Evolution of the Heart

Posted 21 March 2008 by PvM

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. (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.

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

William Wallace · 21 March 2008

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.

PvM · 21 March 2008

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?

harold · 21 March 2008

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.

PvM · 21 March 2008

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

stevaroni · 21 March 2008

You still haven’t explained this incredible claim.

No, Billy, it's just that you haven't understood it. A significant difference, I daresay.

Ravilyn Sanders · 21 March 2008

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".

PvM · 21 March 2008

Homepage Levine Lab

Professor and Co-Director CIG (Center for Integrative Genomics) at the University of California in Berkeley

Stanton · 21 March 2008

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.

Kevin B · 21 March 2008

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.)

PvM · 21 March 2008

Brad Davidson homepage

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

Dale Husband · 21 March 2008

I wrote my own essay on vertebrate hearts. Here it is: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=239310&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.

Henry J · 21 March 2008

Here's a related thread from 3 years ago, about crocoile hearts:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/hotblooded-croc.html

MrG · 21 March 2008

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!"

MrG · 21 March 2008

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.

MememicBottleneck · 21 March 2008

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?"

Nomad · 21 March 2008

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.

noncarborundum · 21 March 2008

(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.)

MrG · 21 March 2008

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!"

MrG · 21 March 2008

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.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 March 2008

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.

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".

Henry J · 21 March 2008

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

MrG · 22 March 2008

Henry J: Yes, yes, of course, but Darwin-bashers won't listen to stuff like that. Just ask them if they can prove they have a brain: "Well, you've never actually seen it, have you?"

MrG · 22 March 2008

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?"

stevaroni · 22 March 2008

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.

Henry J · 22 March 2008

This reminds me of a line from an episode of Star Trek - "Brain, brain, what is brain?" :p

Henry

MrG · 22 March 2008

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."

PvM · 22 March 2008

Ronald, please continue your discussion on the bathroom wall.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 22 March 2008

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.

stevaroni · 22 March 2008

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".

Henry J · 22 March 2008

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

MrG · 22 March 2008

Henry J: 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."

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 22 March 2008

the leap from non life to life is the greatest gap in scientific theories of earth’s early history

Btw, that it is a gap in between theories, that themselves are consistent and well.

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.

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.

Catman · 23 March 2008

Torbjorn Larson 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.

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.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 23 March 2008

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.

Ronald Cote · 24 March 2008

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.

Steverino · 24 March 2008

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.

stevaroni · 24 March 2008

Ronald chimes in...

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.

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).

Your brilliant answer,”yup, so what” is as dense as DvM’s.

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.

Stevarino,Your logic defies sensibility.

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.)

stevaroni · 24 March 2008

Gota drops a drive-by...

This study refutes Darwinism. More and more new studies add to the evidence against that theory just as this one does.

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)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 24 March 2008

@ The pitiful remains of Ronald:

The part that you missed entirely is that by evolutionary explanation, environmental conditions [snip]

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.

Stanton · 24 March 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: 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.

gota · 25 March 2008

stevaroni: Gota drops a drive-by...
This study refutes Darwinism. More and more new studies add to the evidence against that theory just as this one does.
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)

I posted them before and it was erased

gota · 25 March 2008

stevaroni: Gota drops a drive-by...
This study refutes Darwinism. More and more new studies add to the evidence against that theory just as this one does.
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)

Sort of difficult to do when comments are erased

stevaroni · 25 March 2008

Gota sez:

Sort of difficult to do when comments are erased

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...

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

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?

Ronald Cote · 12 April 2008

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?

Dr Babiker Osman · 13 December 2008

I need evoluationary explanation for congenital heart defects
in humans as evidenced by molecular profiling

Thanks

yours

babiker

DS · 13 December 2008

Dr. Osman,

Try this:

Clark, E. Evolution, genetics, and the etiology of congenital cardiovascular malformations. The Journal of Pediatrics, 144(4):416-417.

That should get you started. If that doesn't have what you need, it is only one of 33,000 hits from Google searching on: "heart congenital defects evolution"

Good luck.

P.S> I wonder if Dr. Egnor has read this paper.

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

Now explain how an egg evolved, or how you were wrong about "soft matter" not being able to be fossilized.

DS · 1 April 2009

Seth,

You first. You tell us exactly where you think eggs came from.

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

I say the egg was created by God in the first place instead of having to evolve. But that is just me. Where do you think it "evolved" from?

Henry J · 1 April 2009

"An" egg didn't evolve. A species that lays eggs evolved, either from an earlier egg laying species similar to itself, or from an ancestral species that reproduced in a different manner (perhaps by fission or budding).

Henry

DS · 1 April 2009

Seth,

I think that eggs evolved from isogamous gametes, (or more precisely in species that had sexual reproduction of some sort but were isogamous). I have lots of references and evidence to support my hypothesis. Do you have any evidence for yours? Also, please explain why God waited so long to poof eggs into existence. Why is there no evidence of anisogamy in the fossil record for about the first 2.5 billion years or more of life on earth? How were eggs poofed into existence? Why were they poofed into existence? How do Easter bunnies lay eggs if they are mammals? Why should anyone care what you think? Inquiring minds want to know.

Or are you just being an April fool?

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

It had to evolve, if evolution is true. The species of animal that laid the egg had to come from somewhere, hence your autotrophic prokaryote that is the ancestor of us all.

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

The fossil record is a hoax. The species had to fossilize much faster than you give it credit. How then could a "soft matter" animal like an octopus fossilize? Because it fossilized extremely fast. http://www.icr.org/article/4579/. Back to the egg. If the egg had to evolve, the way it is made is specifically designed so that as the chick grows and develops, it shaves off inside layers of the egg, opening pores shaped like a V to allow more oxygen in. It does this with the egg tooth. If the animal didn't have the egg tooth in the first place, then there would be no species of birds, reptiles, or, if you believe we all came from reptiles, then, no us. There would be no way for the animal to hatch, therefore, no offspring to continue "evolution." The evidence is in creationism's favor here.

Dan · 1 April 2009

Seth Wright said: The fossil record is a hoax. The species had to fossilize much faster than you give it credit. How then could a "soft matter" animal like an octopus fossilize? Because it fossilized extremely fast. http://www.icr.org/article/4579/. Back to the egg.

April fool!

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

Nope. I probably did pick a bad day to refute evolution, but I am as serious as I would be on my deathbead. All I can say is until you prove me otherwise my evidence stands.

mrg · 1 April 2009

Seth Wright said: All I can say is until you prove me otherwise my evidence stands.

Well, what can we say? Darwinism is refuted. Time for everyone to pack up and go home. Nothing left to talk about here. Have a nice day.

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

And that is supposed to mean?

mrg · 1 April 2009

Seth Wright said: And that is supposed to mean?

I'm puzzled. You say you've refuted Darwinism. I agreed. If you have a good argument, then it shouldn't surprise you that people will believe it.

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

I've refuted evolution as a whole. Not just Darwinism. That has been disproven for quite a while, with the writing of the book "The Origins of the Species." Darwin himself was quoted to have disowned his own theory.

mrg · 1 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I've refuted evolution as a whole. Not just Darwinism.

That is absolutely indisputable.

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

Well, no one can prove my facts wrong, and because they exist today, and are not theory, then it can disprove evolution and is disputable.

mrg · 1 April 2009

Seth Wright said: Well, no one can prove my facts wrong, and because they exist today, and are not theory, then it can disprove evolution and is disputable.

Well, if I can't prove your facts wrong, then I can't dispute it. You seem to find it very hard to believe that anyone would agree with you.

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

I am getting all turned around. Are you on my side or not? I am a Creationist.

mrg · 1 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I am getting all turned around. Are you on my side or not? I am a Creationist.

I just agreed with everything you said. It's never happened to you before?

Seth Wright · 1 April 2009

Not with evolutionists. I have been trying to fight it with my bio teacher for the past week. I am only 14 you know.

mrg · 1 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I have been trying to fight it with my bio teacher for the past week.

Good luck. Have a nice day.

Dave Luckett · 1 April 2009

Seth, you're absolutely right. How could all those smart guys, college professors and all, not ask themselves such a simple question, these last hundred and fifty years? I mean really, where does the egg come from? Who'd 'a thunk such a simple idea would totally bring down the entire structure of biology, after all this time?

And, come to that, why is an egg such a perfect size for one mouthful? You stick it in your mouth and it fills it completely, so that you can't talk at all. Must have been designed that way.

It's obvious, really. Go ahead, Seth - stick an egg in your mouth. See what happens. Betcha it shuts you up. Or, for even more surprising results, stick it someplace else.

mrg · 1 April 2009

Dave Luckett said: Or, for even more surprising results, stick it someplace else.

He's only 14 ... pick on somebody your own size. Of course, today being the day it is, there's always the possibility that somebody is being spoofed here.

Henry J · 1 April 2009

If evolution has been refuted, how come a hundred thousand biologists are still studying it? Didn't they get the memo?

Henry

mrg · 1 April 2009

Henry J said: Didn't they get the memo?

The memo will go out in the morning. They might not take it seriously if they got it today.

DS · 1 April 2009

Seth,

So you were just playing an April fools joke after all. And to think that I almost fell for it. Fourteen indeed, ha ha ha. For a minute there I almost thought that you were really trying to claim that your argument from incredulity was actual evidence of some kind. The very idea that no organism could ever hatch out of an egg without a specific structure to break out, good one. What a kidder you are. And man I never figured out that were talking about just shelled eggs. I thought you were talking about large gametes in general. Man how could I have missed that very obvious caveat that you completely failed to mention.

Now as to the evolution of the amniotic egg, you are aware that the amniotic egg was not the first type of egg to evolve aren't you? You are aware that not all eggs have shells aren't you? You are aware that your biology teacher, not to mention those with doctoral degrees in biology probably know a lot more than you aren't you? You are probably aware that greater minds than yours have comtemplated these issues for years aren't you? If not, well at least April fools day will be over in a couple of hours. Enjoy it while you can.

You know you could have just trotted out the old "which came first the sperm or the egg" routine. I mean after all, they could not both evolve "instantaneously" now could they? Har har harde har har. That's the way novparl has chosen to go after all.

Dave Luckett · 1 April 2009

mrg said: Of course, today being the day it is, there's always the possibility that somebody is being spoofed here.

Gee, you reckon? Obviously, your American sense of humour is just too dry for us Aussies. We can never tell when you're joking.

Dan · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: Well, no one can prove my facts wrong ...

Of course! If it's a fact, then it's not wrong.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Dave Luckett said: We can never tell when you're joking.

Matey, if you can read the likes of R@y M@rt1nez, L@rry F@f@rm@n, and Deny$e 0'Le@ry and still be able to tell if a Darwin-basher is being joking or not, you're a better man than I am. MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

I don't have to talk about any other egg than what I mentioned. Who cares what other eggs are like if only one is needed just to prove one of the world's most controversial theories wrong. Any other egg is insignificant. Then why are there two sexes. We never needed to evolve two separate sexes, so why aren't we still asexual? And yes, I am 14.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: Who cares what other eggs are like if only one is needed just to prove one of the world's most controversial theories wrong.

Have you considered setting up your own website? Obviously the word needs to be spread around about this news. I can forsee that you may, despite your young age, quickly acquire a level of distinction at least equal to that of Dembski, Behe, Luskin, and other leaders in your domain. And PT would be only too happy to help spread the word, encouraging everyone to be exposed to your comments.

Mike Elzinga · 2 April 2009

We never needed to evolve two separate sexes, so why aren’t we still asexual? And yes, I am 14.
— Seth Wright

Ah ha; there’s the real issue. Solve that one and there won’t have to be wars over sex education in the schools.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Mike Elzinga said: Solve that one and there won’t have to be wars over sex education in the schools.

Yes, but you'd have such a difficult time telling anybody apart in the high school yearbook.

Mike Elzinga · 2 April 2009

mrg said: Yes, but you'd have such a difficult time telling anybody apart in the high school yearbook.

And then there’s the problem of roll call with class size increasing even as roll is called.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I don't have to talk about any other egg than what I mentioned. Who cares what other eggs are like if only one is needed just to prove one of the world's most controversial theories wrong. Any other egg is insignificant. Then why are there two sexes. We never needed to evolve two separate sexes, so why aren't we still asexual? And yes, I am 14.

Actually, yes, you do need to explain other kinds of eggs, not just one (i.e., amniote vertebrate eggs). You see, contrary to the hopes and wet dreams of creationists and other evolution-deniers, there is no such thing as a "magic bullet" with which to overturn Evolutionary Biology. If you disprove one facet, you have to also disprove all facets. Shooting off one head will not kill the beast. In fact, the only way to kill it is to shoot off all of the heads at once. So good luck: you're going to need it.

DS · 2 April 2009

Seth wrote:

"I don’t have to talk about any other egg than what I mentioned. Who cares what other eggs are like if only one is needed just to prove one of the world’s most controversial theories wrong. Any other egg is insignificant. Then why are there two sexes. We never needed to evolve two separate sexes, so why aren’t we still asexual? And yes, I am 14."

That's right Seth, you don't need to know anything else about Biology except the one "fact " you mentioned. You don't have to know anything about any other eggs in order to understand how shelled eggs might have evolved. Do you think that Amphibian eggs are shelled? Why bother with any other kind of egg if shelled eggs just poofed into existence? Just make up your mind without looking at any evidence at all. That should work real well. Well, at least you have convinced me that you really are 14 years old. Nobody older that 14 would possibly try the old "I can't imagine how it could evolve so therfore it couldn't have" routine and hope to get away with it. I can't imagine that anyone could be this ignorant and still so arrogant, therefore you can't really exist.

As for why humans are not asexual, how much genetic variation do you think would be produced by asexual reproduction as compared to sexual reproduction? Do you think that there might be any advantage to having more genetic variation? Why do you think that God made two sexes, kind of caused a lot of trouble don't you think? We wouldn't have to stone anybody for adultery if there was no sex.

By the way, how are you doing in that biology class you're taking? Shouldn't you be studying rather than wasting your time displaying your ignorance here? Why not actually learn something before starting an argument?

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

Assuming evolution is true, what happens when it gets to birds, keeping in light of the fact that what I said about the egg is true.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

And once again, why do we need genetic variation? What was the point of it "evolving?" You can't tell me there was one, just that you are glad that there is, because now you are human.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

DS said: By the way, how are you doing in that biology class you're taking? Shouldn't you be studying rather than wasting your time displaying your ignorance here? Why not actually learn something before starting an argument?

He's probably skipping it, as he thinks he knows more than his Biology teacher.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

No, I am not skipping. I have an 83 in it.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I have an 83 in it.

I trust there wasn't any confusion with an IQ test here.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: And once again, why do we need genetic variation? What was the point of it "evolving?" You can't tell me there was one, just that you are glad that there is, because now you are human.

Some problems arise when there is no genetic variation in a population. One problem is that such populations are more susceptible to diseases and parasites, and another is that a population of identical clones can not successfully thwart predators and predators' hunting strategies. Then there's the problem of inbreeding allowing for deleterious genes to spread more quickly through the population, as well as the reducing of overall fitness of inbred individuals.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Stanton said: Some problems arise when there is no genetic variation in a population ...

Oh dear, Stanton ... engaging in a battle of intellects with a 14-year-old.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: Assuming evolution is true, what happens when it gets to birds, keeping in light of the fact that what I said about the egg is true.

If evolution wasn't true as you claim, then people would not have been able to domesticate birds, nor would they have been able to make (and still are currently making) thousands of different bird breeds. I mean, have you ever stopped to notice the differences between, say, a Silkie chicken and its ancestor, the Red Junglefowl? Or, have you ever noticed the differences between A Jacobin pigeon, a German Double-Crested Trumpeter and a Cliff Dove? So explain to us how evolution is supposed to "stop" when it comes to the birds?

Stanton · 2 April 2009

mrg said:
Stanton said: Some problems arise when there is no genetic variation in a population ...
Oh dear, Stanton ... engaging in a battle of intellects with a 14-year-old.

If he's bright enough to get a low B in Biology, then what's the harm in seeing if he can be improved?

mrg · 2 April 2009

Stanton said: If he's bright enough to get a low B in Biology, then what's the harm in seeing if he can be improved?

Good luck.

fnxtr · 2 April 2009

Watch, here comes the "microevolution" and baraminology bull$#!+.

mrg · 2 April 2009

O let's not forget WERE YOU THERE DID YOU SEE IT!

Stanton · 2 April 2009

mrg said: O let's not forget WERE YOU THERE DID YOU SEE IT!

No doubt he's probably getting an "83" in History, too.</snark>

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

That shows natural selection, which is NOT evolution. Natural selection is real, but have you ever seen a bird change into a mammal? NO. Natural selection just creates variation, not new species.

mrg · 2 April 2009

OK, that nails "microevolution", you're one out of two so far fnxtr.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

I have no clue what bariminology is.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

And back to the fossilization. WHERE can you show me a step by step change between two species?

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I have no clue what bariminology is.

Well, part of that sentence is pretty obvious.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Oh dang did I forget: GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

Check out the article at http://www.icr.org/article/4579/ and tell me that the fossil record is true.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Stanton, you don't really believe you've got any chance of making any headway here, do you?

Stanton · 2 April 2009

mrg said: Stanton, you don't really believe you've got any chance of making any headway here, do you?

No, not really. And given as how Seth is posting links from the ICR, he's either lying about getting a low B in his Biology class, or he has a grossly incompetent teacher.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

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?

mrg · 2 April 2009

Stanton said: ... or he has a grossly incompetent teacher.

Now please, that teacher has my deepest and most sincere sympathy. I suspect he has the patience of a saint.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: So are we going to get back to the discussion?

"Discussion"?

Did anyone read the article?

No.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

It's a she, and once again, did anyone read the article? Or are you all ignorant and lazy? You are defending your beliefs here people!

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: It's a she, and once again, did anyone read the article?

No.

Or are you all ignorant and lazy?

Yep.

You are defending your beliefs here people!

Actually I don't think anyone feels all that threatened.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

They should. I am contemplating putting evolution on trial.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I am contemplating putting evolution on trial.

Well, then we can't talk to you any more, you'll have to go through our law firm.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

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?

The former AND the latter are true. What is there to discuss with you? You're arrogantly stupid enough to assume that you know more about Evolutionary Biology than any of the researchers who've literally been studying it longer than you've been alive on this dinky planet. Then there's the fact that you're attempting to support your arrogant stupidity with lie-filled, fact-free pages from a website of an organization that makes all of its employees sign and swear an oath to never ever do or say anything to contradict the King James' Translation of the Bible or be fired.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

Ha ha. Well, my work here is done. No one can disprove me, nor does anyone seem to want to. You are welcome to publish my egg argument on here if you want to.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: Ha ha. Well, my work here is done. No one can disprove me, nor does anyone seem to want to. You are welcome to publish my egg argument on here if you want to.

We'll file it in the trash, right next to where you put your education in.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

I haven't just used that site. Why don't you google Joel Martin. I have done research for three years over this, since 7th grade.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: Ha ha. Well, my work here is done.

Have a nice day.

No one can disprove me, nor does anyone seem to want to.

I can sympathize. I have repeatedly defined PT to prove to my satisfaction that the Moon isn't made of green green, and nobody seems to want to do that, either. The scoundrels.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

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

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: You know, it is not nice to pick on someone younger than you.

Huh? Oh, I'm quite serious. The moon really is made of green cheese -- and nobody repeat nobody has ever proven to my satisfaction that it isn't.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I haven't just used that site. Why don't you google Joel Martin. I have done research for three years over this, since 7th grade.

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

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

I still haven't been able to figure out which side you are on.

mrg · 2 April 2009

Seth Wright said: I still haven't been able to figure out which side you are on.

"I'm not on anybody's side."

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

Stanton said: Why don't you tell the Nobel Prize Committee about your trial?

I just might.

Stanton · 2 April 2009

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?

DS · 2 April 2009

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.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

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.)

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

Stanton said: it's rude to sass and ignore your betters?

That would be a matter of opinion.

Seth Wright · 2 April 2009

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.)

mrg · 2 April 2009

"We heard you twice the first time."

Dan · 2 April 2009

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.

Dan · 2 April 2009

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.

Dan · 2 April 2009

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.

Dan · 2 April 2009

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.

DS · 2 April 2009

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.

Henry J · 2 April 2009

http://tolweb.org/Amniota

Mammals are in the synapsida branch.

Reptiles and birds are in the diapsida branch.

fnxtr · 2 April 2009

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'.

Flint · 2 April 2009

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.

fnxtr · 2 April 2009

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.

Dave Lovell · 3 April 2009

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/postmonth/feb02.html

Dan · 3 April 2009

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.

Seth Wright · 3 April 2009

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.

DS · 3 April 2009

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.

Dave lovell · 3 April 2009

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.

Stanton · 3 April 2009

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).

stevaroni · 3 April 2009

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.

stevaroni · 3 April 2009

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.

Seth Wright · 3 April 2009

Dan said: I did read the article.

I meant the article at ICR

fnxtr · 3 April 2009

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.

Rsteen · 24 October 2009

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.

Peter · 4 December 2009

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

Stanton · 4 December 2009

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.