Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

If not any wiser, then at least you are now better-informed.

Before I respond to that, I read this recently from Richard Dawkin's new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" I believe it is titled.And I also investigated it.And yes, Creationists and proponents of intelligent design are outnumbered on this forum so I must use some restraint in posting because I can debate ad infidium ad nauseum on this forum and this is just a hobby of mine and I am up against real scientists and other experienced debators all at one time. They will no doubt respond to my post here.Not only that, I had an interesting experience from posting here. Earlier this year when I began posting, I believe I was haunted by some sort of spiritual entity for a couple of days and at the time I was debating pretty well. It was not like any other natural experience or phenomenon I have experienced. It made me feel very uncomfortable. It was a presence in my room.I.D. is different from Creationism despite what they write around here. I don't think I.D. is really science because of the way science is defined. Science only explains the world through natural causes. It cannot prove or disprove or rule out the existence of a paranormal intelligent designer. I.D. is not religion as it cannot (or so far, has not) identified the designer whether it be a Hindu God of India or whoever else. I.D. does not tell us what rituals to perform or to clothe our women as the Muslim religion does.I.D. is something else other than science and religion.I believe the laryngeal nerve (in humans) runs from the brain to the voice box and from the brain to the aorta and wraps around the heart. (Correct me if I am wrong.)The same design exists in giraffes. If the giraffe was mute, then I would say it is a negative against proponents of design like me. Young giraffes do make noises with their voice boxes.I should do more investigating but I believe the design is because we feel emotions in our bodies and we can convey them through the sounds of our voices. We can convey trouble or stress or fright with our voices. When we feel emotions we do not feel them in our brains, we feel emotions in our bodies.This is my hypothesis and as I say I should investigate it further but to prove that it is a bad design (I.D. is falsifiable, believe it or not) then remove or rewire the nerve surgically and find out what happens.Capiche?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

There is a part of intelligent design that is science. People continue to intelligently design objects with great success. I need to find it again but I think one proponent of I.D. said that certain lines between the sciences and metaphysics are blurred. I would love to understand some examples.

I agree that ID is not science. No argument there.And, yes, it is because of the way science is defined--by scientists. (And who better to define science than scientists, eh?)The problem we run into is that believers in various religions try to 1) claim their beliefs are science, 2) try to redefine science to make #1 occur, and 3) misrepresent, distort, and/or ignore real science and mountains of data in furtherance of #1 and #2. This is where ID comes in--as it was clearly born out of the failed creation "science" after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court determined that creation "science" was religion in disguise. ID is religion lite in an effort to hide the religion! But if you look at the facts you will not find ID movements in Muslim or Hindu countries. And if you challenge IDers you will find that they abhor Muslim and Hindu beliefs (and the beliefs of the other 4,000+ world religions). ID wasn't hatched to promote those beliefs!ID was hatched to promote fundamentalist Christian beliefs after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision exposed creation "science" as all creation and no science.The cdesign proponentsists problem in The Panda's Thumb and the federal district court's Dover decision settled the issue of ID and its origins once and for all.And the primary claim of ID that could be tested by science--irreducible complexity--was falsified!Finally--its not that "creationists and proponents of intelligent design are outnumbered on this forum." Its that they have been unable to bring scientific evidence to these debates. (See tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I have a friend named Atlas. And this may be hards to believe, but even with a name like that, he is totally unable to shoulder the world. I've not experienced kissing a girl yet. I hope that when I finally do I don't mistake her for a ghost and run screaming out of the room. No one here says they aren't different. But I.D. is the natural son of Creationism. Born of its mother's womb, yet taught at its mother's breast to deny its parentage so that it might, like Moses, come to age amongst the scribes. Another trait it shares with cow pies. We do not feel emotions in our bodies our bodies feel the hormones released per order of the emotional brain. Do you think Christopher Reeve became emotionless after his accident? Ya' think maybe the Vulcans could have just rigged the binding on their kids ski boots instead of doing all of that intensive mind training? You lose your license and go to jail.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

Read the second sentence of the link:http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hindu_views_on_evolutionIf there was creationist beliefs in the minds of certain Hindus then, I would naturally expect design. Let's say this is correct. Does this somehow render the claims of I.D. invalid?I guess you have something against Christianity but that is another issue. We have gone at it before. (in case other readers didn't know) You can think what you want. I have met atheists and if they don't want me to talk about religion or intelligent design, I will not.

Reading your profile just after I read your post, I will go ahead and agree that you are from -A vast, undifferentiated plane from somewhere out there.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. I followed the link and read the second sentence. It does not seem to apply to what we are discussing. The natural conclusion of this is that ID was hatched to promote fundamentalist Christian beliefs. No other religions have come up with ID, or needed to. You can talk about religion and intelligent design all you want.My comment just equated the two as a scheme by creationists to sneak creation "science" back into the schools after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.That scheme didn't fool anyone, and the Dover decision by a federal district court made it clear that ID and religion were intimately linked.Where I have a problem is when folks try to pass their religious beliefs off as science when those beliefs are flatly contradicted by science (for example, young earth and global flood), and when folks try to get those beliefs taught in the schools in the under the false pretense that they are science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Traderdrew,First, let me say that I understand your consternation at being outnumbered. I have to say, it takes some courage for creationists to post on mostly hostile boards, although the tone of these forums is far less hostile than some.Second, I'm going to tiptoe quietly around your spiritual experience and all the stuff about ID. ID isn't the topic here. The topic here is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. You are wrong, or at least you're not putting it quite right.The RLN connects the larynx to the brain. It doesn't serve any other region. The bone of contention here is the route it takes to the larynx. If we start at the brain, the RLN travels down into the throat, effectively right past the larynx, down into the chest cavity and around the aortic arch. It then goes all the way back up to the larynx. It doesn't connect to anything in the chest. The only reason we feel anything in our bodies is because of our brains. That is what a nervous system is for, carrying signals between the brain and the rest of the body. For the RLN to have any role in emotion, it would need to connect to more than just the larynx; unless you are suggesting that you feel emotion with your larynx? So what exactly? We can also convey emotions with our eyes. Look, here's what I'm feeling right now; You are missing the point. Whilst we may be incapable of surgically rewiring the RLN, the proposed creator need face no such difficulty. He need only have designed the RLN without so blatant a design flaw. It's not a matter of re-wiring the nerve; if designed by an intelligent designer, it need never have been so shoddy in the first place.What you are trying to do here is pretty much the same as what slevesque was trying to pull. You are proposing a half-baked idea, a notion so poorly defined that it scarcely merits being described as a hypothesis, and just running with it. You have no evidence for it, it's just a pipe-dream of yours. You talk about looking into it, but what does that really mean? You are no neurologist or anatomist. What do you imagine you are going to find, that the experts have missed?If you want to propose an alternative function for the RLN, one that requires that it take a detour into the chest, you need to show solid evidence for that. Until you can do that, no-one is going to be impressed with your half-baked notions about arguments you might be able to present at some unspecified point in the future.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

[i]"The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically of 'propagating life within the universe'[i]Is this not Creationism or some sort of act of intelligent design? Needed to? Many powers wish to perpetuate themselves. Businesses, government, religion and even science you name it.I don't believe in a young Earth or a global flood. I am even receptive to common descent. (a form of descent obeying natural laws.) There are always caveats. Someone could come up with a better explanation.I don't believe science is the end all to explanations or even can be.

voiceproblem.org - voiceproblem.orgNotice how the nerves are connected. Well it does. It connects to the aortic arch as you state. No, we convey emotional states with our voices. That is a new one to me. I thought we conveyed emotions with the muscles in our faces. Show me the surgical experiment and the results and I will agree with you. Show me that it has no function by surgically removing it and reworking the pathway you think it should go if a designer designed it. Have you ever designed such a thing such as a giraffe?Why does EFT work? Look up EFT on YouTube. You can't tell me it doesn't. I have used it many times although the mainstream insists it is just pseudoscience. Why do I bring up EFT? It is about tapping on body points in order to change emotional states.

I hve found GM to be very close-minded on this topic.I have repeated many times only 3 pages of discussion that as of today, there is no proved function of the route the RLN takes. I repeated this in almost all of my posts.But of course, since I say that I am confident that, since our knowledge of biology is far from complete, a function will be identified for it, (A situation that has happened at least 100 times in the history of medicine) he has called this smokes and screens.I'm pretty sure he's the only one on his side that thinks this way, as I have been making honest assertions that are very reasonable, and so probably that, even though the other defendants of evolution don't speak out, they don't find this too far-fetched at all.

quote:

---

I hve found GM to be very close-minded on this topic.

​

I have repeated many times only 3 pages of discussion that as of today, there is no proved function of the route the RLN takes. I repeated this in almost all of my posts.

​

But of course, since I say that I am confident that, since our knowledge of biology is far from complete, a function will be identified for it, (A situation that has happened at least 100 times in the history of medicine) he has called this smokes and screens.

---

The facts of the matter are:1) As you admit there is no known function, nor is there any evidence that the route has a function or is even likely to have a function.2) The route IS explained by evolution.In other words to be "very-closed minded" in your eyes it is simply necessary to prefer to follow the evidence over your opinion.Think very carefully about that.

As someone said in this thread (don't remember who), the fact that the route is explained by evolution does not prohibit it from having a function. I would even go as far as to say that it wouldn't even be much of a surprise from an evolutionnary perspective either.And so when someone talks as if this idea and radioactive spiders giving me superpowers were analog, I do find it a bit narrow-minded.

quote:

---

As someone said in this thread (don't remember who), the fact that the route is explained by evolution does not prohibit it from having a function. I would even go as far as to say that it wouldn't even be much of a surprise from an evolutionnary perspective either.

---

And nobody is arguing that because the route is explained by evolution it cannot also have a purpose. However the fact is that it is very unlikely that the route has a purpose, given our understanding of the nervous system. You cannot even offer even a superficially plausible explanation for the route.If you were honestly looking for an explanation, instead of demanding unethical surgical experiments as traderdrew does you could try looking for the known effects of damage to the nerve. If the route has a function, we should expect damage to the nerve to cause effects in areas which it passes by.

quote:

---

And so when someone talks as if this idea and radioactive spiders giving me superpowers were analog, I do find it a bit narrow-minded.

---

Would that be as closed-minded as completely ignoring the reasons why it is believed that the route does not have a function and setting up a strawman in its place ?