Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

I noticed you may not have gotten a detailed answer as you may have wanted about the evolutionary origins of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. I think that's because your answer is already in this thread in message 37 and it feels like to most that you haven't bothered to read the thread when you responded to it.
I noticed that there are a number of people that tend to ignore past responses and repeating their questions as if they have nevernever been answered in the first place making threads go round and round which would explain the lack of patience of some members toward those who seem to adopt such an attitude.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

The problem is not that you don't follow mainstream science, it's that you don't propose an alternative that would explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Science does progress over time, but it does with hard work not what ifs and unverified guesses. That may be the way ID works, but then it's not science anymore. You seem to think that your way of doing things work better, it's just that historically, "materialistic science" works better when you actually understand the natural world and make things work.

Is it how you debate? As soon as you are proven wrong you ignore it and change the subject hoping we forgot you were wrong? Care to point us out where is the RLN in the picture you have shown us?