Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

Not if you give credit to the authors of the article and the journal. High school students do that all the time in research papers and never get gigged for plagiarism.I would really like to read this paper you have referenced. Could you provide a link to it?Edited by LinearAq, : Spelling error corrected

I don't understand.
My "few minutes on Google" resulted in a number of sites (too many for me to provide them all here) all of which contend that the tension is controlled by the muscles attached to the cords. Those muscles, and thus the cord tension, are controlled by the signals sent on the nerves (RLN).According to the articles I read, to say that the RLN provides the cord tension (vice the muscles) is like saying that an electric motor's speed is controlled by the electric cord between the control board and the motor (vice the signal on that cord).I can provide links to websites that provide this anatomy information. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

You are leaving me confused.You believe that the Perfect Designer has produced perfect designs in the lifeforms on this planet.Your response regarding the comments about the apparent bad design of the RLN, indicates that you believe it to be another indicator of the unimaginable intelligence of the Designer.You, obviously, believe what you are writing.What information do you have that leads you to the belief that the circuitous routing of the RLN is a good design?So far, all the quotes you have provided (mostly without citation...ie...plagiarism) do not support your contention. The fact that you used them in support of your position indicates that you really don't understand the information within those quotes.It looks like you are grasping at straws to support your belief rather than using evidence to define that belief.I could be wrong. However, your failure to provide some supporting evidence makes everyone else seem more right.Why walk away if you believe that the evidence is on your side?

This isn't a legal challenge, is it. You're the one who stated in Message 191 As an excuse for your not supporting your own contention. Then you supplied quotes without citation. I was merely pointing out, in that little aside, that you were contradicting your own claim. Color me unsurprised.Way to latch onto something that will draw attention away from the fact that you don't address the real issue. Of course the issue being avoided is that your quotes do not support your claims. I'm not the first to point this out.Can you direct us to any research which supports your contention that the routing of the RLN is required for the tonal quality of human speech? So far, your meager display of source material has only shown that you don't read so very good.

Does this mean that you will now try to make the case for the routing of the RLN being a good design by providing enough information or evidence to show that your conclusion is "beyond reasonable doubt"? I think that is all that we can ask for since scientific conclusions are subject to change if the evidence demands it. Please show us that evidence.By the way, Huntard's determination that he should be awake during the day and asleep at night does not make "daytime for waking and nightime [sic] for sleeping" some kind of natural law.

Bigal35 writes: ​ I don't believe you have successfully convinced me that the routing of the RLN is poor design to a level that I would regard as "beyond reasonable doubt".

Well, let's see.The prosecution claims that the routing of the RLN is a poor design.Evidence:
1. It takes a route from its connection at the spine in the neck area, goes down into the chest, around the aortic arch and back up to the larynx muscles in the neck.
2. It connects only to the larynx muscles and the spine with no connections to anything else in between.
3. Nerves have been researched over an extensive period of time and shown to be control and sensory signal conduits only. No other function has been discovered for them.
4. Increasing the length of a signal path is wasteful.
a. Uses more material than necessary.
b. Increases latency in signal processing.
c. Uses more support resources than necessary (more cells means more oxygen and food to keep them alive)5. The increased length of the RLN vice a directly-routed nerve, increases the surface area that can potentially be damaged by outside forces. This is mitigated by the protection afforded by the chest cavity.The defense (slevesque, Bigal35 et al) claims that the RLN is a good design.Evidence?1. The routing of the RLN increases tension on the larynx muscles. (contradicted by 3. above). No confirming evidence for this claim provided.2. The routing of the RLN reduces vibration transmission to the larynx. Prosecution countered by pointing out the routing is past the heart, a big source of vibration and the neck is not a source of excessive vibration except in bobble-heads. 3. The RLN routing is done to avoid a source of potential damage to it. The source of potential damage is neither named nor supported by any evidence.4. The RLN routing has a purpose that will be discovered in the future. No confirming evidence and no research being done by organizations in support of ID to discover this purpose.I'm not sure what you believe to be "reasonable", but it seems that the defense has not made a case at all, much less a good one.The least you could do is try to counter the evidence put forth by the prosecution.For instance: Why is the routing of the RLN not a waste of resources?Edited by LinearAq, : No reason given.