- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,06:39) The Holy Wikipedia has this: A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Stu, I remember when I quoted Wikipedia and you laughed your head off. I also remember when you complained about a writing I did titled “There was no such thing as an Atheist”. In that writing I explained that an Atheist doesn't know if there is a God or not and so he was really Agnostic as he had no proof that God did or didn't exist. Now I also see that you agree.At this rate you should believe in God in 10 years from now and believe in scripture in 40 years. Hopefully you live long enough to make it. But I will try and speed the process up for you.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 31 2010,11:50) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2010,06:39) The Holy Wikipedia has this: A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
Blood is not a pure chemical substance. It is a mixture that changes its composition almost constantly. The process of drying changes the ratio between the numbers of atoms of each element.
Stuart
Stu, I remember when I quoted Wikipedia and you laughed your head off. I also remember when you complained about a writing I did titled “There was no such thing as an Atheist”. In that writing I explained that an Atheist doesn't know if there is a God or not and so he was really Agnostic as he had no proof that God did or didn't exist. Now I also see that you agree.At this rate you should believe in God in 10 years from now and believe in scripture in 40 years. Hopefully you live long enough to make it. But I will try and speed the process up for you.
I only quoted Wikipedia to save myself the bother of typing out a definition, and I am not likely to be paid for educating BD who would have looked it up for himself in any case.Can you please refer me to where I actually criticised your use of Wikipedia, and in what context?
I have stated myself several times that I am agnostic, as is everyone, and that my atheism is the provisional scientific conclusion that, because there is no unambiguous evidence for any claims of the divine, gods exist only in the heads of believers. That has been my consistent position. I was right that there definitely is such a thing as a atheist.
BD is going fishing for a response that he can twist to suit his creationist claims. He is not fronting up with responses to the points I am making. I'm not sure he realises when others are running circles around him.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,15:36) STU You didn't answe my last post so please do
You didn't answer mine.WHAT life-sustaining function of blood do you wish to discuss?
Maybe you could also tell me what difference it will make to the previous discussion.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,20:22) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,15:36) STU You didn't answe my last post so please do
You didn't answer mine.WHAT life-sustaining function of blood do you wish to discuss?
Maybe you could also tell me what difference it will make to the previous discussion.
Stuart
I know you're already stumped but since you said you're running circles around me, can you tell me did the clotting factor of blood evolve?Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,12:06) I have stated myself several times that I am agnostic, as is everyone, and that my atheism is the provisional scientific conclusion that, because there is no unambiguous evidence for any claims of the divine, gods exist only in the heads of believers. That has been my consistent position. I was right that there definitely is such a thing as a atheist.
So are you an Atheist or an Agnostic.?
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,12:06) I only quoted Wikipedia to save myself the bother of typing out a definition, and I am not likely to be paid for educating BD who would have looked it up for himself in any case.
I don't have a problem with that. Just pointing out that you did, but obviously you have changed your mind. Change is not a problem of course.Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,12:06) Can you please refer me to where I actually criticised your use of Wikipedia, and in what context?
It would be too costly an exercise to find it, but suffice to say, I only quote Wikipedia to save me typing out a definition and to show that the definition is not my own. I don't cite Wikipedia as any kind of definite proof.Quote (t8 @ Nov. 01 2010,09:12) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,12:06) Can you please refer me to where I actually criticised your use of Wikipedia, and in what context?
It would be too costly an exercise to find it, but suffice to say, I only quote Wikipedia to save me typing out a definition and to show that the definition is not my own. I don't cite Wikipedia as any kind of definite proof.
So will you withdraw the accusation that I criticised you for using Wikipedia in the manner I used it?Thanks.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 01 2010,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,12:06) I have stated myself several times that I am agnostic, as is everyone, and that my atheism is the provisional scientific conclusion that, because there is no unambiguous evidence for any claims of the divine, gods exist only in the heads of believers. That has been my consistent position. I was right that there definitely is such a thing as a atheist.
So are you an Atheist or an Agnostic.?
I am what it says in that quote box. Sorry if that is too technical for you.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2010,17:28) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 01 2010,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,12:06) I have stated myself several times that I am agnostic, as is everyone, and that my atheism is the provisional scientific conclusion that, because there is no unambiguous evidence for any claims of the divine, gods exist only in the heads of believers. That has been my consistent position. I was right that there definitely is such a thing as a atheist.
So are you an Atheist or an Agnostic.?
I am what it says in that quote box. Sorry if that is too technical for you.Stuart
Basicalluy you don't know what you are so you can understand why you shouldn't believe?Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 01 2010,02:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,20:22) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,15:36) STU You didn't answe my last post so please do
You didn't answer mine.WHAT life-sustaining function of blood do you wish to discuss?
Maybe you could also tell me what difference it will make to the previous discussion.
Stuart
I know you're already stumped but since you said you're running circles around me, can you tell me did the clotting factor of blood evolve?
No I am not stumped, I was waiting for you to make some kind of valid point, and actually I still am.Anyway, yes the clotting factor, and the clotting cascade are a product of natural selection adapting previously existing systems.
Here is a description made by Kenneth Miller in relation to the use of the clotting cascade as an example by Intelligent Design proponents in the Dover trial. The science he presents is sufficient to show that ID was is science. He also points out that this might not be the exact sequence of events that lead to the clotting cascade, but the fact that it is falsifiable and makes predictions which turn out to be true mean that it is a scientific theory. Is there any other falsifiable, evidence-based, predictive theory of how we came to be able to form blood clots? No. Is it reasonable to suggest that humans were formed from blood clots? Not really, because the clots formed from simpler systems that already existed, and existed in our human and non-human ancestors.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 01 2010,17:32) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2010,17:28) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 01 2010,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,12:06) I have stated myself several times that I am agnostic, as is everyone, and that my atheism is the provisional scientific conclusion that, because there is no unambiguous evidence for any claims of the divine, gods exist only in the heads of believers. That has been my consistent position. I was right that there definitely is such a thing as a atheist.
So are you an Atheist or an Agnostic.?
I am what it says in that quote box. Sorry if that is too technical for you.Stuart
Basicalluy you don't know what you are so you can understand why you shouldn't believe?
Was that meant to make any sense?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2010,17:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 01 2010,02:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,20:22) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,15:36) STU You didn't answe my last post so please do
You didn't answer mine.WHAT life-sustaining function of blood do you wish to discuss?
Maybe you could also tell me what difference it will make to the previous discussion.
Stuart
I know you're already stumped but since you said you're running circles around me, can you tell me did the clotting factor of blood evolve?
No I am not stumped, I was waiting for you to make some kind of valid point, and actually I still am.Anyway, yes the clotting factor, and the clotting cascade are a product of natural selection adapting previously existing systems.
Here is a description made by Kenneth Miller in relation to the use of the clotting cascade as an example by Intelligent Design proponents in the Dover trial. The science he presents is sufficient to show that ID was is science. He also points out that this might not be the exact sequence of events that lead to the clotting cascade, but the fact that it is falsifiable and makes predictions which turn out to be true mean that it is a scientific theory. Is there any other falsifiable, evidence-based, predictive theory of how we came to be able to form blood clots? No. Is it reasonable to suggest that humans were formed from blood clots? Not really, because the clots formed from simpler systems that already existed, and existed in our human and non-human ancestors.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Stuart
You know what makes Kennith Miller wrong on this? He talks about fibrinogen but isn't Fibronogen synthesized by the liver? If what I am saying is true then the liver would already be functioning through existing blood and thereby you would not have answered my firs question did blood evolve?Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 01 2010,22:17) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2010,17:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 01 2010,02:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,20:22) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,15:36) STU You didn't answe my last post so please do
You didn't answer mine.WHAT life-sustaining function of blood do you wish to discuss?
Maybe you could also tell me what difference it will make to the previous discussion.
Stuart
I know you're already stumped but since you said you're running circles around me, can you tell me did the clotting factor of blood evolve?
No I am not stumped, I was waiting for you to make some kind of valid point, and actually I still am.Anyway, yes the clotting factor, and the clotting cascade are a product of natural selection adapting previously existing systems.
Here is a description made by Kenneth Miller in relation to the use of the clotting cascade as an example by Intelligent Design proponents in the Dover trial. The science he presents is sufficient to show that ID was is science. He also points out that this might not be the exact sequence of events that lead to the clotting cascade, but the fact that it is falsifiable and makes predictions which turn out to be true mean that it is a scientific theory. Is there any other falsifiable, evidence-based, predictive theory of how we came to be able to form blood clots? No. Is it reasonable to suggest that humans were formed from blood clots? Not really, because the clots formed from simpler systems that already existed, and existed in our human and non-human ancestors.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Stuart
You know what makes Kennith Miller wrong on this? He talks about fibrinogen but isn't Fibronogen synthesized by the liver? If what I am saying is true then the liver would already be functioning through existing blood and thereby you would not have answered my firs question did blood evolve?
But your question was did blood clotting evolve. The answer to that is yes, as Ken Miller explained. Now you are indulging in your usual behaviour of changing the question when it turns out you were wrong.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 02 2010,16:46) Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 01 2010,22:17) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2010,17:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 01 2010,02:27) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 31 2010,20:22) Quote (bodhitharta @ Oct. 31 2010,15:36) STU You didn't answe my last post so please do
You didn't answer mine.WHAT life-sustaining function of blood do you wish to discuss?
Maybe you could also tell me what difference it will make to the previous discussion.
Stuart
I know you're already stumped but since you said you're running circles around me, can you tell me did the clotting factor of blood evolve?
No I am not stumped, I was waiting for you to make some kind of valid point, and actually I still am.Anyway, yes the clotting factor, and the clotting cascade are a product of natural selection adapting previously existing systems.
Here is a description made by Kenneth Miller in relation to the use of the clotting cascade as an example by Intelligent Design proponents in the Dover trial. The science he presents is sufficient to show that ID was is science. He also points out that this might not be the exact sequence of events that lead to the clotting cascade, but the fact that it is falsifiable and makes predictions which turn out to be true mean that it is a scientific theory. Is there any other falsifiable, evidence-based, predictive theory of how we came to be able to form blood clots? No. Is it reasonable to suggest that humans were formed from blood clots? Not really, because the clots formed from simpler systems that already existed, and existed in our human and non-human ancestors.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Stuart
You know what makes Kennith Miller wrong on this? He talks about fibrinogen but isn't Fibronogen synthesized by the liver? If what I am saying is true then the liver would already be functioning through existing blood and thereby you would not have answered my firs question did blood evolve?
But your question was did blood clotting evolve. The answer to that is yes, as Ken Miller explained. Now you are indulging in your usual behaviour of changing the question when it turns out you were wrong.Stuart
How did the clotting factor evolve? If the blood did not clot before how did the organism stay alive and if it did stay alive without the clotting factor how would it develop the need?From the Ken Miller link (did you read it?):
Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.
A “need” arose through the evolution of higher pressure circulatory systems that would not have clotted by sticky blood cells plugging a gap.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2010,20:06) From the Ken Miller link (did you read it?): Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.
A “need” arose through the evolution of higher pressure circulatory systems that would not have clotted by sticky blood cells plugging a gap.
Stuart
Quote our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks Sorry stickiness is a clotting factor how did it arise? Besides I keep explaining to you again and again NATURE has no intent and does not act according to need it isn't conscious as you make it out to be. Natural selection is not a process of choosing or altering it is the result of survival of what is fit to live.
So no you idea on this which is Ken millers is completely without merit besides how would the higher pressure system evolve without the clotting factor or vice versa?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 21 2010,02:08) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2010,20:06) From the Ken Miller link (did you read it?): Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.
A “need” arose through the evolution of higher pressure circulatory systems that would not have clotted by sticky blood cells plugging a gap.
Stuart
Quote our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks Sorry stickiness is a clotting factor how did it arise? Besides I keep explaining to you again and again NATURE has no intent and does not act according to need it isn't conscious as you make it out to be. Natural selection is not a process of choosing or altering it is the result of survival of what is fit to live.
So no you idea on this which is Ken millers is completely without merit besides how would the higher pressure system evolve without the clotting factor or vice versa?
Sticky white cells are what animals had BEFORE clotting systems, what they produce is a plug of cells, not a blood clot.Where have I ever claimed that nature has intent? I have explained many times to others here that it does not. Not sure how you can have a mythology of sperm turning into blood clot turning into embryo without nature containing enought intent to do supernatural magic. Are you meaning to discredit natural selection or include it in your confused myth?
The first part of your last paragraph is incoherent. As for the second half, this is the whole story of evolution by natural selection in one example. You claim to have some understanding of natural selection and yet it appears you cannot grasp how a tiny increment in blood pressure adds a tiny increment in adaptive pressure to greater cell stickiness, and eventually adaptive change in existing systems to clotting brought on by natural selection “discovering” (without intent) that when blood vessel cells are damaged, particular proteins are allowed to come together to advantage.
The blood clot and the means by which it is produced are the result of adaptive change of systems that had other jobs in distant ancestors. The clot has evolved. Not sure where that leaves your origin myth: it requires absurd acts of magic the way it is written anyway.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
