Design evidence # 111: The heart

Sonnikke:
Your(evo's) beloved "mutations" which are supposed to increase information and "create" new specified complexity, does the exact opposite.Except that some sorts of mutations do create information, such as gene duplication.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.Except that hearts and brains have coexisted for all of their evolution from much simpler structures. And in a sense, the brain was first, in the form of the simple nervous system that cnidarians and comb jellies have.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?Here goes:In the Vendian, just before the Cambrian, a little ocean-floor worm was born that had a strange birth defect. It grew an extra throat in its body cavity -- a throat which reflexively swallowed. But that swallowing kept its body fluids in motion, enabling it to nourish itself better. And as a result, that lucky worm's descendants multiplied and multiplied, with that extra throat becoming a heart and blood vessels. And sometimes multiple hearts, as with earthworms.Sometimes this heart would grow extra flaps of skin inside of it. But one that grew in the right place would act as a valve, thus the origin of heart valves.A simple tube of a heart is widespread in the animal kingdom. However, land vertebrates faced the necessity of supplying a lot of blood to the lungs in order to get oxygen and dump carbon dioxide. Which forced the gradual splitting of the heart into two sub-hearts. This was only partially completed in most amphibians and reptiles, but completed in mammals and archosaurs (crocodilians, dinosaurs, and birds).

[QUOTE] zephan+++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, holmes, that there is one sure fire way to prove to yourself God doesn't exist. If you only had the balls.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I said I'd rather have had HIM put a gun to my head, than advance such painfully stupid logic.Kind of an "if you're going to kill me at least do it quickly rather than through the slow torture of painfully bad logic." I did not say that I'd rather kill myself.And if god does not exist, killing myself would prove nothing, not even to myself. In fact it won't prove anything to anyone else either. It will look just the same as any other death, and no one will be able to tell if I had a soul or where it went.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2003]

[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++
God's original perfect creation is degenerating because of the second law of thermodynamics, as you know.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is incorrect. Learn what the 2nd law means and what it refers to, then come back and explain how the earth is a closed system with no energy inputs, and how living beings are closed systems with no energy inputs. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Who the hell said they "love" mutations? They are a description of an event that is seen, or inferred, and used as an explanation for change as seen in life across time.Most scientists say that mutations are not "wonderful" at all. Get a grip. This is pure ad hominem. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This was addressed by lpetrich. After learning about the 2nd law, please respond to his post as well. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have read Behe, I have read Wells, I have read Johnson, and I have read Dembski (including that passage you just cited). Regardless of my opinion on ID, you are WRONG.I came to this website looking for logical and scientific debate between ToE and ID theorists.This is because I think Behe has raised some issues (though minor) which could use some debate. Not to mention that Wells has done a good job outlining some really bad science done in the name of ToE (though that does not necessarily mean ToE itself is bad, and it certainly does not advance ID).This is why I took an interest in your posts. I thought they would be about ID theory. Unfortunately they are NOT.And more unfortunate than that your posts are typical of most posts from the "design" side of the debate. There is no logic, no evidence, and worse still there is no consistency.Behe is the ONLY scientist putting an effort into finding IC in systems and they are related purely to biochemical systems (did you even read his book). There has not been one bit of investigation into largescale functional systems (like the heart) and even Behe says this would have to be treated very carefully.I think this points out the very real danger ID poses to real science. Creationists that don't want anything to do with science or logic, simply grab their flag and wave it around as if it applies to EVERYTHING.Hahaha... the cardboard box Behe says scientists use to create their explanations, has been adopted by the ID/Creationists. Only they slap a big sticker saying "box by God" on the side.Sonnike... Behe believes in ToE! He has stated so very clearly. His concern is the origin of complex biochemical systems, not the changes which happen through time (and will happen he admits) to form things like hearts and nervous systems. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
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?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++leptrich gave a nice example, though it is admittedly only a "possible" explanation based on plausible (ie known) mechanisms and should not be taken for the exact explanation.Now give me an ID explanation, even a "possible" one given plausible (ie understood) mechanisms.Why not ask Behe... he knows.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2003]

This extra-throat-to-heart scenario may seem farfetched, but some recent work does point in that direction. Checking on PubMed, I found several papers on a heart-throat connection. I searched for "tinman throat" and "tinman pharynx", where tinman is a gene involved in heart development in the lab fruit fly Drosophila. It was named after the Tin Woodman of the Wizard of Oz, who had had no heart.That gene is related to NK2 genes involved in development of hearts and throats of zebrafish, Xenopus frogs, chickens, and mice, and even to a throat-development gene of nematodes. And the authors of one of those papers note

quote:

---

The overlapping expression pattern of NK2 class homeobox genes in the heart and the pharynx may suggest a common origin of these two organs.

---

So every time your heart beats, it "swallows" blood. Gulp, gulp, gulp, ...

Heart disease is the leading killer of women in America.Does this tell us:
1. The Satanic lifestyle of US culture is ruining the effect of perfect ID; or,
2. The heart is just another muscle group that fails like any other; or,
3. The woman's place is to be submissive to her husband, which would lower her stress and make her well?Curious,
-Shiloh

[QUOTE] by shilohproject+++++++++++++++
Heart disease is the leading killer of women in America.
Does this tell us:...
3. The woman's place is to be submissive to her husband, which would lower her stress and make her well?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++That'll make a great public service ad campaign when Bush's "faith-based" medical system is in place."Women, lower yourself, and your stress will lower with you."holmes

ROTFLMAO!!!

Your entire argument here is basically 'Irreduceable
Complexity'.Just because you cannot imagine an evolutionary
route to the human heart does not mean there isn't
one. It doesn't mean there is either, I might add,
just that of itself it is no argument either way.The use of the word 'design' in the quoted text is not
(I would suggest) intended to convey 'design'. It is a
turn of phrase.Question:: Can evolutionary process be considered as
designing organisms?

[QUOTE] by peter+++++++++++++++++++++++
Your entire argument here is basically 'Irreduceable
Complexity'.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Actually this is not true. IC is more rigorous than the logic Sonnikke uses.In another thread Sonnikke admits that he does not use IC at all. He simply believes that if something is complex (not IC) you can logically assume that it has been made by somebody.This requires no logic or evidence at all, other than circular logic.I'm not saying IC is credible as a standard for inferring design, and I admit they share similar routes to that inferrence, but Sonnikke's reasoning is an insult to IC (which means it has to be REALLY BAD).holmes

quote:

---

Actually this is not true. IC is more rigorous than the logic Sonnikke uses.

​

In another thread Sonnikke admits that he does not use IC at all. He simply believes that if something is complex (not IC) you can logically assume that it has been made by somebody.

​

This requires no logic or evidence at all, other than circular logic.

​

I'm not saying IC is credible as a standard for inferring design, and I admit they share similar routes to that inferrence, but Sonnikke's reasoning is an insult to IC (which means it has to be REALLY BAD).

​

holmes

---

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:

---

In the Vendian, just before the Cambrian, a little ocean-floor worm was born that had a strange birth defect. It grew an extra throat in its body cavity -- a throat which reflexively swallowed. But that swallowing kept its body fluids in motion, enabling it to nourish itself better. And as a result, that lucky worm's descendants multiplied and multiplied, with that extra throat becoming a heart and blood vessels. And sometimes multiple hearts, as with earthworms.

​

Sometimes this heart would grow extra flaps of skin inside of it. But one that grew in the right place would act as a valve, thus the origin of heart valves.

​

A simple tube of a heart is widespread in the animal kingdom. However, land vertebrates faced the necessity of supplying a lot of blood to the lungs in order to get oxygen and dump carbon dioxide. Which forced the gradual splitting of the heart into two sub-hearts. This was only partially completed in most amphibians and reptiles, but completed in mammals and archosaurs (crocodilians, dinosaurs, and birds).

---

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."

quote:

---

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.

---

And it is possible to find living organisms missing any one of these, and even missing all of these, so your claims that "the system breaks down" fall flat.

quote:

---

This is a very cute story or "just-so" story, but it is nothing more than that

---

Didn't someone post evidence supporting this position, or something similar?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

And it is possible to find living organisms missing any one of these, and even missing all of these, so your claims that "the system breaks down" fall flat.

---

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."

Point taken.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::
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.

---

Complexity and design are unrelated.Many of the best designed objects are wonders of simplicity.
The mother of all inventions (the wheel) is the most perfectly
simple designed object one could imagine, and yet without it
we would not have technology as we know it. The lever is extremely
simple, as is the hammer, the knife, and a host of other
clearly designed objects.If we cannot say that all designed objects are complex, then we
cannot, surely, use complexity as a design criterion.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::
Please explain how inferring design based on a complex system of interdependant parts, is circular logic.

---

To say that if something is specified it is designed, sounds to me
like saying that its designed of its designed.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::
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.

---

Yes that's what IC means ... remove a part and the system
stops operating in the way that it did.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::

​

Ipetrich earlier attempted a story for how the heart might have evolved:

​

{For description see previuous posts}

​

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).

---

But that's the whole problem with arguments from IC ... they are
about the individual ability to accept that complex systems could have evolved.If we can come up with a feasible possibility, then IC arguments
crumble into dust. Why? Because the basic argument from IC is::'I cannot believe that X could have developed natuarlly in
incremental steps.'In order to refute that all we need is some feasible incremental
steps that can lead to an IC system ... and that's all. If it
could have happened via incremental development, then
arguing that IC indicates design is fallacious ... even if the
object turns out that it really was designed IC cannot indicate
it.

Bacteria have none of these components. They violate all of your criteria.I know you are refering to humans, but it is silly to claim that one cannot build a moustrap without components x,y and z when there are functional mousetraps missing x, y, and z.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com