Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

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!"So, no, this is not a scientific prediction. At least, I don't think it is.

I'm not aware of any scientist ever claiming it was useless. So, that prediction doesn't count. Like?

No. The reason scientists don't want to pursue this mythical "unknown function", is because:1) Nothing points to there being oneand more importantly:2) They know why the RLN takes the route it does, and no mythical function is necessary to explain it 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.

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.

No, but your assertion that there will eventually be a function found is.That was what I was referring to.

You really don't know anything about this, do you.Here's a picture, care to point out the "ligament of the lung" the nerve goes around?

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?

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.Nice ad hominem by the way. Guess that's all that's left when you have no evidence for your claims. It isn't, that's just how I have scheduled my life. There are people that do it the other way round.

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.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?

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.

Quite.And nothing you have said or done in this thread shows why it should be considered "good" or even "intelligent" design instead.

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. We don't see any examples or possibilities of why, from a designers stance, the RLN should take the route it does. Of course it's good science not giving examples of things you think aren't there.