Blood clotting

[mathinspiration]

In anti -Evolution book called Darwin's Black Box by Behr, it says that massive blood clotting is proof that evolution is false. Is there any real scientific or math evidence for or against this?

 

[Tolworth John]

Is there any real scientific or math evidence for or against this?

Yes it is in a book called 'Darwins black box.'
or you could try human biology text books for information on the chemical cascade that is required to make blood clot.

 

[Job 33:6]

In anti -Evolution book called Darwin's Black Box by Behr, it says that massive blood clotting is proof that evolution is false. Is there any real scientific or math evidence for or against this?

The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood clotting

"Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactlyhow the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence."



Behe's position is weak in that, he supports common descent, but not descent via mutation and natural selection. His arguments are ones based around areas of ignorance, rather than reflecting on areas of knowledge. And through that he proposed ideas of irreducible complexity, which were irreducible to him. Rather than discussing matters which were reducible, and acceptable or well understood. Which is really what his book is all about. It is a drive to argue in favor of ignorance of highly complex microbiology, without discussion of everything else that isn't highly complex or unknown.

In one hand you do have to respect the humility, and acceptance of ignorance, at some point or another. If biology were space, we have dark matter and dark energy. And it is good to recognize the existence of "dark" topics. But it shouldnt be the case that we cannot admit that something like foreign galaxies evolved from more simple galactic structures, just because we cannot always understand every facet of how it is they came together.

 

[PaulCyp1]

It isn't difficult to see how clotting of blood in multiple types of organisms would readily evolve. Once complex circulatory systems developed, any individual in which clotting was weak or not present would never reach adulthood. Virtually every individual living animal sustains small injuries now and then. Any individual in which clotting was not well developed would most likely bleed to death and be removed from the population at an early age.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It isn't difficult to see how clotting of blood in multiple types of organisms would readily evolve. Once complex circulatory systems developed, any individual in which clotting was weak or not present would never reach adulthood. Virtually every individual living animal sustains small injuries now and then. Any individual in which clotting was not well developed would most likely bleed to death and be removed from the population at an early age.

You just assumed the thing you want to prove. Essentially you said it is easy to see how the coagulation cascade evolved because once it evolved (no explanation as to how this highly interdependent mechanism came to be out of loose proteins), any creatures born without it would die. It’s easy to see that you believe this with no explanation required. Blind faith doesn’t require explanations but it doesn’t see, not the complex nor the easy.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood clotting

"Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactlyhow the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence."



Behe's position is weak in that, he supports common descent, but not descent via mutation and natural selection. His arguments are ones based around areas of ignorance, rather than reflecting on areas of knowledge. And through that he proposed ideas of irreducible complexity, which were irreducible to him. Rather than discussing matters which were reducible, and acceptable or well understood. Which is really what his book is all about. It is a drive to argue in favor of ignorance of highly complex microbiology, without discussion of everything else that isn't highly complex or unknown.

In one hand you do have to respect the humility, and acceptance of ignorance, at some point or another. If biology were space, we have dark matter and dark energy. And it is good to recognize the existence of "dark" topics. But it shouldnt be the case that we cannot admit that something like foreign galaxies evolved from more simple galactic structures, just because we cannot always understand every facet of how it is they came together.

You have not establish or even offered any evidence this PhD Biochemist is ignorant although you use the word frequently. It is the ad hominem attack on the man, not the position. The position can be deduced to be quite strong or you would have used a scientific argument.

 

[Job 33:6]

this PhD Biochemist is ignorant although you use the word frequently.

I never called Behead ignorant. But if that's what you think of him, that is fine.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I never called Behead ignorant. But if that's what you think of him, that is fine.

“His arguments are ones based on areas of ignorance” and yet nothing you wrote demonstrates you know more or even understand his argument. And you are ignorant of his name, something simple, Behe.

 

[Job 33:6]

“His arguments are ones based on areas of ignorance” and yet nothing you wrote demonstrates you know more or even understand his argument. And you are ignorant of his name, something simple, Behe.

Have you read his book? Have you heard his arguments and how they are responded to?

Like I said before, Behe accepts common descent, in that life has descended from prehistoric life, in some fashion. He doesn't deny the fossil succession either. Here is a quote from his book, which I have read. The below was taken from wiki.

Behe accepts the common descent of species,[25] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.


-------------------------------------------------------------
And so, his position is basically that, we just dont know how common descent occurred. It is a position where he defaults toward ignorance.

And the common responses by various experts of various fields is : Well, regardless of whether or not you know, we do know how it happened. Then there is a subsequent providing of information.

It doesn't mean he is necessarily an ignorant person in the grand scheme of things. Its just the position he takes.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Have you read his book? Have you heard his arguments and how they are responded to?

Like I said before, Behe accepts common descent, in that life has descended from prehistoric life, in some fashion. He doesn't deny the fossil succession either. Here is a quote from his book, which I have read. The below was taken from wiki.

Behe accepts the common descent of species,[25] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.


-------------------------------------------------------------
And so, his position is basically that, we just dont know how common descent occurred. It is a position where he defaults toward ignorance.

And the common responses by various experts of various fields is : Well, regardless of whether or not you know, we do know how it happened. Then there is a subsequent providing of information.

It doesn't mean he is necessarily an ignorant person in the grand scheme of things. Its just the position he takes.

First we don’t know how life from non-life happened and never will until we can reproduce it. That is science. So if you accept various untested theories and think that means we know, you are working on blind faith.

Second, Behe’s book does not address common ancestry. It addresses the beginning of complex life and how the interdependent factors cannot have arise by chance from the science of it. There is no ignorance involved in his arguments. He’s not discussing at length that which you accuse him of doing. Have you read the book? He writes a brief bit on common origin and you make it the subject of the whole book.

 

[Job 33:6]

First we don’t know how life from non-life happened and never will until we can reproduce it. That is science. So if you accept various untested theories and think that means we know, you are working on blind faith.

Second, Behe’s book does not address common ancestry. It addresses the beginning of complex life and how the interdependent factors cannot have arise by chance from the science of it. There is no ignorance involved in his arguments. He’s not discussing at length that which you accuse him of doing. Have you read the book? He writes a brief bit on common origin and you make it the subject of the whole book.

His book isn't about how life happened. Nor is his most well known case about irreducible complexity.

His book is called Darwin's black box, as in Darwin's theory of evolution, as in it's about the theory of evolution via darwinian gradualism, not the origins of life. Surely you are aware that Darwin's theory of evolution is about the evolution of life, not abiogenesis of life.

Ok, I'm done here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

I even took a direct quote from Darwin's black box in which he was talking about how he accepted common ancestry. And you are trying to tell me that his book and irreducible complexity argument isn't about common ancestry?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is utterly silly.

For years we modelled clotting based of the intrinsic and extrinsic clotting cascades followed by a common pathway in humans, balanced by fibrinolytic pathways to stop clots becoming too large. We could never quite get the model right though - for instance, why would Haemophiliacs bleed to death, if only one of the two pathways was disrupted?
So recently a new model of clotting was proposed, the cell-based model. Even this has significant problems.

So in humans, how we actually clot or how the factors work together, is still somewhat up in the air. We can pinpoint relevant things, but the models are still quite insecure. This in spite of how it is taught - I had to memorise the clotting cascade in Med school as if it was established, only to learn later in life the whole thing is largely wrong.

I don't know about other mammals, but we simply don't know how blood clots in humans sufficiently well - to be able to model an evolutionary origin for its complex steps, that has anymore strength than absolute conjecture. I doubt we know more of other mammals' blood than our own, since we have incentive here.

So arguing the Clotting Cascade cannot be supported evolutionarily, or can be, are both completely a priori notions based off confirmation bias, if anything. So arguing how the factors happened to start working together in that manner, when we don't really understand what 'that manner' entails, is a fool's errand.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is utterly silly.

For years we modelled clotting based of the intrinsic and extrinsic clotting cascades followed by a common pathway in humans, balanced by fibrinolytic pathways to stop clots becoming too large. We could never quite get the model right though - for instance, why would Haemophiliacs bleed to death, if only one of the two pathways was disrupted?
So recently a new model of clotting was proposed, the cell-based model. Even this has significant problems.

So in humans, how we actually clot or how the factors work together, is still somewhat up in the air. We can pinpoint relevant things, but the models are still quite insecure. This in spite of how it is taught - I had to memorise the clotting cascade in Med school as if it was established, only to learn later in life the whole thing is largely wrong.

I don't know about other mammals, but we simply don't know how blood clots in humans sufficiently well - to be able to model an evolutionary origin for its complex steps, that has anymore strength than absolute conjecture. I doubt we know more of other mammals' blood than our own, since we have incentive here.

So arguing the Clotting Cascade cannot be supported evolutionarily, or can be, are both completely a priori notions based off confirmation bias, if anything. So arguing how the factors happened to start working together in that manner, when we don't really understand what 'that manner' entails, is a fool's errand.

The problem is that evolution demands a mindless purposeless directionless process. Such a process demands it be easily occurring and therefore easily understood. If the coagulation mechanism is too complex for the most intelligent life form on earth to understand, the likelihood it occurred from random mindless chance drops to none. Make no mistake, we have to start from proteins, etc. not yet assembled and not the finished creature already possessing the complexity or dying cause it doesn’t.

So while those who claim a superior mind created life can accept a complex process, the mindless chance development evolution proposes cannot. Currents in flowing water might lay out floating logs parallel, but they will never work out “I am here.”

 

[expos4ever]

The problem is that evolution demands a mindless purposeless directionless process. Such a process demands it be easily occurring and therefore easily understood.

Don't follow the argument here - why must a process that is "mindless purposeless directionless" be easily understood? It seems as though you are arguing in a circular manner - assuming that the only means by which "hard to understand" things can arises is a "design". Having made that assumption (without acknowledging it as an assumption, of course), you conclude that clotting has to be a product of design.

If the coagulation mechanism is too complex for the most intelligent life form on earth to understand, the likelihood it occurred from random mindless chance drops to none.

I think you are making a common mistake - evolution is not entirely "random"; the mutations are but, the "natural selection" part is definitely not random.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Don't follow the argument here - why must a process that is "mindless purposeless directionless" be easily understood?

Becauae a mind is superior to mindless. Therefore the superior should be able to understand inferior.

It seems as though you are arguing in a circular manner - assuming that the only means by which "hard to understand" things can arises is a "design".

I didn’t argue that though and am therefore not offering anything circular.

I think you are making a common mistake - evolution is not entirely "random"; the mutations are but, the "natural selection" part is definitely not random.

You are making the mistake of assuming natural selection results is the fit arrive and survive by the same means...chance plus time.

 

[expos4ever]

You are making the mistake of assuming natural selection results is the fit arrive and survive by the same means...chance plus time.

I find your statement unclear. What mistake am I making?

One thing is beyond dispute: evolution is NOT a random process in its entirety - natural selection is not random.

 

[expos4ever]

Becauae a mind is superior to mindless. Therefore the superior should be able to understand inferior.

This reasoning is not correct. One cannot simply assune that a mind can understand ALL possible mindless processes.

An ant has a mind. Does it follow that an ant can understand general relativity? Of course not.

 

[Queller]

You have not establish or even offered any evidence this PhD Biochemist is ignorant although you use the word frequently. It is the ad hominem attack on the man, not the position. The position can be deduced to be quite strong or you would have used a scientific argument.

Behe's ignorance is amply demonstrated by his testimony in the Dover intelligent design trial. From the judge's decision:

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision

 

[Queller]

First we don’t know how life from non-life happened and never will until we can reproduce it.

Origins of life and evolution are different areas. That's why Darwin called his book "On the Origin of Species" not "On the Origin of Life".

Darwin believed that God created life and it evolved from there.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Origins of life and evolution are different areas. That's why Darwin called his book "On the Origin of Species" not "On the Origin of Life".

Darwin believed that God created life and it evolved from there.

They are only separated artifically because darwinists cannot answer the question as to origins. So they arbitrarily start with a living cell and do not allow that question to be asked in many places. It is only one of many times where Darwinism stifles science. Some questions are not allowed to be asked.

By the way, do you know what a species is? Can you define it without using relative terms?