Hearts come in a variety of shapes and forms all the way from single chambered hearts to multi-chambered hearts with 2, 3 and even 4 separate chambers. How could evolution have achieved such a feat one may wonder, and indeed creationists have held up this minor mystery as something evolutionary theory could and would never be able to explain.
As is so often the case with such gap arguments, science has not failed to disappoint our creationist friends.
Science Daily gives us a hint of what science has uncovered in an article called Hearts Or Tails? Genetics Of Multi-chambered Heart Evolution
The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. “The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity”, says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.
In the last few years, the study of a very simple chordate has provided science with a unique understanding of plausible pathways for the evolution of the heart. Based on science’s previous state of ignorance, creationists have claimed rather foolishly (St Augustine) that the heart could never be explained from an evolutionary perspective.
And yet.…
In “FGF signaling delineates the cardiac progenitor field in the simple Ciona intestinalis chordate” by Brad Davidson, Weiyang Shi, Jeni Beh, Lionel Christiaen and Mike Levine published in Genes & Dev. 2006 20: 2728-2738
Part of the abstract tells us the story
Conversely, application of FGF or targeted expression of constitutively active Ets1/2 (EtsVp16) cause both rostral and caudal B7.5 lineages to form heart cells. This expansion produces an unexpected phenotype: transformation of a single-compartment heart into a functional multicompartment organ. We discuss these results with regard to the development and evolution of the multichambered vertebrate heart.
What did the researchers find? Mesp, which in most vertebrates is involved in cardiac development, is in Ciona limited to a single pair of blastomeres (B7.5). The ones in front develop into a primitive heart, the ones in the back develop into the tail. So how do the cells ‘know’? Through localized induction, via the expression of Ets1/2 which is activated in the front half of the B7.5 lineage but not in the rear ones.
So far, these findings are interesting by themselves, however the scientists also discovered that if Ets1/2 is not asymmetrically induced, but rather in both the front and rear B7.5 cells, two separate heart chambers develop.
Figure 7. Supplemental heart progenitor cells generate a second myocardial compartment. (A) Transgenic Mesp-GFP tadpole, ventral view. (B) Transgenic Mesp-GFP, Mesp–EtsVp16 tadpole, ventra–lateral view. © Sequential frames from a movie of a Mesp–EtsVp16 transgenic juvenile heart (Supplementary Movie S3). In the bottom row, the pericardium is outlined in red and the myoepithelium is outlined in blue. The blue line indicates a peristaltic contractile wave visualized as it meets the plane of focus. The second chamber is outlined in purple. (Second and fourth panels) Note how rhythmic expansion of the small upper chamber is synchronous with progression of the peristaltic wave within the larger lower compartment (blue arrows). See Supplementary Movies for dynamic visualization of the distinct heart phenotypes; independent contraction of the two compartments is particularly evident in Supplementary Movies S4–S6.
In other words, a functional two-chambered heart developed.
Figure 8. Models for the heart specification network and chordate heart evolution. (A) Summary of the gene network controlling heart specification in Ciona. Mesp drives expression of Ets1/2 in all descendants of the B7.5 blastomeres. FGF signaling activates Ets1/2 in the rostral daughters, leading to the expression of FoxF and ultimately to the deployment of the heart differentiation cassette. (B) Summary diagram illustrating heart specification events on the cellular level. © Diagram illustrating a model of chordate heart evolution. According to this model, expansion of induction within a broad heart field led to the emergence of a dual heart phenotype (as illustrated experimentally through manipulation of Ets1/2 activation in Ciona embryos). In basal vertebrates, this transitional organ was patterned and modified to form two distinct chambers.
The conclusions are that
Evolutionary origins of the multichambered vertebrate heart Our findings support the hypothesis that a key transition in the emergence of dual-chambered hearts in the ancestral vertebrate involved recruitment of additional heart precursor cells (Fig. 8C). All extant vertebrate species have hearts with at least two chambers. In basal vertebrates (lamprey and teleosts), the heart already contains both ventricular and atrial chambers. Developmental studies indicate that the left ventricle represents the ancestral chordate heart compartment (Christoffels et al. 2004; Buckingham et al. 2005; Simoes-Costa et al. 2005). Progenitor cells of the atrium lie posterior to the ventricular field and will revert to a ventricular fate in the absence of retinoic acid signals or atrial-specific gene expression (Hochgreb et al. 2003). Modularity in the cis-regulatory elements of vertebrate Nkx2.5 genes suggests that new compartments arose in a “progressive” manner (Schwartz and Olson 1999). There are no species, in the extant or fossil fauna, representative of the transitional stage between the dual chambered heart of basal vertebrates and single-compartment hearts of invertebrate chordates, such as Ciona. Our study demonstrates that subtle changes in inductive signaling are sufficient to increase cardiac recruitment within a broad heart field (delineated by Mesp expression). Furthermore, this recruitment can potentiate the formation of new compartments through an intrinsic mechanism. This primitive multicompartment organ would then be gradually modified to exploit the selective advantage of independent inflow and outflow compartments (Moorman and Christoffels 2003; Simoes-Costa et al. 2005), leading to the formation of an ancestral dual-chambered vertebrate heart. Recent work indicates that the subsequent evolution of the right ventricle and outflow tract may also depend on the recruitment of a “secondary” progenitor population, neighboring the ancestral ventricular/atrial field (Christoffels et al. 2004).
The authors emphasize how our increased understanding of development of embryos has shown us how:
Compartmentalization of the Ciona heart in transgenic EtsVp16 juveniles provides a dramatic demonstration of how subtle changes in embryonic gene activity can potentiate the formation of novel adaptive traits. The evolutionary diversification of external appendages, including beak morphology in Darwin’s finches, have also been mimicked experimentally through perturbing gene activity within embryonic progenitor fields (Sanz-Ezquerro and Tickle 2003; Abzhanov et al. 2004; Harris et al. 2005; Kassai et al. 2005). These cases illustrate how shifts in proliferation or recruitment patterns within embryonic progenitor fields can generate novel structural complexity. Our study differs from these previous examples in that it involves an internal organ and relies primarily on shifts in patterns of recruitment rather than growth. Increased proliferation of primordia is likely to be highly constrained within the more rigid confines surrounding internal organs. Therefore, altering the distribution of progenitor cells represents a more suitable mechanism for potentiating diversification of internal morphology. We propose that variation in patterns of progenitor cell recruitment may have a general role in the evolution of novel internal structures, particularly those arising from interconnected fields, such as the pancreas, liver, and lung (Deutsch et al. 2001; Serls et al. 2005; Tremblay and Zaret 2005).
Embryology is uncovering how evolution proceeded through minor changes in regulatory expressions with significant morphological changes, showing how evolutionary processes are extremely capable in explaining the evolution of internal organs as well as the evolution of lets say the whale nostrils which moved from the snout to the top of the head.
HT: Our Christian friend and skeptic, Jacob who may be available to explain how ID creationism explains this?
You still haven’t explained this incredible claim.
I just provided you with an exquisite example of how minor regulatory changes can have significant morphological changes.
What part do you find problematic?
This is great.
The heart is central in evolution, because the highly efficient mammalian circulatory system was probably necessary to allow the support of large, oxygen-hogging brains.
The human heart is rather “poorly designed” in some ways, such as the way it receives its own blood supply (hence the high incidence of myocardial infarction and related disorders). However, it is very efficient at preventing the admixture of oxygenated and non-oxygenated blood, and congenital conditions that interefere with that to a significant degree have clinical significance - sometimes very serious clinical significance. Thus, a superficial view, not looking at other species, might be that “only a four chambered heart is compatible with life and such a heart could not have evolved from ‘less complex’ progenitors”. But of course, living animals show us that this is completely wrong, and reptiles and amphibians function with circulatory arrangements that are almost analagous to some of the most pathological human congenital heart defects - of course, they don’t have to maintain body temperature or support big brains, or big four-chambered hearts, for that matter.
So even living animals show us clearly that hearts began as simple tubes, and that additional functional chambers evolved. Each additional functional heart chamber allowed the circulation of more highly oxygenated blood, and subsequent changes took place within that context.
In addition to presenting an amazing and unexpectedly elegant model of how molecular genetic events might have driven early heart evolution, this line of research might help us to understand congenital heart defects some day. They are among the many congenital problems that are not clearly genetic, and seem to have much to do with the developmental environment, and the interaction between that environment and gene expression.
Yes, more reason to look for development to become a more intricate part of evolutionary theory as a source of variation
No, Billy, it’s just that you haven’t understood it.
A significant difference, I daresay.
Standard creationist goal post moving tactic. They always start with, “How can this happen? I can’t even imagine how it could happen! wooo ahhh woooo aaahhh”. And the phenomenon could be the evolution of eye, or blood clotting cascade or the evolution of multi-chambered heart, or the mighty flagellum…
Then science comes along and explains how it could. Sometimes it takes a whole book to explain how it could. Understanding it would require one or two college level courses in biology. Now they fault the answer with, “It is speculation! It says it could have happened this way! But it does not prove it did happen this way. Where is the fossil evidence? Where is this? Where is that? It is all just so stories”. Classic goal posting shifting tactics. However skeptical WW is of this explanation, he does not have a better explanation from ID perspective! It is still the best explanation we have. Till ID comes up with a better explanation, shut up.
I don’t think William Wallace, Jacob, Larry Faroutdude etc have the intellectual wherewithal to understand the explanations. It is all very comical because, the skepticism they show towards even innocuous things in science and the credulity they show towards the claims by religious people, Cdesign proponentsts etc.
Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial came out in 1991. Darwin’s black box in 1996. 17 years and 12 years later what significant new things ID movement has discovered? Has it explained? It went from “you can’t explain the eye” to “you can’t explain the absences of triple binding protein in the blah blah blah”. The rate at which they are going they will eventually be reduced to whining, “But that still does not explain why 2 plus 2 makes four”.
Homepage Levine Lab
Professor and Co-Director CIG (Center for Integrative Genomics) at the University of California in Berkeley
He finds everything problematic, especially since he was taught to ignore anything that either is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, or contradicts what he was specifically taught by his religious handlers.
Did the authors use the phrase
deliberately, as the academic equivalent of blowing a raspberry at Michael Behe?
(I think here that BrE “raspberry” = AmE “bronx cheer.)
Brad Davidson homepage
I wrote my own essay on vertebrate hearts. Here it is:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/dis[…]p;archival=1
Here’s a related thread from 3 years ago, about crocoile hearts: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/200[…]ed-croc.html
Say, do you look like Mel Gibson wearing a kilt and in need of a haircut?
The motto seems appropriate: “I’m goin’ ta pick a fight!”
A nice way of viewing this is as claiming that if Alice went over to Bob’s house, then if we can’t absolutely prove every step she took to get there …
… she must have teleported.
You forgot my favorite, “How do you know?, Were you there?”
I appreciate stories like this even if I’m incapable of fully understanding them.
I’m torn. Sometimes I want to say that it’s unbelievable that so many people fail to understand evolution when it’s such a simple concept. But then I see examples like this and realize how complicated the process becomes in reality.
We tend to try to come up with analogies of the mechanisms involved, like thinking of DNA as computer code or blueprints. But those simplifications break down once you start looking at examples like this.
Actually “raspberry” in this sense is perfectly good AmE. I don’t know if I ever use the term “Bronx cheer”. Then again, I violate the American conventions regarding periods (“full stops” to some) and quotation marks, so I may not be the best example. (Note: “the Bronx” is a place and deserves a capital letter.)
Actually I think “Bronx Cheer” is kind of archaic and “raspberry” is the normal usage here – think “Golden Raspberry Award”, the anti-Oscars.
I did notice somebody making a reference to “Britishers” and having been recently reprimanded for this I would suggest that “Briton” is more correct. Possibly my critic was just being touchy – after all, call some Americans a “Yank” and they will scream at you: “I AIN’T NO DAMN YANKEE!”
Gert Korthof had a correspondence with Lee Spetner over Spetner’s insistence that (sigh, how tiresome) macroevolution cannot be inferred from microevolution. Korthof replied: “How do you know you have a brain? You’ve never actually have seen your own brain, have you?” Korthof’s lesson in scientific inference …
Of course, Korthof in his usual Zen fashion said this in a way that had not the least visible trace of sarcasm in it. I’m impressed by the way he can read and review Darwin-basher books and not seem to feel the slightest irritation. Somehow that makes his deadpan criticisms all the more precisely targeted.
A better mapping analogy is a data base with recipes, where regulation is done by interactions of the products (sometimes with the data base itself). I think it covers development pretty well too.
But yes, eventually all analogies breaks down else they would be isomorphic theories.
Where do you get such a wrongheaded idea, that science will provide “explanations”? Sound suspiciously like the likewise wrongheaded claim that science is “common sense” when it is nothing but. QM is elegant but it certainly isn’t common sense arrived at looking on daily encountered systems.
Science can provide repeatable observations and tested theories. And PvM provided possible pathways as a result of a successful test of an old hypothesis along the lines of Dale Husband’s essay.
Now this can certainly be better tested if it starts to come together as a new theory. I would think such testing will come from what harold so wisely noted, the connection to congenital hearth defects. Now you may find it incredible that evolution ties into biology such as medicine. But around here, this is called “egnorant”.
How about: It’s inferred from later species being modified copies of earlier species, clades being modified copies of the same earlier species, matching nested hierarchies (from anatomical comparisons, fossils, and DNA comparisons), and geographic clustering of related species.
The extrapolation of macro- from micro- can then be inferred from those other things.
Henry
Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 4, column 19, byte 69 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187
Yes, yes, of course, but nobody but Darwin-bashers needs to be persuaded, and they don’t listen to stuff like that. It’s more fun to ask: “Well, how do you know you really have a brain? You’ve never actually seen it, have you?”
Why yes. Yes I was.
Don’t believe me? Go ahead, IDiots and prove I wasn’t - but - since the standard of proof apparently requires an eyewitness, you’ll have to find someone who was there and didn’t see me.
Go ahead, I dare you.
Um, or maybe inference from a big pile of evidence is enough after all.
This reminds me of a line from an episode of Star Trek - “Brain, brain, what is brain?” :p
Henry
Ah, I am relieved, finding out that I’m not the only one who realizes that the logic of dialogues with Darwin-bashers does not resemble a scientific discourse, being much closer to the script for a Looney Toons cartoon.
I find it fun to visualize Darwin-bashers as Elmer Fudd: “You still haven’t expwained dis incwedible cwaim.”
Ronald, please continue your discussion on the bathroom wall.
Why, I can’t see the evolution of the hearth mentioned. I take it you have no problem with that. You must agree with fellow ID creationist Behe then, as he accepts all sorts of evolution?
Being beside the point of the post, it is also besides the science. You mistake evolution which predicts changes in existing populations for abiogenesis. But as we observe existing populations :-P evolution isn’t depending on the later.
It would be much more interesting if instead of parading creationist falsehoods on the science you asked about what the reviewed science means.
And consider this: there is no evidence for design or a designer.
Ronnie, Ronnie!
First of all, that longish “L” shaped key on the right of your keyboard is the return key. It enables you to place paragraph breaks into your test, like this {return} {return}
See.
Now, on with the typical show.
Yup. So what?
Taking a few deep breaths while on the bottom of lake Erie will kill you. Still, last time lots of creatures live there. Taking a few deep breaths at 35000 feet will kill you. Geese can do it with ease.
And ocean vent tube worms are more than happy to thrive in hydrogen sulphates at 300 degrees under hundreds of atmosphere’s pressure, in fact, they would die without the stuff, since they metabolize it.
You can’t survive it, that doesn’t mean it can’t be survived.
And, by the way, science gives the earth about 1.6 billion years to cool before any significant organic molecules show up to do their thing. Are you contending that’s not enough time to cool the crust to reasonable levels? If not, how long do you think it should take? Show your math, please.
No, Pasteur’s experiments showed conclusively that the abiogenesis model of where flies and mold come from, a model widely believed since the times of the Greeks, was wrong. Pasteur conclusively proved flied laid eggs and molds have spores.
Only in the ID mind could a scientific investigation that conclusively overturned millenia of wrong assumptions be held up as proof that science is terminally wrong.
Um yeah. It’s not like we’re hiding this. In fact, it’s one of the great hotbeds of evolutionary research. Ironically, it stands out as especially interesting because much of the rest is getting to be pretty well understood.
Ahhh, at last, the inevidble non-sequitor, last refuge of the creationist argument.
Not only is your conclusion not remotely supported by fact, but in reality, had you done more research than quote-mining from a high schoool biology book, you’d know that there are many, many explanations, most of which are significantly more solid than “wildest speculation”.
In fact, that’s the problem. There are so many possible channels, and the evidence is so vexingly difficult to conclusively interpret, that the biggest challenge isn’t coming up with the a plausible explanation, it’s trying to cull through all the red herrings we know we already have.
Did you actually bother to read any of your kid’s textbook? Or did you just leaf through it in disgust, and tell him not to believe any of “that evolution crap his liberal atheist teacher was spewing”.
Not to mention that the fact that life is here now, plus the fact that at one time no life existed, kind of proves that life formed from non-life at least once.
Henry
Not as a dispute with anything you say HJ, just a comment …
I will flatly admit that, given the gross lack of clear evidence of the origins of life, that if anyone said life arose by supernatural intervention, I would not be able to say a single thing to contradict it, and I would have to admit it was one of the possibilities.
However … if supernatural intervention is one of the possibilities, then the fact of the matter is that the evidence doesn’t provide any support for it, either.
DB: “Well, if we have no idea what happened, then we *must* assume it was due to supernatural intervention!”
MRG: “Huh? Ah, sorry, that sounded I’m asking a question – I don’t even *want* you to try to explain that remark.”
Btw, that it is a gap in between theories, that themselves are consistent and well.
It is interesting to note that this is the case in all similar situations, such as cosmological early history which I would argue is a larger gap between theories. Or take the marriage between GR and QM, where string theory currently admits 10^500 or so possibilities for our universe.
We will always have gaps in observations, including gaps interesting society at large for one or other reason. But I would put money on the ability to narrow this particular gap.
Because geological and phylogenetic data on biomolecules go surprisingly long way back in my humble layman opinion. Because at least 2 planets and between 4 to 14 moons in the planetary system may have or had free water volumes with traces of sundry prebiotic chemistry or even abiogenesis events. And because we now know that we will definitely be able to see enough similar planets and their putative signs of life in the future, probably enough to make constraining statistics on abiogenesis as a phenomena.
But how far that will take us, if at all, remains to be seen.
Which the cdesign propentists will claim as evidence for a designer. Nothing that complex could exists with one. Unless, of course, it’s their particular designer. Who or what designed the designer? etc., etc, ad infinitum.
Oh yes. But you know, I feel on that score it is like other parts of biology such as neuroscience. As it reveals the nature of things, homo sapiens will look a lot less special. So while it won’t detract todays fundies from making ever more ludicrous claims, it will probably raise the bar for further recruitment.
Stevarino,Your logic defies sensibility. You can shoot yourself in the head.”You can’t survive it but it can be survived” That’s an oxymoron, used by morons. The part that you missed entirely is that by evolutionary explanation, environmental conditions that existed for millions of years were of heat so intense that even rocks were melted and the toxic gases throughout the planet were lethal. Thes factors are hardly conducive to for life to prosper, let alone begin. Your brilliant answer,”yup, so what” is as dense as DvM’s.
So, now you are here, trying to sell/make your bullshit argument “Evolution is not possible because we don’t have Abiogenesis fully explained”.
Please explain how Creation is possible inlight of your framing.…and “Goddidit” is not a scientific explanation.
Ronald chimes in…
Ahhh, you see, Ronald, the great thing about the internet is that the Gish gallop doesn’t work in cyberspace.
Even high school biology students (which is where you started this) understand that “Environmental conditions that exist for millions of years” eventually end on a planet that is 4 billion years old. Don’t forget, hardcore creationists universally insist that the second law of thermodynamics be obeyed at all cost, and that law says that a hot molten ball ‘o rock - even one the size of a planet - cools eventually.
In fact the early estimates of the cooling rate for the earth were so fast that they were originally thought to be evidence against evolution, because they conclusively proved the Earth wasn’t nearly old enough, at only 25 million years (the early models, of course, were formulated before radioactive decay was understood).
So which is it, Ronnie, in your model does the Earth never cool enough, or does it cool too fast?
But Ronnie, even if it took a billion years for the crust to reach thermal equilibrium, that would still leave 3.5 billion years for evolution to do it’s thing.
That’s, um, a lot of time.
So Ronnie, it’s your turn, since you’re obviously the expert.
The Earth…
… weighs about 5.9736×10^24 kg
… has a surface area of about 510,072,000 km^2
… given a solar constant of 1366w/m^2 and an average albedo of .36 it absorbs about 1.740×10^17 W
Assume, for the moment, that you can treat the Earth as a perfect spherical, blackbody radiator. Assume that the original molten temperature was 3000 degrees K and the current temp is about 300 degrees K (a 2700K delta). For the sake of easy math, you may simplify the model and assume pure conduction.
You tell us, Ronnie. In ballpark figures, how long should the Earth take to cool?
Is it less than the current 4.5 billion year estimated age?
If so, how much time did life have to achieve it’s current form?
The currently accepted answers are 4.5 billion, 1 billion and 3.5 billion years, respectively, but hey, Ronnie, if you’ve got better answers, let’s see ‘um (By the way, there are plenty of people here that can actually do this math, so please, don’t try to bluster your way out of it, that’s always so embarrassing).
My answer, “Yup, so what” was perfectly apropos.
“So what” is always an accurate answer to a non sequitur (and therefore a perpetually useful tool to have around YEC’s).
“So what” means “A does not causally imply B, you have not demonstrated the direct link you claim”. If you had been quote mining from a high school debate textbook instead of a biology textbook, you would know this.
Actually, it’s “Stevaroni“, not “Stevarino”.
“Stevarino” is another commentator who apparently also finds little sense in your current argument, but that’s the only connection I know of, so you should be insulting me, not him.
(Stevarino, I’m jealous of that name, by the way. It’s much better, and one my grandmother used to call me when I was only a wee tiny curmudgeon. Sadly, variations of “Steve” are limited and in great demand among us Steves, and apparently you got to the name well first. I hate you, though you shouldn’t really take that personally.)
Gota drops a drive-by…
Um, which studies would those be?
Because I haven’t seen them.
So, um, could you actually give me some details about where I go to find these mythical studies the ID side is always talking about and exactly how they prove some fatal flaw in evolution? Should be easy enough in the era of Google.
I’ll wait.
(cue the sound of crickets chirping, as once again, we wait forever for answers that never come)
@ The pitiful remains of Ronald:
How do you know, where you there?
More to the point, your so called “logic” isn’t sensible. As noted several times now, science gives plenty of time between cooling of rocks and observations of the first biomolecules produced by life processes. And Earth went through a lot of primordial atmospheres before and during the the first eras of evolution. Those gases were beneficial for the prebiotic and protobiontic chemistry, but would have been toxic for us.
Likewise, the first eras of life populations would find our free oxygen atmosphere highly toxic for them. We OTOH have evolved several adaptations for not only using the oxygen in our metabolism but to prevent oxidative damage.
Primarily the evolution for genes to produce the enzyme catalase which decomposes hydrogen peroxide into water and (molecular) oxygen.
I posted them before and it was erased
Sort of difficult to do when comments are erased
Gota sez:
Well, now, we wouldn’t want to have any martyrs, now would we?
So post one of ‘em again.
But no vitriol this time, no unformatted rants, no ad hominemem’s.
Just one clean link to any sort of scholarly information that offers some affirmitive, verifiable proof that ID has some kind of basis, not just another attack on evolution.
And please, no Behe or Dembski, both of which have been roundly discredited when outside investigators actually tried to analyze their results
No 2nd law of Thermodynamics, which explicitly does not apply to open systems with external energy sources.
No argument cobbled together by randomly quote-mining high school Biology textbooks and assembling the pieces out-of-context.
And nothing from Answers in Genesis, where a “compelling fact” by and large consists of things like “well, maybe the speed was different when God first made the stars”.
No, just simple verifiable facts and plain details. For an example of the concept “argument with details” see the top of this page, where you will find actual references like…
Or, of course, now that you’ve achieved your own private martyr status, you can ignore this request and continue to complain about how your views are oppressed.
Hmmm, now I wonder which path you’re going to choose?
Stevaroni, stevarino, stevarono, whatever, have you considered that your comments were erased because they only gota print stuff that makes sense!! maybe you had too many hominominomimems! Roni, what completely escapes your limited intelligence and you use it as a diversion, is the it makes no difference how long it took for the earth to cool, the fact is that it did get so hot as to kill all semplance of life. Once something is dead, no amount of cooling for no amount of time can return life. What is it that you don’t understand about this and death? Or are you just plain stupid?
Update