|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2363 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
passing on the trait isn't sufficient
Why isn't it sufficient? If "good enough" works then why must "perfect" eventually come about?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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. That this trait is in the population is true, but at the moment I don't think there is any evidence of this necessarily being a genetic trait and therefore 'readily available'. Development is a complicated process and some phenotypic variations arise simply through environmental or purely stochastic causes. The existence of those with non-recurrent laryngeal nerves is contrary to Big_Al's claims, but without a clear genetic basis it doesn't provide support for your claim that if it was more efficient it should have risen to predominance in the human population. Even with a clear genetic basis your argument would still be tenuous, it would be hard to quantify the fitness benefits of such a change in a human population. TTFN, WK
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4965 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No, I told a truth. Coyote is the untruthful one. (I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey, we can both be elephant hurling. It won't add anything to nay discussion)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4965 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So you now agree that the recurrent route is less efficient, if there exists no other reason. And so you should also agree that natural selection should have favored the direct route.
Those of us in the population right now with a direct did not experience a drop if fitness, I think.
So evolution produced all the biological complexity we see, but it couldn't possibly reroute a nerve ? Because of reduced fitness in initial stages ?? Besides, this theoretical approach is irrelevant since those that have a direct route haven't experienced this 'lowered fitness' you are talking about. this leaves only Wounded King's concern that the trait maybe isn't genetic. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3968 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So you now agree that the recurrent route is less efficient, if there exists no other reason. And so you should also agree that natural selection should have favored the direct route. Do you mean in the same way that natural selection should have decreased back pain, improved eyesight, removed the need to breath, bestowed telepathy, etc, etc. Natural selection selects what is sufficient, what is good enough - not some idealised wish-list. The RLN is good *enough*. Its route makes complete sense within an evolutionary paradigm - its lack of re-routing makes complete sense within an evolutionary paradigm. Design has no explanation whatsoever. You can't blame this one on The Fall...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
So you find the moutains of evidence supporting an intelligent designer
Maybe you could show us some of this evidence. Starting with the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4965 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Do you mean in the same way that natural selection should have decreased back pain, improved eyesight, removed the need to breath, bestowed telepathy, etc, etc. No not at all. However, if any of these were to be already present in the human population, I would expect natural selection to select for them. The same way it should/should have selected for a direct route for the laryngeal nerve, since it is present. This is different from wishful thinking of traits that are absent.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4965 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
It's nothing of having a direction towards perfection. But it's logical to expect that natural selection fixes the best traits available.
It's like a grey fly in a white environment. Sure it's 'good enough', but if suddenly some of them become white, you expect the population to eventually go white via natural selection. Suddenly, when the white arrives, grey isn't really ''good enough'', it is eventually replaced by a better option. If truely this option is better. It's contrary is also true: if the other option is filtered out of the population instead of being fixed by natural selection, it most probably means that it is worst then the first one, even though sometimes it seems counter-intuitive.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2363 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Yes in the long long long run, but what if the best traits available are the "good enough" traits? Once the RNL is "good enough" what would cause it to become "perfect" or even "slightly better than good enough"? Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4965 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Development is a complicated process and some phenotypic variations arise simply through environmental or purely stochastic causes. The existence of those with non-recurrent laryngeal nerves is contrary to Big_Al's claims, but without a clear genetic basis it doesn't provide support for your claim that if it was more efficient it should have risen to predominance in the human population. Agreed. There is no clear genetic basis. Is there any way we could find this out ?
Even with a clear genetic basis your argument would still be tenuous, it would be hard to quantify the fitness benefits of such a change in a human population. Of course, the next question would be: is it 'visible' enough for natural selection to select it ?If not, I think it brings up certain problems for natural seleciton as a true 'driving force'. I mean, a rerouted nerve is a pretty ''big'' change in an organism and if natural selection cannot even select such a difference, maybe we should question the underlying mechanism. Because sometimes evolutionnists talk about NS as if it could detect and select even the smallest of changes in organisms. But of course I think, and it is a major underlying principle of Sanford's book, that natural selection is blind to almost all mutations except those few that have a detectable phenotypic effect. The other vast majority of mutations go through fixation via genetic drift; randomness. But this is quickly getting off-topic (which is bound to happen frequently with such a restricted subject)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4965 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yes in the long long long run, but what if the best traits available are the "good enough" traits? Once the RNL is "good enough" what would cause it to become "perfect" or even "slightly better than good enough"? When the ''slightly better than good enough'' mutation would arise in the population.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4965 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Ok, so I think everything that could be said has been said, the rest would only be the same repeated things for my part. So I'll give my conclusion
The argument in the OP can be written in this manner: If life was intelligently designed, we should not find examples of bad design in naturewe find examples of bad design in nature therefore life was not intelligently designed Which is a correct syllogism, denying the consequent However, the issue is to prove the second premise (the first being true) The Reccurent Laryngeal nerve has not been shown to be well designedtherefore it is a bad design therefore a bad design exists in nature Which is, as I have said, an argument from ignorance. It is of the same form as the Behe argument: An irreducibly complex system (ICS) has not been shown to be able to evolve in a step-by-step fashiontherefore, an ICS cannot evolve in a step-by-step fashion Which I have always viewed as an argument from ignorance. (I know Behe has since develeopped his argument, but I haven't kept up with it so I don't know if he got it out of the fallacy. This form of the argument is the original as can be found in ''Darwin's black box''.) Since this is a logical fallacy, the second premise remains unproven, and so the conclusion also remains unproven. I will finally add that holding on to that argument is anti-scientific. If you have already concluded that the RLN route has no function, you won't search for it. And if you don't search for it, you are unlikely to ever discover it if it does exist. The nature of science is to never think we know enough about a given thing as to conclude it a closed subject. It is the very driving force of science to always think there is more to discover then we know. In the case of the RLN, it means trying to find out why would evolution have maintained this counter-intuitive route for all those millions of years, despite a more direct route being available.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Slevesque,
If life was intelligently designed, we should not find examples of bad design in nature we find examples of bad design in nature therefore life was not intelligently designed You are missing out half the argument. We have an evolutionary explanation for the route of the RLN. I outlined it for you in Message 37 and you completely ignored it. Now you are ignoring it again.
quote: It is not simply a matter appealing to ignorance; we have an extremely robust explanation for the RLN. You want us to cast that aside. In fact, you want to cast it aside in favour of no explanation at all. Then you have the nerve to accuse others of being anti-science. The RLN is a very good fit for evolution and we have a thorough understanding of how it came to arise. The RLN is a very poor fit for creationism and you have no explanation beyond "Oh well, I'm sure something will turn up." Perhaps you would after all prefer ignorance to knowledge that challenges your beliefs. Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Those of us in the population right now with a direct did not experience a drop if fitness, I think. Please show that in the giraffe the reworking of the development of the entire ennervation of the neck would not require a drop in fitness.
So evolution produced all the biological complexity we see, but it couldn't possibly reroute a nerve ? Evolution produces complexity that is good enough, not brilliant designs. The RLN is good enough, but rather poor design if ID is true.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
It's nothing of having a direction towards perfection. But it's logical to expect that natural selection fixes the best traits available. In the evolution of the giraffe, the best trait is a long neck and the RLN be damned.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025