|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Design evidence # 111: The heart | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
The human heart is a marvel of engineering. Lets have a look at a simple heartbeat from Page not found - Texas Medical Center :
quote:(emphasis added) The Texas Heart Institute recognizes DESIGN! And so they should. The heart could not have evolved in darwinian step-by-step fashion. Everything has to be in place and working properly for the heart to function. The four valves, the four chambers, the intricate network of blood vessels that enter and exit the heart, the pacemaker (sinoatrial node), the accelerator nerves that link the heart to the central nervous system, not to mention the centrifugal flow of blood within the blood vessels.The blood vessel pathways are helical and designed with a spiraling effect built in, this prevents a potential for friction to build up as the blood flows through the heart, the arteries, the capillaries, and back to the heart through the veins. The whole system is interdependent and precisely tuned, if it fails in one part, the whole system falters. (ref: Body by design, Dr. Alan Gillen) The heart pumps approx. 2000 gallons of blood each day. Each heartbeat is perfect with valves preventing backflow, and specified chambers for specified functions. It is a wonderful testament to an Intelligent Designer who created in His divine wisdom. ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Holmes:
quote:Well then Holmes, YOU of all people should appreciate how delicate and precise this system is, and how any flaw is detrimental. Something that couldn't just gradually assemble itself, by random mutation and natural selection. If you don't like the topic, nobody's holding a gun to your head. Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
hee hee..I guess that's the best you could come up with.
That's okay, evidently I'm communicating with an "odd species of African apes"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:God's original perfect creation is degenerating because of the second law of thermodynamics, as you know. Your(evo's) beloved "mutations" which are supposed to increase information and "create" new specified complexity, does the exact opposite. A heart flaw is a good example of the "wonders" of mutations. The very fact that we all aren't born with heart defects or many other defects, is evidence for initial design, since mutations upon mutations without intelligence would firstly not even exist, and secondly prove very deadly. The heart is incredible, the amount of work it does day in and day out. It's layout and design coupled with the interdependence on the brain and nervous system is very strong evidence of specified complexity.http://www.leaderu.com/...ces/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html If you tried to give a step by step description of how the human heart might have evolved, what kind of story would that be? And, yes...if you really want to prove God's existence, a gun would suffice... Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:Holmes, why do you insist on misquoting me? I never said I don't use IC at all, what I said was that IC or not, the interdependance of the system (ie. heart, brain, nervous system, multitudes of blood vessels, etc) shows specified complexity, and it is in and of itself, at the very least inferrence of design. Please explain how inferring design based on a complex system of interdependant parts, is circular logic. I would argue that this system is irreducibly complex.If you take away the heart, the system breaks down. If you take away the brain, the system breaks down. If you remove the blood vessels, the system breaks down. If you remove the nervous system, the system breaks down. They all have to be in place and working properly, or the system breaks down. Ipetrich earlier attempted a story for how the heart might have evolved: quote:This is a very cute story or "just-so" story, but it is nothing more than that (no offence Ipetrich). The fact is, the heart, the brain, the eye, these are just a few examples of the immense problem evolutionism has in trying to explain how they might have evolved (except for cute just-so stories, of course). Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:Please list these organisms so we can evaluate this statement. Note also that I was referring to humans. S. ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Ipetrich's story:
quote:1. Please explain how you would test this theory. 2. Please explain how the worm originated. 3. Please explain by what law and mechanism an open circulatory system could transform itself into a closed system. 4. Please explain how a birth defect could "create" a whole new organ. 5. Please explain how the system transformed itself step-by-step, while remaining fully functional. 6. Please explain how this scenario translated into higher organisms in a step-by-step fashion. 7. Please show what evidence there is for this theory. Otherwise, it's a cute story And to Holmes, why must everything I say be taken as ad hominem?I'm not attacking Ipetrich, I was focusing on his story. Please explain your definition of ad hominem. Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:What exactly do you think "my criteria" are? How can you compare a single celled organism to a heart? And secondly, what part of a bacteria could you remove and still have it fully functioning? Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote:How many beneficial "defects" do you know? It is only plausible in the evo's mind because you have an extraordinary belief in extrapolating data from the miniscule to the astronomical. quote:I do love how that is the typical response from evo's. "Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution asit is currently concieved. Mathmatically there is a zero probability for any kind of cell development by haphazzard chance alone. This, of course, is why evolutionists wish to claim that evolution andabiogenesis are two separate subjects, and that they do not wish to answer questions about abiogenesis. Who would wish to defend two untenable pieces of rubbish at the same time? This does, however, leave them having to defend the following insane proposition: That God or whoever created the first life forms used intelligent processes(no element of chance involved) to do so, and that then he/she/it got STUPID, and began to use stupid processes (chance mutation, natural selection etc.) to proceed to successive steps." http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/abiodds quote:It is not easily answered. How does a system that "bathes" the internal organs with blood, create the necessary vessels and arches and force mechanisms to become closed, while at the same time remaining functioning. There would have to be so many intermediate steps, created by succesive beneficial mutations. The odds are simply zero for that to occur. quote:Re-read his story. quote:I had a better diagram at work, but of course I can't find it now. However, look at this diagram, it is not as simple as just growing an extra throat. The circulatory system is separate and elaborate. bioweb.uwlax.edu...earthworm_model {Shortened the text of this link, to prevent overwide page - Adminnemooseus} quote:At an extremely basic, untestable, unprovable, level. However, "A" for effort...is just too bad evolutionary science retsricts itself to entirely natural events, and thus misses out on exploring all the possible avenues...it reminds me of this: Signs of Intelligence Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233 [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-21-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
In the absence of a time machine, and in light of the self-imposed restrictive boundaries of evolutionism, the only "plausible" explanations for any organism or organ development, is reduced to an imaginative story which in a sci-fi movie would be no problem, but in the real world, the MEGA-MEGA extrapolation from miniscule, random rare usually neutral or destructive, mutations to the fantastic creation of new organs, circulatory systems, higher organisms, is simply NOT to be found except in the believing mind of the evolutionist who chooses to restrict his/her search for truth.
Regards,S "The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation ... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties." Mayr, Ernst (1970)Populations, Species, and Evolution Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, p. 235"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Except that Ernst Mayr's comment was written 33 years ago. Sonnikke must have a fondness for out-of-date books.
No I just have a fondness for illuminating quotes by evo's, and, regardless mutations are still as useless as ever at producing the kind of "believed in" change, that the evo is hoping for. Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
Hi Sonnikke,
Hi Percy,Your Ernst Mayr quote is still the scientific view of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" ideas. Evolution is believed to proceed through the accumulation of small changes, not by sudden large ones. --PercyThank you for your continued demonstration of class. Regards,S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
An excellent explanation has already been given, but I want to add that your response does not affect my criticism. What laws need to be invoked for such an answer? This suggests to me that you do not even know what a scientific law is, much less how they are used. This is not meant as an insult, it really does appear that way.
I have yet to see even an explanation. So far I have seen stories. What you consider an "explanation" is analagous to me saying that a tricycle accidentally grew another wheel and became a four wheeler. Then one day an accident caused an internal combustion engine to form on the four wheeler. Further, structural changes fortuitously took place which encaged the lucky engine. The four wheeler adapted to the new changes by growing a steel skin which encompassed the entire four wheeler. More gradual modifications ensured that roominess abounded so the lucky four wheeler could carry passengers. That is the "excellent" explanation for how a tricycle evolved to a car. (sidebar: please spare me the "it's not a biological organism, it can't pass on heritable traits, etc"..it's the same idea for illustration purposes).
Your implied method of scientific inquiry is pre-dark age and was rightly dicredited and excised during the enlightenment. I lampooned this method in my 2piR thread. What I find interesting is that in that thread you criticized evos for using this kind of logic, and now turn around to say its too bad they don't... or at least too bad they don't with repect to your theory because then they could gain so much.
pre-dark age? please elaborate.
You really must find a philosophical position you like and stick with it. Frankly, given proven progress since the enlightenment, I'd lump the darkage stuff and stick with a winning mode of inquiry.
I'm sure there's a logical fallacy involved in this dark age stuff.
By the way, your link showed astronomical ignorance of both science and two specific areas of research. SETI has nothing to do with DNA research. While I do agree that IF there was something that created or altered life it is possible there would be indications left behind, but DNA research is not trying to do this and not nearly advanced enough to try. I think it's ironic they used steve martin's "jerky" image to show someone making such a connection.
Yes I'm aware thank you. The link was to show that man is looking for intelligence in the wrong places, spending millions of dollars looking for any signs of intelligent life from outer space, whilst right here in our own world an incredibly intelligent "sign" has been found in the form of DNA.What I was saying was that just as man is not seeing the obvious in that respect, man is also not seeing the obvious (God's creation) as evidenced by the naturalistically limited search for answers to our existence. Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
And that isn't the only point on which your analogy falls apart. Your analogy is a single organism changing within itself. Evo does not suggest an individual organism would suddenly grow something new. It is only related to the reproductive process.
Are you sure you read Ipetrich's story, because his "lucky" worm grew a new throat. It didn't happen over many many generations apparantly.
Thus there is no question that (using your analogy) a tricycle may become more roomy or grow another wheel (or at least the newer models based off it may). I know of no one debating microevolution, that is correct. My tricycle to car analogy was illustrative of macro-ev.
This is called microevolution and I don't know anyone debating this.So why is it unreasonable to create an explanation based on the idea that these microevolutionary cycles, and the changes which occur within those cycles, produced all life as we see it now?
It wouldn't be that unreasonable IF we saw evidence that the little miniscule changes that are either horizontal or downward, could be extrapolated to astronomical changes, but that evidence was supposed to be in the rich fossil record, and it wasn't.
I find the delineation between microevolution (which is not contested by ANYONE I know of) and macroevolution (disputed only by creationists), rather arbitrary and necessary of a better explanation (or story) than "I can't believe that story", and contentious analogies which usually involve nonreproductive organisms.What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.
How many years have they experimented on mutating flies? 20 years or so? We still only have flies right? right! Mayr, E., 1982The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 524 These mutations which are supposed to add the raw material for new organisms, do the opposite most of the time. And when they don't, they are neutral or horizontal. "To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability."
Cohen, I.L. (1984)Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81 Okay, you are simply being deliberately obtuse...The darkage reference is not ad hominem...
Thanks for insulting me by the way...It dates back to the Greeks (and probably before that), when most logic was deductive and so started with grand universal "truths" which were imposed on, or used as an a priori filter for, empirical experiences. This method was terribly susceptible to problems relating to circular logic, and has ultimately been abandonded for more fruitful methods of inquiry. "grand universal truths"..."a priori"..you mean like uniformitarianism and natural occurences only?? Evolutionism isn't far from the greeks then, I suppose. Let me ask you something, what if God really did create life and the universe and the only "evolution" that has occurred since is MICRO...that creation event would have been supernatural correct? So if science really wanted the truth to be found, wouldn't it make sense to NOT limit itself to a priori reasoning and grand universal truth assumptions?? Seriously? As far as the DNA example, again, it is just an illustration of how people can miss the forest for the trees. Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
I suggested earlier in this thread, and elsewhere,
That's a non-sequitur if I've seen one. What kind of logic is this? Because something designed can be simple thus complexity cannot be related to design? What constitutes a simple design? What's the simplest design you can think of? Even the most simple design is DESIGNED! So actually what you are saying is that design can be inferred even more easily since even simple things show evidence of design.that since many designed objects are wonders of simplicity, then complexity cannot be related to design in any way. Regards,S ------------------Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024