Discovery U.

[OldWiseGuy]

You make it sound like humans are the only ones who have hearts. What's your opinion of earthworm hearts?

I haven't given them much thought.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Proverbs 23:23

"...sell it not".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I haven't given them much thought.

The point is that every significant stage in the evolution of the heart, from a simple tube with muscular walls to the four-chambered, dual-circulation mammalian heart, is represented in species alive today. Comparative anatomy alone provides plausible evidence for that evolutionary sequence.

 

[pitabread]

Not really, though I would like to hear your argument.

"Feelings"

 

[pitabread]

I haven't given them much thought.

Perhaps you should. You might learn some fascinating things about anatomy if you study other organisms.

 

[MIDutch]

I haven't given them much thought.

Of course not. Which is something completely expected.

Pick out some biological feature that you think is unique and amazing (beautiful/awesome/incomprehensible/etc.) and evidence of God and give no thought (ignore/denigrate/lie about/etc.) to that feature, in a whole spectrum of variation and complexity, in other organisms that demonstrates that the feature you are marveling at is in fact NOT unique (incomprehensible) from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The point is that every significant stage in the evolution of the heart, from a simple tube with muscular walls to the four-chambered, dual-circulation mammalian heart, is represented in species alive today. Comparative anatomy alone provides plausible evidence for that evolutionary sequence.

Why not just different hearts for different creatures?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps you should. You might learn some fascinating things about anatomy if you study other organisms.

I would reach the same conclusion...that they were created.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course not. Which is something completely expected.

Pick out some biological feature that you think is unique and amazing (beautiful/awesome/incomprehensible/etc.) and evidence of God and give no thought (ignore/denigrate/lie about/etc.) to that feature, in a whole spectrum of variation and complexity, in other organisms that demonstrates that the feature you are marveling at is in fact NOT unique (incomprehensible) from an evolutionary standpoint.

I do see similarity in design among many creatures. As a meat cutter, hunter, and fisherman I have 'dissected' many species.

 

[pitabread]

I would reach the same conclusion...that they were created.

Kind of defeats the purpose of investigating anything if your conclusion is already decided.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Kind of defeats the purpose of investigating anything if your conclusion is already decided.

That door swings both ways doesn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would reach the same conclusion...that they were created.

The problem is that to come to a rational conclusion one needs to rely on an unbiased analysis. How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[pitabread]

That door swings both ways doesn't it?

Not really, no.

If you're talking about the conclusion that life appears evolved, that's because of examination of biology. It wasn't a prescribed conclusion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really, no.

If you're talking about the conclusion that life appears evolved, that's because of examination of biology. It wasn't a prescribed conclusion.

I think most people today accept on faith that science has got it right. I doubt if many 'prove' for themselves that evolution is true. They just go with the flow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think most people today accept on faith that science has got it right. I doubt if many 'prove' for themselves that evolution is true. They just go with the flow.

Most do. But most also do not debate it. It is irresponsible to debate against something that one does not understand. In the real world that can lead to harm against others. Look at the results of deniers of Covid19.

 

[pitabread]

I think most people today accept on faith that science has got it right. I doubt if many 'prove' for themselves that evolution is true. They just go with the flow.

Those who study it don't just "go with the flow". Biologists are actively researching the subject.

However, the reality is that life happens to look like it shares common ancestry and that modern species are a result of evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think most people today accept on faith that science has got it right. I doubt if many 'prove' for themselves that evolution is true. They just go with the flow.

Well, once you look at ToE, it’s fairly obvious.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why not just different hearts for different creatures?

Well, they are different hearts for different creatures. The point is that they are supporting evidence that a mammalian heart could plausibly have developed over evolutionary timescales from a simple tube, through many small modifications, all of which are demonstrably viable.

Further support is seen in mammalian developmental embryology, which shows a similar sequence in the developing embryo.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, they are different hearts for different creatures. The point is that they are supporting evidence that a mammalian heart could plausibly have developed over evolutionary timescales from a simple tube, through many small modifications, all of which are demonstrably viable.

Further support is seen in mammalian developmental embryology, which shows a similar sequence in the developing embryo.

Creation seems more plausible to me.

 

[pitabread]

Creation seems more plausible to me.

Plausible how?

Or is this another "gut feeling" thing?