The first heart?

[laconicstudent]

Pythagoras's works were arcane, written in Doric, and burned in antiquity.

"... until the time of Philolaus, there were no doctrines of Pythagoras ever divulged; and he [Philolaus] was the first [Greek] person who published the three celebrated books which Plato wrote to have purchased for him for a hundred minae." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"There were however certain persons who were hostile to the Pythagoreans, and who rose against them. That stratagems were employed to destroy them ... is universally acknowledged. ... Those who were called Cylonians continued to plot against the Pythagoreans ... they set fire to Milo's residence, where were assembled all the Pythagoreans, holding a council of war. All were burnt, except two, Achippus and Lysis, who ecaped through their bodily vigor." -- Iamblichus, philosopher, 3rd century

"This primary philosophy of the Pythagoreans finally died out first, because it was enigmatical, and then because their commentaries were written in Doric, which dialect itself is somewhat obscure, so that Doric teachings were not fully understood, and they became misapprehended, and finally spurious, and later, they who published them no longer were Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans affirm that Plato, Aristotle, Speusippus, Aristoxenus and Xenocrates; appropriated the best of them, making but minor changes (to distract attention from this their theft)...." -- Porphyry, philosopher, 3rd century

"Pythagoras's friends then gathered together in the house of Milo the wrestler; and were all stoned and burned when Cylon's followers set the house on fire. Only two escaped, Archippus and Lysis, according to the account of Neanthes." -- Porphyry, philosopher, 3rd century

Ah, well yeah, I guess that would make quoting Pythagoras rather difficult then lol

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Ah, well yeah, I guess that would make quoting Pythagoras rather difficult then lol

...

 

[rjw]

This is still the only correct answer I've seen so far.

So what does an angel's heart look like? What is it made of? How does it work?

How do you know that angels are the first species to have hearts?



Regards, Roland

 

[juvenissun]

Earthworms have a single chamber heart. It was probably a worm, though I realize that is a rather general term. A heart is simply speaking, a muscled chamber. The first heart would have been a muscle surrounding the major blood vessel in that organism. This evolved into a single chamber heart, which evolved into 2 chambers, three and finally four.

Is a heart only used in life with a circulatory system?

Or is any organ that can push the movement of fluid can be called a heart?

 

[juvenissun]

It would have been a very early organism: multicellular, and before the division between invertebrates and vertebrates, I would imagine. So something that lived over 600MYA, probably much earlier.

That's my unprofessional opinion .

EDIT: This article has some information on the evolution of the heart.

So, you are saying that the only way to explore the evolution of heart is to examine various types of hearts in modern animals (horizontal in time) and infers them as a similar sequence of heart development happened in evolution (vertical in time). Is that right?

Don't be embarrassed. I understand this is one of the limitation of science. Similar situation happened in many other disciplines of science, particularly in geology.

Is the heart of a dinosaur similar to one found in croc today? The heart of big dino may have some chance to be preserved. Well, I don't know. I guess not.

 

[juvenissun]

Angels.

Thanks, that is a good answer in terms of time sequence.
But I am asking about heart in animals.

But theologically, I am not sure how would we work in a spiritual body. If we have a heart, then we should have blood. If we have blood, then we should take food. Or, we don't necessary need food? Anyway, this is not a concern in this thread. My OP is one consideration in a bigger scheme. Let's talk about animals, for now.

 

[juvenissun]

So the bible does use Figures of speech and isn't 100% literal?

It still could be literal (you can never win on this, literal still mean interpretation):

Heart can literally mean mind.

 

[juvenissun]

Earthworms have a single chamber heart. It was probably a worm, though I realize that is a rather general term. A heart is simply speaking, a muscled chamber. The first heart would have been a muscle surrounding the major blood vessel in that organism. This evolved into a single chamber heart, which evolved into 2 chambers, three and finally four.

Earthworm? Thanks. This gives more questions.

It seems that an earthworm has many hearts, and its circulatory system is described as "open". In this case, I would not call it "heart". May be "biological pump" or simply "pump" is a better term.

So, the "heart" in my OP can be limited to "the single fluid pump for a closed circulatory system"

Still, I think fish is the earliest animal to have a "heart". Am I right?

Push it further: Is it right to say that most insects don't have a heart?

 

[Gracchus]

All literature uses figures of speech.

You should be consistent and propose that because Newton and Darwin used figures of speech, analogies, and common metaphors, that therefore the Principia and On the Origin of Species must be rejected wholesale.

Has anyone claimed that Newton and Darwin must be accepted wholesale?

They both made significant discoveries. They both got some things wrong.

Now the Bible got a few things wrong too. It isn't even internally consistent.

KJV 1 Chronicles 21:1 "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may
know it."

KJV 2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people."

While it is obvious that David ordered a census, there seems to be some disagreement about whether God or Satan moved or provoked David to do the deed. Now, it seems to me that Chronicles was written by someone partial to Israel, and Samuel was written by someone hostile to Israel.

I think it is only reasonable to have some doubts and to admit some uncertainty in cases where one book of the Bible contradicts another, or when it presents what is contrary to fact.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#david_anger

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks, that is a good answer in terms of time sequence.
But I am asking about heart in animals.

But theologically, I am not sure how would we work in a spiritual body. If we have a heart, then we should have blood. If we have blood, then we should take food. Or, we don't necessary need food? Anyway, this is not a concern in this thread. My OP is one consideration in a bigger scheme. Let's talk about animals, for now.

No problem, bro --- I knew what you meant --- and I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread, but I did want to get the point in that angels smite the Theory of Evolution big time.

Not only do they show that abiogenesis is a farce, but they show that life existed well before anything even considered mutating.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, you are saying that the only way to explore the evolution of heart is to examine various types of hearts in modern animals (horizontal in time) and infers them as a similar sequence of heart development happened in evolution (vertical in time). Is that right?

It's not the only way, but it's certainly a very useful way. From an evolutionary point of view, 'primitive' organisms (and the I use the term tentatively) would have more 'primitive' hearts, and it's probable that their hearts are similar to the hearts of our distant ancestors. Conversely, complex creatures like ourselves would likely have rather modern hearts.

Don't be embarrassed. I understand this is one of the limitation of science. Similar situation happened in many other disciplines of science, particularly in geology.

It's not an embarrassment, it's simply one method of ascertaining the facts.

Is the heart of a dinosaur similar to one found in croc today? The heart of big dino may have some chance to be preserved. Well, I don't know. I guess not.

I doubt it. The heart doesn't lend itself to being preserved, unlike bones and, to an extent, skin.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Earthworm? Thanks. This gives more questions.

It seems that an earthworm has many hearts, and its circulatory system is described as "open". In this case, I would not call it "heart". May be "biological pump" or simply "pump" is a better term.

So, the "heart" in my OP can be limited to "the single fluid pump for a closed circulatory system"

Still, I think fish is the earliest animal to have a "heart". Am I right?

Push it further: Is it right to say that most insects don't have a heart?

Insects have something analogous to our heart, with chambers and pumps and whatnot. But I think that's an example of convergent evolution: we both evolved from a species with an open circulatory system, and we both independently evolved a closed system. That's why they do the same broad function, but in different ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

Awfully big assumption to make, considering the total lack of evidence supporting anything in the book they're mentioned in.

Ain't that a crying shame?

I'd venture to say that if you've been around any length of time, your guardian angel has saved you from a few mishaps --- despite not leaving a tracer behind.

What's this Hansel and Gretel attitude towards the supernatural anyway?

Do you think they should go out of their way to leave crumbs behind for your instruments to detect?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, you're making the assumption that they exist.

I make the "assumption" a lot of stuff exists/existed that can't be detected scientifically.

Just like you guys do with neutrinos and tachyons and that thing the LHC is looking for and S.E.T.I. and dark matter and ...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I make the "assumption" a lot of stuff exists/existed that can't be detected scientifically.

Just like you guys do with neutrinos and tachyons and that thing the LHC is looking for and S.E.T.I. and dark matter and ...

To be fair, we have found neutrinos, and we have good reason for thinking the other things exist.

 

[Hespera]

Is a heart only used in life with a circulatory system?

Or is any organ that can push the movement of fluid can be called a heart?

Watch a daddy long legs doing what looks like pushups. the body is divided horizontallin and thru the legs by a septum, with one way valbes. fluid extends the legs, muscles pull them back. in the process, the fluid is forced thru the one way valves and circulates. there is no heart as such.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Now the Bible got a few things wrong too. It isn't even internally consistent.

KJV 1 Chronicles 21:1 "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may
know it."

KJV 2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people."

While it is obvious that David ordered a census, there seems to be some disagreement about whether God or Satan moved or provoked David to do the deed. Now, it seems to me that Chronicles was written by someone partial to Israel, and Samuel was written by someone hostile to Israel.

Samuel was written by Samuel and Chronicles was written by The Chronicler.

Two different men, neither of whom were infallible, and neither of whom were named God or Jesus.

I really don't see your point.

Are you saying that because Samuel and the Chronicler disagree in their interpretation of events, that therefore there is no such thing as truth in the Bible and Israel does not exist?

I think it is only reasonable to have some doubts and to admit some uncertainty in cases where one book of the Bible contradicts another, or when it presents what is contrary to fact.

A List Of Biblical Contradictions

Evolution isn't consistent either.

You should be consistent and say that because Darwin and Dawkins don't agree on everything that therefore evolution cannot be taken literally.

A list of evolutionary contradictions: Evolutionary Contradictions

Addressing a conference of American biology teachers, Professor John Moore of the Department of Natural Science of Michigan State University stated: ‘There is nothing but circumstantial evidence to support the theory of evolution.’ This claim contrasts with the assertion made by the British zoologist, Sir Julian Huxley in the Encyclopedia Britannica, that there is ‘not the least doubt as to the fact of evolution…’

Evolutionary Contradictions--Must Be MYTH???

 

[Split Rock]

Is a heart only used in life with a circulatory system?

Or is any organ that can push the movement of fluid can be called a heart?

I believe that the term "heart" is normally only applied to circulatory systems, yes. Plants have phloem and xylem for moving fluids, but no heart. Our lymphatic system has no heart.

 

[sfs]

This is historically false.

No, it isn't. The concept of the heart as center of thought and consciousness was indeed widespread in the Ancient Near East. For example, this (from here) "It seems that neither rabbis nor Babylonian medics knew much about internal anatomy, since they had rather vague ideas about where organs were and their functions. The brain was called in both Akkadian and Aramaic by the same word which means 'marrow', nor did anyone in Babylonia seem to know that it was related to cognition; both Babylonians and rabbis considered the heart to be the seat of intellect, and the kidneys to be the seat of emotions."

Or this, from the Wikipedia article on the Egyptian soul, "To Ancient Egyptians, it was the heart and not the brain that was the seat of emotion and thought, including the will and intentions."

"... [Pythagoras said] that deliberation (nous), and reason (phren), reside in the brain...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

The claim was about beliefs in the Ancient Near East, not beliefs among the Greeks. Why are you citing the beliefs of someone who did not belong to the relevant cultural world?

 

[sfs]

Are you saying that because Samuel and the Chronicler disagree in their interpretation of events, that therefore there is no such thing as truth in the Bible and Israel does not exist?

Samuel and Chronicles disagree not just on the interpretation of events, but on what events happened. That means at least one of them was wrong. As you say, the author of neither was infallible -- but that's something that many here would dispute.

You should be consistent and say that because Darwin and Dawkins don't agree on everything that therefore evolution cannot be taken literally.

No, where Darwin and Dawkins don't agree, generally at least one of them is simply wrong. They are undoubtedly both wrong on many points.It is only if you believe that a text cannot be wrong that you need to invoke non-literal interpretations to evade contradictions.

There is a separate question of whether the author(s) of Genesis were attempting to write a historically accurate narrative, or whether they cared.