-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Do organs, like the heart, have a common ancestor?
- Thread starter Linux98
- Start date
AirPo said:
i was referring to the human heart.
i just wanted to clarify that evolution believes that all these organs evolved to its current state through adaptation to the environment all in unison and seemingly coordinated manner.
seems like magic.
Upvote
0
ServantofTheOne said:
What needs to be co-ordinated
None of the major changes from fish hearts to ours require co-ordination (some can only happen AFTER lungs appear, but they aren't needed AT THE SAME TIME)
Upvote
0
AirPo said:
at what point did the heart develop the need for oxygenated blood provided by the lungs, what was there before the lungs in the human to provide for this?
Upvote
0
AirPo
with a Touch of Grey
You questions imply a misunderstanding on your part. The heart did not develope a need for the lungs. The lungs evolved as an alternative way to provide oxygen to the heart. Later, when humans eventually evolved, the heart lung system was already well established.ServantofTheOne said:
Upvote
0
AirPo said:
how do you know which one came first? is there evidence for which form came first?
you claim lungs evolved as an alternative way to provide oxygen, what was the way before this development?
Upvote
0
ServantofTheOne said:
Ebver jheard of a little thing called gills?
And before that, gas diffusion (although the heart probably came after pseudo-gills)
And we know the heart came first because it is shared in groups which would have split earlier in the same way
Upvote
0
Linux98 said:
How could it be? The odds of two gene lines separately developing almost identical versions of a complex structure are infinitesimal. Evolution effects change, but it does not direct change except in the sense of reproductive success. There are many possible solutions to improve reproductive success and if you ran an evolution simulation twice you would never get the same, or even similar, results.
Upvote
0
H
HRE
Guest
ServantofTheOne said:
Dual-nested heirarchies.
'Nuff said.
Speaking of which, did anyone see the SciAm article where they did a retrospective nesteD heirarchy to trace the changes in a spam letter back to the original?
Upvote
0
AirPo said:
ForeRunner said:
Gracchus said:
Am I right to be confused by these explanations? Which is the right one and which is the wrong?
As a side note: ForeRunner mentioned that if there were evidence that a bird used insect wings that it would falsify evolution. That implies a pretty solid stance that separate origins of genesis must exist and that bird / bat / insect wings do not have a common ancestor or else evolution is falsified.
Upvote
0
Linux98 said:
yes, but the structure of bat/bird/insect wings are all different. he said...
Upvote
0
caravelair said:
So, does that mean you come down on the side that says the wings originated entirely separately because they have different structure?
Upvote
0
Linux98 said:
yes. with evolution, structures can sometimes be co-opted to perform different functions. so it is not the function of the part that indicates relatedness, but the morphology of it's structure.
Upvote
0
AirPo said:
and the gills you say we had just poof, disappeared? The heart that we have was at one time supported by gills rather than lungs? where were they on our necks? how exactly did gills transform to lungs. do we have any land creature with half gills half lungs? or lungs with gills at the same time. i have a hard time understanding how gills gradually transformed to lungs.
is there any evidence for this supposed transformation? or is it just before and after pictures with alot of guessing in between.
Upvote
0
So I see we have come from looking at a single organ to looking at the complete organism.ServantofTheOne said:
Gills most likely did not transform into lungs. The most likely route would be a development of (primitive) lungs, after which the gills slowly disappeared.
What would qualify as evidence for you?
Upvote
0
