Which Evolved First, The Human Skin, Blood, Or The Human Heart?

[JTB]

I am in a discussion with a theist and he gave me a very weird question indeed.. one that I find a bit moronic and yet a bit interesting.. I then thought about it and I really don't know.. I am not a scientist but am interested in this area.. so if anybody has the slightest ides about this question.. much appreciated.

Which evolved first, the human skin, blood, or the human heart?

To me is seems like they all evolved together.. simple answer but from my current knowledge that seems correct.

[Moontanman]

The theist is trying to obfuscate the issue, the animals humans evolved from already had skin, blood, a heart and eyes, He is trying to inject his own creationist nonsense into the conversation as though it has any relevance what so ever... 

[exchemist]

 

I am in a discussion with a theist and he gave me a very weird question indeed.. one that I find a bit moronic and yet a bit interesting.. I then thought about it and I really don't know.. I am not a scientist but am interested in this area.. so if anybody has the slightest ides about this question.. much appreciated.

 

Which evolved first, the human skin, blood, or the human heart?

To me is seems like they all evolved together.. simple answer but from my current knowledge that seems correct.

 

 

Yes it is a silly piece of question-begging. The question assumes, absurdly, that specific human organs evolved individually. Evolution is self-evidently a process involving progressive changes to an entire population of whole organisms. I've often suspected that creationists use deliberate stupidity as a rhetorical tactic. That seems to be what you are up against here. 

[Ratch]

Life has to be created to exist.  That is the only plausible explanation.  The idea that some dead inert material can change and shape all by itself into a complex cellular organism is ludicrous.  All over the world, folks are putting a sludge of water, carbon compounds, and various nutrients into test tubes and zapping them with all manner of radiation. They are hoping against hope that something will crawl, hop, or slither out so they can say they created LIFE!  They are all doomed to failure.  Life creating takes intelligence, a lot more than mankind has today.  Anyway, it is easy to see that evolution is a pseudoscience that should not be taken seriously.

 

Ratch

 

[Turtle]

Life has to be created to exist.  That is the only plausible explanation.  The idea that some dead inert material can change and shape all by itself into a complex cellular organism is ludicrous.  All over the world, folks are putting a sludge of water, carbon compounds, and various nutrients into test tubes and zapping them with all manner of radiation. They are hoping against hope that something will crawl, hop, or slither out so they can say they created LIFE!  They are all doomed to failure.  Life creating takes intelligence, a lot more than mankind has today.  Anyway, it is easy to see that evolution is a pseudoscience that should not be taken seriously.

 

Ratch

Au contraire. Whether or not humans have replicated the conditions for self-organizing life has no bearing on such occurrences otherwise in nature.

Self-organization

Self-organization, also called spontaneous order (in the social sciences), is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process is spontaneous, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

 

Self-organization occurs in many physical, chemical, biological, robotic, and cognitive systems. Examples can be found in crystallization, thermal convection of fluids, chemical oscillation, animal swarming, and artificial and biological neural networks.

...

Biology

 

Self-organization in biology[3][31] can be observed in spontaneous folding of proteins and other biomacromolecules, formation of lipid bilayer membranes, pattern formation and morphogenesis in developmental biology, the coordination of human movement, social behaviour in insects (bees, ants, termites),[32] and mammals, flocking behaviour in birds and fish.[33]

 

The mathematical biologist Stuart Kauffman and other structuralists have suggested that self-organization may play roles alongside natural selection in three areas of evolutionary biology, namely population dynamics, molecular evolution, and morphogenesis. However, this does not take into account the essential role of energy in driving biochemical reactions in cells. The systems of reactions in any cell are self-catalyzing but not simply self-organizing as they are thermodynamically open systems relying on a continuous input of energy.[34][35] Self-organization is not an alternative to natural selection, but it constrains what evolution can do and provides mechanisms such as the self-assembly of membranes which evolution then exploits.[36]

...

Please note this forum requires posters to provide referential support for their claims.

[Ratch]

Au contraire. Whether or not humans have replicated the conditions for self-organizing life has no bearing on such occurrences otherwise in nature.

Self-organization

 

Please note this forum requires posters to provide referential support for their claims.

 

Au contraire. Whether or not humans have replicated the conditions for self-organizing life has no bearing on such occurrences otherwise in nature.

Self-organization

 

Please note this forum requires posters to provide referential support for their claims.

 

This self-organization reference shows it to be a highly theoretical concept that is hard to grasp because of its complexity.  The reference also lists criticisms of this theory.  My response is "show me the goods".  Show me something that happens spontaneously and can be proven not to be deterministic.  Crystallization is not a valid example because it follows already established laws of physics.

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the evolution of the train, plane, and auto.  They are the results of intelligent design and production.  But for slime to arrange itself into to life is too much to accept.  Just think, a cell would have to appear completely finished and ready to work.  It is too much to believe.  Creation is a lot easier to accept.

 

Ratch

[Turtle]

... But for slime to arrange itself into to life is too much to accept.  Just think, a cell would have to appear completely finished and ready to work.  It is too much to believe.  Creation is a lot easier to accept.

 

Ratch

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. This is a science site, not a place where easy to accept passes muster.

[exchemist]

This self-organization reference shows it to be a highly theoretical concept that is hard to grasp because of its complexity.  The reference also lists criticisms of this theory.  My response is "show me the goods".  Show me something that happens spontaneously and can be proven not to be deterministic.  Crystallization is not a valid example because it follows already established laws of physics.

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the evolution of the train, plane, and auto.  They are the results of intelligent design and production.  But for slime to arrange itself into to life is too much to accept.  Just think, a cell would have to appear completely finished and ready to work.  It is too much to believe.  Creation is a lot easier to accept.

 

Ratch

OK , I notice you dismiss self-organising systems that you consider are "deterministic", for some reason and follow that by asking for an example of something that is not "deterministic". You seem to think crystallisation does not count because it follows the laws of physics. Presumably that is what you mean by "deterministic".

 

But the scientist searches for explanations of nature that do follow the laws of physics (from which the laws of chemistry and biochemistry follow) and, if they don't, he or she argues for changing the laws of physics so that they do.

 

Arguing that "slime" becoming living (i.e, abiogenesis) is "too much to accept" is indeed the old creationist argument from personal incredulity.  It is not a scientific argument, because there are many things in this world that at one time we could not understand, but now we do. On what grounds do you exclude the origin of life from that?  What is so special, in your view, about that which makes it impossible to understand in scientific terms? Because science does not see anything special that would have that effect.    

Edited January 13, 2017 by exchemist

[Ratch]

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. This is a science site, not a place where easy to accept passes muster.

 

     Not everything is explainable by science.  Creation is one of them.  If science does not accept that, then it is crippling itself.

 

Ratch

[fahrquad]

A single cell organism would need a cell membrane to keep its insides in and the outside out.  As an organism develops into a multi-cellular creature, parts would develop with specific functions, and a circulatory system of some sort would become necessary to supply those cells that are not near the surface.  A nervous system would need to develop to coordinate activities as the organism became more complex.  It has already been proven in the lab that the amino acid precursors to proteins will form when subjected to conditions presumed to exist on the early Earth.  A fatherly figure sitting up in the clouds is not necessary for the creation of life.  Everyone knows that the universe was created by the god Nataraja (Shiva) doing the "Dance of Creation" anyway.

 

 

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

[fahrquad]

Interestingly Shiva is a god of Creation and Destruction (read article in link).

Edited January 13, 2017 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

     Not everything is explainable by science.  Creation is one of them.  If science does not accept that, then it is crippling itself.

 

Ratch

 

One of the founding principles of science is that theories can be proven experimentally, and most importantly that the results can be replicated.  Religion of any kind cannot be proven or dis-proven, and is strictly a matter of faith, therefor religion has no place in science

[fahrquad]

This self-organization reference shows it to be a highly theoretical concept that is hard to grasp because of its complexity.  The reference also lists criticisms of this theory.  My response is "show me the goods".  Show me something that happens spontaneously and can be proven not to be deterministic.  Crystallization is not a valid example because it follows already established laws of physics.

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the evolution of the train, plane, and auto.  They are the results of intelligent design and production.  But for slime to arrange itself into to life is too much to accept.  Just think, a cell would have to appear completely finished and ready to work.  It is too much to believe.  Creation is a lot easier to accept.

 

Ratch

 

Although it lacks any form of central nervous system nor any real intelligence, Slime does arrange itself into multi-cellular organizations. I am offended that you would belittle such a humble and beneficial life form in your homocentric rant.  All life is precious especially since it is so exceedingly rare.  Educate yourself about the life form that you scorn especially since I suspect it is more intelligent than you..

 

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

[Turtle]

 

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. This is a science site, not a place where easy to accept passes muster.

Not everything is explainable by science.  Creation is one of them.  If science does not accept that, then it is crippling itself.

 

Ratch

 

You are posting on a science site, and presenting theistic arguments -and fallacious ones at that- is mistaken at best and trolling at worst.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Turtle

[JMJones0424]

     Not everything is explainable by science.  Creation is one of them.  If science does not accept that, then it is crippling itself.

 

Ratch

Let's ignore your proud assertion of knowledge while claiming ignorance.  I think we can agree that life exists.  Why is it then, as you seem to claim, that the creation of life is unexplainable by science?

[JMJones0424]

One of the founding principles of science is that theories can be proven experimentally, and most importantly that the results can be replicated.  Religion of any kind cannot be proven or dis-proven, and is strictly a matter of faith, therefor religion has no place in science

I think you've got this a bit twisted.  I would phrase it as such:  One of the founding principles of science is that theories can only be disproven, because we can never know that we have all of the pertinent information.  This is known as the problem of induction.  Science avoids the trap of claims of "truth" by seeking to describe and explain only that which can be observed.  In science, there is never a situation that a theory can be proven to be correct.

 

Many religious claims are falsifiable and can be disproven.  The biggest though, that a god or gods exist, can not.  It is the case that an omnipotent god could also be an ******* and construct our universe in such a way that would require us to reject logical observation of our surroundings in order to accept the ultimate creator's existence.  If such a thing occurred, then it would be impossible for science to lead to the truth.

 

Faith has no place in science, since faith is the acceptance of a claim without and regardless of testing.  Religion and science are not even describing the same thing, so claiming that religion has no place in science is similar to saying that blue has no place in the square root of 12.

[exchemist]

I think you've got this a bit twisted.  I would phrase it as such:  One of the founding principles of science is that theories can only be disproven, because we can never know that we have all of the pertinent information.  This is known as the problem of induction.  Science avoids the trap of claims of "truth" by seeking to describe and explain only that which can be observed.  In science, there is never a situation that a theory can be proven to be correct.

 

Many religious claims are falsifiable and can be disproven.  The biggest though, that a god or gods exist, can not.  It is the case that an omnipotent god could also be an ******* and construct our universe in such a way that would require us to reject logical observation of our surroundings in order to accept the ultimate creator's existence.  If such a thing occurred, then it would be impossible for science to lead to the truth.

 

Faith has no place in science, since faith is the acceptance of a claim without and regardless of testing.  Religion and science are not even describing the same thing, so claiming that religion has no place in science is similar to saying that blue has no place in the square root of 12.

Yes! Very well put indeed.