Do organs, like the heart, have a common ancestor?

[Linux98]

Here's what I'm curious about: do complex organs (I'm calling the heart a complex organ because muscles + valves + a regular pulse = a heart) have a common beginning or do Evolutionists think that it is possible that complex organs originated separately?

So let's take the human heart and the heart of a happy California cow. They are different, but they both basically have muscles that circulate blood around the body. So, do our hearts share a common ancestor? And if so, how far back did the original Muscle + Blood Pumping heart evolve?

We have apprx. 4 1/2 billion years to come from nothing to where we are today (I guess 3.6bya is the real guesstimate), however, that isn't exactly true. We can't say the basic heart had 3 1/2 billion years to evolve, it actually had a shorter time frame than that.

So how far back do we have to go before we find the particular heart that branched into the heart that let's happy California cows make cheese to clog up the hearts of unhappy stuck-in-a-traffic-jam Californians? And then, how far do we need to go beyond that to find the original muscle & blood pumping heart that was the mother of all hearts?

 

[Valkhorn]

A simple search on google yielded this:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun2001/992025301.Ev.r.html

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Well, thats that then.

 

[Jet Black]

Here's what I'm curious about: do complex organs (I'm calling the heart a complex organ because muscles + valves + a regular pulse = a heart) have a common beginning or do Evolutionists think that it is possible that complex organs originated separately?

So let's take the human heart and the heart of a happy California cow. They are different, but they both basically have muscles that circulate blood around the body. So, do our hearts share a common ancestor? And if so, how far back did the original Muscle + Blood Pumping heart evolve?

We have apprx. 4 1/2 billion years to come from nothing to where we are today (I guess 3.6bya is the real guesstimate), however, that isn't exactly true. We can't say the basic heart had 3 1/2 billion years to evolve, it actually had a shorter time frame than that.

So how far back do we have to go before we find the particular heart that branched into the heart that let's happy California cows make cheese to clog up the hearts of unhappy stuck-in-a-traffic-jam Californians? And then, how far do we need to go beyond that to find the original muscle & blood pumping heart that was the mother of all hearts?

well the common ancestor of that heart would be the same as the common ancestor between us and said cow. picking a particular cow is kind of meaningless, since it would have the same common ancestor as all the other cows, all ungulates and quite alot of other things too.

 

[Linux98]

A simple search on google yielded this:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun2001/992025301.Ev.r.html

So that means evolutionists think that the heart (and I assume, all organs) must have a common ancestor.

Do all evolutionists agree with that or is that just your take on the issue?

 

[Linux98]

well the common ancestor of that heart would be the same as the common ancestor between us and said cow. picking a particular cow is kind of meaningless, since it would have the same common ancestor as all the other cows, all ungulates and quite alot of other things too.

Oh, no. I want to talk about THAT particular cow. In fact, I'll take it a step further and ask: does the heart of the California cow on commercial #2 have the same ancestor as....let's see...the heart of Natalie Portman?

 

[raphael_aa]

So that means evolutionists think that the heart (and I assume, all organs) must have a common ancestor.

Do all evolutionists agree with that or is that just your take on the issue?

He needs to check with the secret brotherhood of evil atheist evolutionists to see if it is in fact official policy.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

In fact, I'll take it a step further and ask: does the heart of the California cow on commercial #2 have the same ancestor as....let's see...the heart of Natalie Portman?

Yes. But very very far back.

 

[Gracchus]

Here's what I'm curious about: do complex organs (I'm calling the heart a complex organ because muscles + valves + a regular pulse = a heart) have a common beginning or do Evolutionists think that it is possible that complex organs originated separately?

It would seem that the eye evolved several times, as did wings. Insect and bird wings have quite different origins. Birds and pterosaurs seem to have evolved from separate, non-flying quadripedal ancestors. So the answer to your question is that some complex organs had a single origin and some had separate origins.

 

[Jet Black]

Oh, no. I want to talk about THAT particular cow. In fact, I'll take it a step further and ask: does the heart of the California cow on commercial #2 have the same ancestor as....let's see...the heart of Natalie Portman?

The common ancestor between Natalie Portman's heart and the commercial you saw is precisely the same common ancestor as the one shared between you and the cow I ate for dinner last night, and the one shared by George Bush and a wild yak chewing the cud in the himalayas.

why are you asking such strange questions, it only makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Linux98]

The common ancestor between Natalie Portman's heart and the commercial you saw is precisely the same common ancestor as the one shared between you and the cow I ate for dinner last night, and the one shared by George Bush and a wild yak chewing the cud in the himalayas.

why are you asking such strange questions, it only makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about.

See Gracchus' answer above. That should help you see why I am asking.

 

[Linux98]

Yes. But very very far back.

1) I'm curious how far back.

2) Are you of the type that thinks a complex organ must have a common ancestor, or would you lean toward agreement with Gracchus?

 

[ServantofTheOne]

not to mention that the heart is dependent on so many other complex organs.

how long would the heart beat without lungs?
without the brain? etc.

All these organs would have had to 'evolve' in unison in a coordinated matter because not one of them are independent.

and all this happened as a result of adaptation to environment?

 

[CristianoBR]

and all this happened as a result of adaptation to environment?

Yes, what else would be?

 

[Linux98]

It would seem that the eye evolved several times, as did wings. Insect and bird wings have quite different origins. Birds and pterosaurs seem to have evolved from separate, non-flying quadripedal ancestors. So the answer to your question is that some complex organs had a single origin and some had separate origins.

Interesting point about the insect / bird wings. Birds and bats are said to have evolved their wings from existing limbs, insects are said to have created them purely for the purpose of flight. So if I were an evolutionist this would be evidence to me that evolution of these two similar systems would have evolved separately.

Conceptually, I could concede that an anomaly of genesis could happen once, or twice throughout biological history, but if complex systems such as the eye and wings originated separately then it seems that an evolutionist would have to start thinking that separate generation would be a common occurrence. And if it happened on the level of large organs then why not on entire organisms?

 

[AirPo]

and I assume

Never assume anything. It makes an ...

Well I'm sure you know the saying.

 

[AirPo]

insects are said to have created them purely for the purpose of flight.

Incorrect. It is believed that insect wings originated as a means of propulsion for water skimming insects.

Conceptually, I could concede that an anomaly of genesis could happen once, or twice throughout biological history, but if complex systems such as the eye and wings originated separately then it seems that an evolutionist would have to start thinking that separate generation would be a common occurrence. And if it happened on the level of large organs then why not on entire organisms?

I imagine it's possible, but afaik, it hasn't ever been observed.

 

[AirPo]

how long would the heart beat without lungs?

As long as the fish was alive I guess.

 

[ForeRunner]

Interesting point about the insect / bird wings. Birds and bats are said to have evolved their wings from existing limbs, insects are said to have created them purely for the purpose of flight. So if I were an evolutionist this would be evidence to me that evolution of these two similar systems would have evolved separately.

Actually, we think that insect wings were first used as heat transfer devices. And yes, the same function different form is evidence for evolution. A situation where bats used bird wings or birds used insect wings to fly would falsify evolution.

Conceptually, I could concede that an anomaly of genesis could happen once, or twice throughout biological history, but if complex systems such as the eye and wings originated separately then it seems that an evolutionist would have to start thinking that separate generation would be a common occurrence. And if it happened on the level of large organs then why not on entire organisms?

It does happen on the level of entire organisms. This is known as convergent evolution. The best example I can think of off the top of my head are the dog, and the tasmanian wolf:

Dog(Dingo)

Tasmanian Wolf

Both animals look very similar n both form and function, and, they are. Both occupy the same niche in an enviroment. However, as much as they lok and behave alike, they are extremely different. A dog is a placental mammal, where as a Tasmanian Wolf is a marsupial.

The tasmanian wolf is far more closely related to a kangaroo and a Koala than it is to a dog.

 

[Gracchus]

Interesting point about the insect / bird wings. Birds and bats are said to have evolved their wings from existing limbs, insects are said to have created them purely for the purpose of flight.

Actually, Bird, bat and pterosaur wings evolved separately from the forelimbs of separate tetrapodal species. Insect wings probably evolved from gills the gills of aquatic insect larva that in the terrestrial adult phase became instruments of thermoregulation. The increased surface area of the thermoregulating "wings" would aid in dispersing the population. Once in the air, powered flight is more likely to develope.

So if I were an evolutionist this would be evidence to me that evolution of these two similar systems would have evolved separately.

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica] Some biological characteristics are analogous (also called "convergent"), which means that they serve the same function in different species but they evolved independently rather than from the same embryological material or from the same structures in a common ancestor. An example of analogous structures would be the wings on butterflies, bats and and birds. Another important example would be the development of a camera-type eye in both mollusks and vertebrates. [/font] [font=verdana, geneva, helvetica] Homologous structures, on the other hand, are characteristics which are shared by related species because they have been inherited in some way from a common ancestor. For example, the bones on the front fins of a while are homologous to the bones in a human arm and both are homologous to the bones in a chimpanzee arm.

[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, helvetica]http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_analogous.htm[/font]

Conceptually, I could concede that an anomaly of genesis could happen once, or twice throughout biological history, but if complex systems such as the eye and wings originated separately then it seems that an evolutionist would have to start thinking that separate generation would be a common occurrence.

It is not unknown, and scarcely remarkable.

And if it happened on the level of large organs then why not on entire organisms?

Evolution happens at the species level. Organs evolve only in relation to other organs, and are always constrained by the total organism. I don't think your understanding of evolution is clear. The four chambered heart did not suddenly appear, perfectly formed in an amphibian which normally had a three chambered heart, nor did a three chambered heart, suddenly appear in a fish that normally had a two chambered heart. We can follow, in mammalian embryos, the development of the four chambered heart, and this development give us evidence about how the heart evolved.