Design evidence # 111: The heart

Sonnikke:
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.Except that there are numerous organisms that have neither a circulatory nor a nervous system.Many plants have a sort of circulatory system, but no plants have nervous systems.There are some primitive animals with nervous systems but without brains or circulatory systems. Cnidarians (sea anemones, jellyfish, etc.), for example, which have non-centralized nerve nets.And it's not difficult to image some early cnidarianlike animal evolving hearts and brains. Not very fancy ones at first, but enough to give it an edge.(my account of how the heart originated)
This is a very cute story or "just-so" story, but it is nothing more than that (no offence Ipetrich).And why do you come to that conclusion?And why don't you study embryology some time? A human heart starts off very much like a fish heart, and it splits into two sub-hearts as it grows.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).Sonnikke, what would you consider an acceptable nontheological explanation?

[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++
Holmes, why do you insist on misquoting me?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++Please name my numerous misquotes which you suggest with this statement. I certainly do not try to do so, and am willing to correct my errors when made aware of them. While I do have a sarcastic streak you repeatedly use ad hominem attacks on me which does not help me keep my tendencies in check. Please help me to help myself and refrain from the ad hominems.That said, I apologize for misunderstanding your position. Up until now you have not used true IC based ID theory. When I confronted you with this, your response which downplayed the importance of IC had me thinking you didn't use it at all.However, it is true to say that so far you have not used IC in the rigorous form that ID requires.While one may infer design using the loose form of IC that you use, it is hardly rigorous. Since my intention in these forums is to discuss true ID theory, I am not going to waste time delivering their arguments against your position. Read Behe's book (Darwin's Blackbox) and Dembski (any one where he discusses the build up of HIS IC theory). They shoot downn your arguments for "loose IC" just fine. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I believe someone has already explained this using Behe's own mousetrap analogy but I'll lay it out for you without the analogy.What you are looking at is an integrated system. You are also looking at a complex system. Without question if you remove a piece of an integrated system the system would break down. That is not true IC.IC takes into account the following fact about living systems: They are organic and have grown into the integrated system you see. They were not built just now, even if they may have been designed in the past.This phenomenon (of small groups of cells growing into large complex-integrated systems) has been going on for some time. The final form of these birth-growth cycles change over time. This is also undebatable.The position taken by "evos" is that this cycle (which is evident and undebatable) has been going on "from the beginning" and the changes within this cycle (influenced by the environment) are what accounts for the diversity of life and all the systems within any single entity.The position by ID theory is that certain systems cannot have developed through the process just described, thus creating the inferrence of our having been designed at some point rather than growing continuously, and this may be proven through IC. This is because an IC system MUST have formed all at once, or not at all, and the odds that all pieces happened to form all at once is astronomical (this is a rough description but good enough for here).Since you have said you are only talking about humans I will stick to them and your specific design argument.First of all, you have not described a "system" at all. Certainly a being will die, or the other systems shut down, if you "remove" one of the parts you are talking about, but what is the system you are describing except "staying alive?"Then again, you are not completely correct about the breakdown process anyway. Have you never heard of a brain dead person whose heart and blood, sometimes even the lungs, continue to function?Regardless, what you need to show is that the "life" system you describe, with integrated parts of heart, brain, blood, and nervous system (I'd argue this goes along with brain), must have been formed all at once or not at all.While I'd agree it would be ultra astronomical for all of these parts to have formed in one generation, you have not proven the first and most important part of the IC argument. That means this is not even a sloppy IC argument.You have simply said "without the one the other parts fall apart". I don't think anyone can disagree with that.And that's where the circularity comes from. You say "if Y then Z". And everyone will agree to Y so Z must be true. But in reality you have a hidden premise (X) which involves Z.I can rephrase your argument to make it clearer.The heart needs the brain which needs the nervous system which needs the blood vessels which need the heart, thus the system is highly integrated. This integration proves that the system grew together over long periods of time into the necessary form we have seen.You'd agree with the first part, but not the conclusion (and quite rightly), because the conclusion hinges on the hidden premise that evolution had taken place.If your argument functions in some other way, I am not seeing it. If I am wrong please elucidate.It is important for you to realize the "evos" do hold the advantage here. They are not positing anything different than what we see everyday. To automatically refuse to believe their position, or call their possible models "just so", you'd have to be saying you don't believe things reproduce and change through the reproduction cycle. I assume you believe this happens.Because of the strength of this evidence, you must either prove continuous cycles could not have occured, could not account for certain features (IC), or give proof for the existence of a being capable of designing living organims without using the designed objects as the proof.Behe ends his book by discussing "largescale" systems like the one you describe. He is not conclusive that such systems can be proven to be IC, and admits it becomes harder to prove the larger you get due to all the possible paths which could have been used to form them.Thus your attempt to escape lpetrich's accurate and very plausible method for the formation of the heart, by moving the goal posts to the larger life system, only made your job harder.And you can say "cute just-so" all you like, but that is purely ad hominem. The eye in specific has been written off as an IC system by Behe. He included it in his book but has admitted that formation theories are plausible enough that one cannot say its formation via these routes are impossible, or even improbable.holmes

[QUOTE] by peter++++++++++++
Yes that's what IC means ... remove a part and the system
stops operating in the way that it did.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I hope you got from my response to sonnikke, that that isn't what real IC is.Neither is it, "I cannot believe it formed that way."Used properly IC is "I can prove it could not have formed that way."The problem with ID Theory is that some people claim to use IC when they are not, and those within the ID camp who are so eager to use IC to prove something NOW that they accept insufficient proof.Both failures look pretty similar, but they are not the same.Whether anyone will ever be able to get the proof IC demands is debatable... and also problematic.holmes

quote:

---

Used properly IC is "I can prove it could not have formed that way."

---

In that case, at the present, IC should be backburnered until
such an example exists in a form which cannot be refuted.

quote:

---

In that case, at the present, IC should be backburnered until
such an example exists in a form which cannot be refuted.

---

I agree, and that's what I am interested in finding here. Are there any real ID theorists around here that are approaching this point?If the ID theorists (such as Behe and Wells) truly believe what they say, then they have to realize that while they have raised a legitimate and interesting question, they have jumped the gun by decades if not centuries in proclaiming they have found evidence.If the have faith (in their God as well as their theory), they ought to have a little bit more patience.holmes

Ipetrich's story:

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).

---

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 storyAnd 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

Sonnike,You have not responded. Ipetrich made the same point in post #31, but in more detail. Have you no answer?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Please explain your definition of ad hominem.

---

It is essentially "calling names." Up till this last post you have usually relied on "cute just-so" labelling to make your case against evolutionary theories.This is essentially nothing but name-calling, for there is no way to answer your argument except "is not."What you just posted is not name-calling. Stick with this method. In fact, adding "cute story" after your argument, as you just did, is fine because we now know your definition and can work with it.Q1. Please explain how you would test this theory.A: There is no need to "test this theory" unless you do not believe in reproduction and changes during reproduction. Birth defects do occur and while most are not beneficial, some are. since the described scenario involves known mechanisms it is a plausible explanation. Unless...Did you mean test the theory that this particular example was the case long ago? Sadly the only way this can be tested is by luck. We are dealing with slowly accumulating fossil records. We can look for such fossils all we want, but it will be chance which delivers any evidence in the end (especially internal structures of softbodied animals). This same problem haunts ID and creationist camps.Q2. Please explain how the worm originated.A: Irrelevant. The discussion is formation of the heart, not abiogenesis. You can duke it out with Behe on that one.Q3. Please explain by what law and mechanism an open circulatory system could transform itself into a closed system.A: Unless you know of a law that this explanation violates, there is no need for lpetrich to refer to a law at all. This criticism simply makes no sense.The mechanism request is valid and relatively easily answered. It may have started as an open system which slowly grew more self-contained (through overgrown flaps of skin) until it closed off completely.Q4. Please explain how a birth defect could "create" a whole new organ.A: It cannot all at once, or at least I would find that problematic. I don't believe lpetrich said this anywhere. Like a meandering river whose changes over time slowly create isolated oxbow lakes with their own environments, general organs may develop specialized sub organs or tissues which eventually function independently. This takes many generations.Q5. Please explain how the system transformed itself step-by-step, while remaining fully functional.A: Essentially he did, unless you need him to account for every precise flap of skin to create separate walls and valves. There was nothing here that was so controversial that it would not remain fully functional if included. The biggest "gap" would be the growth of an extra throat... how often would this occur in a way that would be useful and passed down?Q6. Please explain how this scenario translated into higher organisms in a step-by-step fashion.A: Interestingly you missed your chance to skewer his "story." He does not have to address how higher organisms came to be, since he is only talking about hearts at the moment, which could be passed down within and through species.However, I will skewer him for making the type of misstatement which Wells and co are proud to point out. The need of land animals for greater oxygen and dumping carbondioxide could not have driven the creation of separate subhearts. Unless evolution is teleologic this is impossible. It should have been stated that the formation of subhearts, improved blood flow (oxygen/CO2 issues),and thus allowed for greater capabilities and spread of land vertebrates.Q7. Please show what evidence there is for this theory.A: This is the same question as #1. My guess is this may be your way of asking for proof that this particular example was the way it happened in the past. May second answer for #1 above deals with that.In the end this is not a "just so" story, unless lpetrich claimed that this is exactly the way it happened. The fact is we don't know exactly what happened. His explanation is a plausible route given known mechanisms for biological change. It is certainly not controversial to say this circulatory change happened within a species.His example, as it pertains to its eventual presence in humans, does assume evolutionary style reproduction-change cycles (speciation). That is fine because it was asked how evolution could explain the heart. This is how evolutionary theory could explain the heart.If someone were to use this theoretical example to say "this explanation proves evolutionary theory is true",would be mistaken. That would be circular logic.lpetrich did not do that. His description is sound and only shows that evolutionary theory does provide explanatory mechanisms for development of the heart.It could be argued that it is a better argument for how the heart developed than Creationist models as it involves known mechanisms (basic reproduction-change cycles) and does not involve interventions by unknown entities using unknown mechanisms.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-20-2003]

I agree.I have not suggested tht ID is wrong ... only that, with
current evidence I cannot accept it ... and that current
arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

A: There is no need to "test this theory" unless you do not believe in reproduction and changes during reproduction. Birth defects do occur and while most are not beneficial, some are. since the described scenario involves known mechanisms it is a plausible explanation.

---

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:

---

A: Irrelevant. The discussion is formation of the heart, not abiogenesis. You can duke it out with Behe on that one.

---

I do love how that is the typical response from evo's."Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as
it 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 and
abiogenesis 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:

---

A: Unless you know of a law that this explanation violates, there is no need for lpetrich to refer to a law at all. This criticism simply makes no sense.

​

The mechanism request is valid and relatively easily answered. It may have started as an open system which slowly grew more self-contained (through overgrown flaps of skin) until it closed off completely.

---

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:

---

A: It cannot all at once, or at least I would find that problematic. I don't believe lpetrich said this anywhere. Like a meandering river whose changes over time slowly create isolated oxbow lakes with their own environments, general organs may develop specialized sub organs or tissues which eventually function independently. This takes many generations.

---

Re-read his story.

quote:

---

A: Essentially he did, unless you need him to account for every precise flap of skin to create separate walls and valves. There was nothing here that was so controversial that it would not remain fully functional if included. The biggest "gap" would be the growth of an extra throat... how often would this occur in a way that would be useful and passed down?

---

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:

---

If someone were to use this theoretical example to say "this explanation proves evolutionary theory is true",would be mistaken. That would be circular logic.

​

lpetrich did not do that. His description is sound and only shows that evolutionary theory does provide explanatory mechanisms for development of the heart.

---

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 IntelligenceRegards,
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]

sonnikke:
How can you compare a single celled organism to a heart?Bacteria don't need a heart or blood vessels; all their circulation is done by diffusion. And they are small enough for diffusion to be satisfactory for them; it's only big organisms that have blood vessels and sap vessels.So there is a simple way to live without a circulatory system: be tiny.And secondly, what part of a bacteria could you remove and still have it fully functioning?There's a "Minimal Genome Project" intended to address this very question. Basically, it's about constructing the organism with the smallest genome that can make it still be an organism -- though one that takes all of its molecular building blocks from outside.And irreducible complexity can easily be produced by evolution. All that is necessary is to remove some scaffolding on the way. Consider the evolution of air-breathing from water-breathing animals. The intermediates had been able to breathe both, though their air-breathing descendants are unable to breathe water -- even completely aquatic ones like cetaceans and sirenians.How many beneficial "defects" do you know?"Defects" that help bacteria and insects resist efforts to kill them -- beneficial to them, of course. The evolution of immunity to antibiotics and pesticides is well-known.Also, bacteria are known to evolve the ability to eat substances that had not existed before the chemical technology of the past century, like nylon oligomers."Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as
it is currently concieved. Mathmatically there is a zero probability
for any kind of cell development by haphazzard chance alone.That's the one-big-jump probability -- which is NOT zero, even if extremely tiny.However, evolution works by steps, and working in steps improves the probabilities enormously.This, of course, is why evolutionists wish to claim that evolution and
abiogenesis are two separate subjects, and that they do not wish to
answer questions about abiogenesis.One species from another (evolution)
Life from nonlife (abiogenesis)are completely separate questions.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:
(the seeding hypothesis...)However, that is too much of a deus ex machina; it can account for anything, and thus really nothing. It is entirely possible that the Earth was seeded with its first life about 4 billion years ago by time travelers who wanted to ensure that they'd come into existence, but what positive evidence is there for such a possibility?... 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. ...Actually, some animals, like annelids and arthropods, have relatively primitive circulatory systems. Their hearts are only simple tubes and they have only a few blood vessels.

Sonnikke:
1. Please explain how you would test this theory.Since I don't have a time machine that I can use to go back in time and study Vendian ocean-floor worms, I'm stuck from working backwards from present-day-organism features and what can be preserved in the fossil record.The ultimate test will come as more is learned about how genes specify the shapes of body parts -- does a heart go through a phase where it develops just like a throat? There is some evidence of that, as in the NK and tinman genes, which is why I mentioned that hypothesis.2. Please explain how the worm originated.A question entirely separate from the question of the origin of the heart.3. Please explain by what law and mechanism an open circulatory system could transform itself into a closed system.The ends of the heart elongate, becoming blood vessels. They repeatedly branch, which helps them service organs more conveniently. The ends develop some affinity for meeting each other, which ultimately closes the circulation.And there are present-day animals with open circulation, like arthropods with their "hemolymph".4. Please explain how a birth defect could "create" a whole new organ.The original heart was not a complete four-chambered heart like a human one, but a simple muscular tube -- much like a throat. And many present-day animals have similar sorts of hearts.5. Please explain how the system transformed itself step-by-step, while remaining fully functional.How would any of these steps render a heart nonfunctional? I don't see how that's the case.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.What evidence would be satisfactory in the absence of a time machine?

quote:

---

How many beneficial "defects" do you know?

---

It doesn't belong on this thread, but how about the hemoglobin C mutation which is fairly common in West Africa? It gives homozygotes a 93% lower incidence of malaria, with only occasional ill effects in some of the people with it. If you are remotely interested, Sonnikke, I'll start a thread on it.

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"