Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm

In conclusion:

"Men (and women) can't win arguments... The truth **wins** arguments."

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


Jeff wrote:
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:425FA0A1.DB3E0C8A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Jeff wrote:
> (...)
>
> >> 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.
>
> Actually, the check engine light is imformative. I means take me to an
> Autozone and find out what the code is (or pay a dealer $60 for the same
> service).
>
> The tearing pain of a AAA means go to the hospital NOW!
>
> Both are very informative.
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, God didn't give the mechanic skills and knowledge. He may or may
> not have given her the talent, but other people have given her the skills
> and knowledge. Whether or not He gave her the talent is irrelevent to a
> science group, because we cannot test any hypotheses about whether or not He
> gave her the talent.
>
> Likewise, the doctor recieved her skills and knowledge from other doctors
> and patients. Likewise, we don't from where the talent came.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> Incorrect. Pain evolved so that the animal who has the pain can take
> corrective action, like rest a particular part of the body.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Of course not. No, pain evolved for other reasons. It is not like pain
> operates when there is survivable injury, but there is no pain when there is
> not one.
>
> > Therefore, there would have been no evolution here either.
> >
> > However, there is God (see above).
>
> Again, this is irrelevent. Unless you can design some tests that show that
> God exists or doesn't exist, a belief in God is irrelevent to any science
> discussion.
>
> (...)
>
> >> > 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.
>
> No you did. I understood what you said very well. Of course, you don't
> understand evolution, so that is no surprise.
>
> >> 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.
>
> No. All that has to be shown is that pain provides a survival advantage. And
> it does.
>
> (...)
>
> >> 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.
>
> Actually, it is. If you are unable to see that, that is ok.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> I suggest you read Kandel, Scwartz and Jessel. And try to understand it this
> time. And Stephen Jay Gould's books.
>
> (...)
>
> >> 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).
>
> yet they work just fine. So it shows that people can survive if they lose
> some important functions in their cardiovascular systems. Likewise, people
> will survive if they don't have full function of their aortas with regard to
> innervation.
>
> (...)
>
> >> > "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.
>
> The fact that people evolved from other animals and that all animals evolved
> from a common ancestor is supported by so much overwhelming evidence that it
> is as much a fact as gravity.
>
> Why you mean by the theory of evolution I don't know.
>
> Here is what i mean:
>
> From http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
> <begin>
>
> Isn't it true that evolution is only a theory? The popular use and
> scientific use of the term "theory" are very different! A scientific theory,
> resulting from the application of the scientific method, is an explanation
> for a phenomenon or set of phenomena based on extensive evidence and
> testing. The scientific method is a well-recognized and well-defined series
> of steps used to acquire an explanation for observed phenomena. A
> preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed on the basis of careful
> observation of the phenomenon being studied. This hypothesis is then tested
> by further observations and experiments. If the information gathered from
> observations and experiments over time satisfies the conditions of the
> hypothesis, the hypothesis eventually becomes accepted as a scientific
> theory. For example, the atomic theory of matter states that matter is
> composed of particles called atoms in various arrangements. The theory of
> evolution is the only explanation for the origin of life that accounts for
> the fossil, anatomical, molecular (including genetic), behavioral and
> geological evidence. Although they continue to argue over the details of
> exactly how the various mechanisms of evolution operate, biologists long ago
> concluded that evolution happens. This is because evolution explains all of
> the evidence far better than all other proposed explanations for the origin
> of life.
>
> What exactly does the theory of evolution state? The theory of evolution
> states that:
>
> 1.. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.
>
> 2.. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees
> through common decent (share common ancestors).
>
> 3.. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the
> distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life
> form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.
>
> 4.. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random
> heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to
> spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a
> survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to
> spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage
> and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.
>
> <end>
>
> Unforutnately, this explanation does not take into account other mechansims
> of evolution, like puntuated equilibrium and genetic drift, but it will do.
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> What widsom told you that you should not speak about the importance of His
> intevention?
>
> Why did you speak of evolution without His hand being in it?
>
> It looks to me that you were denying the importance of God's hand to the
> scientific community by not bringing it up in the paper.
>
> And if you don't believe in evolution, why did you bring up evolution in the
> first place in the paper?
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> And they can witness evolution, firsthand, in the way bacteria and viruses
> mutate in response to antibiotic and antivral drugs.
>
> > No one has witnessed the evolution of a new species, firsthand.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html go to section 5.1
>
> >> You can say the same thing about gravity.
> >
> > Not really.
>
> I meant, gravity is just a theory. We still don't know how gravity works.
> Based on our observations, we can say that gravity is a fact, however, just
> as we can just as accurately say that evolution is a fact.
>
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> The creation of new species is not the only thing evolution does.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Through genetic drift. Not every evolutionary event is through natural
> selection. Over time, by random events that have nothing to do with
> survival, the genome of the two groups would slowly diverge until the two
> groups are no longer able to mate, at which time you would have two species.
> However, during this period of time, natural selection did not play a part
> in making the two groups different species.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Around 60 million years ago, dinorsaurs and thousands of other species died
> out as a result of a huge meteor. However, the dinosaurs were very fit
> before the meteor. They were unable to stand the sudden climatic change.
> This had nothing to do with fitness. Just bad luck.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> What variable are you talking about? Please tell me what the variable is
> about without useing the word "Reproductive."
>
> >> 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.
>
> Reproductive fitness includes the steps that are necessary to raising the
> young in species where that is relevent.
>
> For example, it is very relevent in humans, but not relevent with bacteria.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> The evidence for quantum mechanics, while not as extensive as the evidence
> for evolution, is so overwhelming as to make quantum mechanics for all
> practical purposes a fact.
>
> > Truth is simple.
>
> I am continuting to get the feeling that people who say things are simple
> say that because they don't understand much.
>
> Jeff
> (...)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... espoused by "evolution" theorists because rupturing of an aortic aneurysm is not compatible with life. ... these traits collectively are used to distinguish one species from another. ... traits (referred pain specific for a ruptured aorta) and whether it can be applied to individuals. ... survivability; pain in and of itself probably never kills any organism. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... appear to be the only mammals who experience excruciating pain during ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... we know of are virtually covered with hair or fur (in fact, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... >>>According to the theory of evolution, ... However, in this context, it was asking for what other things that species ... >>>traits (referred pain specific for a ruptured aorta) and whether it can ...
    (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)
  • 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)
Quantcast