• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supposedly, evolution produced the circulatory system in any creature. That is also impossible. It is just way too irreducibly complex to have evolve

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Esteban X said:
You haven't, you've only made the claim. If you have then where is your Nobel Prize?
Click to expand...
His mom has it. She keeps it on the hearth above the fireplace. It looks real nice.

1707130868251.png
 
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
SavedByTheLord said:
That is funny.
Click to expand...
Yes - that's what I was aiming for...alas, I think your OP was even funnier...

But there was a semi-serious point...your argument is based on the baseless "irreducible complexity" argument...essentially that argument makes the preposterous claim that unless all the parts of the circulatory system we now observe appeared at once, none of it could possibly serve any useful function...that is simply garbage from a biological point of view. There are countless examples of body parts that become redundant in the process of biological evolution but are subsequently "repurposed" by nature - for example the hip bones of the blue whale have morphed into "hangers" for their ten foot penises. But why would a whale need hip bones anyway? (HINT: hip bones are usually used for hanging legs on).

Anyway, coming back to circulation, even the simplest circulatory systems that exist in the animal kingdom today don't have a heart (for example) but use muscles to squeeze the blood along the blood vessels by peristaltic action in much the same way that our intestines work to move food along the digestive tract.

All vertebrates have hearts that develop embryonically by two blood vessels twisting and fusing together to form a two-chambered heart...its a process that is common to all vertebrates up to that point...ours of course continues to develop into a four-chambered heart, others, such as fish remain at two and amphibians have two atria and a single ventricle, a few have two atria that are not completely separated from one another...

Given that all vertebrates have the same developmental "plan" (for the heart) and share common DNA fragments that code for its development in the embryo up to a certain point, its perfectly logical to conclude that the heart (and the rest of the circulatory system) of humans, other mammals and, indeed, other vertebrates also share a common biological ancestor. The only reason not to believe this is that somebody has told you to ignore the evidence and accept a "just so story" creation myth dressed up in pseudo-scientific terminological inexactitudes.

Anyway, to get back to my "first part" remark, the "first part" of the human circulatory system to evolve was almost certainly a single "blood vessel" that served by peristalsis to move oxygenated liquid around the comparatively very simple body plan of a very, very ancient common ancestor of humans, other mammals, all vertebrates and more than likely of mollusks and arthropods as well.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
siti said:
Yes - that's what I was aiming for...alas, I think your OP was even funnier...

But there was a semi-serious point...your argument is based on the baseless "irreducible complexity" argument...essentially that argument makes the preposterous claim that unless all the parts of the circulatory system we now observe appeared at once, none of it could possibly serve any useful function...that is simply garbage from a biological point of view. There are countless examples of body parts that become redundant in the process of biological evolution but are subsequently "repurposed" by nature - for example the hip bones of the blue whale have morphed into "hangers" for their ten foot penises. But why would a whale need hip bones anyway? (HINT: hip bones are usually used for hanging legs on).

Anyway, coming back to circulation, even the simplest circulatory systems that exist in the animal kingdom today don't have a heart (for example) but use muscles to squeeze the blood along the blood vessels by peristaltic action in much the same way that our intestines work to move food along the digestive tract.

All vertebrates have hearts that develop embryonically by two blood vessels twisting and fusing together to form a two-chambered heart...its a process that is common to all vertebrates up to that point...ours of course continues to develop into a four-chambered heart, others, such as fish remain at two and amphibians have two atria and a single ventricle, a few have two atria that are not completely separated from one another...

Given that all vertebrates have the same developmental "plan" (for the heart) and share common DNA fragments that code for its development in the embryo up to a certain point, its perfectly logical to conclude that the heart (and the rest of the circulatory system) of humans, other mammals and, indeed, other vertebrates also share a common biological ancestor. The only reason not to believe this is that somebody has told you to ignore the evidence and accept a "just so story" creation myth dressed up in pseudo-scientific terminological inexactitudes.

Anyway, to get back to my "first part" remark, the "first part" of the human circulatory system to evolve was almost certainly a single "blood vessel" that served by peristalsis to move oxygenated liquid around the comparatively very simple body plan of a very, very ancient common ancestor of humans, other mammals, all vertebrates and more than likely of mollusks and arthropods as well.
Click to expand...
When anyone can explain how any irreducibly complex organ or function can evolve through genetic errors especially with sexual reproduction let them prove their assertion. No one has yet. They just resort to Lamarckism.

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?
during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.
 
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
SavedByTheLord said:
When anyone can explain how any irreducibly complex organ or function can evolve through genetic errors especially with sexual reproduction let them prove their assertion. No one has yet. They just resort to Lamarckism.

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?
during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.
Click to expand...
You can lead a horse to water...
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
When anyone can explain how any irreducibly complex organ or function can evolve through genetic errors especially with sexual reproduction let them prove their assertion. No one has yet. They just resort to Lamarckism.

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?
during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.
Click to expand...
First you need to learn how to ask questions properly. Otherwise no one needs to answer you.
 
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
SavedByTheLord said:
When anyone can explain how any irreducibly complex organ or function can evolve through genetic errors especially with sexual reproduction let them prove their assertion. No one has yet. They just resort to Lamarckism.

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?
during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.
Click to expand...
...but you can't make it drink...

Against my better judgment I will respond to a couple of your points...

"The lamprey" is not a thing. Lamprey is the common name for a family of elongated, jawless fish. Whilst it is remarkable that a 360 million year old fossil lamprey strongly resembles modern lampreys, the fossil species is long extinct. There are more than 40 extant species of modern lampreys recognized today...all a bit different from one another and from earlier species that no longer exist. Clearly they have evolved, but even if they had not, they would represent a single exceptional case that in no way invalidates the general rule.

How do you claim that something that remains stable for 360 million years "refutes billions of years"?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
SavedByTheLord said:
When anyone can explain how any irreducibly complex organ or function can evolve through genetic errors especially with sexual reproduction let them prove their assertion. No one has yet. They just resort to Lamarckism.
Click to expand...
Theories in science aren't proven true. A successful
theory is "useful", ie, it has explanatory power &
can make testable predictions. If the predictions
aren't proven false, then it's merely verification of
usefulness.
Evolution involves many aspects that have been
verified in many such predictions & tests. It's not
been disproven. Continual claims by creationists
that this or that can't happen are unsupported by
science. And many, eg, irreducible complexity of
eyes, have been debunked by finding intermediate
steps.
There is no scientific alternative to evolution.
Creationism involves assumption of an undetectable
deity acting in untestable ways. As a great comedian
once said...
Das ist nicht nur nicht ricthtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch.
IOW, it's neither right nor wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top