Quote:

---

No, it would not be a problem at all. The steps are even smaller than you think, eventhough the human heart as we now it now is an evolution marble off course, it has developed over million of years.

---

Quote:

---

Anatomic studies have made it more than plausible to conclude that the most likely way the evolution of the heart for vertebrates went is like this. Fish to amphibians to reptiles and to mammals. Any systematic drawing of all those hearts next to eachother should be enough to draw the exact same conclusion.

---

Ah yes, the diagrams can be matched up to show ascending complexity.

Except, your diagrams are unreasonably oversimplified. So, let's go a bit more in depth.

Fish are first in line. They have relatively simple, two chambered hearts. Fish circulation takes place in a simple loop. Heart -> Gills -> Body -> Repeat.

Pretty straight forward. Nothing too fancy. Next in line would be amphibians because fish supposedly evolved into amphibians.

Frogs for example receive blood from two different veins instead of one. So the changes aren't just in the structure of the heart. New hearts require massive rewiring of the overall circulatory system. I'm jealous of how much faith you have.

Furthermore, in frogs, one vein is getting the blood from the lungs and skin (which is oxygen rich) and the other vein is transporting oxygen that comes from the rest of the body (oxygen poor). The blood mixes in the ventricle, then pumped out through the Y-shaped artery at the top of the heart. This branches it back in the two directions: lungs and skin, and the rest of the body. So now instead of a simple loop, we have two loops. I suppose the lungs evolved on the amphibian, and then in response he evolved veins to make the lungs useful. Except the lungs are a burden, and would not be selected for, so the veins would never be made. If you put the veins first and then the lungs, then you have the same problem. So they evolved at the same time? So a partial vein system, which would include dead ends (trapping useful blood) etc, and partial, unworking lungs were selected for?

Let's look at some other interesting animals.

Amphibians led to reptiles (supposedly) so let's look at them next. Primarily alligators and crocodiles. Because they have some interesting design-features. When they breath air at the surface, they pump blood at two different pressures. However, when they go underwater their heart pumps at one intermediate pressure. Furthermore, blood stops going past their lungs, because their lungs are useless for the time being. The lungs are bypassed by an extra aorta emerging from the right ventricle.

Now, if you want to believe that some intermediate in this process would be viable, you can go ahead. But you have no scientific evidence to back you up. You just have simplistic heart diagrams. Those diagrams are the equivelant of your bunk, "Animals look alike, so they must have evolved," argument. There's no scientific evidence of heart evolution, and it isn't even feasible. Like other evolutionists, all you can do is compare existing hearts and hope that people will be duped into believing there are unobservable, non existent hearts that could have transitioned into them (despite that they would be useless in transition).

This is much like the eye example. Sure, adding certain things to the heart are great. But without the proper electrical signals to make the heart beat correctly, without the proper cirulatory wiring, the new additions to the heart are useless. Without the new additions to the heart, those two other things are useless. So this is another example of things that had to have evolved all at once. Except even the intermediate steps in that case are useless. So this happened with eyes 40-60 times, hearts a dozen times, flight a couple dozen times. Where's the evidence?

I'm not showing you this stuff to get you to admit that evolution is wrong. I know you never will, because then you run the risk of admitting we have a creator. Instead, I want you to admit that you don't actually have science on your side (just speculation and diagrams) and that you have to accept that it happens on faith. If I can get that much out of you, I'll be happy.

Here are some interesting links for undecided people following this debate.

This link explains why, even though evolution isn't science, its difficult to argue against when it comes to the poor souls who have been indoctrinated into it.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i2f.htm

This highlights another paradox.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i4n.htm

Oh yeah, this link also mentions people who believe that rape is probably not so bad because its just a result of evolution. Evolution is an ignorant, dangerous theory.