The chances of two things or entities that are completely reliable on one another or can't exist without the other is ridiculous.
Did your heart evolve first and then later evolve heart vessels? Why did a heart need blood vessels? How did the heart survive before blood vessels came along? Or did the blood vessels evolve first? But why, there was no heart? And for that matter did blood evolve already at this time as well? You have many problems here with this argument. (co-evolution)
If you want to argue against evolution on this topic, I think you should already have investigated what the evolutionary biologists' answer is and then try to counter it. If you don't know their answer, you should think about it and see if you can guess, and then try to find out what it is.
Evolutionary biologists do NOT think that the evolution of heart, blood vessels and blood is a problem for the idea of evolution. Do you really think your question about the heart never occurred to any biologist in all these years? And if it did occur to biologists, since the concept of evolution is stronger than ever, don't you think there must be a solid reasonable idea, convincing to biologists, on how this could have happened? Maybe you should do some reading first and find out what that idea is before you wrongly suggest it is a problem that leaves evolutionary biologists floundering?
5 comments:
It's called co-evolution.
Sure is...
and it's unfounded.
The chances of two things or entities that are completely reliable on one another or can't exist without the other is ridiculous.
Did your heart evolve first and then later evolve heart vessels? Why did a heart need blood vessels? How did the heart survive before blood vessels came along? Or did the blood vessels evolve first? But why, there was no heart? And for that matter did blood evolve already at this time as well? You have many problems here with this argument. (co-evolution)
Joe
If you want to argue against evolution on this topic, I think you should already have investigated what the evolutionary biologists' answer is and then try to counter it. If you don't know their answer, you should think about it and see if you can guess, and then try to find out what it is.
Evolutionary biologists do NOT think that the evolution of heart, blood vessels and blood is a problem for the idea of evolution. Do you really think your question about the heart never occurred to any biologist in all these years?
And if it did occur to biologists, since the concept of evolution is stronger than ever, don't you think there must be a solid reasonable idea, convincing to biologists, on how this could have happened? Maybe you should do some reading first and find out what that idea is before you wrongly suggest it is a problem that leaves evolutionary biologists floundering?
Or you could just answer the question being a avid revolutionists and all... ;-)
Sorry, meant evolutionist
Post a Comment