Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

By natural selection and random mutation.All the best,
CrashP.S. It only seems like genius because you don't know how it works.

What's your definition of "complex"? I can't show you the evolution of neurology since that happened over such a long period of time. If you could identify some array of characteristics that would qualify something as "complex" then I may be able to show you in vitro evolution of such a system. I hope you learn more about biology and the human body, so that you have the opportunity to learn how that's frequently not the case. For instance, in a genius-designed human body, human muscle cells would produce their own phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase, which would (and does, when the gene is activated in mice) result in humans being able to physically exert themselves without ever tiring and lifespans about twice as long.But our bodies don't do that. The gene is suppressed to fairly low levels just about everywhere but the liver, which is good under conditions of starvation but suboptimal at any other time. Genius-level genetic programming would have inserted a PEP-CK regulation system that upregulated when food was plentiful and downregulated when food was scarce.Despite fats being the most energy-dense storage in your body, your muscles can't metabolize fats directly. Genius design? I don't see it. Just about any function of the body can be improved; "just good enough to work" design is the hallmark of living systems.And again - you've simply dismissed the systems that can't be reconciled with "genius" design. But how does that make sense? God was a genius but he outsourced the eye? God was sick and it was Nerbert the Temp who designed the laryngeal nerve? If the human body is a work of genius it should be evidence throughout. You can't just wave away the examples of truly dunderheaded design.

Retinas that face the light-sensing layer out towards the front, where the light comes in; not backwards, towards the inside of the skull, with two layers of light-insensitive cells between the iris and the incoming light.Muscles that express enough PEP-CK to metabolize fatty acid fuel sources directly.A spine more stable for upright posture than a stack of quarters.That's where I'd start. Like I said, the more you learn about the human body, the more you're surprised that it even works at all.

I think you should head down to the hospital to the chronic disease ward and be sure to tell all those people suffering from various corruptions of the vital systems that they can't possibly exist.The truth is that "just good enough to work" is the universal quality of living organisms on Earth, just as is expected by evolution.

I feel like I just gave some. Could you explain what was insufficient about them? Otherwise it just seems like you're ignoring the arguments you don't know how to respond to.

Yes. If living things on Earth were perfect across every conceivable dimension, that would be strong evidence for them being the special creation of a perfect, infinite being, assuming that being could be substantiated to actually exist.

Well, do you understand how that's a tall order for a discussion thread? You listed a dozen systems. Evolutionary history goes back several billion years, and here's the kicker - since you don't know any biology, you have no idea how these systems actually work. So explaining how they evolved means explaining to you how they work.Studying even a small part of the function of even one of these systems could be the subject of a person's Ph.D. thesis. Do you understand why, after one hour, no one might yet have posted the explanations you're looking for?You've asked for something well beyond the scope of an internet discussion forum. We can't even make a post long enough to explain the origin of even one of the systems you listed, simply due to software limitations. Sounds great! Let me know when you have a Ph.D in biology and biochemistry.

As post-hoc explanations go, that's a pretty clumsy one. It doesn't even hold together on theological grounds, as theologians have long known. That's fair. I don't believe you'd accept evolution if we had all 2 billions years of it on video tape, so I guess we're even.

We actually have hundreds of examples of macroevolution, dozens of examples of speciation we've observed.

No, actually, I'm just better informed than you. Observed Instances of Speciation

quote:

---

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

---

quote:

---

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

---

quote:

---

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

---

Or there's the 200,000 results available by a standard literature search on "speciation observed".Macroevolution not only incontrovertably happened in the past, it incontrovertably continues to happen. It's impossible for it not to; there's no genetic barrier that would prevent two populations from developing a genetic barrier.

It might function like it functions in today's insects, who have open circulatory systems.

Oh, just saw moose's message. Maybe I'll make this a PM to ICDESIGN instead.Edited by crashfrog, : avoiding unassailable last word.