Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

There are no takers because first there are very few creationist left on this forum, and second because your argument is simple Dysteleology. These types of arguments are analog to the vestigial organs argument in the 1920's, and the advancement of our knowledge of biological structures will do the same to list of Dysteleological arguments as it did to the long list of once thought vestigial organs.To make it brief. I hope this helped.

Can't you feel the Love !I'm going to take the vestigial organ analogy in order to explain the more recent trends of dysteological arguments.When Darwin released his theory of evolution, one of the first argument put forward for it was vestigial organs, especially in the human body. A list as long as 180 organs were claimed ot be vestigial (with the classical definition of vestigial as an organ who has lost it's function in the course of evolution). Impressive, and surely it greatly help the acceptance of evolution in the scientific circles.But it was only feeding on the lack of knowledge of the time. What was once a very long list is now no more than a few names long, all the ones left being disputable. The progress of our knowledge of the human body gradually found a function, sometimes even a critical one, to all the once thought vestigial organs. The ones left who are still viewed as vestigial have all being found to have a function, and in fact to keep their status of vestigial the very definition of the word changed gradually from 'functionless' to what it is today.Now I see the current dysteological arguments going down a similar track. They once again feed on our current lack of knowledge in biology. a brilliant example can be seen with Dawkin's ''the eye is wired backwards'' where he would say that God wouldn't have done it this way. It turned out that it was rather an optimal wiring system.Now for the RLN, do you not think that it's wiring could end up having a positive effect, a function ? It passes right up tight under the aorta, don't you think that all this serves a biological purpose ? I think it in fact will prove to be a very useful feature, and like so many vestigial organs before, and other Dysteological arguments, it will go by and pass in this endless debate.PS Mind you that Dysteological arguments are not scientific, but theologic. They are of the kind: ''Why would God do it this way'' with sometimes a variant ''well if I was God, I would not have done it this way''. This is imposing a criteria on God on what he would and would not do, and then judging his existence upon this criteria.

Wiedersheim originally had a list of 86 human vestigial organs in 1893, and it grew up to 180 by the scopes trial (''There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.'' Zoologist Newman, Scopes trial) He is adressing the specific case of an organ with two functions which loses one, and retains the other. Of course, this is not how the argument was used or how vestigial organs came to be defined soon after. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionnary defines it as: ''degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.'' The world book Encyclopedia defines it as: ''Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor''It is also the clear definition that Zoologist Scadding refers to when he writes Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution?’ Evolutionary Theory 5:173—176, 1981:Abstract: You should read it by the way, interesting article (http://rac.myweb.uga.edu/papers/Scadding1981.pdf) You seemed to have typed faster then thinking here, because I wonder how you could 'wire' the eye as to make the lens project the image upside-up. Maybe God should have reversed the lens I guess ... (Hint: inverse image is a physics property of lens, and is not what I was reffering to: See Dawkin's 'eye wired backwards' argument instead) I have not shouted about anything, I only made a brief response as to why no one had responded to the subject. I find my appeal to a solution a distinct possibility, that is not anywhere near implausible from any perspective you look at it, evolutionnary or otherwise. Again, reading the previous referenced article, I hope you will realized that if anything, feeding of our gaps of knowledge in biology makes for a very poor line of reasoning to support evolution ...

Ok, this is going nowhere with you. I thought I was being cool, giving the OP the reasons why no one has taken up this thread (stating there were no answers as of right now twice I think already ? Isn't that enough for you ?), and all I get is your ''evolutionnary arrogance'' as a reward. Geez.You also made little effort of researching on your side on the discussion:Here is Wiedersheim. With the original 86 vestigial organ list. Which also states that it grew up to 180 by the time of the scopes trial.
Robert Wiedersheim - WikipediaThe article by Scadding was just to show the comprehension of the word Vestigial that was in the biologist community. I stand by my idea that the original argument, up to recently, was organs which were useless, without function. When I say the meaning changed, it's not a conspiracy, it's just the normal fluctuation of language when gradually, organs were discovered functions but were still referred to as vestigial, and so the general concept changed a bit in that along the way it was no longer a surprise that vestigial organs were found to have functions.

Well I mean, the creationist usually come and go (remember Calypsis4) and frankly, usually you get fed the 'evolutionnary arrogance' which would explain why the creo's don't show up a whole lot these days.especially when there is no answer available. Just like in this case

Hi,The RLN:No current explanation as to why this is. This is why I made the analogy with the vestigial organs. The argument about them came from our lack of knowledge in biology, and I think it is the same with many Dysteological arguments today. Some have already been answered (see next blind spot explanation) If I was ever to even predict the route the answer will take, would say that the RLN goes down and passes tightly under the aorta. Maybe a variation in the diameter of the aorta could alter the function of the RLN ?This is a case, I think, were thinking in evolutionnary terms doesn't push the investigation any further. They already think they have the answer. The detour by the RLN is unecessary and serves no function. Thinking in design terms, the scientist says this wasn't done for fun, there has to be a function. One way of thinking promotes investigating further, the other inhibits it. (I know saying this will be considered Anathem and will generate quite a couple of replies lol)The Blind spot:Now this one is interesting. It was first thought by Richard Dawkins. Our retina is what is called inverted retina, and, as opposed to a verted retina, the nerves go in the front of the retina. And even though Dawkins himself says that it probably as not much effect, he says that it is the general idea of having the nerves oass in front, rather than behind, that would make any engineer laugh.But of course, the problem is that Dawkins never looked beyond that, even though eyes weren't his specialty, he viewed it as case closed. But had he bothered to go and see any expert on the subject, the answer to the wiring would have been quite simple.Ophtalmologist Dr. George Marshall said that ''the idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy''On short, he says that the nerve could not go behind the retina because this space is where the Choroid is. (Which is what provides the blood to the RPE. This regenerates the photoreceptors and absorbs the excess of heat. The other options would be:-) The choroid in front of the retinabut the choroid is opaque because of all the red blood cells, so this design would be as useless as an eye with a hemorrhage!-) Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE and choroid at allbut the photoreceptors would be slow to regenerate, so it would probably take months before we could drive after we were photographed with a flashbulb.Besides, the nerves don't even remotly interfere with the image to any recognizable degree. They are transparent because of their small size and because they have the same refractive index as the vitreous humor. And the actual blind spot is at 15* from the visual axis, and occupies a very little % of the visual field. In fact, if everyone thinks their blind spot is interfering with their vision, I would recommend consulting a doctor right away I hope I made it simple and clear. For a more detailed explanation read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp

As have said, everyone has it's opinion, but I find that feeding on the gaps in our knowledge about biological functions is a poor line of reasoning. One that I wouldn't use if I was a proponent of the ToE.Of course, the modern day examples aren't as easy to find a function as, for example, valves in veins (which obviously have a function). Today most organs that are believed to have no function usually are found ot have one in the early stages of development (embryological). Some others are found to have critical functions as support systems when the main systems fail. Of course, when every system is runnung perfectly, these give the impression of having no function at all. The RLN isn't considered a vestigial organ. Because it has a clear function. the problem is in the route it takes, which some think it is useless to go all the way down to the aorta. Rather, the gaps are fed on by Dysteological arguments as to support evolution. I agree completely, the ToE demands that there be vestgial organs, and dare I say, we should expect to see organs with absolutely no function at all. But I find that the list of functionless organs is steadily getting smaller and smaller, as the organs jump from that list to the other ''some little functions list'' and even sometimes the ''critical function list''. This is not a prediction of the ToE. After 150 years of advancement, we should have established completely functionless organs. (Darwin was himself saying that the majority of rudimentary organs should be functionless, with only few who had lost primary functions and maintained secondary ones, as did Wiedersheim)The alternative explanation is, of course, that every organ, every component of our bodies were well thought of and all have a function. either be it big or small. They all contribute to making biological systems as impressive as they are. and that we should search to find these functions instead of labelling them ''without function'' and not going any further.

Are you seriously comparing the human eye to an old boat ?I would suggest, to have a better analogy, to use something like an ultra-performant motor. Like a F1 motor. And then your mechanic at your local garage comes around and points at some tube that is counter-intuitively placed and says: who ever thought of placing that there ? Shouldn't you just cut a hole through the top and let it stick out ? You would use less tube and so it would be lighter ...Only to have the engineer of the whole thing facepalm himself ...I mean, the eye is light-years ahead of us in terms of every possible degree of performance, from color perception to resolution and dynamic range. Dr John Stevens, an associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering, pointed out that it would take ‘a minimum of a hundred years of Cray [supercomputer] time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second.’ Tagging the eye of badly designed for one very minor inconvenience (the blind spot) which is exactly what allows the supreme optimisation of the eye is being silly, in my opinion. Professor Dawkins should have consulted experts in the domain before sending it to print.

I think it was a guy.But obviously no, seeing the vast majority of creationists pass and go, I usually feel bad for them with all their good intentions, but total lack of understanding of the subject. I feel like the odd man out with them (Cavediver did say I was too smart to be a creationist lol ...)

How is the old boat is an undesigned system ?Moreover, the Dysteological argument says that if the human eye would have been designed, then it would have been badly designed. Concluding therefore that it could not have been designed by an all-knowledgeable God.The counter-argument is that actually, is to say that, if it is a designed system, then it is actually very well designed. In other wors, both presuppose that it is in fact designed, and conclude opposite (the first to conclude that it cannot have been designed).So it is perfectly legitimate for me, in my counter-argument, to use an analogy using a designed system since this is the presupposition that is started with, and through the analogy show how actually it can be very well designed. The retina can detect a single photon, in other words, it has the optimal sensitivity. It also has a dynamic range of 10 billion to 1.I agree I exagerated a bit, and probably that given one specific particularity, we could outperform the eye. But of course, the strength of it is how it can perform at very high levels on every aspects all at the same time. Our machines can only deal perform in one aspect, and if it is ultra-sensitive for example, it cannot take on too much intensity or else it might as well blow up. I never wear sunglasses, do you think I'm going to end up blind ? Or maybe our grandfathers who didn't yet have eye filters all ended up blind as well ?A dysteological argument works based on bad-designed, not on being short of over-designed.Does God not exist because he didn't give us infra-red vision ? Or night vision ? Or in-built sunglasses ?Thiese are not dysteological arguments because they are not arguments of bad design, but of lack of over-design. You cannot use lack of over-design o negate the existence of a creator, since obviously you can find something that could have been added, etc.

I know very well that even if we do find a function the path the RLN takes, the ToE is not in danger of anything since as you said, the species could simply have taken advantage of the detour already there as to give it a function.But if we do find a function for this, then it renders the issue irrelevant to negate the existence of a creator. Because if it has a function, then an IDer would find this a satisfying answer as to why the said designer would have made it this way.This is in part why I am not very worried from these types of arguments, because I am aware that our knowledge of biology is far from complete, and that even though right now, it seems to serve no function, one may very well be found in the future. I think that you will find this legitimate on my part, as it is a very reasonable stance to take.On a final note, I noticed that everybody keeps talking how the ToE explains perfectly well this path by the RLN. I would be interested to here how it explains it. Thanks in advance!

I think the only time I wear sunglasses is when I play poker hehe. We get 2 months of simili-summer here in quebec, and 10 months of rain and snow.But to answer the second question. The RLN case is essentially settled, since as of today we have not found a function for the route it takes, I have no answer as to why any sort of ''designer'' would have done it this way. although, as I have repeated many times over, we have multiple examples of such situations in the past which permits me to hope that modern biology will find it a function. (Although some call this smokes and screens, I think it is a lgitimate and not very far-fetched hope on my part. Besides, I have never hidden that I didn't have an answer to this question)

''Are you unable to use google ?''This rhetoric question oculd be asked foralmost every single questio nthat is being asked here, because well, almost any answer can be found on the internet.Creation.com talks about the RLN, would you have prefered me to have told yo uright from the start ''Unable to use google?'' and linked you the articles ?I find it legitimate to ask if those who actually claim evolution explains the RLN to be, well, able to show that they do know. (And aren't just repeating the argument without knowing)

I hve found GM to be very close-minded on this topic.I have repeated many times only 3 pages of discussion that as of today, there is no proved function of the route the RLN takes. I repeated this in almost all of my posts.But of course, since I say that I am confident that, since our knowledge of biology is far from complete, a function will be identified for it, (A situation that has happened at least 100 times in the history of medicine) he has called this smokes and screens.I'm pretty sure he's the only one on his side that thinks this way, as I have been making honest assertions that are very reasonable, and so probably that, even though the other defendants of evolution don't speak out, they don't find this too far-fetched at all.

As someone said in this thread (don't remember who), the fact that the route is explained by evolution does not prohibit it from having a function. I would even go as far as to say that it wouldn't even be much of a surprise from an evolutionnary perspective either.And so when someone talks as if this idea and radioactive spiders giving me superpowers were analog, I do find it a bit narrow-minded.