Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,419 Year: 6,676/9,624 Month: 16/238 Week: 16/22 Day: 7/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 406 of 480 (567222)
06-30-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Big_Al35
06-30-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Nice try ignoring everything up until now, and moving completely off-topic.
Please go back to being wrong about the RLN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Big_Al35, posted 06-30-2010 7:05 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 407 of 480 (567223)
06-30-2010 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Big_Al35
06-30-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
You seem to be inexorably moving further and further away from anything that has the faintest thing to do with the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Unless that is you can provide any reason why any of the things you are talking about have some relevance.
The fact is, you don't have any rationale along the lines of the ones about electrical cabling. No one is walking across the path of the RLN.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Big_Al35, posted 06-30-2010 7:05 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Big_Al35, posted 06-30-2010 7:26 AM Wounded King has not replied

Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 408 of 480 (567225)
06-30-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Wounded King
06-30-2010 7:13 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact is, you don't have any rationale along the lines of the ones about electrical cabling. No one is walking across the path of the RLN.
Remind me never to ask you to do any electrical wiring or circuitry at my place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Wounded King, posted 06-30-2010 7:13 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Percy, posted 06-30-2010 7:35 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22929
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 409 of 480 (567226)
06-30-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Big_Al35
06-30-2010 7:26 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Hi Al,
I think what people are trying to get you to see is that your analogy to wiring across a doorway doesn't match the RLN very well. In your analogy, what is it about the path from the larynx to the brain that is analogous to a doorway such that a route down the neck around the aorta and back is required?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Big_Al35, posted 06-30-2010 7:26 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Big_Al35, posted 07-02-2010 6:16 AM Percy has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 410 of 480 (567231)
06-30-2010 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Big_Al35
06-29-2010 8:37 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Big_Al35, posted 06-29-2010 8:37 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 411 of 480 (567670)
07-02-2010 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Percy
06-30-2010 7:35 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Percy writes:
I think what people are trying to get you to see is that your analogy to wiring across a doorway doesn't match the RLN very well.
Yes, but it wasn't me who brought up the wiring analogy. I just played along with the evolutionists analogy. My concern anyway is not that the path matches a doorway but that some contributors couldn't envisage the need for longer cabling in a domestic situation nevermind the more complex human anatomy structure.
Perhaps a better example would be a window that cannot be opened. Nobody would be walking across it would they. A single wire would hardly even interfere with your field of view. I appreciate that some evolutionists might disagree with this though as they have already indicated that they find the blind spot an almost crippling disability. Most people would not consider routing a wire across a window as good practice although for every other purpose it might make perfect sense.
Why would someone design the recurrent laryngeal nerve the way it has been designed. There need be no further rationale than because one can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Percy, posted 06-30-2010 7:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Percy, posted 07-02-2010 7:15 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 413 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 7:18 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 414 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 1:01 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22929
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 412 of 480 (567676)
07-02-2010 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Big_Al35
07-02-2010 6:16 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
BigAl35 writes:
Yes, but it wasn't me who brought up the wiring analogy. I just played along with the evolutionists analogy. My concern anyway is not that the path matches a doorway but that some contributors couldn't envisage the need for longer cabling in a domestic situation nevermind the more complex human anatomy structure.
I think you've misread what people are saying. People understand there could be circumstances requiring less than direct nerve pathways. What people are saying to you is that they can see no such circumstances with regard to the RLN pathway, and when they ask you what such circumstances might be they get answers like this:
Why would someone design the recurrent laryngeal nerve the way it has been designed. There need be no further rationale than because one can.
Divine whim is your answer? Does this answer sound like science to you?
What is actually being asked is what do the principles of ID tell you that ID scientists should be looking for regarding the RLN? Is your answer really that there's nothing they should be looking for, because the designer could do it any which way he wanted?
So if you try to be a bit more scientific about it, what reconstructions of the design and implementation process do the principles and evidence allow you to make?
What does the evidence tell you about the designer himself, and how does it help you find evidence of the designer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Big_Al35, posted 07-02-2010 6:16 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Big_Al35, posted 07-04-2010 7:52 AM Percy has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 413 of 480 (567677)
07-02-2010 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Big_Al35
07-02-2010 6:16 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Big_Al35 writes:
Why would someone design the recurrent laryngeal nerve the way it has been designed. There need be no further rationale than because one can.
But what we're saying is that there is no door or window to circumvent. It could've gone straight there, there is no need for it to take the route it does from an engineering stanpoint.
Sure, one could design it like that, but doing so without reason is not a hallmark of intelligent design.
And you said it was intelligently designed. If you now concede that it wasn't, well then the argument is done really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Big_Al35, posted 07-02-2010 6:16 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10295
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 414 of 480 (567751)
07-02-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by Big_Al35
07-02-2010 6:16 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
My concern anyway is not that the path matches a doorway but that some contributors couldn't envisage the need for longer cabling in a domestic situation nevermind the more complex human anatomy structure.
And if there is absolutely no evidence for any need for longer cabling, then what? Wouldn't it be bad design?
Why would someone design the recurrent laryngeal nerve the way it has been designed. There need be no further rationale than because one can.
So no matter what the design looks like you will claim that it was intelligently designed? Do you think that Rube Goldberg mechanisms should be put in engineering textbooks and not in the comics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Big_Al35, posted 07-02-2010 6:16 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 415 of 480 (568056)
07-04-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Percy
07-02-2010 7:15 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Percy writes:
I think you've misread what people are saying. People understand there could be circumstances requiring less than direct nerve pathways. What people are saying to you is that they can see no such circumstances with regard to the RLN pathway, and when they ask you what such circumstances might be they get answers like this:
As you state, people can understand there could be circumstances requiring less than direct pathways. And yet not a single person has given an example of such a case. Even if we consider the household cabling scenario, there are countless circumstances requiring less than direct pathways. And yet not a single example was given barr the ones that I gave. I don't wish to spell out each and every example trust me but I have by no means exhausted all the possibilities.
My point is that people here (for reasons best known to themselves) don't want to give examples or possibilities. Maybe they are scared, maybe it's peer pressure I don't know. But don't tell me that that is good science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Percy, posted 07-02-2010 7:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Percy, posted 07-04-2010 8:18 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 418 by Huntard, posted 07-04-2010 8:32 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 419 by cavediver, posted 07-04-2010 9:21 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22929
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 416 of 480 (568059)
07-04-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Big_Al35
07-04-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
BigAl35 writes:
My point is that people here (for reasons best known to themselves) don't want to give examples or possibilities. Maybe they are scared, maybe it's peer pressure I don't know. But don't tell me that that is good science.
Independent of what constitutes good science, the fact is we just see no evidence for your ideas, and we also think the person advocating a position should be providing the "examples and possibilities." If you're interested in a discussion about what constitutes good science then we should do that over in one of the Is It Science? threads, but not here.
But here in this thread it would be marvelously on topic if you just provided us examples of good science by telling us what the principles of ID tell you that ID scientists should be looking for regarding the RLN? What reconstructions of the design and implementation process do the principles and evidence allow you to make? What does the evidence tell you about the designer himself, and how does it help you find evidence of the designer?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Reference correct forum for discussions about the nature of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Big_Al35, posted 07-04-2010 7:52 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Huntard, posted 07-04-2010 8:25 AM Percy has replied
 Message 453 by Big_Al35, posted 07-05-2010 6:44 AM Percy has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 417 of 480 (568061)
07-04-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Percy
07-04-2010 8:18 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Percy writes:
If you're interested in a discussion about what constitutes good science then we should do that over in one of the Human Origins and Evolution threads, but not here.
Would such a discussion not better suit the Is It Science? forum? Not to question the purpose of your own forum to you, but well, it seems that the nature of science has a bit more to do with that topic than witn human origins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Percy, posted 07-04-2010 8:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Percy, posted 07-05-2010 7:02 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 418 of 480 (568065)
07-04-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Big_Al35
07-04-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Big_Al35 writes:
As you state, people can understand there could be circumstances requiring less than direct pathways.
Of course. The problem is we don't see such circumstances with the RLN. That's why we say that if this was designed, it's done poorly, since there is no reason for it to take that pathway from a designers stance.
And yet not a single person has given an example of such a case.
Because we say there aren't any in the case of the RLN. You're the one that says there are, yet you haven't mentioned a single one.
Even if we consider the household cabling scenario, there are countless circumstances requiring less than direct pathways. And yet not a single example was given barr the ones that I gave.
Because they don't fit the analogy. This would be running a cable up and down the chamber, without there being anything in the way that the cable would need to go around.
I don't wish to spell out each and every example trust me but I have by no means exhausted all the possibilities.
You haven't mentioned even one example of why the RLN would need to take the route it does. Or rather, you have (that tension bit you started with in this thread), but have utterly failed to support that assertion.
My point is that people here (for reasons best known to themselves) don't want to give examples or possibilities.
We don't see any examples or possibilities of why, from a designers stance, the RLN should take the route it does.
Maybe they are scared, maybe it's peer pressure I don't know. But don't tell me that that is good science.
Of course it's good science not giving examples of things you think aren't there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Big_Al35, posted 07-04-2010 7:52 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 419 of 480 (568077)
07-04-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Big_Al35
07-04-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Beyond reasonable doubt.
As you state, people can understand there could be circumstances requiring less than direct pathways. And yet not a single person has given an example of such a case.
Yes they have. And it is an incredibly good reason and it fits with everything we know concerning evolutionary development. The reason is that the fourth vagus branch has *always* innervated the sixth gill arch and has *always* looped around the sixth aortic branch. Back in the precursors to fish there was a deep symmetry between the vagus nerve branches and their respective gill arches they innervated.
Over the past several hundred million years, evolution has differentiated the gill arches such that the sixth is now the larynx. It is *still* innervated by the fourth vagus branch, the RLN, and the RLN *still* loops around the 6th aortic branch, now known as the ductus arteriosus (a shunt vitally important to the early survival of my youngest son as he was born with TGA.)
The circuitous route of the RLN is explained perfectly by evolutionary development. We do not need other reasons or possibilities for we have THE reason. Similarly, we do not go looking for reasons that the Moon orbits the Earth.
Maybe they are scared, maybe it's peer pressure I don't know. But don't tell me that that is good science.
The question is, why are *YOU* so scared of the explanation given? Why are *YOU* so pressured into ignoring the world-wide collective knowledge of developmental biology? Why are *YOU* so unable to accept the findings of good science.
The answer is, of course, your adherence to 4000 year-old shepherds' tales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Big_Al35, posted 07-04-2010 7:52 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 5046 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 420 of 480 (568197)
07-04-2010 8:57 PM


burden of proof
I find it amusing how you guys point to some design feature in the eye or like this laryngeal nerve as proof that there is no intelligent designer. What about the overwhelming majority of the rest of the human body that is so vastly genius. As a creationist I say the burden of proof isn't for us to explain why God chose the designs that he used. I say the burden is on the evolutionist to show how an unthinking source was able to come up with all the genius systems within the human body. For once I would like to see one of you explain the entire process of how all these systems evolved step by step through each system. The Neurological System. The Vision System. The Hearing System. The Balance System. The Smell System. The Taste System. The Touch System. The Skin System. The Endocrine System. The Respiratory System. The Gastrointestinal System. The Circulatory System. The Excretory System. The Musculoskeletal System.
Lets start here Mr. Evolutionist. You explain how all these deeply intelligent systems evolved step by step. And I'm at the edge of my seat to find out how all this evolved each slow, step by step, over a long period of time when they all have to be present and working together for the body to survive for even one instant. How do you get by this all or nothing scientific fact?
ICDESIGN
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2010 10:49 PM ICdesign has replied
 Message 422 by Coyote, posted 07-04-2010 11:32 PM ICdesign has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024