Evolution of the Heart

| 149 Comments

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.

heart B7_5.png

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.

fig 7.pngFigure 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. (C) 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.

heart_specification.png

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. (C) 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?

149 Comments

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.

You still haven’t explained this incredible claim.

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.

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

You still haven’t explained this incredible claim.

No, Billy, it’s just that you haven’t understood it.

A significant difference, I daresay.

William Wallace: You still haven’t explained this incredible claim.

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

PvM:

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?

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

can generate novel structural complexity

deliberately, as the academic equivalent of blowing a raspberry at Michael Behe?

(I think here that BrE “raspberry” = AmE “bronx cheer.)

Brad Davidson homepage

Assistant Professor of Molecular & Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona

I wrote my own essay on vertebrate hearts. Here it is:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/dis[…]p;archival=1

The hearts of vertebrate animals give a strong indication that random processes, not preconceived design, was the factor in the development of circulatory systems over millions of years. Let us examine the various forms:

Fish: Their hearts are two chambered, with the blood going first to the gills to be oxygenated and then to the rest of the body under low pressure. It is a slow and very inefficient process.

Amphibians: Their hearts are three chambered, with two atria and one ventricle, enabling the blood to be pumped twice through the heart per round trip rather than once like in a fish. But oxygenated blood from the lungs is constantly mixed with deoxygenated blood from the rest of the body as the heart beats. It’s the sort of thing you would expect if a mutation merely added an third chamber to a fish heart, instead of an ideal heart design for amphibians.

Reptiles: They have hearts that are four chambered, but the two ventricles are still connected by an opening between them, allowing some mixing of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood. Again, a simple mutation would account for this, not intelligent design.

Although the hearts of fish, amphibians, and reptiles are poor in design, they in fact are adequate for these animals because they are cold-blooded and need less oxygen than birds and mammals, which are warm-blooded.

Birds and mammals: Their hearts are completely devided into four chambers, two atria and two ventricles, and under normal conditions at no point is oxygenated and deoxygenated blood allowed to mix except in the liver.

Here’s a related thread from 3 years ago, about crocoile hearts: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/200[…]ed-croc.html

William Wallace:

You still haven’t explained this incredible claim.

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!”

Ravilyn Sanders:

“But that still does not explain why 2 plus 2 makes four”.

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.

Ravilyn Sanders:

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”.

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.

(I think here that BrE “raspberry” = AmE “bronx cheer.)

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.)

noncarborundum:

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!”

MememicBottleneck:

You forgot my favorite, “How do you know?, Were you there?”

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.

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

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.

WW Wrote:

You still haven’t explained this incredible claim.

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”.

Gert Korthof had a correspondence with Lee Spetner over Spetner’s insistence that (sigh, how tiresome) macroevolution cannot be inferred from microevolution.

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 107 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Henry J:

The extrapolation of macro- from micro- can then be inferred from those other things.

Henry

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?”

You forgot my favorite, “How do you know?, Were you there?”

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

stevaroni:

Go ahead, I dare you.

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.

Hey,evols, consider this.

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.

It further states,” Had you been there, a few deep breaths would have killed you!”

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.

Pasteur’s experiments proved that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, also called abiogenesis, life arising from non life, was not possible

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.

A stew of organic molecules is a long way from a living cell, and the leap from non life to life is the greatest gap in scientific theories of earth’s early history

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.

Having no explanation for the impossible gap from life to non life, with not even the wildest speculation as explanation

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”.

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.

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

Stanton said:

Why don’t you tell the Nobel Prize Committee about your trial?

I just might.

Seth Wright said:

Ha ha, very funny. You know, it is not nice to pick on someone younger than you.

Did your parents ever bother to tell you that it’s rude to sass and ignore your betters?

Seth,

You haven’t managed to answer a single one of my questions, not even the one about the easter bunny that laid the eggs. You can’t disprove anything about evolution so I win and you lose, ha ha, ha.

Now if you really want to learn something, go to the talk origins web site and study their article entitled “39 Evidences for Macroevolution”. Then you can come back here and tell us about how there are no transitional forms or how mammals could not evolve from birds or whatever other nonsense you have been fed. Until then you are the lazy and ignorant one. The web site is talkorigins.org. I really wouldn’t believe anything they tell you at ICR.

Oh and by the way, you are the only one trying to defend your beleifs here and you are not doing a very good job of it.

Ok. So on your whole “Easter Bunny” thing? What kind of a psycho whackjob are you? Who believes in the Easter Bunny? Your article still shows no transitional forms of animals, and all you are doing is confusing the similarities God made with your own foolish ideas. The egg proves mammals could not have evolved from birds, like the cladogram shows. Finally, one more evolution disproving bird. Where did a woodpecker evolve from and what did it evolve into. (P.S Sometimes the best way to answer a question is by asking a question ((One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”)) as i am doing.)

Stanton said:

it’s rude to sass and ignore your betters?

That would be a matter of opinion.

Ok. So on your whole “Easter Bunny” thing? What kind of a psycho whackjob are you? Who believes in the Easter Bunny? Your article still shows no transitional forms of animals, and all you are doing is confusing the similarities God made with your own foolish ideas. The egg proves mammals could not have evolved from birds, like the cladogram shows. Finally, one more evolution disproving bird. Where did a woodpecker evolve from and what did it evolve into. (P.S Sometimes the best way to answer a question is by asking a question ((One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”

He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”)) as i am doing.)

“We heard you twice the first time.”

Seth Wright said:

I don’t have to talk about any other egg than what I mentioned. Who cares what other eggs are like …

Biology cares.

Seth Wright said:

I think the latter is true, but that is just opinion. So are we going to get back to the discussion? Did anyone read the article?

I did read the article. It was about the evolution of the heart. Why did you bring up eggs and fossils and your current biology score?

I still maintain that no one, not even a fourteen-year-old, is this dumb. Seth is an April fooler who just won’t quit.

Seth Wright said:

You are defending your beliefs here people!

Evolution is not a belief. It is not held on the basis of faith. Scientists hold to evolution tentatively because the evidence we have today supports evolution. If, tomorrow, new evidence is brought forward, then scientists would modify or even abandon the idea of evolution.

So if you want to overturn evolution, don’t just recycle to oft-discredited rubbish of the ICR.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Instead, find some evidence.

At 6:15 pm, Seth Wright said:

Ha ha. Well, my work here is done. …

At 6:17 pm, Seth Wright said:

…I have done research for three years over this, since 7th grade.

Well, that was done for two minutes.

And there you have it folks, completely unable to discuss any topic in Biology with any degree of competence, the prepubescent legend in his own mind resorts to preaching and quoting the Bible. Now who would have ever thought that someone who doubts evolution would have a religious motivation?

Mammals evolving from birds, please. Exactly what cladogram are you referring to that supposed showed that? Exactly how can you claim that there are no transitional forms after supposedly just having read an article that cited literally hundreds of them, complete with references from the scientific literature?

Oh and by the way, there are lots of articles on woodpecker evolution also. You should really become familiar with them before spouting off about things you know nothing about. You really should not believe anything that ICR tells you, as I may have mentioned before. Or maybe you think that a woodpecker could not bust out of an egg either.

April fools is over, at least for most of us.

http://tolweb.org/Amniota

Mammals are in the synapsida branch.

Reptiles and birds are in the diapsida branch.

Seth, when I was fourteen, I swallowed Von Daniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” hook, line, and sinker. It’s embarassing now, but at least I didn’t spew off about it somewhere that it would be preserved forever.

Ten years from now you are going to wish you hadn’t written any of this nonsense. Just sayin’.

But the most important thing I think we have learned is, Morton’s Demon has taken total control AT LEAST by the 7th grade, after which all that remains is to rationalize error indefinitely. This young ignoramus not only never examines anything that doesn’t reinforce his preconceptions, he doesn’t see the slightest reason to do so. After all, he already has Truth. Now all that he sees remaining is to bring light to the Godless.

Seth is the victim of irrational parents, who are almost surely the victims of THEIR parents. The parasite model of creationism remains as persuasive as ever.

Seth Wright said:

(P.S Sometimes the best way to answer a question is by asking a question (snip)… Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”)) as i am doing.)

So now you’re comparing yourself to Jesus? Does your daddy know you think like this?

You are not Jesus. Not even close. Shame on you, little boy. I’ve read his words, he was ahead of his time. You are just an arrogant, self-righteous little turd with zero knowledge of the real world. I hope you grow out of it someday.

p.s. baraminology is the attempt to disguise the belief of biblical ‘created kinds’ with a patina of pseudo-science.

fnxtr said:

Seth, when I was fourteen, I swallowed Von Daniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” hook, line, and sinker. It’s embarassing now, but at least I didn’t spew off about it somewhere that it would be preserved forever.

I won’t quite go as far as admitting to swallowing it hook, line, and sinker, but at Seth’s age it certainly seemed more credible than the supernatural explanation coming from our Divinity teacher. With the maturity of another forty years, it is obviously bullshit. That said, it still seems more credible than the supernatural explanation that came from our Divinity teacher.

Seth, Flint mentioned Morton’s Demon above. Perhaps you should read the article below if you are unfamiliar with this concept. A similar creature probably (maybe even necessarily,) exists within all of us as a by-product of the information filters needed to allow a finite brain to cope with what is, to all intents and purposes, a limitless stream of information about the world around us. Make sure he is your slave and not your master.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/[…]h/feb02.html

An even more dramatic telling of Glenn Morton’s story is here:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

The most sorrowful aspect is that when Morton realized, through his job in geology, that the scientific claims of the ICR were false, he went through a crisis of faith. After hearing many repetitions, he had swallowed also the lie that “evolution and religion are inconsistent”. Once he abandoned both the fraudulent scientific claims and the lie of inconsistency, he was able to get over his crisis.

I hope, Seth, that you will be able to reach a similar positive conclusion once you cast away both sorts of lie.

Oh, so now we are on the topic of Demons? I will tell you, yes, they do exist, and yes, there are a few I am battling, but no, Mortons Demon is not one of them.

Seth,

If you are really interested in learning about woodpecker evolution, just go to the talkorigins.org web site that I recommended. There you will find refutations of just about every creationist scenario that was ever perpetrated, including woodpecker evolution. Just search the archive using the term woodpecker. Here are the first two sentences from the woodpecker article:

“Recently, a number of creationist individuals and organizations have created websites touting the woodpecker as an example of an organism which “could not have evolved.” In making their case, they have presented a great deal of information which is either distorted or patently false concerning the anatomy and physiology of the woodpecker, particularly with regard to its astonishingly long tongue.”

Now if you can demonstrate that you read the article, then I am sure that someone will be happy to discuss it with you. If however you continue to spout nonsense that has been spoon fed to you by the ICR then I, and most probably everyone else, will continue to ignore you and your misguided attacks on rationality.

By the way, I’m still waiting for the reference for that cladogram that you claimed showed that birds came from mammals. As an expert on egg evolution I’m sure you are aware that reptiles have shelled eggs, right? That should tell you something.

Seth Wright said:

Oh, so now we are on the topic of Demons? I will tell you, yes, they do exist, and yes, there are a few I am battling, but no, Mortons Demon is not one of them.

I think even Morton would regard his demon as metaphorical, you know, like the stories in the Bible.

Seth Wright said:

Oh, so now we are on the topic of Demons? I will tell you, yes, they do exist, and yes, there are a few I am battling, but no, Mortons Demon is not one of them.

“Morton’s Demon” is a mental block where one only recognizes the things that conform to their beliefs, and refuses to recognize anything that is contrary to their beliefs.

By analogy with Maxwell’s demon, Morton’s demon stands at the gateway of a person’s senses and lets in facts that agree with that person’s beliefs while deflecting those that do not.

Morton’s Demon finds extraordinarily secure homes in the minds of creationists, like yourself, Seth, who use their faith in Jesus Christ as a license to be arrogant assholes who, because they read the King James’ Translation of the Bible literally, feel themselves more privileged than those who have spent decades out of their lives studying various subjects (including Evolutionary Biology).

It should be noted that Glenn Morton’s story is by no means unique.

People like ICR their it’s ilk at the Creation Museum keep bleating that scientific “conclusions” are shaped largely by “preconceptions”, and if you just look at the evidence from a biblical perspective, the truth shall set you free.

Bull pookey.

People like Glenn and his once-YEC colleagues convincingly demonstrate that the critical variable isn’t preconception it’s honesty.

Don’t forget that virtually all the early pioneers in the field were quite seriously religious men (at the time, theological background was considered an important aspect of a learned man).

Still, though many would write how much it pained them, they found that they could not ignore the evidence.

Thing is, it doesn’t matter where you start, if you’re honest about it, the evidence only leads to one place.

People like ICR their it’s ilk at the Creation Museum

Oops - should have been “People like ICR and their ilk at the Creation Museum”

I don’t know what it is about the submission window, but somehow I find it hard to accurately proofread. Maybe I’m just an idiot and I should stop blaming technology.

Dan said:

I did read the article.

I meant the article at ICR

Seth Wright said:

Oh, so now we are on the topic of Demons? I will tell you, yes, they do exist, and yes, there are a few I am battling, but no, Mortons Demon is not one of them.

Don’t worry, Seth, every teenage boy touches himself. It’s not a demon, you’re just young and horny.

Ronald Cote said:

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?

Um, The fundamental chemistry wasn’t destroyed by the heat. That matter and those molecules were still present after the cooling. You are making the assumption that life had to have come from life.

I can’t believe this. Seth’s stupidity is so overwhelming that it burns.

Peter said:

I can’t believe this. Seth’s stupidity is so overwhelming that it burns.

It’s nothing an eyewash of Peptobismal can’t fix.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on March 21, 2008 9:48 AM.

Expelled! was the previous entry in this blog.

NY Times: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter