Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

No. The reason scientists don't want to pursue this mythical "unknown function", is because:1) Nothing points to there being oneand more importantly:2) They know why the RLN takes the route it does, and no mythical function is necessary to explain it First of all, thow do you propose the routing of a nerve will have any effect on the dampening of the sound produced by the larynx? Second, until you bring up evidence, these "what ifs" are completely useless and will get you nowhere. Except in showing that ID isn't really science, just something some guy made up because they aren't comfortable with god not being involved in every little aspect of their daily lives.

????????????How the hell would the route of the nerve produce any sort of sound/vibration dampening? Once again you make up ludicrous ad hoc hypotheses without a shred of evidence. This is the same sort of bogus claim you have been making consistently while refusing to provide any substantiation. Now you seem to be admitting that no, there isn't actually any evidence for any of your claims, but that is only because those lazy evolutionists won't do the work for you and substantiate your claims.Plus! Using the Aorta for this sort of purpose? There isn't some other tissue that is a bit less important that could have been co-opted? I mean suppose someone shouts really loud and the vibrations along the nerve are so huge they rupture the aorta!!!??!! Oh noes!! Shouldn't the real question be why intelligent design proponents aren't wanting to pursue research into this field? They have funding, as the Biologic Institute shows, and we are constantly being told about all the scientists who advocate intelligent design.The real reason such research is not ongoing by the way is because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the indirect route has any effect on vocal performance. As I have pointed out repeatedly there is an indentified population of people with non-recurrent laryngeal nerves. If there are any effects on vocal performance then they are clearly so small that no one has been able to identify them in this population, it would be useful if they could since it might produce a handy diagnostic for identifying non-recurrent laryngeal nerves prior to surgery. How do such nonsensical ideas get a foothold in the minds of creationists.TTFN,WK

I have no funding so I couldn't possibly investigate this matter for you nor am I affiliated to any creationist group so I don't have access to their funds. You are asking the wrong person.

Then will you stop making claims you know you can't substantiate? It makes you look rather stupid, nor does it make the ID view look anything but wishful thinking by people who can't let go of their a priori beliefs.

I can sense that there is a million dollars in gold doubloons buried 10 feet beneath your backyard. I have no evidence supporting this idea, but I think it would be worth your while to explore it, Al. After all, it's a million dollars.What's that? You're not going to look into this cockamamie idea? Gee, Al, why not?You know what I think? I think that if I really and truly am sure that there's a million dollars buried in your backyard that I should travel to your home and offer you a hundred thousand dollars to let me dig in your background. Gee, Al, why do you think I'm not doing that?So with that prelude out of the way, the question you should be asking, Al, is why IDists aren't doing research into their own cockamamie ideas if they really and truly believe that their ideas have merit? Gee, Al, what a great idea, dampen vibration by routing the nerve right by the source of the biggest thumping vibration in the whole body, the heart.--Percy

You are suggesting that an if statement is a claim?

What other function? Evidence please. Oh dear. Did you even start to think that one through? That is wrong for so many reasons.

The RLN drops into the chest and loops around a ligament of the lung not the heart!

A "ligament of the lung"?What part of Aortic artery, either left or right, do you see as "ligament"?And the Aortic artery is a part of what organ?You really do not know what you are talking about, do you.

No, but your assertion that there will eventually be a function found is.That was what I was referring to.

Well either you are being disingenuous or you just don't know what the hell you are talking about. The left RLN goes round the Ligamentum arteriosum which connects the pulmonary artery and the aortic arch, the aortic arch comes straight from the ascending aorta. How can you possibly claim that this route doesn't go right by the heart?To claim that the Ligamentum arteriosum is simply 'a ligament of the lung' seems a bit misleading. If its attachment to the pulmonary artery makes it a ligament of the lung why doesn't its attachment to the aortic arch make it equally a ligament of the heart?TTFN,WK

You really don't know anything about this, do you.Here's a picture, care to point out the "ligament of the lung" the nerve goes around?

This is a better image clearing showing the lungs and the heart and the aortic arch.

Indeed.Would you mind pointing out for us where in that image the route the RLN takes is shown? (Hint: it isn't)Care to try again?

Here is a nice pic showing the right RLN looping under the right subclavian artery and the left RLN looping under the aortic arch. source: http://www.pitt.edu/~anat/Head/Larynx/Larynx.htm