|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9221 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,792 Year: 1,114/6,935 Month: 395/719 Week: 37/146 Day: 10/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1127 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
We're not talking about mangled cars, now are we? That's right we are talking about the RLN which happens to be fully functional, allowing one to breath, swallow, talk and sing. Performing both voluntary and involutary functions very well. Actually I think the onus should be on you to provide evidence of why you believe the RLN is fecked up! After all it works fine for everyone I know. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2622 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
I never denied this. You were the one that said it had to take the route it does, because if it didn't we wouldn;t be able to swallow or talk like we do now. I asked you for evidence for that claim, and so far, you haven't porovided any.
That's right we are talking about the RLN which happens to be fully functional, allowing one to breath, swallow, talk and sing. Performing both voluntary and involutary functions very well. Actually I think the onus should be on you to provide evidence of why you believe the RLN is fecked up!
The nerve itself is fine. The route it takes is not a hallmark of an intelligent designer, however. SOmething you claimed it was.
After all it works fine for everyone I know.
Of course it does. The route hoewever is extremely badly designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 360 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Since you seem to have forgotten I'll remind you of your initial claims, before you run the goalposts off the pitch completely.
Big_Al35 writes: If we went along with some of the evolutionary commentators above and rearranged these nerves so that they connected directly I doubt very much whether we would be able to speak or make the rich variety of vocal sounds that we can. We might even have difficulty in swallowing the huge variety of objects and foods that we can. These nerves have to be long and they have to be stretched. Looping around the arteries enables this stretching to occur during the growth phase in a natural way. The differing lengths of the right and left nerves adds to the vocal range that these nerves can accommodate. The great designer has shown once again that his intellect is far superior to ours. Are you now retracting those claims? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 1127 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Since you seem to have forgotten I'll remind you of your initial claims, before you run the goalposts off the pitch completely.
Big_Al35 writes:
If we went along with some of the evolutionary commentators above and rearranged these nerves so that they connected directly I doubt very much whether we would be able to speak or make the rich variety of vocal sounds that we can. We might even have difficulty in swallowing the huge variety of objects and foods that we can. These nerves have to be long and they have to be stretched. Looping around the arteries enables this stretching to occur during the growth phase in a natural way. The differing lengths of the right and left nerves adds to the vocal range that these nerves can accommodate. The great designer has shown once again that his intellect is far superior to ours. Are you now retracting those claims? BUMP!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23191 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Hi Big Al,
I've been reading along in this thread, and at first it seemed like you'd forgotten your train of thought, which is fine, happens to all of us when discussion threads get long, but now with this latest post which is just a copy of WK's post that you're responding to with a "BUMP" at the end, I'm no longer able to make any sense of what you're doing. Were you attempting to quote WK and accidentally posted before you were done? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Actually I think the onus should be on you to provide evidence of why you believe the RLN is fecked up! If you wanted to plug your TV into an outlet 3 feet away would you go get a 100 foot extension cord and run it around the entire house and then plug it into the outlet 3 feet from the TV? Does this sound like an intelligent design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4967 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Fallacious Analogy, a nerve is not simply an electric extension ...
Anyways, these dysteleological arguments are simply arguments from ingnorance. As evolutionary philosopher of science Daniel Dennett points out: There is simply no denying the breathtaking brilliance of the designs to be found in nature. Time and again, biologists baffled by some apparently futile or maladroit bit of bad design in nature have eventually come to see that they have underestimated the ingenuity, the sheer brilliance, the depth of insight to be discovered in one of Mother Nature’s creations. Francis Crick has mischievously baptized this trend in the name of his colleague Leslie Orgel, speaking of what he calls Orgel’s Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. Dennett, D.C., Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon and Schuster, New York, p. 74, 1995 AbE This is probably a hit and run post, since I have little time for EvC this summer while I'm working 70h a week. But maybe I'll respond if something worthwhile comes out. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Fallacious Analogy, a nerve is not simply an electric extension ... The analogy holds. The RLN travels a route that it doesn't need to in the same way that the electrical cord travels a route it doesn't need to. It is a poor design.
Anyways, these dysteleological arguments are simply arguments from ingnorance. Are you saying that we actually don't know the route that the RLN travels?
As evolutionary philosopher of science Daniel Dennett points out: There is simply no denying the breathtaking brilliance of the designs to be found in nature. Time and again, biologists baffled by some apparently futile or maladroit bit of bad design in nature have eventually come to see that they have underestimated the ingenuity, the sheer brilliance, the depth of insight to be discovered in one of Mother Nature’s creations. Francis Crick has mischievously baptized this trend in the name of his colleague Leslie Orgel, speaking of what he calls Orgel’s Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. So even if something appears to be badly designed it is in fact brilliantly designed in a way that we are ignorant of? Talk about an argument from ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4967 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
The analogy holds. The RLN travels a route that it doesn't need to in the same way that the electrical cord travels a route it doesn't need to. It is a poor design. How do you know it doesn't need to ?
Are you saying that we actually don't know the route that the RLN travels? No that's not what I'm saying.
So even if something appears to be badly designed it is in fact brilliantly designed in a way that we are ignorant of? Talk about an argument from ignorance. That is not what Dennette said, he says that this so frequently happened in the past that Crick could even identify it as a clear trend. The dysteleological arguments made back then were falacious arguments from ignorance, and in fact this kind of thinking is very anti-scientific. (Why search for a brilliant design when you have already concluded it can't be the case ?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No offense to you personally, but I don't like your "take a step back" approach.
We're disgussing a specific problem with the pathe the RLN takes:
and you're discussing Dysteleology in general. Apparently you don't have anything to help with the specific discussion that this thread is about. Its like in my thread: Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, where you avoided the specific case presented and took a step back to discuss genotype/phenotype relationships. It just seems like you're avoiding discussing the actual issues... {/end rant}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4967 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No offense taken, but I think if the reasoning used is flawed in general, why even bother to discuss a particular subset case ?
I said it earlier in this thread: there is currently no clearly known functions the RLN takes the route it does. We do know, however, that the RLN can sometimes take the direct route (as WK linked earlier), and so if this direct route is an available option in the population, as an evolutionnist you must ask yourself why hasn't it been selected for ? Why is the indirect route still the fixed form in the population after millions of years ? The answer seems to be that it does serve a function that we are unaware of right now. In fact, the fallacy (argument from ignorance) in dysteleological arguments is exactly the same as the one in Behe's irreducible complexity argument. Yet it is only due to confirmation bias that you adequatly identify it in that case but not in the case of dysteological arguments such as this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2622 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Because there's no advantage to survivability if it does. For evolution, it is completely irrelevant that it takes the long route, it has no impact on survival. However as an engineer, it's completely stupid to make it take that route.
We do know, however, that the RLN can sometimes take the direct route (as WK linked earlier), and so if this direct route is an available option in the population, as an evolutionnist you must ask yourself why hasn't it been selected for ? Why is the indirect route still the fixed form in the population after millions of years ? The answer seems to be that it does serve a function that we are unaware of right now.
No, since the people that have it go directly there are functioning completely fine in every aspect. Until you show it has a different function, than " what ifs" are not going to get you anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
How do you know it doesn't need to ? Because there is nothing about the route which adds to function in the same way that routing more electrical cord does not add function to the tv.
The dysteleological arguments made back then were falacious arguments from ignorance, and in fact this kind of thinking is very anti-scientific. This makes the teleological argument moot and unfalsifiable. Any poor designs are instead good designs that we are ignorant of. That's a very poor argument. Please show us how the route of the RLN is vital to the function of the RLN. If you can't, then please explain why it makes such a circuitous route.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
No offense taken, but I think if the reasoning used is flawed in general, why even bother to discuss a particular subset case ? Don't you find it unfair that the ID crowd is allowed to point to "brilliant designs" and yet critics are not allowed to criticize any designs? Should we start calling biological designs "double plus good"?
We do know, however, that the RLN can sometimes take the direct route (as WK linked earlier), and so if this direct route is an available option in the population, as an evolutionnist you must ask yourself why hasn't it been selected for ? What we are asking is why didn't the designer use the direct route, assuming that the route was available to the designer? For evolution, they are equal at the phenotype level so one is not selected over the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 360 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
What we are asking is why didn't the designer use the direct route, assuming that the route was available to the designer? Aesthetic reasons? TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025