Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

One way forward would be to find an individual who has both laryngeal nerves taking a direct route. I say both because one nerve would not be sufficient proof of anything. After all we can all manage perfecftly well with one kidney or one testicle.From the evolutionists point of view such a person would be at a distinct advantage and their vocal performance should be excellent.
Infact they might expect such individuals to be more highly represented amongst singers, actors, in the theatre and for voiceover work.If the evolutionists can identify such a person, then this would be strong evidence that they are right. However, I suspect that 1) such a person does not exist and 2) if they do exist they are likely to have significant problems with vocalisation etc and are likely to be disadvantaged in this area.All those who have two non recurrent laryngeal nerves put your hands up!

As requested!

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.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.

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.

You are suggesting that an if statement is a claim?

The RLN drops into the chest and loops around a ligament of the lung not the heart!

This is a better image clearing showing the lungs and the heart and the aortic arch.

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.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?

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".

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".

Haven't we heard this one before!

It is not good practice to run a power cable through the middle of a room (where people could trip over it) just because its the shortest route. It is better practice to fix it, and run it against the skirting board even though this might require more cable.

A doorway need only be 3ft wide. Would you run a power cable directly across it making it inconvenient for people to come in and out? At the very least you would run the cable underneath the carpet or better still under the floorboards. Another option would be to run it above the doorway. Any one of these options would increase the length of cable required but would still be preferable.Placing it directly underneath the carpet would be the least expensive in terms of cable length but is still the worst option as people would be trampling over it all the time.

Remind me never to ask you to do any electrical wiring or circuitry at my place.

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.