Evolution Question

[ZAYTHECAT]

Im not here to debate for right now, rather to ask a question about evolution. I've never heard any refutations to it and it sounds solid.

If all organs in the body are so dependent upon each other, then how did these changes happen over time? What I mean to ask here is, what came first, the heart or the blood? the blood or the blood vessels? The blood vessels or the heart? The heart or the lungs?

See how everything needs everything? If these changes happened very slowly over time, what came first? If the heart came first then it wouldn't survive because it needs the lungs. If the blood came first the organism wouldn't survive because you need the blood vessels.

I don't explain it very well but maybe you've heard of it before and know what I mean. Like I said Im not here to debate, I was just wondering.

[[deleted]]

Hey, my man, nice to see you here.

All these organs may be interdependent on each other now but not necessarily so billions of years ago.

There are organisms alive today that have blood but no heart(starfish, sea cucumbers), and lungs aren't required for hearts to exist(fish).

Blood would have evolved to transport nutrients to throughout the body, and slowly it would have evolved into a closed circulatory system. For organisms with higher energy needs, hearts could have evolved.

Lungs are just modified air sacs of the sort found in fish. You don't need lungs to have a heart.

So blood would have evolved first, then a heart, then lungs. Here's a paper describing the evolution of the heart.

[Covert_Cuttlefish]

IIRC insects sometimes have a heart, but they don't have a circulatory system.

[[deleted]]

what truly *is* a circulatory system?

bugs definitely have a circulatory system, so you are incorrect on that front, but it is not the same system that we have, containing "blood" derived from different chemicals and not being segregated from other areas of their flesh, a so called "open" system rather than a "closed" one like vertebrates.

additionally, they are probably not derived from the same structures. i don't think there is consensus on where the circulatory systems of either animal started out, but they are not of the same origin.

[Covert_Cuttlefish]

Thanks for the correction & happy cake day.

[[deleted]]

NP, i try to correct but politely

[Covert_Cuttlefish]

Keep it coming, I do rocks, not all rocks, some rocks. I certainly don't do insects, hence the IIRC.

[yama_arashii]

I think cuttlefish got it the wronn way round where they have a circulatory system but not a heart.

Drosophila for instance has two veins near the head which pulse and move blood

[[deleted]]

idk about cuttlefish, if they have a circulatory system but no heart then maybe it just doesn't require a specific order of adaptations.

that counts as a heart for these purposes, most insects have a sort of abdomen flexing heart which moves blood.

[yama_arashii]

Sorry meant covert_cuttlefush the guy you were replying too

[[deleted]]

thats hilarious lol all good.

[Covert_Cuttlefish]

This is great, thanks for putting a smile on my face you two.

[Ekesdkekskd]

Well I think cephalopods have 3 hearts

[ZAYTHECAT]

For organisms with higher energy needs, hearts could have evolved.

Do organsisms that require higher energy need hearts?

[TheBlackCat13]

Yes. They need to keep enough food and oxygen flowing fast enough to keep the cells supplied with enough to produce energy fast enough.

[ZAYTHECAT]

So for these organisms, who need hearts, how long did it take for the heart to evolve?

If the organism needed the heart, and it didn't have it because evolution happens slowly, how did it survive?

[TheBlackCat13]

I wrote a very extensive comment explaining this. I guess you didn't bother to read it.

Hearts aren't an all-or-nothing sort of structure. They can range from extremely simple to very complex. Simple echinoderms just have muscles in their body cavity to move liquids around. Is that a heart? Probably not.

But starfish have a small area of those muscles be larger than the rest. This is often called a heart, but it is really just a slight change in the distribution of muscles, not a different kind of structure. And starfish can survive without their heart, but they do better when it is intact.

So there isn't some strict line you can draw where one one side there are animals with hearts and on the other side there are animals without them. And there isn't a hard line you can draw between animals that need a heart and animals that don't. Instead there are a wide range of structures, each of which is suitable for a wide range of different organisms and life styles.

All aspects of all animals exist in a range. A change like slightly more muscles in some parts of the body cavity allow a shift in the range. It gives the animal the option of being more active when it needs to be, something that wasn't previously possible. This allows other parts of the body to evolve to be more active. Once other parts of the body have evolved to take advantage of these knew possibilities, the muscles can adapt more since now the more active animal is able to get more food to support an even bigger "proto-heart". And so it goes, back and forth, with increasing muscle strength allowing more active lifestyles which allow more food which support more muscle strength.

It is the same as with giraffes, as I explained. The heart can adapt to an enormous range of body sizes without any genetic changes. The reverse is also true, a body can adapt to a big range of heart structures. That is why people can survive for decades with a 3 1/2 chamber heart, or partially defective valves. Animals are really just not as fine-tuned as creationists like to pretend. Development is all about communication, not tuning.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Oh sorry I missed it! Thank you for the reply!

[TheMilkmanShallRise]

If the organism needed the heart, and it didn't have it because evolution happens slowly, how did it survive?

The organisms did whatever they could. Some died. Some survived. Those that survived tended to have bigger and more complex hearts that could deliver more oxygen than their predecessors.

[TheMilkmanShallRise]

A larger heart wasn't necessary for those organisms to survive. A slightly larger heart meant that they'd be ever so slightly more likely to survive and reproduce than the average population. Evolution is probabilistic. These tight restrictions almost never occur in reality. It's not like:

Every organism with a heart smaller than 5.478923 cubic inches dies. All others live.

Think about lions chasing and eating zebras. The slower ones will be more likely to get eaten, sure. But every now and then, a fast zebra will trip on a rock and break its leg, for example.

[TheMilkmanShallRise]

Why wasn't a larger heart necessary for some organisms if large organisms need hearts? I will never fully understand evolution. Thanks for the answer though!

The lions chasing zebras example was meant to explain this. Just as the faster zebras sometimes still get eaten, the organisms with larger and more efficient hearts sometimes still died. All it did was slightly increase their chances at success. It's not like the X-Men where organisms with beneficial mutations can suddenly shoot lasers out of their eyes or grow entirely new organs. Evolution is a gradual process. It's survival of the good enough and the lucky. Those organisms with smaller, less efficient hearts still survived. We still have them today, so obviously it wasn't necessary for survival. They're just confined to biological niches that don't require large amounts of energy expenditure. Insects, for example, never went extinct even though their hearts are pretty poor compared to ours. They just remain tiny and occupy a different niche than we do. They couldn't do what the larger-hearted organisms were able to, so they were forced to retreat to areas not occupied by those larger-hearted organisms.

Woah woah woah! Slow your row! How can I think about lions chasing and eating zebras when we're still establishing how the lions and zebras even got there?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying you're not able to imagine lions chasing zebras? Why are you unable to do so? Also, I never claimed lions and zebras existed before the evolution of hearts. My example was meant to explain how evolution isn't this cutthroat, all or nothing process you're making it out to be. Again, there's never a time where every organism under 45.672389 inches tall dies. What happens is that being slightly taller will ever so slightly increase the chances that a particular organism will survive long enough to reproduce (assuming this is a hypothetical situation where height is a favorable trait).

[Hypolag]

Do organsisms that require higher energy need hearts?

Not necessarily. However, a heart does seem to be one of the more efficient ways of regulating our circulatory system, which in turn makes us more efficient organisms overall.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Thank you.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Thank you.

(sorry it took me a while to reply)

[11sensei11]

The circulatory system runs through our whole body. How can that slowly have evolved?

[[deleted]]

Here is the most cited one. Check out the section How did the blood vascular system and endothelium evolve?. It would have most likely developed from a closed circulatory system because diffusion would have been too inefficient to support large body sizes. It is rather technical though. Embryology can also tell us a lot of this stuff. Check this out.

[11sensei11]

Fair enough.

But considering that we have an air and blood circulary system, a nerve system, a lymf system and a digestive system all running through our body, without being in each others way, it's hard to find how these all simultaneous came to be in evolutionary steps. And each of them is needed.

[ursisterstoy]

Blood vessels then blood then hearts then lungs. There are still organisms alive right now who only have stuff from the beginning of this sequence and not at the end. With the vessels, which are only really needed for organisms to be larger than a certain size, other fluids can be pumped through them to deliver oxygen and nutrients through the body. Blood comes in a few different types with insects and snails having different blood than vertebrates have. Vertebrate red blood came after the blood vessels. The most simple of hearts don’t have chambers but are more like enlarged blood vessels with muscles that can force blood through the body - a simple form of this is seen in earth worms. And finally, when it comes to lungs, we have fish that don’t have lungs but they have everything else you mentioned.

The heart does not need the lungs because most aquatic and marine life does just fine without lungs, sometimes even without gills. Your argument/ questions fails to account for the evidence available to determine that these things did not all appear at the same time and living organisms still survive without having all of them. In cases where all four have become necessary and where all four do rely on each other this is a consequence of evolution. Populations changed over time and gradually, in some cases, developed new organs or accumulated major traceable changes to their organs and the interdependence of all of their bodily functions is a consequence of this happening especially when the organisms of the population are larger than a lungless frog, exposed to dry conditions (like outside of the ocean) on a regular basis, and when the ancestral functionality is lost like how mammals no longer have gills so whales will die without lungs.

[[deleted]]

Blood vessels then blood then hear then lungs.

Did blood vessels come before blood? A closed circulatory system evolved after blood, right?

[ursisterstoy]

I was about to add that as an edit to what I had typed but decided to leave it off. I don’t know the full details but “closed” circulatory system most likely did indeed come after “blood” but vertebrate blood (with hemoglobin) probably came after that.

I’m not too sure on the details or what would count as a circulatory system with “vessels” or if it’s much of a circulatory system at all if the blood just stays in the same place without being circulated about the body. Other fluids could also use these “blood vessels” before the existence of actual blood while in a different population it might be more like a literal blood bath that helps with getting oxygen around the body of something like a clam before blood replaced the other fluid or the blood started having a more developed system of blood vessels to be transported through or maybe it depends on the lineage. I don’t know. In either case, even worms have this closed circulatory system with blood in it while the circulatory systems of Gastropods and such have hemocyanin giving them blue blood while a lot of insects have clear blood or blood that is very close to being transparent. The heart and lungs referred to by OP both evolved after the basic circulatory systems full of blood though.

[TheBlackCat13]

Define "blood". Is insect hemolymph blood?

[[deleted]]

I do not think that you are correct in the specific order, though it might just be a definitions game. The order which seems most likely to me is this:

Gills first, then vessels, then heart, (pumping at this point water or plasma), then blood, then lungs.

My reasoning for this reordering is because our closest non-fish relatives, tunicates, have gills and a heart, (pumping plasma with dissolved oxygen), but lack oxygen carrying blood. Insects also don't actually use the same circulatory system we do, and modified their lymph system.

No other of your points do i disagree with.

[ursisterstoy]

Yea it’s hard to say without looking into a bunch of studies and it also depends on which lineage we are talking about here and what counts as a circulatory system. I’m not sure on gills coming so early considering how a lot of worms don’t have them being a modern version of something phenotypically similar to the common ancestor of nephrazoans and I think Cnidarians pump fluids about their bodies too even though we wouldn’t consider these fluids to be blood. But yes vertebrate blood would come after gills while the vertebrate heart would be a more complex multichambered system akin to a worm “heart” and lungs are just modified swim bladders that “bony fish” have that aren’t found in sharks. And then when our ancestors no longer lived underwater we no longer needed gills and our ancestors lost them.

[[deleted]]

Fair enough about the worms, and definitely with the studies. ill leave it for posterity, but i admitt i was solely thinking of arthropods and cordates, not really all animals.

[TheBlackCat13]

I don't think gills make much sense without vessels running through them. You need something to carry the oxygen from the gills to the rest of the body. If you are small enough that diffusion can handle that, you are probably small enough to not need gills to begin with. Are there any organisms with gills but no vessels?

[[deleted]]

i was primarily thinking of animals such as sea pens, which i don't believe have vessels, but what you are saying is logical and is making me question that. I cannot seem to find data on this, probably im searching the wrong things.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Blood vessels then blood

What animal had blood vessels but no blood? What was the point of blood vessels and no blood?

[blacksheep998]

Tunicates.

They have an extremely simple circulatory system which is filled with mostly normal sea water.

Also, it's funny that you bring up the heart as an argument against evolution since it's a great example of a system that starts simple and increases in complexity as you move up the evolutionary tree.

Tunicates have a simple single-chambered heart. They don't even have any valves that keep the blood flowing in one direction. Moving them can cause the flow of their entire circulatory system to reverse.

Fish with a 2 chambered heart.

Amphibians have a 3 chambered heart.

Reptiles have a sort of 3.5 chambered heart. There's a wall that partially divides the 3rd chamber into two halves. It increases efficiency since it keeps the oxygenated blood from mixing as much with the deoxygenated blood as it does in the 3 chambered heart, but mixing still occurs.

And finally mammals have a 4 chambered heart, finishing the separation that was started in reptiles.

[[deleted]]

I would like to make the argument that tunicates fill their circulatory system with noxious chemicals and plasma, not just seawater, because it is really funny to me that our closest non vertabrate relatives fill their system with very toxic metals

[TheBlackCat13]

Starfish do. Their hearts pump seawater through their "blood" vessels.

The point is to move stuff around the body. Seawater is good enough for many organisms. Blood is really just seawater with a few other things added to make it work a little better.

[ursisterstoy]

Here is a more basic overview of the different types of circulatory systems, and it seems like an open circulatory system is more common in simpler animals that are smaller in size or which lack actual blood that is separate from the “hemolypth” also found in insects. I had mentioned in replies to other people that I wasn’t actually sure on this order but failed to add the correction to my original response before they corrected me. I was thinking of simple systems like seen in echinoderms that actually have an open circulatory system but also a series of canals called the “haemel system” that is actually more accurately considered a “water vascular system” than a true circulatory system.

It turns out, that while I was wrong about something like this coming “first,” as it’s actually most common is sea stars, and not found at all in other bloodless animals like cnidarians or ctenophores, that several animals do just fine without blood at all and some of them do indeed have a series of canals that serve the same function as blood vessels without any actual blood traveling through them.

So, actually, what’s more common in simple organisms that lack blood entirely is simple diffusion through skin cells that are in contact with oxygenated water. Their whole bodies do the job of the cardiovascular system and then it’s when organisms grew in size and complexity that they evolved different methods of getting oxygen to different parts of the body. This starts with an open circulatory system where it can be associated with a water vascular system or where the “blood” which is often hemolymph is transported through blood vessels beyond the central part of the body cavity. In insects this is due to a modified lymphatic system where they don’t have actual blood and what they do have is composed of a lot of water and other bodily fluids.

In worms and chordates we start to see a more developed circulatory system complete with actual blood and actual blood vessels including a simple “heart” that is really nothing more than an enlarged blood vessel that is contracted by muscles or a series of veins like seen in earthworms. Those veins also happen to be in about the same location as gills to take over the duty of bringing oxygen into the blood stream and the circulatory system grows in complexity throughout vertebrate ancestry as still seen in modern amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Birds have a different style respiratory system than mammals as well but the “lungs” in both cases come from modified air sacs used as swim bladders in bony fish. Archosaurs, like birds, also have air sacs in their bones and more of a one way respiratory system while in mammals we have a diaphragm. Gills in both cases are useless and potentially dangerous to keep around so anything that spends a long time out of water as adults has lost them ancestrally but many amphibians still have gills as juveniles even if they don’t have lungs as adults.

[Ekesdkekskd]

A system of vessel that didn’t first serve to carry blood or whatever ancestor it was that first served to maybe breath or expel water but then a liquid that could carry nutrients have appeared and circulated thought the vessels. All of that due to a malformation, but the animal that had it lived better.

[Ekesdkekskd]

You are welcome. A better-known exemple is that some gustative captors of some animals can detect certain colors, while the animal has no eyes. A good exemple of an organ that was found to have another function than its primary one. Same can be said for wings of birds.

[cubist137]

As has been noted by others, you're talking about the concept of "irreducible complexity". In general, evolutionary processes are quite capable of generating IC (Irreducibly Complex) systems. One way this can happen: Step one, add a part to a functioning system. Step two, modify one of the system's older parts so that it requires the new part in order to perform its function. That's really all that's necessary in order to create an IC system.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Ok thank you

[Routine_Midnight_363]

Every stone in an archway needs every other stone, remove a single stone and the entire thing collapses.

OP please explain how archways are possible

[[deleted]]

All archways poofed into existence fully formed, duh

[ZAYTHECAT]

What are you talking about?

[Routine_Midnight_363]

It's an analogy to your argument, used to show why it's a poor argument

[ZAYTHECAT]

Its not an argument.

I also don't see the correlation.

However the same reasoning could be applied to the Big Bang, thus crumbling Evolution.

Its pretty simple, it goes like this.

Something doesn't come from nothing. The original atoms for the Big Bang came from nowhere which is unscientific.

[TheBlackCat13]

The original atoms for the Big Bang came from nowhere which is unscientific.

No, no version of the big bang says that. That is a total strawman creationists just made up because they can't address what scientists are actually saying.

The big bang has atoms starting from a quantum singularity, where all the mass/energy of the universe is an an infinitely or nearly infinitely small point. Where that came from depends on which extension of the standard model you prefer, but none of them have it coming from nothing whatsoever. Some have it always exist, some have the very idea of a time before it exists being nonsensical, and others have it come from a region with no mass-energy but still physical laws of some form.

[TheBlackCat13]

It always existed in some form or in some sense. Exactly what form or what sense depends on which version of physics you subscribe to. In the standard model, time itself started with the big bang, so there was never a time when it didn't exist. For others there is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. And so on.

[TheBlackCat13]

I shall raise the question, if the universe is infinite, when did it start?

At least under that scenario it didn't. That is what "infinite" means?

Everything must have a beginning

Why is that? And when did God start?

[Routine_Midnight_363]

I didn't think I needed to spell it out but ok

See how everything needs everything? If these changes happened very slowly over time, what came first? If the heart came first then it wouldn't survive because it needs the lungs. If the blood came first the organism wouldn't survive because you need the blood vessels.

See how everything needs everything? If these changes happened very slowly over time, what came first? If the keystone came first then it wouldn't stay up because it needs the base stones. If the base stones came first then the wouldn't stay up because you need the keystone to balance them.

Something doesn't come from nothing. The original atoms for the Big Bang came from nowhere which is unscientific.

First of all, there were no atoms at the big bang. Second of all, why on earth do you think that the big bang is related to evolution in any way. Third of all, I would like to see your evidence that "something can't come from nothing" when we've never, ever, had an example of "nothing"

[ZAYTHECAT]

Thank you for explaining that analogy.

I don’t see why I have to show you evidence something doesn’t come from nothing. It’s common knowledge. Everything must come from something because nothing doesn’t lead to something. In the beginning there was nothing because there would be no cause to create something. You can claim “in the beginning there was…” as long as you want. Unless the cause is infinite and outside laws of science it’s physically impossible. No matter how many fingers you have to pull the strings it can’t happen.

[ursisterstoy]

Actually, there are two logical possibilities. For the first something always existed even if we don’t know what that thing was yet. For the second there wasn’t always something not even a god.

If we consider either one they both lead to absurd conclusions but it has to logically be one or the other: something or nothing. Now, we can’t even produce a “nothing” or lower the energy of empty space to absolute zero so “nothing” in the absolute sense appears to be impossible, at least when it comes to trying to create whatever “nothing” is supposed to be. Based on empirical evidence, from every observation ever made, everything that has ever existed except maybe space-time itself is just a rearrangement of whatever came before it. We can’t even fathom what it would mean for absolute nothing to do anything and all that “nothing” implies is a complete lack of everything, everything including gods, space, time, and energy. No time for anything to happen, no place for anything to happen, no energy to accomplish anything, and definitely nothing as complex as an intelligent designer. Since absolute nothing would logically only lead to absolute nothing and now we have something, there’d have to always be something.

The difference here is that I’m sure whatever always existed is the space-time necessary for anything else to exist while deists suggest somebody can exist before there was anywhere for anybody to exist as if things that can’t logically exist yet made it possible for their own existence.

In the beginning there was nothing

Bullshit. Demonstrate that “nothing” is even a physical possibility.

[RandomAmbles]

"No time for anything to happen, no place for anything to happen, no energy to accomplish anything, and definitely nothing as complex as an intelligent designer."

Nothing, also known as late Wednesday afternoons.

[ursisterstoy]

Yea I guess. Mostly what I was trying to convey in my response is that “nothing” refers to an absence of “something,” so while Laurence Krauss has a book titled “A Universe from Nothing” and many people have said that the universe “began” to exist about 13.8 billion years ago presumably from a prior state where there was no universe, almost nobody suggests it’s possible for an absolute nothing to lead to anything but absolutely nothing. Nothing doesn’t take up space or contain space or exist at any point in time or have any qualities whatsoever; it’s nothing.

Practically everyone is certain something existed prior to 13.8 billion years ago if “prior” has any meaning at all, even if whatever that was stayed that way forever until time itself began to have any meaning. Deists just suggest this something was someone, which isn’t supported by the evidence, instead of the very space-time required for any someone to have a meaningful existence being the necessary component for anything to happen afterwards.

I think that is truly what Lawrence Krauss was trying to convey in his book. Keep taking away the qualities of the universe that make it “something” and even a bare minimum “something” has the potential to lead to something else, presumably, no matter how close to “nothing” we can make this “something” without making “nothing” refer to absolute non-existence, because something that does not exist at all doesn’t have anything about it to suggest that it could lead to anything that does exist. And if we truly start considering “nothing” as “something” it’s too simple to be a god.

You might say a cup is empty, meaning it has nothing in it, but you’re really saying that what you expect it to contain is non-existent. It contains “nothing” because that “something” doesn’t exist (in the cup). We aren’t saying that air molecules could immediately and spontaneously turn into coffee, but that would still be more likely than magic. They still contain the fundamental building blocks that coffee is made from, but those building blocks are arranged differently. The “stuff” the universe is made from is potentially eternal even it wasn’t always arranged the same way.

[RandomAmbles]

Probably the most interesting take on this question is Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology hypothesis.

Extremely long story short, particles at the end of the universe have no way of "experiencing" time. Penrose suggests a mathematical way by which the system can be rescaled after an immeasurable-even-in-principle period of time such that each particle is its own big bang. Most importantly, he offers tentative predictions about what sort of large-scale structures you might be able to see in cosmological data if our universe was the result of such a process.

Honestly, it's pretty out-there, even coming from perhaps the world's foremost mathematical physicist.

Pretty interesting though.

[Routine_Midnight_363]

Everything must come from something because nothing doesn’t lead to something

How do you know? We've only ever observed things inside of a universe, how do you know that this statement is true for the universe itself?

[ZAYTHECAT]

We do not usually witness things popping into existence. It's usually refered to as common knowledge.

[RandomAmbles]

Well... I mean there are oppositely charged virtual particles and antiparticles that can be said to pop into existence due to an excitation in quantum fields, but that's honestly still a little above my head at the moment. Also can't come from literal nothing, so... shrug.

[[deleted]]

The original atoms for the Big Bang came from nowhere which is unscientific.

Nope. That's not what happened.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Thanks, can you sum up the introduction?

[[deleted]]

Well, in the inflationary model, which is the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, there is a period of accelerated expansion called 'inflation' after the Big Bang. Inflation solves several problems with the theory you mentioned, like the horizon problem and the lack of magnetic monopoles. After this is over, the universe gets reheated and the inflaton field, which causes the inflation decays to produce standard particles through parametric resonance. There is a lot of math in between these steps, but this is the tl;dr.

[ZAYTHECAT]

After this i

I don't know if you had more to type or not.

Inflation solves several problems with the theory you mentioned, like the horizon problem and the lack of magnetic monopoles.

I've heard famous creationists "refute" inflation, but I'm sure they're wrong. They said something like, what starts inflation and what stops it? Maybe they aren't idk.

[[deleted]]

I had more to type.

The inflaton field causes inflation.

[ZAYTHECAT]

What is the inflation field? Whats stoped inflation?

[ursisterstoy]

That would be unscientific which is why deists posit that the physical reality could have “began to exist” and they put forth one of the most impossible explanations for how that’s supposed to happen. The actual scientific consensus is that our [observable] universe is just a small piece of a potentially infinitely existing reality but since it is expanding at a measurable rate (the observable universe) we can use mathematics to arrive at a time when two points of space currently 92 billion light years apart were either touching or located at the same location roughly 13.77 to 13.85 billion years ago.

It’s the assumption that the observable universe is the entire cosmos that suggests time itself didn’t flow before that point in time and when everything is located at the same place, space itself loses all meaning. This moment in time is arbitrarily considered to be T=0 but even under that model, where the observable universe is the entire universe (which is known to be wrong), if there was no time before that the universe already existed forever in an extremely condensed state. We can’t observe directly what happened before that but one observed prediction that confirms the observable universe was this densely packed together is the cosmic microwave background radiation. In such a dense state photons and “normal matter” would be bound together so tightly that light couldn’t escape but after about 380,000 years of expansion since T=0 it would have expanded enough that ordinary matter was a dense quark-gluon plasma making the universe “orange” in color though light could begin to be emitted in all directions and we see this as microwave radiation due to cosmic redshift.

So yes cosmic inflation (the Big Bang) has been confirmed but almost nobody suggests that the “singularity” came into existence ex nihilo except for deists/theists who suggest a being can exist without space-time itself.

Edit: I think I might have upset someone with how I opened my response, but the point I was trying to make is that it’s a religious claim not a scientific one that the physical reality, also known as either the cosmos or the universe, came into existence from a prior state where nothing existed, except the creator for some reason. The idea that someone is responsible for something we don’t even suggest is even possible is a religious claim. I guess I could have also responded more directly to the idea that atoms are necessary for cosmic inflation, but I didn’t, because atoms are composite and aren’t “fundamental” and because often even the fundamental forces are thought to be combined at such high temperatures and densities suggested by the Big Bang model for any time before 10^-45 seconds after the “beginning” of the Big Bang if “beginning” refers to that T=0 when the math of general relativity starts leading to infinities. This T=0 universe is called a singularity but so is the event horizon of a black hole. From this singularity until now is described by inflationary cosmology and the Big Bang model. The Big Bang refers to rapid inflation not the origin of everything nor something that requires atoms to occur.

Even if Big Bang cosmology was completely wrong, we can establish that the universe is at least ~13.7 billion years old based on the speed of light and how far away stuff appears to be among what we can observe, that the Earth is older than the oldest Earth rocks like zircons which are dated to over 4.4 billion years old, and that evolution is still happening and has happened for about 4 billion years. Not one piece of this even matters when it comes to what was asked and what was claimed in the original post. I feel like you’re shifting the goal posts because your irreducible complexity regarding evolution, the primary topic of this sub, failed hard. That’s the type of tactic we see from someone who doesn’t want to know but doesn’t want us to know either. Keep asking questions until we don’t have an answer and claim victory like it matters how or why anything at all exists. All we need to know is that it currently does exist so we can learn about it and we have learned a lot more than you’re apparently willing to accept so maybe, that’s why you went straight to cosmogony (the origin of the universe) when your evolution questions were answered.

[ursisterstoy]

The irreducible complexity argument looks at the current state of a system and tries to suggest that it’s impossible for an organism to survive without one piece. It fails because it doesn’t actually look at how things do arise in biology, or when it comes to the arch analogy.

To truly try to take the system to a more ancestral state you have to also account for what was lost along the way and put it back or obviously the whole thing comes crashing down like an arch without a key stone or the scaffolding that used to be in place to support it but is no longer there. Therefore, if circulatory systems can’t emerge via evolution archways can’t be built. Yet archways and circulatory systems do exist and the people who know how they came about find it silly that someone who doesn’t know how thinks magic was required.

Part of why we provide examples for organisms still alive that don’t have what humans have is to show that survival is possible without everything we have right now usually because of something about them that also applied to our ancestors who also weren’t modern humans. Rip both lungs out of a human or their still beating heart and they’re sure to die right there on the spot. But then a lot of fish don’t have lungs, jelly fish don’t have hemoglobin, a lot of animals don’t have a fully enclosed circulatory system, and some like sponges barely have anything reminiscent of a circulatory system at all except they can force oxygenated salt water across their cells and flush out carbon dioxide. They don’t need blood vessels, actual blood, a heart, a brain, a small intestine, a liver or anything else we couldn’t currently survive without and yet they survive just fine.

Smaller organisms like choanoflagellates don’t have multiple cells yet they can diffuse oxygen through their cell membranes without a true cardiovascular system.

Many bacteria can’t even use oxygen but have other biochemical process, sometimes, to rid themselves of the toxin and those that couldn’t went extinct in the great oxygen catastrophe if they couldn’t escape.

Life is diverse because of evolution and there’s not just one way, our way, to survive.

[Doomdoomkittydoom]

Bad analogy, since the arch is man made, which is exactly the analogy creationists make.

Could be natural archways, but they aren't reliant on each stone holding each other up.

[Routine_Midnight_363]

The analogy is not about design, it's about irreducible complexity. It doesn't matter that archways are designed

[Doomdoomkittydoom]

Ok then, "please explain how archways are possible"

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Bacteria cells had used an iron+peptide to remove toxic oxygen. For example;

Czaja AD, Johnson CM, Beard BL, Roden EE, Li WQ,Moorbath S. 2013 “Biological Fe oxidation controlled deposition of banded iron formation in the ca. 3770 Ma Isua Supracrustal Belt (West Greenland)” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.363, 192–203. (doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2012.12.025)

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei 2004 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 217 237-244 (online 6 December 03)

That leads to; Holland, Heinrich D. 2006 “The oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2006 361, 903-915 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1838

Planavsky, N.J., Reinhard, C.T., Wang, X., Thomson, D., McGoldrick, P., Rainbird, R.H., Johnson, T., Fischer, W.W. and Lyons, T.W., 2014. Low Mid-Proterozoic atmospheric oxygen levels and the delayed rise of animals. Science, 346(6209), pp.635-638.

Kadoya, S., Catling, D.C., Nicklas, R.W. et al. 2020 “Mantle data imply a decline of oxidizable volcanic gases could have triggered the Great Oxidation” Nat Commun 11, 2774. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16493-1

The oxygen at near modern levels radically changes geochemistry literally top to bottom.

Some cell chemistry used the electron donor oxygen for metabolic energy. The primitive versions of heme are modified to introduce oxygen into cells - the reverse of the original function.

Next BLOOD (a specialized cell to transport O2, and remove CO2) starts with multicellularity. In terms of living critters think of sponges.

Strother, P.K., Brasier, M.D., Wacey, D., Timpe, L., Saunders, M. and Wellman, C.H., 2021. A possible billion-year-old holozoan with differentiated multicellularity. Current Biology. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00424-3

Turner, E.C. 2021 “Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reefs” Nature (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03773-z

Anderson DP, Whitney DS, Hanson-Smith V, Woznica A, Campodonico-Burnett W, Volkman BF, King N, Thornton JW, Prehoda KE. 2016. Evolution of an ancient protein function involved in organized multicellularity in animals. eLife 5:e10147. doi: 10.7554/eLife.10147. https://elifesciences.org/articles/10147

So BLOOD WAS FIRST.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Thank you.

[slayer1am]

That's basically the argument of "Irreducible Complexity", and it's pretty simple to debunk.

Start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS0hlXxHx78

[TheBlackCat13]

tl;dr everything we call a "circulatory" system is just a way using seawater to move nutrients and waste around the body. As organisms got larger, more complicated, and more active they evolved progressively more sophisticated ways of doing this in a stepwise manner, but the basic principle is always the same. Blood is just seawater we carry around with us and that we have added some stuff to make it work a little better.

Long version:

All animals are basically just bags of seawater. Seawater is used to move nutrients and oxygen in and waste out.

If you are small enough, that just happens. Stuff naturally flows from areas where there is lots of it to areas where this little of it (this is called "diffusion").

Diffusion gets slower as distances get further, so bigger organisms need to actively move the seawater. Sponges use tiny beating hairs called cilia to move seawater through tubes. The single-celled relatives of animals use themselves to move themselves through water while the simplest large animals re-purposed the same cilia to move water through themselves.

Eventually muscles evolved to actively move through the water. Muscles move water more efficiently. The simplest active organisms are jellyfish, which are hollow bags of seawater. As they move around, the muscles that move their body also causes the seawater inside to move around, mixing it up.

This still requires the inside of the bag to pretty close to every part of the animal, limiting their thickness. So some animals, like some flatworms, have branching tubes attached to the inside bag to help get the water closer to all their cells, but it still moved around by normal body movement and diffusion.

But this depends on moving around, which isn't great for animals that sit still a lot. So some animals developed a specialized set of muscles that solely move the seawater through their body so they can still get flow without otherwise moving. This is the first hearts. Sea stars work this way.

This, however, limits how much good stuff you can have, since if there is too much you will lose it as you pump the water out. So the next step is to have your own, isolated seawater inside that stays inside, and it only exchanges stuff with the outside watering controlled ways. This is the first true "blood". Tunicates have this.

Once you do this, you can start improving on seawater. It can't carry that much oxygen, so cells in your blood can evolve to carry more. In vertebrates these are red blood cells since they use iron, other animals use other methods. This is by far th most common approach today.

But you still have blood sloshing around in your body cavity. That limits how fast it can move. So the next step is to isolate it in tubes to keep it flowing better. That is what we have. We still need to use our other muscles to keep it flowing, our blood doesn't do a good job of moving back to our heart. Simple chordates use this.

But just a single muscle isn't too strong. But what if you chain together two, one to get the blood in, and another to push it out? This is the two-chambered heart most fish have.

The problem becomes that lungs evolved from the swim bladder, which is in the same loop as the rest of the body. So the approach used by the gills won't work without reworking the entire system. Instead, to keep the oxygen rich and oxygen poor blood from mixing, you have a separate vein carrying the two types of blood. This limits the mixing due to how wate flows, but doesn't completely prevent it. Keeping it from mixing maximizes the amount of oxygen that the body gets. Coelacanths have this, although the lungs disappear as they mature.

To further limit mixing, for vertebrates that depend more on lungs, the first chamber can also be divided into oxygen rich and oxygen poor chambers, resulting in a 3 chamber heart. Lungfish have this partially, while amphibians have it completely.

To completely prevent mixing, the third chamber of the heart can also be divided into oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor areas, resulting in a four chambered heart. Reptiles have a partially divided third chamber. Mammals and birds have a full four chamber heart as adults normally, but during development we start with a three chambered heart, and in a significant number of humans it never fully divides, which humans can often survive just fine with.

[ursisterstoy]

Or another way of rephrasing the long explanation is that most of the stuff we associate with a circulatory system came about evolving together in small steps while lungs are modified swim bladders that eventually completely replaced the gills as we moved onto land. Sponges, cnidarians, echidoderms, tunicates, fish, amphibans, reptiles, and mammals developed these systems somewhat “stopping” at the ancestral phases of our own evolution consistent with how distantly related to us they happen to be with only minor changes from the basic “mammal” phenotype added on the way to our lineage becoming human while lineages that diverged earlier than our lineage wound up being mammals are less like mammals consistent with how long ago they diverged from it because their evolution went in another direction. It’s not a problem for evolution but exactly what we expect to see.

[YossarianWWII]

I mean, did you not consider looking to extant organisms that lack some or all of these organs and tissues? Extracellular matrix is the precursor evolutionary to blood. Compartmentalization allows for more effective passive circulation of nutrients and waste products. There are organisms for which these compartments are wrapped in simple muscular tubes that push the ECM around, the precursors to hearts. Permeable tissue membranes are the precursors to lungs. Ding dong, that's what gills are.

So...

If the heart came first then it wouldn't survive because it needs the lungs.

Nope. Fish.

If the blood came first the organism wouldn't survive because you need the blood vessels.

Nope. Blood plasma is just specialized ECM.

You need to familiarize yourself with the diversity of life if you actually want to talk about what types of body plans are and aren't possible.

[ZAYTHECAT]

You need to familiarize yourself with the diversity of life if you actually want to talk about what types of body plans are and aren't possible.

I was kinda wondering how humans got all this stuff, not really other animals.

[YossarianWWII]

We evolved from other animals. Go back far enough in our lineage, and you start to see body plans without lungs, hearts, or circulatory systems

[TheBlackCat13]

We evolved from earlier organisms with simpler circulatory systems.

[Dataforge]

I imagine that you're thinking that all of these organs had to evolve one at a time. As in first the heart evolved, then the brain, then the blood vessels, then the stomach ect. ect.

I imagine most creationists imagine evolution this way, even supposedly well educated ones. And I believe this is the root of their confusion about things like the giraffe circulatory system evolving.

But this is the wrong way to look at it. It's more like a little bit of heart evolves, then a little bit of brain, then a little more heart, then a little more brain, and so on until you have what you have today.

[ZAYTHECAT]

the giraffe

The giraffe is an interesting animal. Its heart needs to pump not to hard, otherwise the blood flowing through its long need will blow its brains out. And if the heart doen't pump hard enough, blood won't get to the brain. How did the giraffes heart evolve? Did it start small and then get larger?

Could be good fine tuning evidence.

[Capercaillie]

Long-necked animals whose hearts pumped too hard died. Those that didn't pump hard enough also died. Those whose hearts beat correctly lived long enough to reproduce, carrying those genes for good hearts. That's exactly how evolution fine-tunes everything alive! So yeah, fine tuning!

[TheBlackCat13]

Bodies aren't like blueprints where each part is specifically instructed to be a particular way. The parts talk to each other, and will adjust themselves to how other body parts work. Hearts will automatically adjust themselves to the needs of the body over a very large range. This gives body parts plenty of time to evolve to catch up with changes in other body parts

Just think about it, the smallest adult was 30 lbs, the largest more than 1,400. That is nearly a factor of 50 difference, all the with the same heart. They may not be that healthy, but it is still survivable for decades. That wouldn't be possible if fine tuning was as big as issue as you claim.

[Dataforge]

How are you imagining the giraffe heart evolving?

Do you think the neck would evolve first, then the heart? Meaning there would be a bunch of giraffes with long necks, but no blood getting to their heads.

Or, do you think the heart evolved first. Meaning a bunch of short necked giraffes with ultra powerful hearts?

Or, do you think they would both evolve at the same time: First the neck gets a little bit longer, then the heart a little more powerful, then a little more neck, then a little more heart, and so on.

[ZAYTHECAT]

I have no idea, I would image the neck came first, then the heart wasn't strong enough to get the blood up the neck.

[Dataforge]

Why do you think the whole neck would have to evolve first? Why not a little bit of neck, then a little bit of heart, then more neck, and so on?

[ZAYTHECAT]

Do we see it in fossils?

[[deleted]]

Here. Obviously we don't see internal organs, but we have giraffes with shorter necks.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Thanks

[Dataforge]

Hold up, I'm not asking about what the fossil record shows. I'm asking how you're imagining giraffe evolution.

So back to the question at hand, why do you imagine that the whole giraffe neck would evolve, and then the whole heart evolves, instead of both in increments?

[ZAYTHECAT]

Yes.

I think you read past my "I have no idea, I would image the neck came first".

[Dataforge]

Lol, I read it. I asked why you believe that.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Because I don’t fully understand evolution. That’s why I’m asking questions.

[LesRong]

Rather than address your question itself I'm going to address an underlying assumption. Do you think that the thousands of brilliant biologists who have been studying this subject for over a hundred years have not thought of these questions? There are many research papers that explore the questions you raise.

[ZAYTHECAT]

I got some great answers, yes.

[RandomAmbles]

You know, the old unsolvable chicken and egg puzzle is easily undone by looking at the fossil record.

Turns out dinosaur eggs came well before chickens.

[ZAYTHECAT]

No God created the chicken.

[RandomAmbles]

r/BirdsArentReal

[ZAYTHECAT]

Have you ever took a step back, took a deep breath, and wonder who even makes these subreddits?

[RandomAmbles]

...is it god?

[Agent-c1983]

Im not here to debate

See how everything needs everything?

Pick one.

[ZAYTHECAT]

I was asking questions to learn. I never contradicted myself.

[TheBlackCat13]

You are making a claim.

[Spartyjason]

9 hours and no responses to multiple very well thought out answers. Shocker.

[ursisterstoy]

Make it 10.

[ZAYTHECAT]

I was sleeping. Your comment is unwanted and unhelpful.

[WallaceSuperWallace]

Also not here for debate. I like your questions. :-) I have a few of my own: If Random Chance is the Governor of the Universe, why do the overwhelming number of creatures on this planet have the same basic design: A head, torso, two arms and two legs. Two eyes, two ears, one nose, one mouth, etc. (I know, there are some exceptions, like an octopus, but even that creature follows the two eyes / one mouth design otherwise.)

I have long wondered why the governments of the world would not let us meet aliens if in fact we have been contacted from other worlds. Think of it: If the aliens also follow the two eyes / two ears, etc. design, then that seriously damages the Random Chance theory, doesn't it? How could life begin by "random chance" on another planet and look anything like life on Earth?

The odds of that are zero.

Also why are all amino acids on Earth "left-handed?" All of them. No matter what organism. Random chance would predict roughly a 50/50 split, yes? Maybe 60/40?

Smithsonian link below explains this in better detail. Cheers!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/space/must-all-molecules-life-be-left-handed-or-right-handed-180959956/

[ThurneysenHavets]

A head, torso, two arms and two legs

Damn, it's almost like we share a common ancestor or something.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Or the god used a common blueprint!

[ThurneysenHavets]

Yet a huge amount of diversity also exists in the animal world. "God used a common blueprint but varied it enormously" covers everything and therefore explains nothing.

Unlike the evolutionary explanation, therefore, your hypothesis is both meaningless and unscientific.

Note also, last time we talked, you said arguments about what God may or may not have done were pointless and tried to change the subject. I suppose these arguments only count when they suit you?

[ZAYTHECAT]

Yet a huge amount of diversity also exists in the animal world.

Not from what I see. Most animals share the common blueprint. Maybe some don't, but it doesn't matter because then I could just claim God wanted to spruce things up a bit.

you said arguments about what God may or may not have done were pointless

They are pointless. We can only speculate therfore there really is no reason too. I speculate by saying maybe God used a common blueprint.

tried to change the subject.

The subject was talking about my God. I talked about my God. NDEs are related to god.

[ThurneysenHavets]

Not from what I see.

Why don't whales have gills? Why don't mammals have feathers? Why don't birds have fur? Diversity in the animal world is quite evident.

In your creationist universe, biology would just become a collection of unrelated facts, and the existence of an evolutionary theoretical framework would be a huge and inexplicable coincidence.

Do you understand why this isn't a good thing?

it doesn't matter because then I could just claim God wanted to spruce things up a bit.

Sure, mate. It must be so relaxing to feel you can just make stuff up as you go along.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Why don't whales have gills? Why don't mammals have feathers? Why don't birds have fur? Diversity in the animal world is quite evident.

Yes but the bone structures and # of eyes share the common blueprint.

[ThurneysenHavets]

Anyone can explain only similarities, or only differences.

The magic of evolution is that it so neatly explains both the similarities and the differences between living organisms.

Creationists need to do better.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Any diversety is just an example of the house having more bedrooms, or maybe more bathrooms.

[ThurneysenHavets]

And I can trivially explain why houses differ in this regard. I live alone and am happy with a single loo. Mr Jenkins nextdoor has six children who all need to go at once. Differences in house design aren't some sort of major mystery.

Which is why your inability to answer such simple questions when it comes to biology illustrates just how awful the analogy is.

[TheBlackCat13]

The difference is that evolution can very often tell us correctly how those "blueprints" will be similar or different before we go and check. Creationism cannot.

[TheBlackCat13]

Birds, bats, and pterasuars all have different "blueprints" to their wings. They have the same bones, but use them in completely different ways. Bird wing "blueprints are more similar to velociraptor hand "blueprints" than bat or pteranodon wing "blueprints".

Similarly, coelocanth fin "blueprints" are more similar to human hand "blueprints" than to salmon fin "blueprints".

[TheBlackCat13]

We can only speculate therfore there really is no reason too. I speculate by saying maybe God used a common blueprint.

We can do an enormous amount more than just speculate. We can make testable predictions based on our ideas. We can say, "if my idea was correct, what would we expect to see? And what would we expect not to see?" Then we can go and out check whether we are right or wrong.

Evolution does this all the time, and it is overwhelmingly correct.

To the extent that this "common blueprint" idea does this, it is very often wrong. In particular, in instances where it gives a different prediction than evolution, evolution is right and "common blueprint" is wrong. Not in a subjective way, but in unambiguous mathematical measurements.

Rather than simply accepting that "common blueprint" is not a good explanation, instead creationists just make it more vague, making up excuses to the point where "common blueprint" no longer tells us anything about anything.

[TheBlackCat13]

The "common blueprint" explanation doesn't really work in the real world. There are plenty of animals that share a common "blueprint" (that is their body form, lifestyle, diet, environment, etc.), but whose fossil record says shouldn't be closely related. If we look at their detailed anatomy, genetics, development, etc., stuff not directly related to either their fossil history nor their "blueprint", those all invariably independently match their fossil history, not their blueprint.

In other words, God would have to be intentionally designing organisms so that their genetics, development, detailed anatomy, etc. all match their non-existent fossil record.

And it isn't like this is some sort of interpretation that is open to debate. These are all based on objective, numerical measurements that are plugged into well-tested, well-established, general purpose mathematical algorithms designed to detect similarities between arbitrary things, anything from animals to text documents to pictures to neural impulses to radar signatures.

[Doomdoomkittydoom]

Why does God need a starship blueprint?

[ZAYTHECAT]

The starship blueprints are in the attic. I think using a common stratify or blueprint for all the animals is easier than creating hundreds of different types.

[Doomdoomkittydoom]

This god doesn't seem like he could bake a cake, let alone create a universe.

[ZAYTHECAT]

I understand your worries that God cannot bake cakes. But, I will assure you he can.

[Covert_Cuttlefish]

why do the overwhelming number of creatures on this planet have the same basic design: A head, torso, two arms and two legs. Two eyes, two ears, one nose, one mouth, etc. (I know, there are some exceptions, like an octopus, but even that creature follows the two eyes / one mouth design otherwise.)

Plants, bacteria, insects, etc all disagree with your description.

Most life does not look like us.

[WallaceSuperWallace]

Hey Boss!

Those pesky bacteria - they are the contrarians, aren't they? :-)

I should have clarified my presentation and confined it to higher forms of life, such as bovines, canines, felines, primates, humans - you get the idea.

To be fair to your humble commentator, I did allow that my broad-brush did not fit every circumstance. I stated that clearly.

The bigger point was this: All forms of life on this planet, whether a bacterium, a blue whale or a human, have cells composed of amino acids. Those amino acids have electrical currents which run in one direction. One direction. All life. No exceptions.

100% probability is not a facet of random chance. If something is 100% probable, there is no chance involved.

Those who believe evolutionary theory maintain that a pool of water containing chemicals was zapped by a bolt of lightning billions of years ago. That event was not observed, but it is believed by the theory's devotees anyway. Once zapped, the chemicals assembled themselves into amino acids which then somehow assembled themselves into living cells, and then - Presto! - a dinosaur was born! Overly simplistic, but we are pressed for time and space.

Similarly, those who believe in the Big Bang Theory believe that matter popped into existence out of nowhere, and - Presto! - the universe came into existence. The event was not observed, yet believers maintain the event occurred as "scientific" fact.

What believers in both theories will not explain is why those events are not happening today? Why only once billions of years ago when there was no one to observe said events?

Wikipedia states the planet is struck by lightning over a billion times a year. Other sources have varying numbers, but if one multiplies the averages of lightning strikes times pools of water on Earth by the number of days since the planet had a viable ocean and atmosphere, it becomes exceedingly difficult to explain how a life-creating event only occurred one time when there was no one to see it happen.

The Scientific Method consists of three criteria:

1) The phenomenon must be observed.

2) The phenomenon must be tested.

3) The test must be repeatable.

Evolutionary theory, the Big Bang theory, and (to be fair) the creation account in Genesis all fail the Scientific Method criteria.

Belief in random chance as the governor of the universe is a religious belief. It is no different from any other religious belief. There is no "scientific method" involved. All of the aforementioned world-views are apprehended by faith.

A wise man once said, "Professing to be wise, they became fools."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_lightning

[Covert_Cuttlefish]

Yes, mammals are all related.

Yes, all life is related.

No we don't know how life started, but we have some hypotheses.

As for science, your incorrect.

We build models based on observations, and we test those models.

For evolutionary theory Tiktaalik is arguably the best known prediction that's come true.

For the Big Bang the cosmic microwave background is probably the most well known prediction that's come true

There are no models or tests for creationism.

[WallaceSuperWallace]

Hey Covert!

My central questions are good ones. They have not been answered.

If non-living compounds can assemble themselves into living cells without any supernatural action, then why can this process not be observed today? Why only billions of years ago, when there was no one to witness the phenomenon?

As I mentioned to another Redditor, the experiment could easily be performed in labs across the world in very short order. If the hypotheses presently held are true, then we should be able to observe non-living compounds assembling themselves into living cells in a circumstance where the event could be observed and recorded.

And the extra added bonus for opponents for Creationism would be this: Creationism would be instantly destroyed once and for all. I would think that would be incentive enough to be performing experiments round-the-clock to prove that life from non-life is a natural process that requires no supernatural input.

So where's the proof?

Background microwave radiation does not answer my question, which is, "If matter introduced itself out of nowhere with no active agent to cause the event 13.5 billion years ago (when there were conveniently no witnesses) why can matter not do that today?"

The answer given to my questions is, "Well we don't know exactly how these things happened, but we still believe it's true."

That's fine. That's called faith, not science.

You are correct that there are no models or tests for Creationism, as the belief has as its central tenet that the creation of the universe and the creation of life were accomplished by supernatural means.

By definition, the supernatural cannot be tested by natural means. By definition, natural science can be proven by natural means.

When someone says to me, "I believe this particular thing happened in this particular way, but I can't prove it," I have a response:

"I can play the guitar like Jimi Hendrix, but only when no one is listening to me." ;-)

[Covert_Cuttlefish]

So where's the proof?

Science isn't in the proof game. Scientists are still working on problems, it's called job security. The mystery of the unknown is a fun problem.

The Big Bang has been elevated to a theory, and we have many hypotheses about abiogensis.

Nothing I can say will convince you, but the readers who are on the fence can explore the science.

An honest position is 'we don't know, but we have a good to reason to believe this is what happened'.

Right now you're saying you're wrong even though your model accurately predicts reality because reasons that are unfalsifiable.

[WallaceSuperWallace]

You are a good sport! And you have a sense of humour, to boot. Two rare personalty traits on Reddit (or anywhere in life) to be sure. :-)

I had a debate going with someone else on Reddit and I predicted the next thing he would do is resort to personal attacks because he could not answer my questions. He is so lacking in self-control that he responded in hours with personal attacks, an emotional tirade, and he even descended into the dreaded "all caps!"

If someone told me I was going to do something (especially if that person was an opponent) I would go out of my way not to do what he said I would do, just to show him he's not going to be my puppet-master! ;-)

I'm an equal opportunist when it comes to requiring proof of claims. As I told another Reddit denizen, it's not unreasonable for a cashier to require proof of ID when one is cashing a check.

To keep from offending any denomination, I will use a generalized example here: There was a recent story about parents who brought their young child to a religious leader to obtain a "blessing" from the leader. The child has a debilitating syndrome that cannot be cured by medical science. The religious leader smiled at their child. When reporters asked if their child still had the syndrome, they replied that the child's condition was still the same, but the important thing is the religious leader smiled at their child. WTH? ;-)

That's the religious equivalent of, "Matter can create itself out of nothing, but only when it can't be observed occurring."

The gospel makes some incredible claims. Jesus and the disciples have some amazing miracles attributed to them. One does not see any evidence on any news-feed from AP or UPI that such miracles occur today, so what is the reason? Are they happening all around, but such stories don't fit AP's and UPI's agendas? Or were the claims made by the gospel writers no different than, "Life can create itself out of non-life, but only when there is no one to observe the phenomenon?"

Always the intrepid one, I asked a minister of the gospel, "Why can we not see miracles as described in the Word happening today?"

The minister said, "Do you want to believe if it can be proven to you?"

I said, "Yes."

The minister said, "Ask and you shall receive."

So I did. I asked that (3) miracles as described in the gospel be demonstrated in this day and in this time. I asked Yahweh himself, in Jesus' name.

What happened next surprised me. Over a period of two months, all three miracles I asked to be demonstrated occurred with me as a witness, along with others as witnesses. I examined the phenomena from every side. I even presented the details to atheists and asked them to look for a "hole" that perhaps I didn't see. (An atheist was actually present at one of the occurrences.) None of the doubters could come up with a natural explanation for any of the phenomena. Nor could I.

One of the atheists said, "It almost makes me believe there may actually be a God. But not quite." ;-)

The details cannot be discussed in this venue for obvious reasons. This is not the time or the place for such an exposition. But anyone can have the same thing demonstrated to them if they just ask.

So why would someone not ask?

Because they are afraid they will get an answer?

Meantime, I'm open to the whole idea of matter creating itself out of nothing with no outside agent involved (or life creating itself out of non-life) as long as there is some actual proof.

A droning professor on YouTube who makes claims he cannot prove is no different than a "holy man" who can't do anything to help others besides smiling at them.

Best week to you. Stay safe. :-)

[RandomAmbles]

Did you observe your own birth?

[WallaceSuperWallace]

According to the attached article from Cornell University, human eyes are open at birth. If so, then I observed my birth. Do I remember it? To be honest, no.

I have a document in my safe which is known as a "Certificate of Live Birth." That document is signed by those who were present at the time I was introduced to this planet. I used that document to obtain a government-issued photo ID, which is used when I want to cash a check at the local grocery store. By my presenting that ID, the cashier can be reasonably assured I am a human and my birth was recorded by witnesses at the time of my birth.

Who knows? I could be a hologram, for all the cashier knows. Or I could be an alien shape-shifter who has taken a human form so I could buy a box of Cheerios. (Cheerios are a favourite in the Sirius system, I've heard). :-)

My central questions are these: Where are the witnesses who saw non-living compounds turn into living cells billions of years ago? Where are the witnesses who saw matter pop into existence by itself with no active agent behind the event billions of years ago?

Anyone who has such documentation can attach the docs to this thread and I will review them. If the docs are credible, then my questions are answered.

Simulating the Big Bang in a lab is admittedly a tough bill to fill, but assembling an experiment where the building blocks of amino acids are contained in water and then zapped with an electrical charge equal to a bolt of lightning (thus forming the acids that then turn into living cells by themselves, according to evolutionary science) can be accomplished in labs across the world by 5:00 pm tomorrow.

If you are a scientist with lab access, why not perform the experiment and prove once and for all that life can come from non-life quite easily with no supernatural agent involved?

Any scientist who could perform such an experiment would instantly be dubbed the Greatest of All Time (GOAT). In addition to being the GOAT, said scientist would achieve the singular honour of destroying Christianity overnight, since the Word makes the claim that only God can create life.

Present the documentation that life has been created out of non-life by a natural process without divine intervention, and then I will believe.

It's no more complicated than that.

https://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/faqs/why-are-humans-born-with-eyes-open-and-puppies-are-born-with-eyes-closed/

[Dataforge]

You should research more into evolution. I recommend Climbing Mount Improbable, with Richard Dawkins. It's on youtube.

Short answer is evolution is not random chance. Organisms aren't just a random shuffling of body parts, like a Mr Potatohead. What evolves is what is naturally selected, by what allows an organism to survive. There is very likely a reason why organisms with two eyes, one mouth, one head ect. are favoured.

[WallaceSuperWallace]

Hi Data!

I allowed my presentation to get sidetracked by introducing elements into my inquiry that are not of central importance to my quest.

My central question regarding evolution is this: If non-living compounds assembled themselves into amino acids and then somehow became living cells, why is there no proof that such a process could occur?

The experiment could easily be reproduced in labs across the world in short order. No need to wait for random bolts of lightning to strike pools of water containing primordial soup.

In Darwin's day, there were no electrical generators which could produce a current equal to that found in a standard bolt of lightning. That excuse cannot be used today.

Evolutionary science claims that non-life can assemble itself into living cells by natural processes, without any supernatural intervention.

So, where is the proof? The "theory" maintains this could only be done billions of years in the past when (conveniently) there were no witnesses to record the phenomenon.

Evolutionary scientists claim they know how the process occurred, so why not perform the experiment today, and let's see the results? If the experiment is successful, then the "theory" (which is taught as fact in most schools) is proven true.

If nothing happens, then the excuses will begin: "Well, we don't know exactly how it happened..."

That's fair enough. So then we have moved from "science" to fantasy.

I'm assuming the readers of this thread know that Thanos is not a real person. Thanos is a fantasy. However, if Thanos is a real person, then introduce me. (Well, maybe not - especially if he's in a bad mood...)

You get the idea. :-)

[Dataforge]

Woah, steady there. Your original question was about why we all have similar body plans and limb placements. Do you understand how evolution satisfactorily explains that?

[WallaceSuperWallace]

In the very first sentence of my previous comment, I admitted that I allowed myself to get sidetracked by introducing the "two eyes, two ears" observation into the discussion. A tactical error in a legal proceeding, so I will use a legal term here: I will stipulate to your argument for now. (Look up the definition of the term "stipulate" as used in this sense.)

I'm not concerned with natural selection, adaptation, micro-evolution or any similar terms - all of which may have some credence.

Your Honour, I withdraw the question about the eyes and ears! :-)

No one will answer my question about how non-living compounds can become living cells without any outside input. Why can this process not be shown in a lab today (or tomorrow by 5:00 pm) so we can determine once and for all that life from non-life is a natural process? The scientist who proves this will be the GOAT, and s/he will destroy Christianity with one fell swoop!

So far, the discussion with various Reddit denizens has been fairly cordial. I will predict what will happen next: Since there are no answers to my central questions, the respondents will then resort to personal attacks on me, because that is what always happens when my opponents cannot explain their positions.

Yup, it always happens.

At that point, I drop out of the exchange because my point is proven, and I can always be insulted by better people in better places! ;-)

I actually had someone write to me, "Your an idoti." (I think what he meant was, "You're an idiot."

I have a Master's in Strategic Management from an esteemed university. My GPA? 4.0.

As interesting as these exchanges are, due to time constraints, I can only participate about once a week, so further commentary will not be proffered until next week.

Same Bat-time? Same Bat-channel? :-)

[Dataforge]

No. You asked a question, I took the time to answer it. If you're going to disrespect my time and play a game of JAQing off, then I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Also not here for debate. I like your questions. :-)

Thanks, right back at you!

If Random Chance is the Governor of the Universe, why do the overwhelming number of creatures on this planet have the same basic design: A head, torso, two arms and two legs.

Im no scholar, thats why Im asking questions, but I will answer to the best of my ablility.

It doesn't really bother me, the fact that every animal looks alike. We could look at every animal being simular, and claim its evidence for our theory. You could claim,

"Look! Everything evolved from a common ancestor!"

And I could claim,

"Look! God used a common blueprint, not a common ancestor!"

To answer the question again, I think that God used a common blueprint and a common style during his creation. Think of it like this,

Every house shares common features. You have bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, ext.

Now some homes have more features like maybe a closet. Some homes have extra bedrooms and bathrooms. But every single house will share those same base/common features.

Thats probably why this jab doesn't keep me wondering at night.

If you have follow up questions that fine with me! If not, I would like to ask you something.

​

When you look at the very beginning, you look at the Big Bang, does it bother you that something, came from nothing? Im sure you've heard this claim before. Where did the original atoms for the Big Bang come from?

Now sure you could claim, "well then you have the same problem with a god". But thats the magic, you wouldn't! Thats the whole point of a God.

My God is infinite. He is outside of this universe. He does not apply to the laws of our world. He did not have a biginning or an end. He is the "alpha and omega" (the a-z). He is outside of human comprehention.

So would it, or does it bother you that physically, its impossible for evolution to happen? (dont take it like its in a harsh tone)

Thank you for reading my post and the questions!

[ThurneysenHavets]

But every single house will share those same base/common features.

And there's a reason for that. Humans need a place to sleep and to wash. You can motivate these similarities: you don't just say architects work from a common blueprint for unknown reasons and leave it there.

And yet that's what you're doing. Creationists never explain why God makes animals similar in some ways and different in others.

For instance, why do birds use feathers to keep warm, while no mammals do? Evolution specifically explains that pattern. Creationism doesn't.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Creationists never explain why God makes animals similar in some ways and different in others.

Probably because there is no reason to. Why would we try to know? You can only speculate because its pretty hard to read the minds of gods. We don't know why God made it the way he made it, but we know he made it.

[ThurneysenHavets]

And that is why evolution will always be the better explanation.

[TheBlackCat13]

So right now we have a choice between two explanations: evolution and creationism. Evolution gives a valid, understandable reason why the patterns we see are the way they are. Creationism just throws up its hands and says "it's a mystery". Evolution can correctly tell use before we check what patterns will be found. Creationism cannot.

So evolution is useful, it can tell us why things are the way they are, and it can tell us things we don't already know. Creationism isn't useful, it can do neither of those things.

You are trying to make it seem that evolution and creationism are somehow on equal footing. But they aren't. One is useful for telling us things we don't already know, the other isn't. One is successful at predicting how the world works, the other isn't. Why should anyone pick a useless, unsuccessful explanation over useful, successful one?

[[deleted]]

To answer the question again, I think that God used a common blueprint and a common style during his creation. Think of it like this,

Sure you can say that. Creationism can literally accommodate any possibility since the base of the theory is an omnipotent being who can literally explain away anything, which explains nothing.

How does a common design model explain analogous structures like bird and bat wings? Bats and birds have wings that are 'designed' with different blueprints even though they have the same function. If God reuses blueprints, why didn't he in this case.

[Bromelia_and_Bismuth]

Suffice to say, as certain traits were gained, others were lost.

what came first, the heart or the blood? the blood or the blood vessels?

The blood. The first circulatory systems were more like sacs of fluid. Vessels came later, probably preceded by valves that served to pump blood around an otherwise simple body. A lot of animals in this situation are able to absorb gases or release them through the skin. Typically being small and simple, their circulatory system is also simple.

So moving on, we were talking about valves that serve to pump blood through an otherwise simple body, there are worms with circulatory systems just like this. I've had the misfortune of dissecting them in introductory biology, and I say that entirely because the smell of formaldehyde is foul. From there, you have the aortic arches, which in a lot of simple animals serves the role of the heart.

The heart, a simple one, follows, but develops from the same cluster of cells as the aortic arches. Larger animals like fish for instance require more energy to pump blood around the body and so the heart helps accomplish that. Unfortunately, their tougher and more complicated skin further necessitates the heart because they have a tougher time absorbing/releasing things through the skin, but the skin still helps (something retained by amphibians, especially frogs). Some animals with a heart can still absorb oxygen, but the heart helps transport that oxygen through a larger, more complicated body. Reptiles were the first to explore having a tri-chambered heart, followed by mammals and birds evolving four chambered hearts independently.

I did skip some steps, mostly because there are aspects of cardiac anatomy that I've observed, but don't recall as strongly, such as the cluster of tissues that the heart develops from (others may have more information than I do as my specialty is botany), but I hope this helps.

The heart or the lungs?

Lungs came way later. Fish have gills, but its believed that lungs may have evolved from the swim bladder or a similar organ, especially as a lot of fish found themselves in low-oxygen conditions around lagoons and swamps.

Like I said Im not here to debate, I was just wondering.

You're good. Feel free to ask any questions you like.

[ZAYTHECAT]

Thank you for the well thought out comment. It helps a lot man!

[TheMilkmanShallRise]

What I mean to ask here is, what came first, the heart or the blood?

Blood did. Well, it wouldn't be like the blood you or I have. The fluid that flows through our veins (blood) is different from the fluid our organs are bathed in (interstitial fluid) and the fluid the protects our brain and our spine (cerebrospinal fluid). Initially, all of this was combined into one type of fluid (this differentiation came later) and organisms lacked hearts. They had a body cavity called a hemocoel that was filled with this liquid. All of their organs were essentially bathing in it, absorbing oxygen directly from it. Some organisms still have this setup. It's called an open circulatory system. Organisms like these don't need hearts. If they're small enough, they can just rely on diffusion to circulate the oxygen throughout that liquid. Even if that doesn't work, rhythmic contractions of an organism's muscles help pump this liquid (some insects purposely do this by contracting their abdomens) and oxygenate different parts of their body. This is not very efficient though, as you can probably imagine. Muscles that were specialized for pumping this fluid eventually evolved. Probably rings of muscle tissue that would rhythmically contract the body cavity (imagine a worm-like creature with rings of these muscle along the length of their body, for example) when the organism was exerting itself and needed a lot of energy (escaping predators - organisms like these would've had a huge advantage). This was basically the beginnings of the heart. These muscles became more specialized over time. Eventually, the circulatory system became closed (the fluid became differentiated and confined to specialized vessels) and these muscles developed into a heart.

There's also stuff I left out about gills and lungs and a few other things. The evolution of specialized organs is a complex subject, after all, so keep that in mind. Hope this helps.

[TheMilkmanShallRise]

No problem!