Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

Oh no mister, that's not how it works. You claim that if the laryngeal nerve wasn't wired the way it is now, we would have trouble speaking and swallowing. Now, either provide evidence this is the case, or admit you made that up (or somenone else did, and you just repeated it without checking). Don't shift the burden of proof, I made no claim, you did. I simply ask you to provide me evidence before I believe you.

It was your assertion. It is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence. Put up or shut up.If I did or did not present any evidence what will you bring to the table? You have said nothing about your own assertions or opinions! I guess you don't want us to know what you are thinking? Are you hiding something or maybe you know I am right?

Can you tell us why that is, what difference do you think a direct path to the innervated tissue would actually make biologically? Again this is somewhere where something actually linking you claim to real biology would be beneficial. Why do they have to be long and stretched to function as they do? What is your evidence for this?There are a small proportion of people who have non-recurrent laryngeal nerves on one side, roughly 5 in 1000 for the right side and a smaller proportion for the left . I can't find anything suggesting these anomalies cause problems with either speech or swallowing, the only consequence I can find in the literature is that since it is a rare anomaly it can lead to more problems during a thyroidectomy since it is in an unexpected position (Li et al., 2010).*ABE* On further study I also find references to non-recurrent laryngeal nerves being more readily associated with vocal chord paralysis as a consequence of a benign thyroid mass (Friedman, et al, 1986).*/ABE* Again some sort of evidence to support your claim might be helpful.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Added some more detail and references

Oh please. You will get our reaction as soon as you provide evidence. I'll tell you what I am thinking once you provide evidence. No, I'm not hiding something and no, I think you are dead wrong in fact. That's why I ask you for evidence.I must say you are doing a mighty fine job of not providing any evidence, that's for sure. Doesn't make your case look any better.Oh, and a free tip, use the "peek" button on the bottom right of this post to see how I dod that neat little quotebox.

Just as I assumed and as Huntard stated. You have no evidence to back up your claims. Care to at least tell us what creationist web site you "learned" this from?I can assure you that you will not get many people to debate with you here if this is the quality of your debate. People that do not follow the rules of the forum do not seem to last long.

quote:

---

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

Forum rules are here.Also, if you decide to stick around you might want to take a moment and learn the proper formatting for this board.For example, here are two ways to quote.

quote:

---

Sample two

---

You can see how this is done by hitting the peek button next to my post.
Also, when you reply there are links to the info of how to use the db codes.
Using this greatly improves the clarity and readability of posts.Welcome to the forum and be prepared to back up your claims. If you cannot or will not I suggest you find another board to participate in that will allow wild ass assertions without any evidence.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Thats ok...I have work to do anyway. I am a flying visitor and to be honest I can't be bothered. But your rebuttal indicates to me that you are evolutionists and no amount of evidence would suit you anyway.See...I can do nice quote boxes too....

Ok, thank you for your admission that you were talking from your ass. Even if it was a veiled one. The fact that we are evolutionists means we will absolutely be swayed by the evidence, we're not creationists afterall. But thanks again for admitting that you just made some shit up. Lying for jesus must be rewarded, right? Thank you for that.

Hi BIg Al, Can you back up your claims with evidence? No? Oh. that's a shame. Because now, by making a set of false claims, you've made it look like creationists are ignorant, deluded, lying cowards, who make ungrounded claims and then run a mile when challenged to back them up. I guess you're happy with that. Truly pathetic. C'mon Big guy. You can do better than this cheap abuse can't you? If your evidence is so amazing, just blow us all out of the water with it. If it's compelling enough, we'll either be forced to accept it or we'll be forced to deny the obvious. Either way you win.But you need to actually make some effort first.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

You mentioned the Big J not me. Seems you're more religious than I thought.Nothing in reality can ever be proven one way or another. It's all down to personal opinion and belief. Thats why your appeals for evidence remain unanswered.

Shifting the topic are we? You're not a christian then? Ok, lying is rewarded, right? I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for evidence. Please show that if the laryngeal nerve is wired differntly, speaking and swallowing problems arise. How hard can that be? There must be some individuals in which it doesn't run the way it does with the rest of humanity (check out Wounded King's post), do they have trouble spkeaing or swallowing? No it isn't. No, they remain unanswered becasue you haven't got any. Ah well, another one bites the dust. But after your very first post? That's pretty bad, man.

No. The reason you did not present evidence is obvious. It is because you have none. I disagree with Huntard that you pulled it out of your ass. It is becoming more and more obvious that you probably do not even understand the subject matter. It is more likely that this is something you read on a creationist website and you figured it was a great argument.Little did you know that this forum has rules and the participants are savvy enough not to accept your premise without any evidence. This line speaks volumes about your understanding of science and the scientific method. The funny thing is that you probably do not understand why it speaks volumes.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No amount at all is what you've given us, Big. Just a single reference that shows that stretching a nerve makes it "work better" would be a start. Got one?

Your arguments seem to revolve around discrediting the contributor. I suggest you seriously review your own rules and guidelines.The reality is that you have not provided any convincing arguments to counter my claims. Whilst I accept that I could (on another day) have made more effort in furnishing you with the so called evidence that you are after, you must appreciate that I must protect my sources from the kind of abuse that I am getting now. Your actions have made me less likely (not more) to provide links or other data.The postings and replys have in effect led to a nil result as neither one of us has put up evidence to confirm or deny any of the claims. Readers can now go away and make up their own minds despite your hollow claims of victory.

No, they revolve around pointing out that you've provided no evidence. You've gotten repeated requests for evidence. Providing that source would end those requests.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

We don't have to, you haven't even shown that your claims are true. Really? That's the best you can com up with? Whatever makes you think I would ever abuse one of your sources? If they show me evidence that your claim is true, I will regard them as reliable on this matter, that is all. Now, of course, you don't have any sources, but that's another matter. You don't have any data, that much is clear. Of course. The fact that you have nothing has nothing to do with it. On the one hand we have someone making blind assertions left and right, and when asked for evidence, instead of providing it dodges and weaves so much that it is clear he hasn't got any. On the other hand we have people who recognized this fact and replied accordingly.I think the outcome is pretty clear.