Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm

Jeff wrote:
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:425EF094.8647BF66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:425EA876.68EF4951@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> (...)
> >>
> >> >> Yes, based on the fact that the pain is in the aorta and the person
> >> >> feels
> >> >> it
> >> >> in the back, I believe that the pain is felt in the wrong place.
> >> >
> >> > When the "check engine" light comes on and you see it in the dashboard,
> >> > would you conclude that the light not being on the engine is "proof"
> >> > that the light is in the "wrong" place?
> >>
> >> With this analogy, the code from the OBDCII diagnositic tells you were
> >> the
> >> problem is (O2 sensor, bad spark plug, open gas cap). So the place where
> >> the
> >> problem is percieved is the ODBCII computer, not at the sensor or spark
> >> plug.
> >
> > Yes, the mechanic can figure out where exactly the problem is.
>
> You missed my point. If there is a problem detected by the gas cap sensor,
> the OBDCII computer doesn't tell the mechanic that there is a problem with
> the O2 sensor.

As far as the driver is concerned, the check engine light is
uninformative just as the back pain is uninformative for the patient
suffering a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

As far as the mechanic is concerned, the check engine light tells the
mechanic to use his God-given skills and knowledge to figure out the
problem just as the back pain rells the physician to use his God-given
skills and knowledge to figure out the problem.

> >> Likewise, pain is percieved in the brain, not the place the pain is. The
> >> sensor in this case would be the peripheral nerve endings.
> >
> > Yes, likewise, the doctor can figure out where exactly the problem is.
>
> Pain didn't evolve so that doctors can figure out where the problem is.

Correct. There was no evolution here.

> Pain
> evolved so that the person gets a warning, so that (s)he can either fix the
> problem or rest.

Neither would help such individual survive an ruptured aortic aneurysm.

Therefore, there would have been no evolution here either.

However, there is God (see above).

> >> >> >> It is like when someone has pain because of a heart attack, but
> >> >> >> feels
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> pain in the jaw or left arm.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > God placed sensory nerve fibers in such a way that the **referred**
> >> >> > pains feels the way it does.
> >> >>
> >> >> Evolution did this.
> >> >
> >> > According to the theory, "evolution" would achieve this through
> >> > "natural
> >> > selection." Aortic aneurysm ruptures and heart attacks being the
> >> > lethal
> >> > events that they are would make "natural selection" theoretically
> >> > impossible.
> >>
> >> You're making the assumption that there are pain fibers in aortae just to
> >> percieve the pain of an aortic rupture. there are other things that can
> >> cause pain in the aorta like inflammation and other injury that is not
> >> necessarily fatal. And there are other non-pain signals that can be
> >> carried
> >> by the nerve fibers.
> >
> > The question posed was why the pain of an aortic rupture is the way that
> > it is. I believe it is by God's design. You believe it is by
> > evolution. I have explained to you why it is not possible by evolution
> > in terms of the logical underpinnings of the theory of evolution.
>
> No you didn't.

I have though you seem unable to comprehend what I have written.

> You haven't established that pain fibers in arteries is not
> useful. Nor have you established why you would expect pain fibers in some
> arteries, but not others.
>
> > You
> > really have not refuted my logical explanation for why it is not
> > possible by evolution.
>
> Actually, I have. The pain fibers are there for other reasons than to tell
> people they are going to bleed to death in horrible pain.

The **only** way you will be able to effectively refute my logical
explanation is by giving the reason(s) why having referred pain from a
ruptured aortic aneurysm confers a survival advantage for the species.

> >> >> > We should **know** that this did not occur by "natural selection" as
> >> >> > espoused by "evolution" theorists because having heart attacks are
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > compatible with life.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are showing your ignorance of biology.
> >> >>
> >> >> If someone has a heart attack and dies, it doesn't matter if the
> >> >> referred
> >> >> pain in the feet. His genes won't be passed on anymore.
> >> >
> >> > Correct. There is no natural selection for **any** referred pain
> >> > whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Yet it exists.
> >
> > Exactly... For this reason, it is inexplicable in terms of evolutionary
> > theory.
>
> The referred pain is a property of the somatosensory system. Because there
> is no pain present from the heart under normal circumstance, the body never
> gets a chance to learn to localize pain to the heart.

This is **not** an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory.

> >> There is natural selection for a properly working nervous
> >> system, including the somatosensory system. Pain is part of this system.
> >
> > Regular pain, yes. Referred pain, no.
>
> Correct. Referred pain is a emergent property of the somatosensory system.

Again, referred pain defies explanation in terms of the theory of
evolution.

> >> >> However, the location of the pain fibers is dictated by the
> >> >> development
> >> >> of
> >> >> the organism. Because the nerves that innervate the aorta come from
> >> >> the
> >> >> particular segment of the spinal cord, the pain will be referred to
> >> >> other
> >> >> areas served by that segment.
> >> >
> >> > There is no survival benefit in having the aorta innervated in the
> >> > first
> >> > place.
> >>
> >> See above. There is survival benefit to have a properly function nervous
> >> system.
> >
> > There is no reason to believe that sensory fibers in the aorta is
> > necessary for a properly functioning nervous system.
>
> However, the pain fibers are part of a normally functioning body. The pain
> fibers work to warn the body of dangerous events.

Yes, regular pain does not defy explanation by the theory of evolution.

> >>In addition, I beleive that there are some baroreceoptors in the
> >> aorta that help maintain a properly blood pressure and other receptors.
> >
> > If that were true, folks would have BP problems after AAA repair
> > especially when whole sections are replaced by Dacron graft.
>
> There are nerves in the heart, yet hearts work just fine if you take them
> from one body to another, and sever all the nerves along the way.

Actually, such hearts lose heart rate variability (HRV).

> >> >> Evolution comes into play, because the development (embryology) of the
> >> >> body
> >> >> arose through evolution.
> >> >
> >> > This would be **circular* logic.
> >>
> >> No, the development of the body is relevent to the functioning of the
> >> body.
> >
> > The logic remains circular in your statement:
> >
> > "Evolution comes into play, because the development (embryology) of the
> > body arose through evolution."
> >
> > Simply replace "evolution" with God:
> >
> > "God comes into play, because the development (embryology) of the body
> > arose through God."
>
> The logic would be just as circular as you claim my logic is.

That's the point.

> > and all should see that while I place my faith in God, you seem to have
> > placed your faith in the theory of evolution.
>
> Exactly. I place my fatih in facts that can be tested with the scientific
> method.

The theory of evolution is clearly not fact.

> >> >> Your arguement is like saying that jaguars couldn't have developed
> >> >> speed
> >> >> through evolution because the slower jaguars would died because they
> >> >> couldn't catch food or would have been killed by other animals.
> >> >
> >> > No. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) can explain how
> >> > jaguars
> >> > have become fast creatures. Where natural selection fails is when it
> >> > tries to explain the existence of slow and seemingly stupid creatures.
> >>
> >> Examples, please.
> >
> > (1) Slugs
> >
> > (2) Sloths
> >
> > (3) Manatees

Yes ?

And your explanation is ?

> >> >> You have written, with G Stepien, JA Hodge and DC Wallace, you talk
> >> >> about
> >> >> the evolution of
> >> >> a protien, Adenine Nucleotide Translocator.
> >> >
> >> > Gene expression is not the same as the theory of evolution.
> >>
> >> You wrote, in part:
> >> "Interspecies sequence comparisons revealed that two independent ANT
> >> duplication events have occurred, one in the yeast lineage 493-607
> >> million
> >> years ago and one in vertebrates 247-326 million years ago (Fig. 5). The
> >> time estimates were achieved utilizing replacement mutation rates
> >> calculated
> >> for *mammalian evolution* and thus are most accurate for dating the
> >> divergence of bovine and human isoforms. However, our estimate for the
> >> vertebrate ANT divergence is similar to that of 150-330 million years ago
> >> calculated by Saccone et al. (1991) for the divergence of the vertebrate
> >> cox
> >> isoforms. Therefore, enough time has elapsed since the vertebrate ANT
> >> triplication to allow the three isoforms to *evolve* distinct biochemical
> >> properties that could have physiological implications." (*Emphasis
> >> added*)
> >>
> >> http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/267/21/14592
> >
> > These are date **estimates** as to when these isoforms probably arose
> > based on evolutionary theory **with** the assumption that God has not
> > intervened. If these time estimates turn out to be wrong, this could be
> > interpreted as meaning that God has indeed intervened and directed the
> > course of what would have otherwise been **random** mutation and
> > selection events.
>
> Why didn't you speak of these assumptions in the paper and the implications
> of them in the paper?

Wisdom from God.

> >> >> If there is no evolution, why
> >> >> did you write such things?
> >> >
> >> > Evolution exists as a theory.
> >>
> >> It is the central organizing fact of biology.
> >
> > In truth, it is not **fact** but a useful theory for the moment.
>
> The evidence that supports the theory evolution is about as strong as the
> evidence that supprots the theory of gravity.

Folks can witness the effect of gravity, firsthand.

No one has witnessed the evolution of a new species, firsthand.

> You can say the same thing about gravity.

Not really.

> >> >> > Where there is no life, there can be no "natural
> >> >> > selection" which is the process by which living creatures are killed
> >> >> > off
> >> >> > to **select** those with traits that promote survival.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what? where there is no life, there is no life.
> >> >>
> >> >> Evolution requires life.
> >> >
> >> > The theory of evolution actually requires death of the unfit.
> >>
> >> That is the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is one
> >> mechanism
> >> of evolution. There are more, of course.
> >
> > Natural selection is at the heart of the theory of evolution.
>
> No it isn't. It is certainly a very important part of it.
>
> > Without natural selection, the theory of evolution would be dead.
>
> No it would not. Things can evolve without natural selection, like genetic
> drift.

Genetic drift would not explain the creation of new species.


> And what happens when to a species when it is reproductively
> isolated into two or more groups? You get two or more species.

Through the process of natural selection according to the theory of
evolution.

> And what happens if a huge meteor strikes the earth? Species die out for
> reasons that have nothing to do with fitness.

...but everything to do with unfitness.

> >> Actually, it only requires that the unfit reproduce more slowly than the
> >> fit.
> >
> > That would still be natural selection with the variable being
> > reproductive fitness.
>
> What variable?

Reproductive fitness.

> Actually, reproductive fitness is what natural selection is all about. If
> you increase reproductive fitness of a person, you will get more copies of
> the genes in that person's genome in the gene pool. If you decrease the
> reproductive fitness, you will get less copies. Reproduction is the key.

According to the theory of evolution, only one key. If a frog is not
good at hiding her eggs, all will be eaten up by fish even if she were
to lay a million eggs.

> >> You might want to look up the Darwin awards. The Darwin Awards are given
> >> to
> >> people who have enhanced the human gene pool by eliminating their
> >> possibility of reproducing. The vast majority of them earned their award
> >> just before going to heaven (like the guy who was not too bright and
> >> couldn't see into a fuel tank to check the level, so he lit a match to
> >> help
> >> light the way), but one gentleman earned his award when he tried to steal
> >> some lobsters and hid them in his pants. Let's just say that the lobster
> >> did
> >> their bit of human evolution with their claws (snip, snip) that day.
> >
> > Each would be an example of natural selection.
> >
> > Truth is simple.
>
> Actually, truth is not simpele.
>
> Quantum mechanics is part of the truth, because He made the laws of nature.
> Yet, quantum mechanics is not simple, so truth is not simple.

Quantum mechanics is theory and not truth.

Truth is simple.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... >> problem is (O2 sensor, bad spark plug, open gas cap). ... >> Likewise, pain is percieved in the brain, not the place the pain is. ... I have explained to you why it is not possible by evolution ... >>> No. Natural selection can explain how ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... there is no conflict between evolution and christianity. ... The nerve fibers that carry pain info from ... >> compatible with life. ... No. Natural selection can explain how jaguars ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... > The tearing pain of a AAA means go to the hospital NOW! ... There was no evolution here. ... All life forms (species) have developed from other species. ... >>> Yet, quantum mechanics is not simple, so truth is not simple. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... >> Likewise, pain is percieved in the brain, not the place the pain ... > evolution. ... >> There is natural selection for a properly working nervous ... something just short of determining necessity. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... based on the fact that the pain is in the aorta and the person feels ... I believe that the pain is felt in the wrong place. ... >>> Evolution did this. ... >> No. Natural selection can explain how jaguars ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)