Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fine tuning/ programming
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 1 of 123 (529594)
10-09-2009 7:56 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phage0070, posted 10-09-2009 9:42 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by Briterican, posted 10-09-2009 9:56 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by jacortina, posted 10-09-2009 10:57 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by Izanagi, posted 10-10-2009 2:54 AM Pauline has seen this message but not replied
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 10-10-2009 4:57 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 14 by bluegenes, posted 10-10-2009 5:41 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 10-10-2009 6:20 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 7:43 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 123 (529606)
10-09-2009 8:35 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Fine tuning/ programming thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 123 (529621)
10-09-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
10-09-2009 7:56 PM


Dr. Sing writes:
But someone was smart enough to program the heart not to do this.
What in the world makes you say that? Actually, let me be more specific: What *evidence* makes you say that?
Dr. Sing writes:
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?
1. Explain what you mean by "intricate" and "complex"? A sand dune is both intricate and complex, but I suspect you do not consider it to be designed. It seems to me that you are assuming that a structural connection between points A and B would cause the heart to either cease to function, or to function in an obviously inferior manner. In either of those cases it seems the evolutionary incentive is clear.
2. I don't consider it to be programmed by someone because there is no evidence to suggest it was programmed by someone. In fact your question shows how your entire outlook is flawed, as I will explain:
I suspect you don't by default assume that things are designed by an intelligence; there are some things you consider naturally occurring. In fact this *must* be your position because the alternative is assuming your conclusion, and circular reasoning. You also appear to be using the argument "This is complex, therefore it must have been designed by an intelligence." However, as I noted there are things that you consider naturally occurring that are both intricate and complex, so there must be some other criteria on which you are basing your conclusion.
The obvious answer is personal bias, hopefully unintentional given the alternative is deliberate deception. It would be wise to reexamine your reasoning to find out your actual reason for concluding an intelligence is required, and see if there is evidence to back it up compared to the evidence of its evolution from simpler organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 10-09-2009 7:56 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 4 of 123 (529627)
10-09-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
10-09-2009 7:56 PM


Greetings and welcome
Greetings Dr.Sing and welcome to EVC. I'm disappointed to join the thread this early as I am definitely not as knowledgeable as most of the regulars that will hopefully join in this discussion soon, but I can give generalised answers to your questions. That will have to suffice for now, but I think your post is extremely well formulated and deserving of serious replies.
I'll make my reply brief, as I can't speak to the specifics of this in the way that others will undoubtedly do in due course.
You said:
But someone was smart enough to program the heart not to do this.
I was relishing every word up to this point, but this was a dramatic leap. It is at this point that you are essentially restating Paley's argument (or argument from design), that design implies a designer.
Darwin's greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. - Francisco J. Ayala
Source: Just a moment...
To feebly attempt to answer your two succint questions I would say as follows, but I eagerly anticipate the replies of others with more specific knowledge:
1. How do you explain such an intricate complex programming system?
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.
2. If you do not consider this mechanism to be'programmed by someone', why not?
Quite simply because there is an alternate explanation (the ToE) that elegantly eliminates the need for supernatural intervention.
Sorry that I'm not really getting to the "meat" of your question. I hope others will do so. Thanks again for a concise and well-worded post.
Edited by Briterican, : Preview fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 10-09-2009 7:56 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 5 of 123 (529638)
10-09-2009 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
10-09-2009 7:56 PM


1. How do you explain such an intricate complex programming system?
Descent with modification from less 'intricate' systems.
After all, the basic invertebrate 'heart' is a simple muscular tube which moves blood-like liquid by peristaltic contraction. Muscle sections working in a timed, sequenced, manner.
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'.
2. If you do not consider this mechanism to be'programmed by someone', why not?
First, because it doesn't seem at all necessary.
Second, because I've seen no evidence as to how/where/when such a 'someone' COULD have accomplished such a thing. Before considering such 'programming' by a 'someone' as the probable explanation, I would want some indication that such 'programming' by a 'someone' is at all possible, at least in principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 10-09-2009 7:56 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 6 of 123 (529669)
10-10-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
10-09-2009 7:56 PM


A single gene can change the world...
1. How do you explain such an intricate complex programming system?
The following link explains in greater detail what jacortina has said. The basic idea is that the simplest heart in the simplest organisms (invertebrates) would have been a muscular tube that rhythmically contracted and it was simple because all it was required to do was pump nutrients throughout the entire body.
As the invertebrates evolved to vertebrates, the fish heart would have been the next stage in the evolution of the mammalian heart. If you click on "fish," the diagram will show how the fish is heart still tube-like but with obvious sections of the tube. It is a two-chambered heart, still a single-circuit system. 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.
As fish begin to flop onto land, possibly to escape sea predators, becoming amphibians, the amphibian heart develops into a three-chambered heart. It is now multi-circuit with two atria and a single ventricle. The oxygenated and deoxygenated blood are somewhat separated by the different timings of the the right and left atria. First one pumps, then another. Again, only an order of several mutations over millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of years is needed to separate the atrium into 2 atria, time the contractions, and have deoxygenated blood go in one atrium and oxygenated blood go in the other.
As amphibians begin advancing futher and further away from water, they eventually become reptiles. The reptilian heart evolves to become a hybrid amphibian/mammalian heart. Again, the diagram for reptiles shows the same amphibian heart with a few changes that have evolved. First, the ventricle is partially divided. Second, the conus is also divided. This is true for most reptiles with one notable exception, the crocodile. The crocodile evolved a four chambered heart similar to birds and mammals except for slight differences that allow the crocodile to switch between normal and low oxygen conditions. Once again, these are minor changes that have occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years.
Finally, from reptiles we finally come to the birds and mammals. The splitting of the ventricle is complete, the atria are divided and we have the four chambered heart. The process from an invertebrate heart to a mammalian one is one that requires very little changes over time. Since a single mutation can have a large impact on the development of an organism, the change from invertebrate heart to mammalian heart needs perhaps a handful of mutations. Given that evolution occurs over the course of the history of life (which is dated to about 3.5 billion years) regardless of how life started, there would seem to be enough time for the mammalian heart to have developed.
2. If you do not consider this mechanism to be'programmed by someone', why not?
Simply because time and a few mutations can have a great effect of the development of a species. Even though our knowledge of genetics is incomplete, we know that a change in a single gene in human DNA can affect the development of a person. Think about all the number of genetic disease that occur from the mutation of a single gene. According to Wiki, there are estimated to be over 4000 single gene disorders. You, being a doctor, probably have resources that are better able to verify this.
This is why I don't believe that the mechanism was designed by someone. This is why I accept evolution as a credible theory.
*Disclaimer: My simplistic explanation using fish, amphibian, reptile by no measure means that I am suggesting that modern mammals evolved from modern reptiles, reptiles are descended from modern amphibians, and so on down the line. My explanation is to simplify the process and what I am actually referring to are the common ancestors that each group shared with the other groups.
Also, for additional reading, in September of this year, a genetic link was found between reptilian and mammalian hearts. Check it out here.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 10-09-2009 7:56 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 7 of 123 (529803)
10-10-2009 4:26 PM


Mutations: Are they ruling us?
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, : Typos
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jacortina, posted 10-10-2009 5:19 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied
 Message 33 by Izanagi, posted 10-11-2009 12:32 AM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 123 (529805)
10-10-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
10-09-2009 7:56 PM


How are you not arguing from incredularity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 10-09-2009 7:56 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 5:02 PM Larni has replied

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 9 of 123 (529806)
10-10-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Larni
10-10-2009 4:57 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 10-10-2009 4:57 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 10-10-2009 5:26 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2009 6:19 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 100 by tsig, posted 11-22-2009 8:10 AM Pauline has replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 10 of 123 (529807)
10-10-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Pauline
10-10-2009 4:26 PM


Re: Mutations: Are they ruling us?
Agreed. But still, there's programming. Where did it come from?
Your imagination. There is no programming.
All that was necessary was that it 'worked' in preceding organisms and their type of usage.
From that most simple tube of muscle where one section reacted a certain time after a previous section to accomplish circulation (even THIS case is 'intricate' according to your given definition) that sequencing you seem so impressed with is already working.
So, now, tell me how it might BE programming.
'It looks like it' is a very poor rationale.
What cases of such programming having been 'installed' within, actually built into, working living systems can you unambiguously identify? How and when was this installation accomplished?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 4:26 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 11 of 123 (529810)
10-10-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Pauline
10-10-2009 5:02 PM


An 'argument from incredulity' is a 'logical fallacy'.
wiki on logical fallacy writes:
In rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.
Fallacy - Wikipedia
You are basically saying: "I can't understand why it should be this way, so goddidit (or some variation thereof)".
ABE: I forgot to welcome you to EvC; it's a great place to learn as many of the posters are experts in their fields and the moderation is firm but fare. Hope you enjoy it here.
Edited by Larni, : Welcome

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 5:02 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2009 5:36 PM Larni has replied
 Message 13 by jacortina, posted 10-10-2009 5:38 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 16 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 5:50 PM Larni has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


(1)
Message 12 of 123 (529811)
10-10-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Larni
10-10-2009 5:26 PM


Moderator costs
...and the moderation is firm but fare.
On the contrary, the moderation is free. Which some may think is only fair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 10-10-2009 5:26 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 10-10-2009 5:42 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 13 of 123 (529812)
10-10-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Larni
10-10-2009 5:26 PM


Fallacies
It's generally associated with the 'argument from ignorance':
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
(and the 'argument from personal incredulity is included on that page)
quote:
Commonly in an argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).
In this case, Dr. Sing is taking the 'It is obvious that...' course to claim the existence of 'programming'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 10-10-2009 5:26 PM Larni has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 14 of 123 (529814)
10-10-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
10-09-2009 7:56 PM


"Intricate complexity" makes a nice change.
Dr. Sing writes:
My question to the evolutionists is twofold:
1. How do you explain such an intricate complex programming system?
Variation and selection.
2. If you do not consider this mechanism to be'programmed by someone', why not?
There's no requirement. If there were, the programmer would require a programmer, and the programmer of the programmer a programmer, and so on ad infinitum.
So, obviously, the existence of "intricacy" and "complexity" cannot be dependent on the phenomenon of intelligence, which has more "intricate complexity" than anything else we know.
In addition, our evolutionary view is supported by the simpler precedents of the human heart that we can observe in other creatures, and the fact that complexity is always preceded by simplicity in the fossil record (hardly necessary if your programmer were responsible, as both could appear instantaneously in geological time).
DR.Sing writes:
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...
It does to me too. It is very fanciful. You made the idea up.
Welcome to the site.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 10-09-2009 7:56 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 5:57 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 15 of 123 (529815)
10-10-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AdminNosy
10-10-2009 5:36 PM


Re: Moderator costs
On the contrary, the moderation is free. Which some may think is only fair.
Bah! My stupid phonetic brain!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2009 5:36 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024