AlphaOmegakid writes:
Therefore, random mutations over time must have caused the red blood cells to sacrifice their life for the benefit of the organism. But hold on! This change in red blood cells is huge! Not small! Any organism that would have mutated to have living red blood cells turn into dead red blood cells would not have had the capacity to replenish these cells. The bones and the marrow would have had to change (mutate)to provide additional cells, because the red blood cells could no longer divide and multiply on their own. But they would only have about 120 days for those changes to evolve. Then the kidneys which filter the blood would have had to adapt to these new cells. The heart would have to adapt to these new cells. The blood pressure would change, because the capilaries would have to adapt. The fluid dynamics of the blood would have changed, and all the other organs would have to compensate. And not only would they have to compensate, but they would have to all coordinate together to compensate in avery short period of time.
You are making the assumption that all this evolution must happen at once.
However, what if the body had already evolved to a point (for other means) where the red blood cells going dead did not destroy the rest of the body?
So here's the challenge topic, what "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living red blood cells to give up their life and that change be beneficial for the entire organism without having catastrophic consequenses for the life of the organism.
The "just so" story is that when the evolution of live red-blood cells to dead red-blood cells occured, the rest of the body was already in a position that it didn't affect it negatively.
We can test for this to be true or not. You say that "lower animals" have live red-blood cells. I predict that there exists some lower animal that already has the same capabilities that higher mammals do such that
if the live red-blood cells of this lower animal were to change to dead red-blood cells, then the lower animal would not necessarily die.
Are you willing to bet your idea on the same test? Are you willing to accept that your idea is not, actually, evidence of God's creation or evidence that defies evolutionary theory
if such a lower animal can be identified?
If so, I will proceed.
If not, then I thank you for your time, but your unverifiable methods for searching out the truth of the matter are useless no matter what conclusion you claim they point to.
Edited by Stile, : Changed my text of lower "mammal" to lower "animal"... 'cause that's what the guy actually said and I got it wrong... 'cause I'm dumb like that... and I ramble too...
™ Version 4.2
