|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2623 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
No, it wouldn't. See Taq's example for something that would get an engineering student flunked. Do you think the argument "But it works!" will get him very far?
He'd be flunked because his teacher would identify inconvenients in his chosen route over a more direct route. However, if his teacher could not identify any advantages into taking any other route, as you are advocating, then 'flunking' (verb?) him would be unjustifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Out of curiosity:
Why cant' you just admit that the path the RLN takes was probably not designed? Why must everything be designed? Can't there be some things that were not designed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
quote: I have no idea where this came from. Please identify the appeal to emotion ... AbE Saying a dysteleological argument is an argument from ignorance isn't an appeal to emotion, even though it may frustrate you ![]() Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
quote: Totally false, see Wounded King message no168 (sorry don't know ow to link messages exactly). The direct route option is readily available, and in fact already in the population.
quote: He would tell me it is inefficient, because it uses a surplus of cord. But this position is exactly the opposite of when you said: quote: Yet if it is less efficient, as you are now claiming with your electrician example, then it does have a negative impact on survival (wasted ressources)
quote: Where did I bring a 'what if' ?
quote: No, I actually believe aliens designed life on earth. Why do you always bring God in the picture ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Exactly, he would be flunked. Because it would be less efficient. Because if you are right, and the indirect route has no secondary function, then it only has the negative side-effects: More ressources wasted, more maintenance, more blood vessels, more length on which it can have a failure and break.
Look at your picture, these negative side-effects are all also there (except the blood vessels). These are why the Teacher wouldn't accept it. He would tell you it is less efficient then a more direct way to scratch your back. So in fact, you both made a whole 180* and are now saying that the indirect route is actually less efficient. And if this is so, and there are no secondary functions to counter-act, then natural selection would have selected against it and in favor of the direct route. Which comes back to the original question: Why hasn't it done so in the past millions of years ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
OFF TOPIC:
Because I believe that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an inadequate mechanism to produce the biodiversity and complexity we study, and I favor the alternate explanation of an intelligent designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
OFF TOPIC: Because I believe that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an inadequate mechanism to produce the biodiversity and complexity we study, and I favor the alternate explanation of an intelligent designer. So, to the topic. this RLN. You come here with the a priori position that it could not have be a result of evolution... and you're offering ad hoc explanation why it could still have been designed. Don't you see the illogic in this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2434 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Because I believe that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an inadequate mechanism to produce the biodiversity and complexity we study, and I favor the alternate explanation of an intelligent designer.
So you find the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution inadequate, and rely instead on an explanation without any supporting evidence? No wonder they call it creation "science!" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2363 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
are now saying that the indirect route is actually less efficient. And if this is so, and there are no secondary functions to counter-act, then natural selection would have selected against it and in favor of the direct route. Which comes back to the original question: Why hasn't it done so in the past millions of years ?
Because "less efficient" can be "good enough" and sometimes thats all it takes to pass on a trait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2623 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
He says nothing of the sort. We're talking about the steps taken by evolution here. Also, seeing as it is in such a small part of the population, it points to it indeed being easier to legthen step by step. Totally false, see Wounded King message no168 (sorry don't know ow to link messages exactly). The direct route option is readily available, and in fact already in the population. And evolution only cares if it is good enough. It is. For engineers, it is rather the opposite, it's completely stupid.
Where did I bring a 'what if' ?
When you were going on about an as of yet undiscovered function.
No, I actually believe aliens designed life on earth. Why do you always bring God in the picture ?
Because I know you Slevesque. You're a YEC, or have you changed your position lately and do you now believe that aliens designed life here? If you do, then it baffles me as to how the aliens could develop technology to get here, but were such incompetent engineers as to place the RLN like they did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So you find the moutains of evidence supporting an intelligent designer inadequate, and rely instead on an explanation without any supporting evidence?
- - - - See what I did there ? (This is all off-topic. So I won't responde any further)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
First, everybody comes in a topic with what could be called a priori. So this is a none-issue.
And I originally simply explained how this fits into my worldview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
passing on the trait isn't sufficient, natural selection should eventually fix the better option of the two in the population. Haldane had calculated this can take up to 300 generations or more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2623 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Yes. You told an untruth (to put it euphemistically).
See what I did there ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Exactly, he would be flunked. Because it would be less efficient. Making a few extra feet of nerve fiber for no other reason than to create a longer route is less effecient. Designer flunks.
And if this is so, and there are no secondary functions to counter-act, then natural selection would have selected against it and in favor of the direct route. This assumes that evolving the direct route would not require a drop in fitness. If that assumption is wrong then so is your conclusion. Embryonic development is a very fickle beast.
Why hasn't it done so in the past millions of years ? It would require numerous changes in embryonic development that would result in lowered fitness. A designer would not have these problems to deal with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025