Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

That is your opinion PaulK. Why can't animals communciate or discern other emotional states from another animals of their own species? It could serve as warning signals for instance.It is your opinion that it is a serious problem. My guess is that you don't want there to be some good reasons why the nerve is wired the way it is.

quote:

---

That is your opinion PaulK. Why can't animals communciate or discern other emotional states from another animals of their own species? It could serve as warning signals for instance.

---

Unfortunately your responses are becoming increasingly disconnected from reality. I never suggested that animals could not gain an advantage from communicating emotional states.The problem is making a rational connection between that and the route of the RLN.

quote:

---

It is your opinion that it is a serious problem. My guess is that you don't want there to be some good reasons why the nerve is wired the way it is.

---

So the fact that your "explanation" DOESN'T give a good reason for the route of the RLN in humans is NOT a problem to you ? Maybe you don't understand that that leaves you stuck with the human RLN as an example of poor design.And I am sure you can think of other reasons why people prefer to follow the evidence rather than believe whatever desperate excuses you happen to come up with. It is perfectly clear that it is the creationist side which is dominated by a choice of dogma over evidence in this discussion.

Some website written by someone who knows about biology and wishes to communicate their knowledge.Did you just say "CMI"?* walks away slowly shaking his head *

This issue could be easily settled via surgically redesigning the recurrent laryngeal nerve so it has a more direct route. Or one could genetically engineer a mammal so that it has a more direct route for the recurrent laryngeal nerve and then see whether the mammal is any better or worse off. Until then, it is all based upon subjective criteria on what is good or bad design(call it intelligent or unintelligent if you'd rather use those words).Oh, and thanks Granny for your hospitality and civility. This will be my last post on this forums.

Wow, you guys can do this??? And the EMIQ lifts a little again

Do you think you're more or less sure than the church was when they imprisoned Galileo for his 'facts' on heliocentrism?

There are some better hypotheses proposed that seem to be better than the one I proposed. I thought hypotheses were for so that they could be scrutinized but obviously, I don't get along with them either.For the life of me, I cannot understand why many of seem to think mainstream views on science is the say all and end all to these debates. The only way I can see this point of view is they have elevated materialistic science to the level of a god or above a god. If you ask me, this view is foolish because I would seek wisdom and understanding above mainstream science any day. Sorry to see you go. I would like to communicate with proponents of ID for a change.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

The problem is not that you don't follow mainstream science, it's that you don't propose an alternative that would explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Science does progress over time, but it does with hard work not what ifs and unverified guesses. That may be the way ID works, but then it's not science anymore. You seem to think that your way of doing things work better, it's just that historically, "materialistic science" works better when you actually understand the natural world and make things work.

I thought I did but it apparently, it does not hold up. Forget my explanation there are other explanations and I more research needs to be conducted and this is still a new topic for proponents of ID. Science doesn't seek the truth directly, it seeks to compare explanations and it power is in its ability to falsify. Under the current paradigm of science, once you leave any natural expalanation, it is no longer science. That is like automatically disqualifying any supernatural explanation before it can be thought of.There is a part of ID that is science. Obviously people intelligently design things all of the time. Science certainly has its applications. It is a way of seeking explanations. It is certainly easier and more convincing to explain phenomenon through repeatable natural causes. As far as how it applies to Darwinism or natural explanations for the origin or life are other huge topics.I also tend to be careful about what our senses tell us. There are ways that seem to be wise to man but lead to destruction. I have seen this in mainsteam and alternative medicine circles.Have you seen the recent report about the hacker who hacked those emails from scientists who manipulated climate data in order to seek the results they wanted? You can find it in the Corbett report on YouTube. It makes me wonder.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Quite the classic example, the catholic church had married their theology with the fact of geocentrism (which came from the greeks) and of course, the divorce made a mark that lasts up to this day.Galileo encountered much more opposition from his colleagues and scientists, then the church. (But it's another subject)

But that doesn't fit at all.You said that you're denying evolution because you don't want to marry to the 'facts' of today. The analogy is the church not wanting to marry to heliocentrism, it doesn't work the other way around. Otherwise, you would be married to the 'fact' of creationism and then its no longer an excuse to why you don't accept evolution.

This is not exactly what I said, I think. I did not say I deny evolution because I don't want to mary my theology with it. I deny evolution because I consider that the facts don't line up with the theory.However, what I was saying was that if, for whatever reason that I see as extremely improbable, I was ever going to conclude that the theory of evolution was correct, then I would not marry my theology with it. I would simply let go of my theistic believes as well. Or at least with my christian beliefs.On subjects who do not touch the biblical truth, I have no problem accepting or changing my opinion on. Heliocentricism, for example, has no theological impact whatsoever, in my opinion. The problem with all the Galileo affair is that the catholic church had transformed Geocentricism, which was a knowledge from the greek philosophy, into a biblical truth by marrying it with their theology. And so when an opposing theory came along, it was difficult for them to let go of geocentricism. (But as I said, they offered less resistance then the scientific community of the time)A modern day example of this would be when some theologians accepted the Big Bang and tried to intriduce it in their theology. Of course, it will be difficult for them to rework all their theology if the big bang gets replaced. Same goes for theologians who compromised with 'deep time' and now insert it into the genesis acount. (Between verse 1 and 2. Usually known as gap theory in theological circles)

Oh okay, I see. I did misunderstand you.Why would accepting the ToE make you let go of theism and christianity? But the Bible says that the Earth is immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30)Heh, or what about a talking snake? You don't really think there was a global flood, do you?If you can accept heliocentrism then you should be able to accept evolution.And the way you talk about evolution, its sounds as if you think its going to be disproven one day?

Accepting the ToE would mean taking the genesis account as an allegory, or a metaphor. This would mean that there was no historical original sin that affected humankind. This goes down either two direction:1- Humankind is not affected by sin in reality. But then why would Jesus have to die ?2- Humankind is affected by sin, but it is not the result of an factual events on our part. Sin then becomes part of the overall picture planned by God. But then why would God send people to hell because of their sins, if it is in the end not humanities fault ?In other words, no historical genesis account means no historical original sin. Which in turn underpins the central message of christianity which is Jesus's sacrifice. And David says about himself (and his throne) that he is 'immovable'. I remember discussing this here about 3 months ago, and 99% of the passages from the bible that were taken in support of geocentricism were from poetic books such as the Psalms and Job. (and were more often about a flat-earth then geocentricism) I think that the geological evidence fits surprisingly well with a global flood hypothesis. Others may disagree.A talking snake is no more surprising then a person ressurection after three days. The theological implications of the ToE go to the very core of christianity. Not the same with heliocentricism which has no effect at all. Evolution as a ''fact'' won't be. Since science is now naturalist, fixity of species is not longer an option and so evolution becomes the only option.I would not be surprised to see the mechanisms of evolution be changed. The call for a change would probably come from genetics. Gould took his best shot at changing one aspect of the paradigm with ponctuated equilibrium, with moderate success. Which was the call for change from the field of paleontology. I could something simlar happening from the field of genetics.But evolution is here to stay I think. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Yeah, that darned reality, eh! What's a believer to do?
Can this be taken as an admission that your postings to date aren't really about the subjects being discussed per se, but rather about trying to leave a bit of rationalization room in your head? Worked for me. For about 15 minutes in 1973.Good luck, I feel your pain.KPPS: When you finally shake off the haze, it will feel like when someone opens the window in a stuffy room.