Creationism and the Perfect Heart

Posted by Jim Newman on February 8th, 2012 – 6 Comments – Posted in atheists, Science

Post By Jim Newman

——————————

This came across a home school site. From Dr. Rhonda Furlow, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.science-essentials.org.

Love at first sight. True love. Forever love. Always. With all my heart. Real love.

Yes, it is that time of the holiday season again. Saint Valentine’s Day, or Valentine’s Day as we typically call it. It’s traditionally a day when you profess your unfailing love for someone through flowers, candy, cards, or romantic dates, all known as “valentines.” Modern Valentine’s Day symbols include Cupid, doves, and anything heart-shaped.
However, as we all know, there are no feelings of love abounding in the heart organ itself. But have you ever stopped to think of all the amazing things we need our heart for? Not so much for feelings, but actual living.
Today I thought I would give you seven little-known facts about the heart to use with your students.
Did you know:
1) The human heart creates enough pressure when pumping blood out to the body that the blood can squirt 30 feet?
2) On average, a million barrels worth of blood is pumped through the heart in a lifetime?
3) Your heart, made up of mostly muscle, is strong enough to lift approximately 3,000 pounds, the weight of a small compact car?
4) Your heart beats 100,000 times a day, which is enough to fill 8,800 quart-size milk cartons?
5) Your heart does enough work to lift your body 1 mile up into the air?
6) For its size, the human heart is considered one of the world’s strongest pumps?
7) Your heart is able to propel a blood cell completely through your body in just 60 seconds?
When God designed the human heart, He not only made sure it was functional to meet all our bodily needs, but He also made it one amazing organ, leaving no question about random design. Now THAT’s what I call love!

 

Hmm, well, if the heart is perfect the designer should be sent back to school because it sure isn’t perfect. If god created the heart he, she, it deserves a D if not an F. No I guess a D because it does work. It just could work a lot better.

Given the desire to save lives, reduce grief, and enhance circulation, many doctors would agree to redo a number of heart design flaws.

Heart valves tend to be produced inconsistently such that many people have heart valve problems. Congenital heart valve disease usually involves pulmonary or aortic valves that don’t form properly. These valves may not have enough tissue flaps, they may be the wrong size or shape, or they may lack an opening through which blood can flow properly. Better genetics would eliminate these quality control issues.

Sadly there is no heart-based heart valve monitoring system to detect backflow or faulty valves. People can have heart valve problems for years and not know it, though it affects their health. The heart valve design is too prone to congenital defects.

The heart is unable to detect plaque buildup or to remove plaque. Heart disease is the number one killer now. While it is often diet, it is also an inherent problem within the circulatory system. One which if overcome would extend our life tremendously.

Because we are mammals, our lungs do not function in the fetus, causing the undesirable mixing of oxygenated and unoxygenated blood. This happens in the fetus where there is a hole between the chambers of the heart that must close off at birth. This leads to a relatively common baby condition, the so called “hole in the heart” baby.

If the umbilical cord were inserted at the chest instead of the belly, the umbilical vein and artery could connect directly to the mother’s pulmonary vein and artery, eliminating the need for a hole in the chamber, and providing better oxygenated blood to the baby. This would solve several other problems as well, including the need for a placenta and menstruation!

The hemoglobin in blood has more affinity for carbon monoxide than oxygen. We could relieve some of the work of the lungs and liver, if it were not iron based, and did not prefer attaching to the poison CO.

When a person has congestive heart disease, the heart gets bigger and bigger to compensate. Since the heart doesn’t have a monitor for this, people don’t know they have this problem until it is too late and very difficult to correct.

Since the heart doesn’t have a means of monitoring blood pressure, people suffer tremendously from the silent killer stroke. Many, many lives would be saved if the heart could tell us when it is experiencing too much pressure. Other problems would be eliminated if it could detect too little pressure.

The heart has a hard time coordinating valve opening and closing with chamber contraction, resulting in the common ailment arrhythmia. A better electric circuit in the heart’s atrioventricular node would eliminate this problem.

Black women have a much higher risk of birth-related heart problems, especially, peripartum cardiomyopathy. 93% of people who get this problem are black. A better designed heart would not be afflicted by race issues.

Beneficial bacteria in the gut break down fats so well they more easily deposit on arterial cell walls exacerbating thickening and hardening of the arteries. The heart is unable to combat this. Nor is it able to combat the inflammation from other bacteria in the body (in particular periodontal disease bacteria). We have no consciousness of the need to brush our teeth and not eat so many fatty foods, resulting in diseases we could have avoided.

There is no reason the heart has to have a four-chamber design with a heartbeat. More efficient pumps of more simple design could reduce wear and tear on the heart and the circulatory system. While issues of tissue rejection are more difficult to overcome, the mechanics of pump design are easily met by human heart design.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.brightpride.com and www.frontiersofreason.com

  1. Amy Ross says:

    Great post! It might be fun as a skeptical talk/activity to grade all the human organs/systems as if they were designed.

    Right now, I would give my highest grade to the red blood cell-maybe an A-. Surface to carry the maximum amount of oxygen, able to fold to fit through tiny capillaries-pretty awesome. Points off for sickle cell disease.

    My lowest grade (D-?) would go to the prostate gland, mostly for location. Circumscribing the urethra combined with hyperplasia in middle age: BAD IDEA.

  2. JIm n says:

    The prostate? What the hell is that for anyway? Not to mention the lower back, the patella, and wisdom teeth. It would be a good project to grade the body with design criteria! What is back hair for?

  3. Darrel says:

    Creating an artificial heart that keeps its host alive for a long time is something that is apparently still beyond us. The record is 620 days (with many many failures far shorter than that), and that was set back in 1986.

    The wiki page on this gives a good overview of the record and notes:

    ***
    “Origins

    A synthetic replacement for the heart remains one of the long-sought holy grails of modern medicine. The obvious benefit of a functional artificial heart would be to lower the need for heart transplants, because the demand for organs always greatly exceeds supply.

    Although the heart is conceptually a pump, it embodies subtleties that defy straightforward emulation with synthetic materials and power supplies. Consequences of these issues include severe foreign-body rejection and external batteries that limit patient mobility. These complications limited the lifespan of early human recipients to hours or days.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_heart

  4. JIm n says:

    Yes, the heart is tough to reproduce. They kidney will be worse. The lungs also difficult. Finally the brain might be the easiest. If all of that monitoring is decentralized then only the free will part would need consciousness.

    What is interesting about artificial hearts was whether they needed to beat. Does the rise and fall of blood pressure help vessels and circulation or hinder it?

    Tissue rejection has been such a huge issue. In pacemakers being able to have internal batteries was a big jump in patient well being.

    The ability to self maintain will be a huge boon as organic technology is developed.

    Bioethics is and will have a field day as this technology arises and let’s hope there aren’t too many Frankenstein lovers out there or too many premature implementers to kill the field.

    If we really wanted to be more healthy and deal with new science in medicine, we would embrace preventive medicine more readily. This means overcoming a huge array of biases demanding we embrace the immediate, the near, the accessible and screw deep consideration. The rush to keep ailing boomers alive will no doubt encourage and debase.

  5. Darrel says:

    Jim, if you think the human “brain might be the easiest to reproduce,” I encourage you to read this article. It’s long but worth it:

    “A.I. GONE AWRY:
    The Futile Quest for Artificial Intelligence”

    http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/artificial-intelligence-gone-awry/

    Excerpt:

    “The latest estimates are that the human brain contains about 30 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex — the part of the brain associated with consciousness and intelligence. The 30 billion neurons of the cerebral cortex contain about a thousand trillion synapses (connections between neurons).24

    Without a detailed model of how synapses work on a neurochemical level, there’s no hope of modeling how the brain works.25 Unlike the idealized and simplified connections in so-called artificial neural networks, those synapses are extremely variable in nature — they can have different cycle times, they can use different neurotransmitters, and so on. How much data must be gathered about each synapse? Somewhere between kilobytes (tens of thousands of numbers) and megabytes (millions of numbers).26 And since the cycle time of synapses can be more than a thousand cycles per second, we may have to process those numbers a thousand times each second.

    Have we succeeded in modeling the brain of any animal, no matter how simple? The nervous system of a nematode (worm) known as C. (Caenorhabditis) elegans has been studied extensively for about 40 years. Several websites27 and probably thousands of scientists are devoted exclusively or primarily to it. Although C. elegans is a very simple organism, it may be the most complicated creature to have its nervous system fully mapped. C. elegans has just over three hundred neurons, and they’ve been studied exhaustively. But mapping is not the same as modeling. No one has created a computer model of this nervous system — and the number of neurons in the human cortex alone is 100 million times larger. C. elegans has about seven thousand synapses.28 The number of synapses in the human cortex alone is over 100 billion times larger.”

  6. JIm n says:

    Yes, I probably shouldn’t have been so flip about the brain. I had just been reading Mind which was noting that the hardest part of brain design might be for movement and the next part might be for metabolic maintenance for tissues supporting movement.

    If we never had to move our brains might be, could be, much smaller and far less complicated.

    But that avoids the question which was replacing the brain in a working human.

    I would be interested in knowing if all parts of the brain were necessary. I haven’t looked closely at this but considering how many biases we have are leftovers from no longer needed evolutionary tactics, I wouldn’t be surprised if the brain could be designed more efficiently, more accurately reflecting current evolutionary pressures.

  1. There are no trackbacks for this post yet.