|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve) | |||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
But when you think about it, that's a pretty worthless prediction. In fact I would call it an unfalsifiable prediction. Why? Simple, no matter the time spent searching for this function, even if it is not found in a thousand years, you can still say "well, eventually it will be found!" But as I am showing, ID is, in theory, capable of being the source of a prediction. So, no, this is not a scientific prediction. At least, I don't think it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
I'm not aware of any scientist ever claiming it was useless. So, that prediction doesn't count.
I do think that IDers have predicted that 'junk DNA' would be found to have functions and not be useless. But I could say that YEC has produced fulfilled predictions.
Like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
No. The reason scientists don't want to pursue this mythical "unknown function", is because: I can only assume that the evolutionists are being so stubborn about not wanting to pursue research into this field because if they are found to be wrong then the other function/purpose becomes strong evidence for intelligent design. 1) Nothing points to there being one and more importantly: 2) They know why the RLN takes the route it does, and no mythical function is necessary to explain it eg. if the secondary purpose of the indirect route was found to be as a sound/vibration dampener using the aorta then this would be strong evidence for intelligent design. Vibration dampening techniques are not a matter of life and death and survival of the fittest couldn't explain how such a sophisticated idea could get a foothold within the human body.
First of all, thow do you propose the routing of a nerve will have any effect on the dampening of the sound produced by the larynx? Second, until you bring up evidence, these "what ifs" are completely useless and will get you nowhere. Except in showing that ID isn't really science, just something some guy made up because they aren't comfortable with god not being involved in every little aspect of their daily lives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Then will you stop making claims you know you can't substantiate? It makes you look rather stupid, nor does it make the ID view look anything but wishful thinking by people who can't let go of their a priori beliefs.
I have no funding so I couldn't possibly investigate this matter for you nor am I affiliated to any creationist group so I don't have access to their funds. You are asking the wrong person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
No, but your assertion that there will eventually be a function found is. You are suggesting that an if statement is a claim? That was what I was referring to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
You really don't know anything about this, do you. The RLN drops into the chest and loops around a ligament of the lung not the heart! Here's a picture, care to point out the "ligament of the lung" the nerve goes around?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Indeed.
Would you mind pointing out for us where in that image the route the RLN takes is shown? (Hint: it isn't) Care to try again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Look mate. You're the one making all the claims here. Yet when asked for evidence of even the simplest of them (that the RLN goes around a ligament of the lung), you come up with a picture that doesn't even show the RLN. This would be the same as when in a murder trial, you would claim that the murderer was on the scene of the crime at the time of the murder, and when asked for evidence of this, you show a picture of a completely different room, where there's not even a body in it. If you'd build your entire case like you did in this thread, it's no wonder the murderer goes free. The problem is with the prosecution, not with the jury. Not that I'm in favour of juries anyway, but that's another discussion. I would hate to be someone seeking justice in the courts with you amongst the jury. The evolutionists criteria for valid evidence would ensure that we never have any convictions and is it any wonder that successful prosecutions are so rare. We now have criminals getting off scott free and getting away with murder. Nice ad hominem by the way. Guess that's all that's left when you have no evidence for your claims.
I wonder how you can get out of bed in the mornings. I mean surely you don't have enough evidence that daytime is for waking and nightime is for sleeping?
It isn't, that's just how I have scheduled my life. There are people that do it the other way round.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
No it isn't. This has nothing to do with evidence. There is no evidence that night is for sleeping and day is for waking. There is just the situation you find yourself in. In my situation, I work during the day and sleep during the night. My brother works during the night and sleeps during the day. That's right there isn't sufficient evidence and yet you have accepted that in your current circumstances, for you personally, daytime is for waking and nightime is for sleeping. It's called "beyond reasonable doubt". Neither of us have evidence that what we are doing is the way it's "supposed to be". You know why not? Because there is no way it's "supposed to be". Of course, none of this matters and is off topic. Would you care being wrong about the RLN again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
It's poor design in the same way that running an electrical cable up and down your house when the point it needs to go to is only 5 feet away from where it starts.
No because 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Quite. Haven't we heard this one before! And nothing you have said or done in this thread shows why it should be considered "good" or even "intelligent" design instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Nice try ignoring everything up until now, and moving completely off-topic.
Please go back to being wrong about the RLN.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
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. Why would someone design the recurrent laryngeal nerve the way it has been designed. There need be no further rationale than because one can. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024