Vanderzyden

L,

Here again is an example of a post that largely tangential, contains no support for the claims you are making, and ignores what I have said previously about aortic arches.

Suggestion: pick one target and attempt a bullseye.


Thanks,

John

Godless Dave

Speaking of staying on target, we found some examples of beneficial mutations for you <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001596&p=2" target="_blank">here</a>.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Why, hello Mr Kettle! How are you today? Black again, I see.

Dr Rick

I and others have, ad nauseum

<strong> That's what you asked me to do:
<strong> <strong> As explained to you before, they will get the oxygenated blood before the liver does as in the evolutionary-derived fetal circulation.

<strong> It's a better system, for the reasons explained in prior posts, and as explained to you before, one of its virtues is that it does away with the need to connect the left and right atrium and the pulmonary arterial circulation with the aorta

<strong> You statement and follow-up question are more non sequitors; the highest volume of blood in the circulation is the total volume of the circulation.

<strong> This is still a non sequitor.

The volume of all the blood is distributed throughout the circulation.

<strong> If you were, you'd know that none of your objections make any sense, and that none of the modifications you describe above would be necessary or desirable.

<strong> You are not listening at all. It has been repeated several times that pulmonary arterial pressure is not dependant on the expansion or collapse of the airspace in the lungs, and I've even provided examples in very plain English of how that is the case in the adult, as well.

<strong> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

<strong> That resistance comes from the blood vessels, not the collapse or inflation of the airspaces. There is less blood flowing through the lungs because the volume of blood flow, not the pressure, is decreased.

<strong> First of all, the lungs cannot be simultaneosuly fluid-filled and compressed. Second of all, you are contradicting yourself, again; you first objected that the intelligently designed fetal circulation wouldn't work because it would create high pulmonary arterial pressures, and now you are claiming that the current fetal circulation has high pulmonary arterial pressures.

<strong> [italics above added so that John might try to actually read what he has cut and pasted; as hard as it is to believe, he apparently did so without realizing that it contradicts his silly argument]

<strong>

<strong> Until you accept what every high school science student knows about how the position of the fetus varies through-out gestation and every time a pregnant woman lies down or stands-up, you will fail to realize what a ridiculous argument you are making here.

<strong> It snowed here last night; interesting "coincidence", is it not?

<strong> Hoping that you could be civil or educable might be one of those few things.

"Here again is an example of a post that [is] largely tangential, contains no support for the claims you are making, and ignores what I have said previously...
Suggestion:" educate yourself, listen and learn when more knowledgable people are taking the time to teach you, and try not to be so self-righteous when you are so plainly wrong.

Good luck

Rick

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Rick,

I have to say, I expected much more from you, given the confidence you displayed when we first encountered one another.

It seems as though you are merely repeating the Darwinist mantras. It is my understanding that the liver does not process fetal blood. That is accomplished by the placenta. The oxygen depletion is relatively small since only enough is necessary to sustain the organ itself. And, again, this redesign comes at great cost. The implication for you is that there is no significant advantage, and great disadvantage.

But you have failed to explain it in light of my latest serious objections.

I'm sure that you realize that I am not referring to the total system volume. Rather, I am specifically referring to the local volume at a particular POINT in the system. The IVC and SVC both converge, and the combined volume flow-rate of both of these trunk veins drains into the right atrium. Therefore, it necessarily follows that there is no greater volume of blood flow in the entire CV system.

This is wholly vacuous and evasive.

There is no contradiction. High pressure will eventually produce failure if the "equipment" is designed out-of-specification, as your redesign clearly is. To use a mechanical analogy: either the pipes will burst or the pump will fail.

I am really surprised at how little you know, and how unwilling you are to learn, concerning fetal pulmonary and cardivascular development. Read this:

You did say you were a thoracic surgeon, correct?

This was an additional example, meant to show you that the conditions of the lungs do indeed affect arterial pressure.

Again, I see that you close your post without addressing the two most important arguments. At this point I will consider them knock-down refutations of your outrageous suggestions.

Rick, at this point I think you should know that you are conversing with someone who has advanced training in fluid mechanics. And yet, there is nothing very complex that is required in showing that your "redesign" is an utter failure. You apparently do not know what you are saying (even about some elementary fetal development concepts), nor do you seem willing to learn. You continue your insults, perhaps out of frustration. That's OK, because everyone who reads your replies can see clearly (whether they will admit it publicly or not) that you are without substantial cause in maintaining your assertions.

Go back and attempt to understand the "hydrostatic pressure" discussion on the previous page. It is not too difficult to understand. Until you do so--and argue from it or successfully against it--you cannot support your demonstrably unwarranted claims.


John

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

scigirl

About those pesky aortic arches again...

I found this rather amazing article when composing my post on the evolution of the placenta.

Check it out:
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=112333 89&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">The left-sided aortic arch in humans, viewed as the end-result of natural selection during vertebrate evolution.</a>

Hmm, a right-sided aortic arch continues to occur in these patients.

Why is that, Vanderzyden? What insights does your creation theory give us as to why this happens?

scigirl

Dr Rick

I am confident that I can explain something so simple as this to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and honesty; I still believe I can, but you are too arrogant, ignorant, and dishonest.

<strong> You must be aware that the liver extracts oxygen from the blood just as every organ does, and that amount is not insignificant; what do you hope to accomplish by misstating the obvious?

<strong> More ignorant gibberish.

The liver is the primary site of blood formation in the fetus beginning at six weeks gestation and is disproportionately enlarged and constitutes 10% of the fetal weight because of this. By the fourth month, it is producing bile.

<strong> Then why are you losing this argument so badly? Why are you posting such utter nonsense? No one here is going to become a creationist just because you are persistent in making a fool of yourself.

<strong> You blather about ligaments, blood flow, pulmonary artery pressure, fluid dynamics, and other non-issues, you get shown you are wrong, and then spew something else for a couple of posts before going back to your original false assertions. Nothing that you say can be taken seriously, nor have you raised one single relevant point.

<strong> I would have expected more precision in terminology from a man who claims to know fluid dynamics. To understand fluid dynamics, you need to know the difference between volume and flow; your local library may have a high school physics book you can check-out on the subject.

<strong> I'm trying so hard not to talk over your head, again.

First a contradiction, and now a non sequitur.

<strong> You should have read it, first, John; now try to pay attention to all of the words, even the big ones:

So, while your looking up the difference between volume and flow, see if you can find something on the difference between space and potential space.

<strong> Man, you can't even get that right! I told you I'm an endoscopist; another big word for you to look-up.

It just showed what a dishonest, arrogant fool you are; you misstated the facts, again.

<strong> You have no important points, only misstatements, delusions, and lies.

<strong> Just one more delusion on top of your others, I suppose.

<strong>

<strong> There is not much to learn from one as arrogant and ignorant as you.

<strong> Just more of your delusions, John. You really should get some help.

<strong> Tape this last paragraph to your refrigerator, and be sure and write down the stuff you need to look-up in the library.

Rick

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

MrDarwin

My last comment to Vanderzyden:

Vanderzyden's reaction:

*sigh* Let's just sum up, shall we?

Erroneous: By his own admission, his earlier comments about blood pressure in placental blood vessels were wrong.

Evasive: Unfortunately, this admission came only after much prodding to drag it out of him. Meanwhile, he has still failed to back up his claims about the mixing of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood, despite numerous requests to do so, and despite claims that he has done so.

Dishonest: his admission of being wrong about blood pressure in placental blood vessel proved that he had been dishonest when he claimed to have already dealt with them; his claim to have already addressed the issue of the mixing of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood, while still refusing to do so, just perpetuates his dishonesty.

These things are as clear to anybody reading this discussion as they are to me, but either Vanderzyden thinks he can get away with them, or he is truly self-deluded. Now, as much as I would love to spend more time refuting Vanderzyden's arguments, I have to be careful how much time I invest in this dialogue, since family, work, and other obligations in my offline life currently prevent me from spending several hours a day in this forum. Vanderzyden, if you choose to view this as a victory, go for it. But I think everybody else here knows otherwise.

MrDarwin

P.S. Thanks so much, Rick, for continuing with this discussion. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

As is typical with such Darwinist literature, the development of the argument has little or no precision, and is generally vague and nebulous.

"At some point during vertebrate evolution..."

"mammals that mutated to the left-sided aortic arch ..." (entire mammal mutation? what is doing the "mutating"? I thought that genes "mutated". Hmmm...)

"Due to natural selection..." (natural selection = accidental choice; how is this possible?)

"In congenital cardiac malformations where a large arterial duct is not mandatory in fetal life..." (and those "malformations" would be which ones, precisely? Remember, we must distinguish between flaws and defects.)

What, in particular, merits a response in this excerpt?


John