Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

And i would imagine, that is all you personally need.

I'm not telling anyone else what to believe, if that's what you mean.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Point was, one merely needs to look. You refuse to. Out of fear? Probably - fear that you will see that your amazing 'insights' on yet another topic will seen to be embarrassingly ridiculous

Rather than play your one-liner game - you know, the game you play when you realize that you are in way over your head and are desperate to try to save face - why not put the specifics of your "theory" out there for us to see?

So far my research reveals that this phenomenon is not fully understood. You may want to bring the other researchers up to date on the gut/brain connection, to include, and exclude, nerve and other pathways.

 

[tas8831]

In plumber's jargon,

Why not just use appropriate terminology? Because you don't know it?

Psycho = fluids
Somatic = pipes.

You seem to be mainly concerned with the pipes.

So... It is your learned position that studying anatomy (to include neuroanatomy) does NOT include any instruction or exploration on how the parts work or what they do? Interesting. Interesting in its simple-mindedness.

To use your plumber's jargon - you really think the guy laying the pipes doesn't understand much about the stuff that will be flowing through them? Pretty arrogant on your part.
And a much better and more apt plumbing analogy would be:

Psycho = Water processing plant
Somatic = Village receiving water

But what do I know? I am just a guy that does not have to rely on dopey analogies to discuss nervous system function.

I'm exploring the psycho, their routes and destinations.

Routes and destinations? That is the parts, bucky.
Funny that you claim to be exploring their routes and destinations yet do not understand the routes and destinations for the very things you pretend to be exploring!

Did you write that as a self-deprecating joke?

Using carpenters as an example, you are studying the tools, while I am attempting to build something with them.

Well, I'd say you are as good a carpenter as you are a scientist. OWG at work:

Since you ignored it in this other thread, allow me to school you yet again on you ' pipes' and routes and destinations...

Sorry, I was referring to chemical, not mechanical, neurons. That would be the 'smoke signals'.

"Mechanical" neurons? What are you ranting about?

The LRN 'sheds' tiny nerve fibers to the aortic arch as it passes beneath it. I theorize that this might be a pathway for communications from the heart to the larynx (many great discoveries begin with a theory).

Why "theorize" about something when the answers are already in hand?
I have already explained this to you before - the RLN carries motor (efferent) fibers OUT of the brain TO the larynx. It carries some sensory (afferent) fibers from the laryngeal mucosa (as well as to/from regions of the esophagus). But nothing from the arch to the larynx, or the heart to the larynx. I could find nothing about "'sheds' tiny nerve fibers to the aortic arch as it passes beneath it", even at your new agey website.

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don;t understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.

Many articles about the "mind of the heart" state that the heart sends more signals to the brain than it receives from the brain, and that in many cases the brain is subservient to the 'wishes' of the heart.

First part, makes sense, second part, loony nonsense.

The heart/aorta is monitored for things like stretch, O2 levels, CO2 levels, etc - this goes to the brain for processing. To 'adjust' these things, the brain tells the heart to do one of two things - speed up, slow down. No 'need' for an excessive bunch of inputs for that.

The notion that the brain is subservient to the heart is just.... creationist.

It is also elsewhere suggested that the 'gut' has much the same powers.

I'm sure it is.

I found this on your HeartMath Institute website:

After deep reflection, McCraty’s continuously evolving vision took the concept of coherence and energetic fields to the macro level of the planet—and the very edge of science. “Coherence,” he says, “is a state of energetic alignment and cooperation between heart, mind, body, and spirit. In coherence, energy is accumulated, not wasted, leaving you more energy to manifest intention and harmonious outcomes.”​

Ooooh - energy...
The main 'science' guy at HeartMath (McCraty) is also involved with Gwyneth Paltrow's "Goop" nonsense. Kind of a weird group (HeartMath) for a creationist like you to be fond of.


The Global Coherence Initiative: Woo on a global scale - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/energy-medicine-noise-based-pseudoscience/

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/17/heartmath-considered-incoherent/​

Golly - I went through all that explainin' and you totally ignored it. Almost like it was.. on purpose...

I mean, if that is any indication of your 'exploring' and 'theorizing', then no wonder your head is stuck in the ancient middle east...

 

[tas8831]

So far my research reveals that this phenomenon is not fully understood. You may want to bring the other researchers up to date on the gut/brain connection, to include, and exclude, nerve and other pathways.

LOL!

Right - well if your reliance on the 'HeartMath Institute' is any indication of your level of gullibility, I'm not worried that you will be overturning anything any time soon.

Let me know when you have proven that 'mechanical neurons' send vocalization signals from the gut or the aorta directly to the larynx via the RLN - I mean, you are not trying to obscure the fact that THAT was your original claim, right?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL!

Right - well if your reliance on the 'HeartMath Institute' is any indication of your level of gullibility, I'm not worried that you will be overturning anything any time soon.

Let me know when you have proven that 'mechanical neurons' send vocalization signals from the gut or the aorta directly to the larynx via the RLN - I mean, you are not trying to obscure the fact that THAT was your original claim, right?

Given that my theory is so upsetting to you I think it best if you place me on ignore. Then you will have some rest from building all those straw men arguments.

 

[Queller]

I'm speaking of evolution, not science in general.

There's no voodoo in evolution either. Why do you keep saying these things? You've already admitted you don't understand anything about evolution, so how can you comment about it?

 

[Queller]

Evolutionists see only evidence that supports their theory.

Is there any evidence against evolution? Scientific evidence I mean, not Bible verses.

Worse yet they have banished any concept of design in nature as anathema to the theory.

When there's some evidence for design, science will consider it.

That alone should leave one scratching their head.

Why should a lack of evidence against evolution and a lack of evidence for design, leave anyone scratching their head?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There's no voodoo in evolution either. Why do you keep saying these things? You've already admitted you don't understand anything about evolution, so how can you comment about it?

The more I read about it the more magical it gets, actually rivaling the magic of God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is there any evidence against evolution? Scientific evidence I mean, not Bible verses.

No hard evidence, just the odds against it happening.

 

[Queller]

Impressive credentials, but lacks the discipline needed to address my theory, which would be the study of the nerve (or other) pathways involved in the brain/emotion cycle. In my reading I haven't found such a study.

You have placed yourself, imo, in the same camp as the one who stated that the only function of the heart is to pump blood. Probably because that is the only function that can be observed.​

I'll bite. What other functions do you think it has? What is the evidence for your claims?

 

[VirOptimus]

No hard evidence, just the odds against it happening.

Show us the math.

 

[Queller]

That sounds like an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

He's OK with that.

You logical fallacy is: Argument from Incredulity

Yep.

He doesn't understand why it's a problem though.

 

[Queller]

I'm going strictly by appearances. It looks like it was designed and functions like it was designed. That's all I've got.

That's not enough for anybody but you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Show us the math.

Carl Sagan and others already alluded to great odds against it.

 

[Queller]

I didn't use a diagram. I simply said that there are diagrams available to support my contention.

So give us one and tell us how it supports your conclusions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'll bite. What other functions do you think it has? What is the evidence for your claims?

Read up on it. Lot's of info out there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So give us one and tell us how it supports your conclusions.

Just look at you own hand (it's right there, on the end of your arm).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just look at you own hand (it's right there, on the end of your arm).

Still not evidence. Perhaps we should discuss what is and what is not evidence. Then you would not repeat this error.

 

[pitabread]

Just look at you own hand (it's right there, on the end of your arm).

You need to understand that you're trying to make an emotional argument here (e.g. an argument based on awe and wonder). And it's never going to work.

It's like me telling you that La La Land is the greatest film of all time simply because I had a positive emotional reaction when I watched it. If you don't share the same reaction, you won't agree that it's the greatest film of all time.

You need to come up with a different argument.

 

[Queller]

The more I read about it the more magical it gets, actually rivaling the magic of God.

What have you actually read about it? Give us some books or scientific articles you've read.