Sea water salts and blood (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Friday, February 13, 2015, 18:15 (3362 days ago)
I was taught in medical school and in my early reading about evolution that our blood salts closely resembled sea water salts, which could be attributed to as support of evolutionary theory that life started in the seas. Well, it seems it ain't true, and the presentation is by an arch vociferous neo-atheist biochemistry professor from Canada, Larry Moran. On his website is the proof blood plasma salts and ocean saltiness are different:-http://sandwalk.blogspot.jp/2015/02/john-f-kennedy-carnival-cruises-blood.html-"There was a time when people believed that the ionic composition of blood plasma resembled that of seawater. This was supposed to be evidence that primitive organisms lived in the ocean and land animals evolved a system of retaining the ocean-like composition of salts.-" Careful studies of salt concentrations in the early 20th century revealed that the concentration of salts in the ocean were much higher than in blood plasma. Some biochemists tried to explain this discrepancy by postulating that the composition of blood plasma didn't resemble the seawater of today but it did resemble the composition of ancient seawater from several hundred million years ago when multicellular animals arose.--"We now know that the saltiness of the ocean hasn't changed very much from the time it first formed over three billion years ago. There is no direct connection between the saltiness of blood plasma and seawater. Not only are the overall concentrations of the major ions (Na+, K+, and Cl-) very different but the relative concentrations of various other ionic species are even more different."-Doesn't disprove evolution, but shows like Haeckel's false embryos the amount of twisted information is out there to prop up Darwin.
Sea water salts and blood
DAVID: I was taught in medical school and in my early reading about evolution that our blood salts closely resembled sea water salts, which could be attributed to as support of evolutionary theory that life started in the seas. Well, it seems it ain't true, and the presentation is by an arch vociferous neo-atheist biochemistry professor from Canada, Larry Moran. On his website is the proof blood plasma salts and ocean saltiness are different:-http://sandwalk.blogspot.jp/2015/02/john-f-kennedy-carnival-cruises-blood.html-Doesn't disprove evolution, but shows like Haeckel's false embryos the amount of twisted information is out there to prop up Darwin.-No, it doesn't disprove evolution, and Darwin's theory does not depend on life originating in the sea, so it doesn't need “propping up” by twisted information. The basis of Darwin's theory is that all forms of life except the first evolved from earlier forms. How this happened remains the subject of endless speculation. You and I agree that random mutations are not satisfactory explanations, and that gradualism flies in the face of the geological record. Darwin, we think, got that wrong (which - in my view mistakenly - he would have deemed fatal to the theory), but unless you are prepared to reject the theory of common descent, I think you should distinguish between evolution and the various hypotheses devised (not necessarily by Darwin) to explain where and how evolution started and how it works.
Sea water salts and blood
by David Turell , Sunday, February 15, 2015, 15:29 (3360 days ago) @ dhw
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.jp/2015/02/john-f-kennedy-carnival-cruises-blood.html ... > Doesn't disprove evolution, but shows like Haeckel's false embryos the amount of twisted information is out there to prop up Darwin. > > dhw: No, it doesn't disprove evolution, and Darwin's theory does not depend on life originating in the sea, so it doesn't need “propping up” by twisted information. The basis of Darwin's theory is that all forms of life except the first evolved from earlier forms. How this happened remains the subject of endless speculation. You and I agree that random mutations are not satisfactory explanations, and that gradualism flies in the face of the geological record. Darwin, we think, got that wrong (which - in my view mistakenly - he would have deemed fatal to the theory), but unless you are prepared to reject the theory of common descent, I think you should distinguish between evolution and the various hypotheses devised (not necessarily by Darwin) to explain where and how evolution started and how it works.-My viewpoint is that it is hard to deny an evolutionary process. But clearly Darwin's view of it doesn't work, as you point out. So what should Darwin be credited with? A minimal idea: taking a evolutionary proposal current in his lifetime and turning it into an acceptable theory for that time in human history. Now his proposed mechanisms have been picked apart and his worry that gradualism would fail has failed. He was not mistaken. His theory doesn't work. I don't know why you can't see that, or perhaps you can. I don't think pure naturalism works either as an explanation. Therefore, if evolution occurred as it appears to have occurred, it was guided.
Sea water salts and blood
dhw: ...unless you are prepared to reject the theory of common descent, I think you should distinguish between evolution and the various hypotheses devised (not necessarily by Darwin) to explain where and how evolution started and how it works. -DAVID: My viewpoint is that it is hard to deny an evolutionary process. But clearly Darwin's view of it doesn't work, as you point out. So what should Darwin be credited with? A minimal idea: taking a evolutionary proposal current in his lifetime and turning it into an acceptable theory for that time in human history.-Why do you think his book caused such a kerfuffle then, and why do you think his theory is still the source of so much discussion and research now? Yes, others had the same idea, but he articulated and researched it in such a way that he turned evolution into an acceptable theory for the last 150 years. Even you still accept that the process has taken place, with different forms of life having evolved from earlier forms. And even the Christian church, which for years resisted the theory in favour of separate creation, now accepts it with similar reservations to your own.-DAVID: Now his proposed mechanisms have been picked apart and his worry that gradualism would fail has failed. He was not mistaken. His theory doesn't work. I don't know why you can't see that, or perhaps you can. I don't think pure naturalism works either as an explanation. Therefore, if evolution occurred as it appears to have occurred, it was guided.-Evolution entails a collection of theories / hypotheses, and that is why I complain about your refusal to distinguish between its separate parts. Common descent and natural selection still stand; gradualism and random mutations are under fire; whether God started it all and/or guided it all is a separate issue, as is the origin of life. “I don't know why you can't see that, or perhaps you can.”
Sea water salts and blood
by David Turell , Monday, February 16, 2015, 21:14 (3359 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Evolution entails a collection of theories / hypotheses, and that is why I complain about your refusal to distinguish between its separate parts. Common descent and natural selection still stand; gradualism and random mutations are under fire; whether God started it all and/or guided it all is a separate issue, as is the origin of life. “I don't know why you can't see that, or perhaps you can.” -Fair enough.