RufusAtticus

Vanderzyden,

So, you're not a biologist, correct? Then why do you spout off as you do?

You better change your tune soon because your current one is ripping off DJ Pot's song, "Black Kettle."

MrDarwin

Vanderzyden, you have made a couple of claims of your own. Since you have apparently studied both fetal and adult circulatory systems in great detail--to the extent that you apparently know more about them than a medical doctor--and were able to spot flaws in my design so quickly, you shouldn't have any trouble telling me why they are flaws. Because I'm just not seeing them. I'm still waiting for you to address my questions:

Can you tell me why blood coming from the placenta is under "higher pressure"? Higher than what? Precisely where and how is this pressure being generated? Of course, there's that tiny detail Rick raised about just why the pressure of blood would inflate the lungs; you might want to go back and review the website I linked to in the OP:

But I'll let that go for the moment, in hopes you will address my other question:

Could you please point out in precisely which "many places" this mixing would occur?

And you still haven't answered my question about childbirth and doctors. Will you depend on this system running smoothly and optimally when the time comes, or will you prepare for possible problems, just in case?

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

lpetrich

Except that doing so would mean redesigning a whole lot of development-control genes -- something that we simply do not know how to do.

But nevertheless I don't see how there is something fundamentally impossible about doing so.

lpetrich

And Vanderzyden still has not commented about early embryonic circulation and its multiple aortas and aortic arches -- which is much like the circulatory sytem of a fish!

Or about the vitelline arteries and veins -- what does an embryo developing inside a womb need with egg yolk???

Dr Rick

You are wrong, again.

I'm an endoscopic surgeon, and you are not. I operate almost every day, and you do not.

I know what I am talking about, but you do not.
I'm an expert in human physiology, anatomy, and medicine; you are not.

<strong> We never claimed that we could actually improve the flaws; you have foolishly claimed that there are none.

We see the obvious flaws; we know the evidence, and we know that it refutes the idiocy of presuming intelligent design.

What would be accomplished by telling the "bioengineering community" or anyone else the obvious if we cannot change it? You might as well annouce to a bunch of geologists that the Earth is not flat.

Rick

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

MrDarwin

I might also point out that one need not be an architect to look at a blueprint for a house and judge that a layout with the stove on one side of the house, the refrigerator on the other, and the kitchen sink in another place entirely, just isn't a good way to put together a kitchen. And whether one is an architect or not, one need not know how to make mortar and bricks from scratch to point out improvements to the design.

Of course, if I were to try to improve the design myself I'd probably trust the opinion of somebody with training and experience in architecture or kitchen design over that of somebody who knows nothing about the subject whatsoever save what he picked up on the web in an hour or two of reading.

Camaban

actually, I'll support not listening to people who either aren't qualified themselves, or don't give arguments backed up by people who are qualified

why?

Because it means (Going from that most Creation "scientists" either have irrelevant or bought PHD's) are doing nothing by spouting about something they're not qualified in.

*awaits double-standards*

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

lpetrich

And even those who are professionally qualified sometimes make gross mistakes in their fields.

I had created a thread on it called "Gish and the bullfrog, Wells and the shrimp, Dembski and the beaver". These three gentlemen had slipped up on their specialties, which says something about the quality of creationist argumentation.

Basically, biochemist Duane Gish had claimed back in 1982 that certain human proteins are closer to their bullfrog counterparts than to their chimp counterparts -- and he has yet to reveal which ones, despite repeated requests to do so.

And developmental biologist Jonathan Wells had jumped the gun on some press reports on experiments with a shrimp development-control gene; he grossly misunderstood what the experiments were.

And self-styled intelligent-design detector William Dembski has claimed that beavers intelligently design their dams, when they have an instinct that tells them to build a dam wherever they hear rushing water.

Vanderzyden

If you are a surgeon, then why didn't you clarify this when I asked first? Anyway, are you attempting to impress, belittle or ridicule me? Nice try. You give me no credit whatsoever for what I have said here, and you have no idea who I am or of what I am capable. If you really "knew what you were talking about" concerning CV system design, then you wouldn't have to explicity state that you are an "expert" that "knows what you're talking about".

Furthermore, your posts have all the indications of the snotty, snobby, demi-god doctors that I have encountered. This is the second medical person here at Infidels with this syndrome. Why is it that so many of you are so pompous? There is no basis for it. In the grand picture of life, your healing skills are only slightly more valuable than those of the farmer who grows food so that your body may have nourishment.

To top it all off, you insist that you and MrD have a plan for improving the CV system. Amazingly ludicrous!!! What could possibly be more outrageous? A mere man, who does not have the small power to prevent his own eventual death, dares to suggest that he has a "better design". You are a surgeon. That's good, and your patients will do well to thank you for the reciprocal service that you provide for the community. (You would do well to thank all of those you depend upon.) But you are merely a mechanic for the human body; the Creator is the engineer. If you would criticize him, then you need a certain minimum "education", one that could not be accomplished in many, many lifetimes, if ever. You may call me foolish, but your glib commentary on life-system design is very silly.

Lots of avenues? Surely you don't mean to imply that you may enter anywhere you please. And, you wouldn't be implying that this is would be easy. No, you can't mean that. The thorax is not concrete, but it is very tough. Tell me, what kind of tools do you need to do major thoracic surgery? A li'l ol' scalpel just won't do.

Ah, but what must be done when major thoracic surgery is required? Of course, you must SAW the breastbone IN HALF. Certainly you will admit that endoscopy can only go so far.

Well, I will tell you that I know a little bit about pressure management. If you introduce an additional significant pressurized fluid source into the wrong (i.e. central) location in a pre-designed system, you will adversely affect pump equipment, pipe joints, and structural supports. For the heart-lung vasculature, if the placental discharge was introduced anywhere near the heart, then the heart would need to be redesigned. If placed upstream, then the additional placental pressure would act negatively, drawing the aortic (or pulmonary) valve superiorly. If introduced downstream, additional positive pressure comes to bear on one of the atrioventricular valves. Either of these configurations would cause the AV valves to leak. The valves and their ligaments would also need redesign. Minor adjustments would be required on the aortic and pulmonary valves. Also, the diameters and/or lengths of the arteries and veins would need adjustment, and additional ligaments would be required to handle the new pressure map.

By what standard?

There are no FLAWS in the system. Birth DEFECTS have other causes.

This Berkeley website briefly outlines other advantages, particularly in reference to the lungs:

Ductus arteriosus
… protects lungs against circulatory overload
… allows the right ventricle to strengthen
… hi pulmonary vascular resistance, low pulmonary blood flow

<a href="http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html" target="_blank">http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html</a>


Vanderzyden

Albion

Funny, but I don't see his posts that way at all. On the other hand, when someone has spent years getting education and training in a subject and is met with dismissive rudeness in discussions on that subject by a person whose own qualifications in that area are unknown, it does tend to be irritating.