From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Julie Won't Tell! Re: Developing ideas on hearts.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:15:31 GMT

bk186@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) writes:

>The atria develop so that they are laterally opposed.  If development
>reflected phylogeny, they should be close together on the left side
>and the right one should shift position concurrent with completion of
>the interventricular septum.

	No, you are making the atria homologous structures. They
are not the same as the atrium of the three chambered heart becomes the
left atrium and part of the original ventricle and bulbus become
the right atrium.

>I'm talking about the evolution of the pulmonary circuit having
>to be concurrent with the division of the heart.  Surely, between these
>states, I see problems.  As one might say, what good is a 1/2 pulmonary
>artery?

	Unless, I am mistaken, I don't understand the sequence that
way. The pulmonary circuit appears to be established before the
division of the atria and ventricles is complete.

>No, it's an observation of fact.  I'm not making an argument.  I'm
>questioning your story.  

	So, who are you? What wisdom do you have to offer? None?
You can only ask me my opinion, or what I know, and disagree with
me? So What?

>Sure there are similarities.  So what?  Evolution is about more than
>similarities, it's about transformations.  Here is where differences
>are often ignored, although they shouldn't be.

	So where is the record for hearts? Do you have fossils?
Can the developmental anatomy be deciphered as phylogenetic in
a simple way? No. Can phylogeny be proved? No. Can it be disproved?
No.

>[...] the "trick" is to stack the cards so that only evidence for
>evolution can be gleaned.  But that's an aspect of a paradigm.
>We just need to be aware of it and not allow our critical minds
>to be mesmerized by "half-stories".

	Well, fine. Offer an alternative that does not use this
"paradigm". That term is used by you to say in effect "Well, that
is only your opinion!" OK, but I will let others reading this
decide who has the most useful arguments. Whose argument points
in the direction of new information, even if by error?

>Development is under tight control.  It is programmed.  It is
>teleological as it moves toward a set state.  Are you suggesting
>evolution is also like this?  Are you implying evolution is
>"programmed"?

	Only in the sense that the system is not simple but
is coerced by a history of ireversable steps into a complex
and tightly constrained development. This is not the same as
saying that these constraints cannot be undone and made to have
different outcomes.

>No, that's not a fact.  It's an assumption/interpretation you make under
>the paradigm you hold to.  Since I don't share the paradigm, I find this
>consideration illuminating.

>Well, this story is getting old and I'm starting to get bored.  I
>think I'll let you have the last word so I can move onto another topic
>which has caught my eye to see what stories surface there.  It's been
>fun!  

	I'm thankful that you want to end this after having to wade
through a 400 line posting. Next time break up your replies into a
series of short postings.

	I never said that my story was fact. As for your final position
that my "paradigm" is only my opinion and you have your paradigm, which
you havn't elaborated, I find that tactic very much like dealing with
Bob Bales. Are you going to ignore any replies this generates and 
change the subject, while not sharing with us what belief you DO
hold to? A negative position is useless. That you can give
no alternative positive position is strongly suggestive of holding
a bias which you will not risk to discuss here. I have the feeling
that you might be a Christian Fundementalist. Would you deny this
and come up with some statement of alternative to evolution?

	I don't think that it is too much to ask that if you are
merely skeptical about evolution, for which you have some evidence,
that rather than dropping the matter there, either argue that
speculation about alternatives, for which you do not have evidance,
is not important, or offer such speculation on the basis that some
closure on the question is important, no matter how speculative.
This group has no shortage of such speculation, and such discussion
is revealing. Do you fear such revelations? Do you fear sucgh speculation?
Why do YOU not speculate? What is at stake FOR you? Are you hiding
something?

	It always amazes me how much heat is generated about evolution
as opposed to other scientific ideas of equal bredth. The reason evolution
is special is because of the braod consequences it has. Do these figure
into your objections, in light of your reluctance to discuss alternatives?
I realize that these are philosophical questions, but I find where you
leave the matter unsatisfying, if not suspiceous.

Bruce Salem


Newsgroups: talk.origins