slevesque: Tell me how much research has been done on the route of the RLN. |
Granny Magda: The idea that the RLN has an unknown secondary function - an idea which is intrinsically very far fetched, since the nerve doesn't connect to anything in the chest cavity - is the illegitimate brainchild of the creationism/ID crowd. Are they funding research? If not, why not? It's their baby. |
slevesque: So ... are you saying that little research has been done on this issue ? |
Percy: Are you seriously asking how much research serious scientists have conducted investigating your religious beliefs? |
slevesque: Since when did searching if a biological feature has a function become a religious belief ? What definition of ''religious belief'' are you even using. And stop with the Red Herrings (GM too), just answer the question. |
What religious belief, you unconscionably ask?
The religious belief that ID did the RLN routing, which would result in really piss-poor, incompetent design on the part of the designer unless the saving grace of some hidden secondary function could be found.
And how much research you ask? Well ...
Google Scholar Listing of 84,400 Papers, Studies and Other Works On, About or Discussing the RLN
Not all of these discuss the "routing" of the RLN specifically but I would hazard a guess that within 84,400 presentations one could reasonably say that we already know one hell of a lot about the RLN, its routing, its function, its sensitivity, its structure, etc. and that if some secondary function existed we would know about it by now.
Granny and Percy are right. The insistence that the RLN routing must have some hitherto unseen secondary function that would convert its ugly-poor-bad design into an example of biological perfection by a perfect designer is a religious quest. And one, it would appear, that will not be, nor will ever be, successful.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Mom was an English teacher. She would scold me severely if I let these mechanics stand.