Fine tuning/ programming

Hello. I am writing on this board for the first time. I've read a few discussions on here and they were very interesting.I was reading through some topics today and thought this would be a good discussion. So, here is some background to what I'm about to ask.The human heart and heartbeat. Point A in the heart (Sino atrial node)has leaky sodium channels which have a continuous Na+ influx which causes systematic electical impulse generation. Electrical impulse form point A travels to Point B (Atrioventricular Node).Here, there is a TIME LAG of a few millseconds between travel from point A to B, because of a LACK OF STRUCTURAL connection b/w A and B. The action potential takes 2 routes: it spreads through the entire right atrium and then hits the atrioventricular node (point B)(which is strategically located at the bottom of the right atrium)and also travels into the left atrium which is right next door. Meanwhile, the atria (upper chambers of the heart) have translated the message they've just received and contract. Now, from point B to, the impulse travels to point C (purkinje fibres). From purkinje fibres to Ventricular myocardium. And boom, ventricles contract.So, if there were no time lag (say by there being a structural connection b/w the two nodes: SA and AV)in impulse transmision, all parts of the heart would receive the message of the impulse at the same time, translate it and the same time and contract almost at the same time. But someone was smart enough to program the heart not to do this.My question to the evolutionists is twofold:1. How do you explain such an intricate complex programming system?
2. If you do not consider this mechanism to be'programmed by someone', why not?(I've tried to explain an example of programming (heartbeat) in as simple a way I could. Sorry, if that did not make sense. I'll try to explain it again if thats the case.)Edited by Dr. Sing, : Typos

Thank you for your replies. I was very happy to see your responses and to get a glipmse into the evolutionary rationale.First off, let me define intricate and complex. Hopefully, my words can convey what I feel about 'intricate and complex'. intricate: comprising interrelating parts or elements that function in coordination. Complex: difficult to analyze/understand. And here's really the essence of what I'm saying: fine tuning: to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness (Merriam -Webster dictionary)Now, to answer your question Phage0070,I think you are ignoring that fact that different entities can have varying levels of intricacy and complexity. To me it sounds like you are either elevating the intricacy and comlexity of a sand dune to that of a functional, living heart or you are pulling down the level of intricacy of the heart to that of a non-living sand dune. I hope you see the difference. Its like saying both a computer and a pile of dust are intricate in the same sense.Briterican,Thanks for the welcome and your reply. And thank you for the compliments on my post Paley's argument basically says that evidence of design in nature calls for a designer. (the whole watch-watchmaker analogy) And I'm adding here in my example, that there's more that calls for a designer. There's purpose, fine-tuning, perfection, and precision.You said:"As the result (and not the end result) of an unimaginably long period of gradual changes throughout the history of life on Earth during which time primitive hearts either failed (thus vanishing from the evolutionary line, or at least stagnating at a lower level of complexity) or succeeded (leading to the successful reproduction in offspring) and eventually leading to what might be interpreted as "intelligently designed". "Purposefully evolved" makes more sense to me, that purpose being to survive."Okay. So, was there a set of rules and regulations governing this process? Because when I think of something complex I'm thinking rules, regulations, precision, orchestration---all of these are essential to bring about postive comlexity (even if the entity lasted for only a short time). For example, computers: from the basic Abacus, to Napier bones, to the slide rule, to punched cards, to the Pascaline, to the electro-mechanical computer.....to the many other intermediate computers...to our modern laptops, all of these were/are complex in varying degrees. The people who created these had a purpose in creating them. People reasoned out ways to improve computers, again, to fit a specific purpose. They knew what they were doing. A person without sufficient knowledge about computers and skill cannot create/improvize a computer. Purpose and design characterize useful entities. Agree? I fail to see how the same idea of orchestration/programming/direction cannot apply to natural world and everything in it. What part of nature undertakes the role of "supervisor" to govern this process that you just described? Or are you denying the need for rules and regulations and just relying on random chance to present a perfectly functioning entity? If you are, thats great faith. The idea of a set of mutations working together toward a specific goal on their own seems fanciful to me...jacortina:"The fish heart with its two chambers may seem more complex, but it's still effectively a muscular tube with one part contracting followed (offset in time) by the next part contracting. The change of architecture doesn't seem to have required very much change in the 'programming'."Agreed. But still, there's programming. Where did it come from? Even in the amphibian heart, the right atrium (containing deoxygenated blood) contracts first, the venricle is filled up and passes blood on to the pulmonary arteries. And THEN, the left atrium (containing oxygenated blood) contracts, ventricle fills up, blood flows into aorta and so on...this mechanism facilitates partial separation of deoxygenated and oxygenated blood since our ventricle here is undivided. Are you saying that some sort of mutation/combination of mutations casued this prgamming in the amphibian heart? If so, please explain.Izanagi:"All that should be required for such an advance is the mutation of a single gene (probably) that separates the signal sent to the nerves that control the rhythmic contractions of the single muscular tube from one to two."Hmm. So, I don't get this. Can you please explain?I understand the idea of mutations can 'change the world'. Yes, they can have a tremendous, usually devastating effect. So, can you answer the simple question, according to your theory, have these mutations all worked towards common goal? (Since you say that the overall result is the sum total of x number of mutations) If so, what caused them to bring about a overall additive and not contradictory effect? I hope I made myself clear. It seems to me that handing over the mic to 'mutations' (which are usually bad) and saying, "okay, dictate, tell us what to do" seems rather strange and risky...but yet it produces an overall positive effect???Edited by Dr. Sing, : TyposEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Incredulity about what? The evoltuionary theory?If you mean my "arguing" (I will make an effort for my posts to sound more like reasoning and learning from you) that evolution is an incredulous theory, then I would like to clarify that by saying that I do think evolution is a logical,respectable, and credit-worthy theory in and of itself. I personally think that the evolutionary theory does not suffice to explain the origin/development of our world simply because our world is too complex for it. Edited by Dr. Sing, : Elaboration

Well, I hope I do not make this discussion just an emotional, argumentative one. Initially what attracted me to this site was the amazing knowledge and skill in reasoning that people here displayed in the discussions. I am willing to learn, and to be confronted. My knowledge of the evolutionary theory and the others that support it is limited, and that's the main reason why I originated this discussion. I use the exmaple as a springboard to (hopefully) start a meaningful discussion and again, understand the evolutionary rationale. I wil not make dogmatic statements saying "Evolution is false!" without providing adequate proof for it.Thank you for the welcome.

Thanks for the welcome. Isn't descent with modification accomplished through gradual changes in DNA sequencing? Edited by Dr. Sing, : inserted a word

Yes, that was the statement I was referring to. I'm trying to understand the idea of 'mutations collectively bringing about a postive effect over long periods of time'. So, is natural selction what is causing those mutations that an animal undergoes in order to survive?"They just happen"...As in there is no outside element governing their happening? Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Thank you. I appreciate your response. Complexity is a subjective criterion. Agreed. and no, I am not basing my argument entirely on complexity since (at the very beginning of the dicsussion), we've already seen that people define/measure complexity in different ways. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Exactly, perhaps Straggler can provide an explanation that does not include the instruction to "think".Wow,, thank you... for "contributing" to my first impression of evolutionists.

Well, I don't think your idea of: having a mutation that causes two nerves to fire in sequence rather that in conjunction", will work here. Nerves are not involved in generating heartbeat, FYI. It is the leaky sodium ion channels housed in the plasma membranes of auto-rhythmic cardiac muscle cells that "generate" action potentials/electric impulses which translate as heartbeat when they are received by cardiac muscle. However, I don't deny the general idea of mutations being the key to producing tremendous changes in mechanism/function. Well, you've given an example of how selection (environmental pressures) acts on variation (mutations) to produce the best effect (fittest organism). I see the beauty of the logic of that argument, I do. But I am going to focus of the very basic process of action potential to prove my point. Natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with this process. Natural selection can act on something that already exists. My point is focusing on how do bring something to existence without intelligence?" So, there is a set of mutations that will be selected FOR by the environment and we observe that organisms bearing these mutations will survive and those that lack these mutations will not survive (selected against). On an organismal level, I can picture this argument as being possible and logical in theory. I’ve heard descent with modification countless times before. ButIf you notice my original post, my focus is on the intricacy and complexity of the internal working/anatomy (and I call it programming for reasons explained at the end of this post). Natural and artificial selection are not my focus here at all. I think the main point being discussed was pushed aside amidst other explanations, so, I will get right back to it
Can we go and visit the microscopic level of life and clarify my point using an illustration? Consider skeletal muscle cells...
Skeletal muscle membrane has 4 inter-related parts (note, intricacy) that together make electrical impulse conduction possible within cells
1) There are many voltage-gated Na+ ion channels sitting in the plasma membranes of skeletal muscle cells.2) There are many Na+/K+ ATPase pumps also sitting in the same plasma membranes of skeletal muscle cells.3) There are many leaky K+ ion channels also sitting in the same plasma membranes of these cells.4) There are Ca++ ion channels also sitting in the same plasma membranes of these cells. Please bear with me, long explanation ahead (but I think it will help convey my point).When acetylcholine molecules (a neurotransmitter) bind to Ca++ ion channels and open them, an influx of Ca++ rushes into the skeletal muscle cell--causing muscle contraction(won't get into the details of that process since it's not relevant to our conversation). Sensing voltage, VOLTAGE GATED Na+ ion channels open and allow a HUGE influx of Na+ ions which diffuse throughout the cell opening more voltage gated Na+ ion channels---and the action potential is propagated as a wave of positive charge along the entire cell. The end result (with respect to membrane potential) that action potential causes relevant to our conversation. The end result is: too much unnecessary positive charge inside the cell (which is called action potential), which needs to be pumped out in order to re-establish resting membrane potential (a negative-charge dominated environment inside the cell). For this, we have our Na+/K+ ATPase pumps. They do just what was said---pump OUT sodium ions so that we have a more negatively charged environment within the muscle cell itself. But the problem is that these pumps are slow and can't keep up with how fast depolarization (positive charge build-up) occurs. So, to compensate for their slowness leaky K+ ion channels continuously keep letting out K+ ions (ions present within the cell) and this process helps re-establish resting membrane potential but, 1. in the wrong fashion (because really, K+ will end up being pumped back into the cell ultimately) and 2. to a small extent (leaky doesn't do much). Na+/K+ pumps ultimately do the job in the right way: they pump lost K+ ions back into the cell WHILE pumping unnecessary Na+ ions out of the cell taking their own time. There are many factors that affect the rate of Na+/K+ ATPase pumps including availability of ATP (since this is active transport here). Being back at resting membrane potential, the cell is now ready for another action potential.Here, we observe that all 4 parts are molecular machines coordinate with each other functioning as a single unit to facilitate action potential. And these same 4 parts are present in cardiac muscle cells as well. (note: When I say mechanism, I’m referring to action potential conduction.) Before comparing this mechanism with the heart’s mechanism, I just want to highlight the fact (and this cannot be denied) that action potential will not be produced if one of the parts does not exist/cooperate. (this is an example of Irreducible complexity which is part of my argument). Now, going back to the heart, here are some differences I’ve gathered that make heart muscle structurally and functionally different from skeletal muscle,Difference 1. Unlike skeletal muscle cells , heart muscle cells have leaky sodium channels
Ramification 1. Heart muscle cells generate their own action potential rhythmaticallyDifference 2. Unlike skeletal muscle, heart muscle cells have less extensive Sarcoplasmic Reticulum and no Cisternae. (for clarification, SR stores and releases Ca++, and Cisternae are balls of SR filled with Ca++)
Ramification 2. Responsible for slow onset of contraction and prolonged contraction phaseDifference 3. Desmosomes and gap junctions connect heart cells (none of these occur in skeletal muscle)
Ramification 3. If one heart cell generates action potential, eeevery one else gets the message and guess what, all cells contract in unison. (If skeletal muscle was wired in this fashion, we would never be able to make a precise eye muscle movement)To restate the main idea being focused on, there are 4 parts in skeletal muscle and the same 4 parts in cardiac muscle but, they are programmed differently. Here’s how
1. Difference and Ramification No. 1
2. Cardiac muscle cells have a longer refractory period when compared to skeletal muscle. How this is made possible:1. In cardiac muscle, during the onset of depolarization, K+ channels close.
Therefore, there is a prolonged high positive-charge build-up within the cell2. During early repolarization, only a few K+ channels open.
Therefore, repolarization is slow (as opposed to fast in skeletal)3. Ca++ channels here are voltage gated. They open during depolararization and remain open during repolarization. They close only during the last phase of repolarization.
Therefore, Ca++ influx into cell adds to existing positive charge build up. Also, contributes to prolonged high positive-charge build-up.These differences collectively add to the one effect: long refractory period. Why do we need a long refractory period anyway? Well, having a long refractory period prevents conditions like tetanus and treppe where multiple successive contractions result in abnormally strong contractions. Therefore, the heart is not susceptible to such conditions.(How can you not call this intelligent design?) (it refers to programming)It does. If there was no programming, there’s no point in having cardiac muscle. We might as well use skeletal muscle in the heart. (and of course, fail) Read my post above.It looks like it is not my rationale. Neither is I don’t understand this, so God did it.This is evidence of design. Design demands intelligence and foreknowledge. God is the source of intelligence since nature cannot program itself. If nature had intelligence", the evolutionary theory would never require such a tremendously long time to bring results. If every human on earth knew every single mathematical formula by birth, everyone would be a math whiz. Clearly not everyone is. Similarly, nature does not come packed with intelligence, God maintains and sustains it. It borrows its laws and order from God. The ultimate programmer is God. He does not require a programmer since He is eternal. I argue that without intelligence, intricacy and complexity cannot be attained. Because my argument was missed, I made the huge post that I did. Excuse me sir, if you back up a page and use a magnifying lens, you will find that I did not make the comment ascribed to me. No. The person got what I was saying and he responded back. There’s no doubt that breeding produces desirable effects. However, to talk about natural and artificial selection hardly serves a purpose in our current discussion. My original comment I can’t see how mutations bring about a positive effect was of pure curiosity. It is connected with the idea of mutations working towards a common goal. My illustration above demonstrates what I really mean about working towards a common goal (in my illustration- action potential). Now of course, this is assuming that evolutionists would say mutations in the cell’s genome are responsible for creation/functioning of the 4 parts. If that is not the explanation, I would be interested to know what is Is it wrong to analyze a computer in terms of purpose? Why is this part the way it is? What is the function of this part? How does this part contribute to the overall effect? etc Acetic acid is a chemical compound and it is a weak acid. Does this mean Acetic acid has low self-esteem or something?? Anthropomorphism is how humans understand and explain inanimate/non-living entities. It is the basis for the ontological argument for the existence of God.Few things in conclusion:
1. I’m sure you all have heard about the use of probability in proving that random chance could never have produce a single protein (even the most basic one)
2. Supposing it could, (supposing) we would need all 20 amino acids (which never existed in prebiotic nature, so there...)Intelligence is required to make amino acids, put them together as protein, assemble protein parts, and program them to perform a process. As we see in comparing skeletal and cardiac muscle, the same parts were programmed differently to bring about the functionality of the organ they were located in. THAT is what I call making something work towards a common goal.Edited by Dr. Sing, : formattingEdited by Dr. Sing, : spelling...Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Exactly. What you call "arbitary unevidenced exceptions", I call faith. You have a faith too, in fact the whole evolutionary theory is founded upon a faith. Atheism is what its called. Now, this could take us into proving or disproving the existence of God. Wouldn't it? Oh really? Why do you think I gave an illustration and conclusions based on it to prove my point then? Or did you just skip over them?You have no evidence to prove that I gave no evidence in support of my argument. (Nope, not the intelligent designer of the universe.) Lol!!! Is that a hint?No, really, how do you support your apparent claim that my argument fits into the category of myths and legends? Please don't put yourself in danger of incredulity now. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : inserted a word

In response to Perdition,notice I said Atheism is "a" faith. Here's one of the definitions of faith from the merriam-webster dictionary:faith: (3): something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
(2): complete trustAtheism believes that God does not exist, therefore it is a faith. There's world of difference in saying atheism is faith, and it is a faith and you seem to have taken my comment to mean the former, which is not accurate.Deism can also be reconciled with evolution. I never said that Atheism exclusively is foundational to Evolution. No, no, nnnnnooooo. This is too fast, too early to leave. I was refering to my argument for intelligent design based on a level of complexity and intricacy (and irreducible complexity) that cannot be attained by nature itself. How do you refute that? (leaving aside the whole evolution-faith-atheism discussion, I agree that that deserves a whole new thread in itself, which I have no interest in currently making)Thank you for the second welcome. I feel much more welcome now than before. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

I've demonstrated that:1. having the same 4 parts function differently in two different types of muscle contributing to their functionalities requires foreknowledge and intelligence (therefore, a programmer who possess these).2. Action poential generation falls under the irreducible complex category and therefore is an evidence for intelligent design. Disprove this if you can please. And we'll take it from there.I agree that you missed both my points. You would do me a great favor by actually reading my post (the huge one) this time than just glancing over it. Elaborate.That second sentence is making my brain hurt, heart is unnatural??? *smiles* Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Hmm, this is interesting.......I like this.

Nope. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

I have no interest in furthering a discussion where the opposite party does not acknowledge my argument. In other words, if you would like to refute my point--please be objective. If you think that what I demonstrated is not accurate, thats a flaw in your understanding. I've spoken to a number of people about this and have gotten much better replies than "no, you haven't". And if our dialogue is a hindrance for others who are interested in responding to my post, I would much rather not further it, unless you are ready to give me atleast a few obective statements that pertain to my illustration. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.