details would use phrases such as "most likely" to account for variability and a host of other factors. Phrases such as "most likely" would actually give a small amount of credibility to whatever claims you're making about "creation science".

Most likely.
Click to expand...
No, the usage typically refers to...I'm speculating.
 
CrowCross said:
You gotta love the article...nothing but coloring book science.

From the article...
The first heart‐like organ appeared in our biological history over 500 million years ago (Mya) and has undergone many changes and adaptations during its evolution from a single‐layered tube with own contractility supporting an open circulatory system, to a powerful four‐chambered muscular pump devoted to loading and unloading a large amount of blood around a closed, valved circuit circulatory system. The vertebrate heart is biologically specific to a species and is the product of millions of years of fine tuning.

Pure speculation. The article later on informed us with more speculation and assertions that:

The glimpse of the first circulatory primordium most likely occurred in an ancestral bilaterian (Bishopric, 2005; Olson, 2006) approximately 500 Mya (Olson, 2006). This system most likely resembled that of the most primitive urchordates (e.g. tunicate) or cephalochordate (e.g. amphioxus);

... I could go on and on....as we all know this speculation isn't science.
Click to expand...
"most likely" Unscientific weasel words.

"glimpse" is NOT observational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top