- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You make it sound like humans are the only ones who have hearts. What's your opinion of earthworm hearts?
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.I haven't given them much thought.
Of course not. Which is something completely expected.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.
Perhaps you should. You might learn some fascinating things about anatomy if you study other organisms.
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.
Kind of defeats the purpose of investigating anything if your conclusion is already decided.
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?I would reach the same conclusion...that they were created.
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.
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.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.
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, 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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?