Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve: Part II

Quote from ICDESIGN: What makes you think that an invasive risk-laden surgical procedure is comparable to an in-situ system, albeit a questionably poor engineered system such as the RNL is?We are comparing what could have been (had it been intelligently designed from first principles by a higher power) against what we have actually ended up with. You can't glibly compare what exists in nature against a surgical procedure to modify said design....partly because that involves ripping up a current system to alter it (and that isn't comparable with a design from first principles - look in any engineering text-book if you don't understand what I'm saying), and partly because any invasive surgical procedure involves both medical risk and trauma damage — which then doesn’t favour unbiased comparison of the subject in question in the first place.The comparison you are setting up is infantile and larded over with emotion. Try to keep on the track of whether the system is an example of first-principle intelligent design rather than "well let's see you alter it in-situ to something better".

The simple rule of parsimony applied in an engineering context is all the proof you require.1. There is added risk by elongating nerve fibres in terms of physical damage possibilities - the longer the nerve the more chance of physical damage - obvious common sense here.2. There is more cell infrastructure (requiring energy and resources to build and maintain the structure) needed to produce longer axons and associated cell machinery for longer nerves - obvious common sense again.3. Nerve impulses are transmitted by a polarisation wave that travels the length of the axon. This is limited by the speed in which the depolarisation wave can travel (driven by the sodium/potassium pump mechanism). This means that longer axons require longer impulse travel time and this slows target tissue response time. Ok we are talking about differences of fractions of a millisecond - but this is what engineering is all about.....picking the best over the second best option.You don't design something that can do a job pretty well, if you can design one that is better.There are at least 3 reasons above I've given you why a much shorter route is preferable for the RNL. It's down to you now to tell me why (no speculation please - the 3 reasons above are not speculation they are engineering known’s - each cannot be countered per se, so in order to have the long route for the RNL that we have - you need to demonstrate (not speculate) that there are better reasons for having a long route, that (and this is the important part) more than counteract the three disadvantages above (some of our more learned colleagues can probably find more disadvantages than the three I came up with).Remember no "what-ifs", "maybe's" or other spurious speculation. You can say "what-if's" all day but if the evidence isn't out there - you're going nowhere on this one.Face it - if God did design the natural world he's one of the lousiest engineers in the business...we routinely correct the biological disaster area we call 'human beings' - it's what we have hospitals, surgeon, doctors etc for. A whole industry built up on repairing and improving on the lousy design inherent in a jury-rigged system. A jury-rigged system makes complete sense if it has come from evolution - the evolution process always having to adapt what it has to work with - what has come before.But a jury-rigged system is the sign of engineering incompetence from someone who has (presumably) had the power to design from 'first principles'.If you really want to get started on a list of poor design criteria inherent in the biological world we could have some fun....

WTF ??!!Are you here in this science thread just to toss around and act the general jerk?Are you seriously offering the scientifically ignorant, superstitious mouthing’s of Bronze Age shepherds as an alternative to the real world of the 21st century?As P T Barnum was rumoured to say, There’s one born every minute!Christianity has had two thousand years to make progress...the ancient Greeks and Romans had more scientific, architectural and social development circa 500BC than 16th century middle-ages Christian Britain. In ancient Greek and Rome, mathematics flourished, sewers, running water, advanced agriculture and spas were already established and philosophy and fledgling science prospered. By contrast, once your brand of religion took hold in Europe, we got the 'dark ages'. Maths and science halted and reversed, people threw sewage into open streets, plague and other nasties abounded and people - especially scientists and other heretics were persecuted and killed. Starting with the Crusades and moving through to the Inquisition tens of thousands were killed - who knows what great minds were lost in those bleak times!Who knows how many others lost their lives due to ignorance engendered by religious fanaticism which culled science and held back serious progress into the suppression of disease and the welfare of the people. Only since religion's deadlock has been broken - circa second part of the nineteenth century has real progress been made.You live in a technological age where debilitating disease and illness have largely been eradicated thanks to the scientific method....not your stupid shepherd’s rambling nonsense.If the best you can come up as a counter to the scientific explanations for evolutionary re-routing of the RNL is "My 2000 year 'God book' says we'll all live happily ever after in the fluffy white clouds" then you make our points for us.You may have given up rational thinking but don't for one minute think the rest of us have....your question above said...."Ok how does this sound to you.....?" Well to put it bluntly....no evidence whatsoever so absolutely no reason to even consider it....a non-starter really isn't it? Now apart from your Bronze Age meanderings - did you have anything else of worth to discuss - preferably something of actual value in a science thread......?