What does evolution say about this?

[savedandhappy1]

I was wondering what science says came first the heart, artery, and/or vein?

Thanks

 

[Drekkan85]

I'm not an expert in the early evolution of the cardiovascular system. I imagine none of them evolved "first". It was probably a coevolutionary process in small steps via proto-organs/systems.

 

[gluadys]

I was wondering what science says came first the heart, artery, and/or vein?

Thanks

You might find this helpful.


http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookcircSYS.html

 

[savedandhappy1]

I'm not an expert in the early evolution of the cardiovascular system. I imagine none of them evolved "first". It was probably a coevolutionary process in small steps via proto-organs/systems.

Can they develop in small steps?

You can't have blood circulating through the heart without the artery and veins, and you don't need the artery and veins to circulate if you don't have a heart?

The body that these are end would die if the waste wasn't removed and would fail to grow if the blood wasn't going through all of it so what kind of small steps could have kept it alive long enough for it to mature?

 

[savedandhappy1]

You might find this helpful.


http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookcircSYS.html

Thank You for the link! I have only scanned alittle of it, right now, but wanted to come and thank you for providing it before I got sidetrack.

I do have to ask if you really can look at those first few pictures of the circulatory systems, in animals, and really believe that it all happen by chance? Why wouldn't everything have the same circulatory systems if it was an evolution process?

Will go back and look deeper into the site you so kindly gave, thanks you.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do have to ask if you really can look at those first few pictures of the circulatory systems, in animals, and really believe that it all happen by chance?

The point of evolutionary theory is that it doesn't happen by chance.

Why wouldn't everything have the same circulatory systems if it was an evolution process?

For the same reason you don't have wings or gills, although you have structures that become those things in other animals.

 

[gluadys]

Thank You for the link! I have only scanned alittle of it, right now, but wanted to come and thank you for providing it before I got sidetrack.

I do have to ask if you really can look at those first few pictures of the circulatory systems, in animals, and really believe that it all happen by chance?

When chance is in the hands of God, why not? Look at how often in the bible a crucial decision is left to chance (casting of lots), because people knew that God rules chance. Chance is not a problem for God.

"Chance" after all, is not a cause. It is just a measure of what we cannot predict. And God is always unpredictable.

Why wouldn't everything have the same circulatory systems if it was an evolution process?

What for? One of the most important products of evolution is diversity. If you think evolution ought to produce the same result all the time, you probably have a faulty view of evolution.


In fact, your two questions contradict each other. If evolution were really a matter of chance and only chance, there is no way everything could end up the same. And if evolution meant that everything would end up with the same circulatory (or any other system) there is no way it could all be by chance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God has two speeds for creating critters. One is slow (evolution). The other is very fast as in T-Rex, who appeared "suddenly". The way to tell the difference is to assemble the fossil evidence. If there are similiar fossils then evolution occurred. If not, as in most fossil remains, then he used the fast method.

owg

 

[busterdog]

I was wondering what science says came first the heart, artery, and/or vein?

Thanks

There is no good answer, because no one was there at the time (either during the six days of creation or the billions of savage years of E life).

The only answer is that whatever works for you theory on whatever day you are talking about and from whatever perspective, that is what happened. It is a moving target. The issue about chance is also a charade. Chance is again a question of where during the flow chart chance existed, not whether chance exists. The more evidence of design there is, the more the evolutionist must obscure their reliance upon chance or fundamental mystery in the process. They simply try to move it out of view in order to pretend there is no chance within their fundamental theory.


By the way, have I told you lately how much I really like you sister?

Long time!

 

[savedandhappy1]

When chance is in the hands of God, why not? Look at how often in the bible a crucial decision is left to chance (casting of lots), because people knew that God rules chance. Chance is not a problem for God.

"Chance" after all, is not a cause. It is just a measure of what we cannot predict. And God is always unpredictable.

Because God doesn't leave anything to chance. He knows the beginning from the end, and He is predictable because He doesn't change. It we will read His word and pray He will show Himself to whoever seeks to know Him more.

Oh, by the way casting of lots wasn't by chance, but was prophesied in the OT as something that would come to pass.

What for? One of the most important products of evolution is diversity. If you think evolution ought to produce the same result all the time, you probably have a faulty view of evolution.


In fact, your two questions contradict each other. If evolution were really a matter of chance and only chance, there is no way everything could end up the same. And if evolution meant that everything would end up with the same circulatory (or any other system) there is no way it could all be by chance.

Or one of the most important products of creation is the similarities put there by the Creator, who spoke all things into existence.

If evolution isn't a mater of chance then something/someone had to make it do what happened, but that isn't what we are told. We are told that something was here, but we don't know what it was or how it got here, and from that something one cell things became two celled thing, etc.

What do we see next? We see very very smart people believe something so totally stupid, just because they can't wrap their mind around the fact that a Creator would create this great world so that He could be loved and that He could show His wonderful love.

 

[savedandhappy1]

There is no good answer, because no one was there at the time (either during the six days of creation or the billions of savage years of E life).

The only answer is that whatever works for you theory on whatever day you are talking about and from whatever perspective, that is what happened. It is a moving target. The issue about chance is also a charade. Chance is again a question of where during the flow chart chance existed, not whether chance exists. The more evidence of design there is, the more the evolutionist must obscure their reliance upon chance or fundamental mystery in the process. They simply try to move it out of view in order to pretend there is no chance within their fundamental theory.


By the way, have I told you lately how much I really like you sister?

Long time!

Oh my Dear Brother so good to hear from you!!!!

Thank you so much for your response, I so wish I could write as well as you do.

Love in Christ to you and yours. May there not be so much time between our speaking together again.

 

[gluadys]

Because God doesn't leave anything to chance. He knows the beginning from the end, and He is predictable because He doesn't change. It we will read His word and pray He will show Himself to whoever seeks to know Him more.

Oh, by the way casting of lots wasn't by chance, but was prophesied in the OT as something that would come to pass.

Does that make the outcome of the lot any less a matter of chance in human eyes? Are you expecting scientists to be able to read the mind of God and know the end from the beginning as God does? Or are scientists very human men and women like you and me who cannot tell which way a coin will land, when a radioactive atom will decay or where and when and with what effect a mutation will occur?

Just because God knows the end from the beginning doesn't mean there is a scientific test that will pass that information on to humans. So, much of what God knows is still unpredictable to us. Those things we call "random" or "chance". But the chance is still in God's hands for the reasons you named.

Chance in evolution is no different. It is not a special sort of chance that God can't or doesn't deal with.

Or one of the most important products of creation is the similarities put there by the Creator, who spoke all things into existence.

However, since creation is a theological doctrine, it doesn't serve as a hypothesis from which we can predict what the pattern of similarities and differences will be. It is not useful in helping us understand how to apply the similarities among animals e.g. in formulating medicines.

If evolution isn't a mater of chance then something/someone had to make it do what happened, but that isn't what we are told. We are told that something was here, but we don't know what it was or how it got here, and from that something one cell things became two celled thing, etc.

We are told in science class as much as science knows. We supply the rest from our Christian faith. Or not, as the case may be.

Supposing that science knows it all has never been a Christian position.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Does that make the outcome of the lot any less a matter of chance in human eyes? Are you expecting scientists to be able to read the mind of God and know the end from the beginning as God does? Or are scientists very human men and women like you and me who cannot tell which way a coin will land, when a radioactive atom will decay or where and when and with what effect a mutation will occur?

Just because God knows the end from the beginning doesn't mean there is a scientific test that will pass that information on to humans. So, much of what God knows is still unpredictable to us. Those things we call "random" or "chance". But the chance is still in God's hands for the reasons you named.

Chance in evolution is no different. It is not a special sort of chance that God can't or doesn't deal with.

I believe that to many Christians today are blurring the lines of truth by saying I believe in God but I don't believe He said let there be light and there was light. They say they believe that...............well I guess it would take to much space to try and weed through all the ways they try to hang on both the things that the words of God and the words of man says.

I hear people who profess to be Christians say that what the Bible says can't be right it must be misinterpretated, because science says this or that.

We are told to make our yes, yes and our no, no, so when we try to make the Bible fit science/man's findings as compared to the other way around we are saying that our yes is yes sometimes, but other times it is maybe or no.

Matthew 5:37
37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

Why do people not notice that back when the majority of people believed in God and His Word that the lines between truth and a lie were much clearer? Now days we make God into what we want Him to be, and/or what makes sense to us as compared to reading and studying His Word to know the true God.

So lets see who wants there to be doubt, confussion, lies, etc? Who doesn't want our yes to be yes and our no, no? Looks like the scriptures that tell us who created us and all things also tells us that the evil one is the one who is working to keep our yes from always being yes and our no, no.

We are told in science class as much as science knows. We supply the rest from our Christian faith. Or not, as the case may be.

No, we are told in science class what they think they know, and they tell it as truth. They even list some of the supposed stages of man, that have been proven to be fake as if they really still are that way, because they don't have anything to fill in that hole in the link if they only print what they have.

I find it amazing that they can find 1 or 2 bones and drawn an entire picture of what a animal looked like, even tho they don't have anything but those little bones. They might give it wings, or hugh jaws. They might tell us this was a meat eater or feasted just on vegtables, and they might say it is a female or male with a big head that walked mostly upright when it wasn't flying. They do all this from one or two bones that they aren't even sure where theu go, because no one has seen this animal before, and this makes more sense then beleiving in a God who speaks and calms the waters.

Boy am I tired!! Since I am not rally sure if I am making any sense at all, I will retire, and check in later to see if any of this makes sense.

 

[gluadys]

I see that having no answer to my post, you need a diversion from the topic of chance.

I believe that to many Christians today are blurring the lines of truth by saying I believe in God but I don't believe He said let there be light and there was light.

I do not know of any Christians, whether favoring or disputing evolution, who would deny that God spoke light, and all things, into being.

I hear people who profess to be Christians say that what the Bible says can't be right it must be misinterpretated, because science says this or that.

That's one of the good things about theistic evolution. It agrees that the bible is not a science text and we should not misinterpret the bible (as anti-evolutionists often do) to make it conform to science. Instead we should interpret it properly as not being about science.

We are told to make our yes, yes and our no, no, so when we try to make the Bible fit science/man's findings as compared to the other way around we are saying that our yes is yes sometimes, but other times it is maybe or no.

Again, agreed. Trying to put science into the bible or interpreting the bible as if it were science is a foolish quest that takes our attention away from its real message. That is why anti-evolution creationism is so dangerous.

Why do people not notice that back when the majority of people believed in God and His Word that the lines between truth and a lie were much clearer?

I think you may be wearing the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia. The life of 50 or more years ago always seems simpler that today's, but it wasn't at the time.

No, we are told in science class what they think they know, and they tell it as truth. They even list some of the supposed stages of man, that have been proven to be fake as if they really still are that way, because they don't have anything to fill in that hole in the link if they only print what they have.

Do you have an example of this? Must be a very old text-book since the last "fake" human fossil ever in a textbook was Piltdown man--and that was removed in the 1950s. Any textbook published since then should mention Piltdown man only as a hoax.

I find it amazing that they can find 1 or 2 bones and drawn an entire picture of what a animal looked like, even tho they don't have anything but those little bones. They might give it wings, or hugh jaws. They might tell us this was a meat eater or feasted just on vegtables, and they might say it is a female or male with a big head that walked mostly upright when it wasn't flying. They do all this from one or two bones that they aren't even sure where theu go, because no one has seen this animal before, and this makes more sense then beleiving in a God who speaks and calms the waters.

I always find it ironic that creationists use this argument. After all, it was a prominent creationist who developed the science of anatomy to the point that we can tell a great deal about an animal from a few remains--at least if they are key ones like teeth. In fact, Baron Cuvier even boasted that he could reconstruct an entire animal from a single tooth. That was probably an exaggeration, even for him. But next time you think of using this argument, remember the science of comparative anatomy was first developed by a creationist who opposed Darwin's theory.

 

[Drekkan85]

Indeed, find me one major modern biology textbook that contains known forgeries and I'll eat my hat (it's a really really nice hat too - I got it at the tailor that the Belgian Crown Prince uses in Brussels).

As for the theology - it's not that TEs don't believe in the Bible. It's that they understand that the word of God is so awing, and our minds are so small in comparison, that it is next to impossible for him to speak and us to hear unless he speaks down to our level. Thus the Bible isn't literal truth, but rather allegory to teach and guide.

 

[Smidlee]

here is an interesting quote about this subject

Biologists would love to know just how the vertebrate heart evolved from the simple, two-chambered organ of early fish to the complex, multi-chambered hearts of birds and mammals, with their two atria (which receive blood from the veins) and two ventricles (which pump blood back out through the arteries). Unfortunately, soft tissues rarely make good fossils, so we are unlikely to ever know for certain. But we can construct a hypothetical scenario by looking at the wide variety of hearts found in animals alive today. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals have been following independent evolutionary paths for millions of years, of course, and no modern biologist would dare suggest that a frog or alligator is a step en route to an eagle or human being. However, comparing the hearts of living vertebrates--and specifically how they handle the transport of oxygen to the body’s tissues (one of the organ’s most important functions)--can provide insights into what the intermediate steps between one type of heart and another might be.

Warren Burggren, Natural History, “And the Beat Goes On (A Brief Guide to the Hearts of Vertebrates)” pages 62-64

In another words; they have no idea and may never know yet this does not effect their faith in evolution that it did happen nor hinder their imagination from come up with stories like "the little eyeball that could" or "with enough heart anything can happen"

 

[philadiddle]

I was wondering what science says came first the heart, artery, and/or vein?

Thanks

I'm just curious about something. What do you have in mind when you ask this? Like, are you genuinly looking for an answer so that you can understand? Or are you trying to show people that evolution is false? If it's the former, I hope this forum isn't your only hope for an answer, there are many books about evolution that include systems such as our circulatory system. If it's the latter, then are you assuming it's impossible and no answer will do? What if someone does explain it to you, then will you just accept it? Or have you decided already that it can't happen no matter what explanation you get?

 

[Smidlee]

I agree you shouldn't just take my word of this subject especially since I'm a creationist. (why I quoted from a evolution believer) A good book to read is "The Plausibility of Life" where evolutionist tried their best to explain how to get designs without a designer. They know that so far unguided natural processes (Darwinism) hasn't been able to explain novelties and the best they can come up with is something called "facilitated variation."
The best argument and evidence against evolution is from evolutionist themselves. They know some of their argument sounds crazy.

From the quote above Warren made it clear that " no modern biologist would dare suggest that a frog or alligator is a step en route to an eagle or human being" yet they will turn away and try to them to support their story telling.

 

[philadiddle]

I agree you shouldn't just take my word of this subject especially since I'm a creationist. (why I quoted from a evolution believer) A good book to read is "The Plausibility of Life" where evolutionist tried their best to explain how to get designs without a designer. They know that so far unguided natural processes (Darwinism) hasn't been able to explain novelties and the best they can come up with is something called "facilitated variation."
The best argument and evidence against evolution is from evolutionist themselves. They know some of their argument sounds crazy.

From the quote above Warren made it clear that " no modern biologist would dare suggest that a frog or alligator is a step en route to an eagle or human being" yet they will turn away and try to them to support their story telling.

So instead of trying to understand the theory of evolution, the evidence for it, and the usefulness of it, you prefer to attack the strawman versions you come up with? It's one thing to disagree with someone, but it's something else entirely to twist what they say and argue with that instead.

 

[Sphinx777]

The circulatory system is an organ system that moves nutrients, gases, and wastes to and from cells to help fight diseases and help stabilize body temperature and pH to maintain homeostasis. This system may be seen strictly as a blood distribution network, but some consider the circulatory system as composed of the cardiovascular system, which distributes blood, and the lymphatic system, which distributes lymph. While humans, as well as other vertebrates, have a closed cardiovascular system (meaning that the blood never leaves the network of arteries, veins and capillaries), some invertebrate groups have an open cardiovascular system. The most primitive animal phyla lack circulatory system. The lymphatic system, on the other hand, is an open system.

The main components of the human circulatory system are the heart, the blood, and the blood vessels. The circulatory system includes: the pulmonary circulation, a "loop" through the lungs where blood is oxygenated; and the systemic circulation, a "loop" through the rest of the body to provide oxygenated blood. An average adult contains five to six quarts (roughly 4.7 to 5.7 litres) of blood, which consists of plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Also, the digestive system works with the circulatory system to provide the nutrients the system needs to keep the heart pumping.

Two types of fluids move through the circulatory system: blood and lymph. The blood, heart, and blood vessels form the cardiovascular system. The lymph, lymph nodes, and lymph vessels form the lymphatic system. The cardiovascular system and the lymphatic system collectively make up the circulatory system.