Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

Before I respond to that, I read this recently from Richard Dawkin's new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" I believe it is titled.And I also investigated it.And yes, Creationists and proponents of intelligent design are outnumbered on this forum so I must use some restraint in posting because I can debate ad infidium ad nauseum on this forum and this is just a hobby of mine and I am up against real scientists and other experienced debators all at one time. They will no doubt respond to my post here.Not only that, I had an interesting experience from posting here. Earlier this year when I began posting, I believe I was haunted by some sort of spiritual entity for a couple of days and at the time I was debating pretty well. It was not like any other natural experience or phenomenon I have experienced. It made me feel very uncomfortable. It was a presence in my room.I.D. is different from Creationism despite what they write around here. I don't think I.D. is really science because of the way science is defined. Science only explains the world through natural causes. It cannot prove or disprove or rule out the existence of a paranormal intelligent designer. I.D. is not religion as it cannot (or so far, has not) identified the designer whether it be a Hindu God of India or whoever else. I.D. does not tell us what rituals to perform or to clothe our women as the Muslim religion does.I.D. is something else other than science and religion.I believe the laryngeal nerve (in humans) runs from the brain to the voice box and from the brain to the aorta and wraps around the heart. (Correct me if I am wrong.)The same design exists in giraffes. If the giraffe was mute, then I would say it is a negative against proponents of design like me. Young giraffes do make noises with their voice boxes.I should do more investigating but I believe the design is because we feel emotions in our bodies and we can convey them through the sounds of our voices. We can convey trouble or stress or fright with our voices. When we feel emotions we do not feel them in our brains, we feel emotions in our bodies.This is my hypothesis and as I say I should investigate it further but to prove that it is a bad design (I.D. is falsifiable, believe it or not) then remove or rewire the nerve surgically and find out what happens.Capiche?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

There is a part of intelligent design that is science. People continue to intelligently design objects with great success. I need to find it again but I think one proponent of I.D. said that certain lines between the sciences and metaphysics are blurred. I would love to understand some examples.

Read the second sentence of the link:http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hindu_views_on_evolutionIf there was creationist beliefs in the minds of certain Hindus then, I would naturally expect design. Let's say this is correct. Does this somehow render the claims of I.D. invalid?I guess you have something against Christianity but that is another issue. We have gone at it before. (in case other readers didn't know) You can think what you want. I have met atheists and if they don't want me to talk about religion or intelligent design, I will not.

Reading your profile just after I read your post, I will go ahead and agree that you are from -A vast, undifferentiated plane from somewhere out there.

[i]"The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically of 'propagating life within the universe'[i]Is this not Creationism or some sort of act of intelligent design? Needed to? Many powers wish to perpetuate themselves. Businesses, government, religion and even science you name it.I don't believe in a young Earth or a global flood. I am even receptive to common descent. (a form of descent obeying natural laws.) There are always caveats. Someone could come up with a better explanation.I don't believe science is the end all to explanations or even can be.

voiceproblem.org - voiceproblem.orgNotice how the nerves are connected. Well it does. It connects to the aortic arch as you state. No, we convey emotional states with our voices. That is a new one to me. I thought we conveyed emotions with the muscles in our faces. Show me the surgical experiment and the results and I will agree with you. Show me that it has no function by surgically removing it and reworking the pathway you think it should go if a designer designed it. Have you ever designed such a thing such as a giraffe?Why does EFT work? Look up EFT on YouTube. You can't tell me it doesn't. I have used it many times although the mainstream insists it is just pseudoscience. Why do I bring up EFT? It is about tapping on body points in order to change emotional states.

Intelligent design was hatched long before the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision."Through these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have, at first, derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws.... [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being"That was a quote from The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy written by none other than Sir Isaac Newton

The appendix was thought for years to be just a vestigial structure (has no function). However, fairly recently, researchers at Duke University discovered it has at least one function and that is to keep healthy levels of probiotic bacteria in your intestines. Those who have it removed are more likely to develop Crohn's disease.

Looking for the effects of damage could also be foretelling. But damage doesn't necessarily mean destroyed.Unethical? We have gone at it before PaulK and I know you are no proponent of intelligent design. I would have thought it would have been ethical to correct a mishap of the Darwinian process. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you are not so sure the RLN is a result of Darwinian evolution?

I never did make any demands for the surgery. I simply assumed perhaps it has been done to an animal with a similar design and since some of you are so sure it is a poor design, you have read about the results of damage or destruction to the nerve.My position is "I do not know" if it is a bad design or not and I proposed a hypothesis. I think you, GrannyMagda and many others insist it is a bad design simply because something wants you to believe this other than evidence. I will define that as 'Darwinian dogma'. Sorry if that makes you upset. I called her bluff in my last post to her believing this was the case.

It was my bluff I was referring to. I didn't assume GrannyMagda was a surgeon and if she was one, spend the money of performing one in order to prove me wrong. No it is not, your position is based on the assumption that a designer would have never designed it that way. You assume your knowledge of science covers all ignorance on the subject and you know enough about this network of nerves to make this determination. I say you don't know enough.I could have stated, "Don't worry PaulK and others, we (proponents of I.D.) will find the reasons for the RLN through science." If I did mean that, it would be a dogmatic assumption.I also know from previous debates that you have to get the last word PaulK. You can have it because I have drilled my point here.

What is so astonishing? I have made an accusation by saying the Darwinists/atheiets/naturalists or whatever category any one of you fall into is arguing from a position simply because you and everyone else sees no reason why the nerve makes a detour to the heart. I am familiar with the "not designed" concept. That is why I placed you in the category above. It may pose a ris but really, how
many people have a damaged RLN??? How many people risk damaging their RLN? I mean really? Get real. It is probably anther case of "design optimization".You see you are approaching this from the assuption that there was no design and there has to be some bad designs somewhere. Just because you don't see or understand the hows and whys doesn't mean it wasn't designed.

Why? More conjecture? Perhaps it is possible that animals are more attuned to listening for subtle sounds or frequencies generated by the larynx. Why? It involves communication. Humans may be more desensitized to these subtle sounds because of we have developed robust language.I had someone analyze my voice before with a computer program and I was surprised what it was able to say about me. Apparently the government has this technology (even more sophisticated) and I was told that I "wouldn't believe" what they can find out about you with it.Not only that, have you ever heard about heart transplants where the donor receives the personality traits and some memories of the original person?I guess I'm getting into more pseudoscience."Science advances funeral by funeral." Max PlankIn other words, science does not triumph by convincing people that the new theory is right. It advances when the older hard head scientists die off and new generations are familiar with what has already been proposed and rejected.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

A good post. It was like a breath of fresh air.

And you doctor are resting your case solely on the faith that is absolutely no explanation other than a mishap of Darwinian evolution. Period!!!I'm going back to some fresh air.I also noticed my member rating slip thoughout this debate. Maybe I should join the other side and watch it rise to new heights. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.