I assume from your message that you have no answer for why the recurrent laryngeal nerve takes the torturous route that it does.
There are no takers because first there are very few creationist left on this forum
That is true. It's always like this. Creationists are outnumbered on this board and that is certainly one reason for the lack of replies.
your argument is simple Dysteleology
So you are saying that the opponents of teleological arguments use dystelelogical arguments? Wow. What was your first clue there?
Any argument that attempts to counter creationism is likely to be a dysteleological argument. There is no news here. This argument however has something else; an alternative mechanism for the origin of the laryngeal nerve, namely common ancestry between fish and tetrapods.
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.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that creationists have a knock-down argument against vestigial organs and what they tell us about evolution. I have to say, I haven't seen it. All I have seen is the creationist habit of misapprehending what a vestigial organ is and talking nonsense on the subject.
Of course you may be right in one sense. I'm sure that creationists won't understand the laryngeal nerve either and will talk nonsense about that as well.
Basically you can see that you are in a bind here - I mean, the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe is some fifteen feet long! - and all you can do is appeal to the vague possibility that one day, just maybe, someone will come up with a creationist explanation for this other than "Well, God works in mysterious and breathtakingly incompetent ways!". You're clutching at straws. You don't have an explanation for this - the theory of evolution does.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
I'd love to see you back this claim up with some hard facts;
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
180 sounds like an exaggeration to me, but I'll be happy to recant if you can show me the list.
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.
This is of course, nonsense. Darwin knew full well that vestigial (or to use his term "rudimentary" organs can have a purpose. The meaning has not changed.
Darwin writes:
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given.
(from the Origin of Species)
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.
This also is wrong. The brain has to flip the image for us to see things the right way up. This is all very well until some unlucky soul suffers neurological damage and loses that ability - leaving him with an upside-down view of the world. I assure you, this has actually happened and it speaks of a very much less than optimal design. You have no basis for this claim.
Now for the RLN, do you not think that it's wiring could end up having a positive effect, a function ?
Maybe - name it.
It passes right up tight under the aorta, don't you think that all this serves a biological purpose ?
Could do - name it.
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.
Yes, and I think that I'm going to be bitten by a radioactive spider and get superpowers. Any day now. *crosses fingers*
What you think and what you hope are completely irrelevant. You can hope whatever you like. The fact remains that evolution presents a complete and compelling explanation for the position of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and creationism doesn't.
All you have is to appeal to a solution that might come along any day now...
That is nothing to shout about. Until you can actually come up with an explanation for this, you have no argument.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
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)
So you claim that Newman claimed that Wiedersheim claimed 180. But you provide no evidence of any of it. I am still sceptical. To me, this sounds like a tale that has grown in the retelling somewhere.
He is adressing the specific case of an organ with two functions which loses one, and retains the other.
He also makes clear that a new function might arise. Darwin still considers such organs to be vestigial.
Darwin writes:
Any change in function, which can be effected by insensibly small steps, is within the power of natural selection; so that an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose. Or an organ might be retained for one alone of its former functions.
This is how biologists have defined the term since. There has been no change in meaning, no conspiracy. You're just wrong, that's all.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionnary defines it as...
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary?! Do you really expect to find nuanced descriptions of biological terms in a shortened layman's dictionary? Showing me a couple of bad definitions by non-biology reference works aimed at laymen is worthless. Your claim of a change in meaning stands refuted.
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:
And Scadding was duly criticised for his error only a year later. Naturally, creationist sources don't usually mention that bit, or the fact that Scadding was publishing in a very left-field journal, with lax peer-review. Here is Bruce Naylor on the Scadding paper;
Naylor writes:
In considering what vestigial organs are, the proper use of words and their proper definitions are critical. My dictionary (Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, 1966 ed.) provides the following definitions:
1. Rudiment: "a part, organ, or other structure that has become aborted or stunted and will always be undeveloped; a vestige." 2. Atrophy: "a stoppage of growth and development." 3. Abort: "to fail of complete development." 4. Vestigial: (from vestigium, a footprint): "of, or of the nature of a vestige; surviving in small or degenerate form."
Darwin used the adjectival forms of the first three terms to refer to those organs that, today, we call vestigial. Therefore, it is not essential that a vestigial organ be totally without function. Although Darwin's (1979, p. 428) treatment largely concerns those organs "bearing the stamp of inutility," he also (pp. 431-432) writes "that an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose. Or an organ might easily be retained for one alone of its former functions." This shows that, for Darwin, vestigial organs were largely, but not exclusively, useless to their possessors. It would seem evident that the human coccyx, that homolog and vestige of the pre-anthropoid tail, fits precisely into the concept embodied in this quotation. Certainly it is functional (Scadding, 1981), but just as certainly it is not functioning as an external tail for balance or grasping. It is a functional, vestigial organ (contra Scadding, 1981).
One bad paper is not sufficient to prove that your definition carries any weight.
You seemed to have typed faster then thinking here... See Dawkin's 'eye wired backwards' argument instead
Oh, I see. You are arguing that an eye design which ensures a blind spot is somehow optimal.
Good luck with that. Repeat it often enough, you might even blow up enough of a smokescreen to distract from the fact that you have no explanation for the laryngeal nerve (remember that?).
I have not shouted about anything, I only made a brief response as to why no one had responded to the subject.
What you were doing was claiming that an explanation will be forthcoming, despite having no reason to think this other than your being feebly wrong about an essentially unrelated matter.
You have no explanation for the path of the laryngeal nerve. That's it. The bottom line. You have no argument. That is the real reason why Blzebub has received no replies. The creationist contingent has no answer.
I find my appeal to a solution a distinct possibility
And I expect to be given an Oscar for the film I might just possibly direct at some point in the future. But until I actually produce a film, no-one is going to care. people get Oscars for films they have actually made not pipe dreams. Similarly, until you actually provide an argument, your pipe dreams about how a-good-argument-will-be-along-any-minute-now are just so much mental masturbation. No-one is going to care.
Shit or get off the pot dude.
Provide a creationist argument for the laryngeal nerve or stop blowing smoke around the place.
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
Okay, I'm sure that was your intention, but the fact is that you threw out a claim that there may be an argument in the future as though this was in some way relevant. It isn't.
You may not like my tone. You see me as arrogant. Okay, you're probably not wrong. But I'll tell you what I consider to be arrogant. Making a claim that you may have some kind of answer in the future as though anyone should care. Basing that claim upon nothing more than idle wishful thinking, rather than an attempt to actively find an answer. Using a blatant distortion (whether intentional or not) as corollary evidence, when it isn't even relevant. That just comes across as bullshitting. Sorry, but I call it like I see it. If you don't have an answer, the proper response ought to have been "We haven't answered because we don't know.". Anything else is just flannel.
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.
And this page fails to attribute the claim properly as well. I remain dubious.
Also, you seem to have failed to note the comments made in the very next paragraph;
quote:It is important to note that a vestige is not necessarily a completely useless organ. Although defined as "useless" in popular media, a vestige as defined in evolutionary biology may still have some use, but the use has since diminished. This definition is consistent with Wiedersheim, who said that vestigial organs are "wholly or in part functionless" (Wiedersheim 1893, p. 200) and have "lost their original physiological significance" (p. 205).
(my emphasis)
This clearly shows that biologists have always defined the term "vestigial" just as they do today.
The article by Scadding was just to show the comprehension of the word Vestigial that was in the biologist community.
A single article, in an esoteric journal, with deliberately lax peer review, which was immediately pounced upon by the author's peers, who criticised that very definition, does not demonstrate this. It demonstrates the exact opposite.
I stand by my idea that the original argument, up to recently, was organs which were useless, without function.
Perhaps when employed by laymen such as you or I, but what you or I think doesn't really matter. What matters is how practising biologists use the term. They don't use your definition. Your claim is meaningless at best.
When I say the meaning changed, it's not a conspiracy, it's just the normal fluctuation of language
Fair enough. But the fact of the matter is that the definition of the term by laymen is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter what non-biologists think a biological term means. Biologists get to define what their own terminology means, not you, or me, or the Oxford Dictionary and biologists have consistently defined the term as I have stated.
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.
I have shown you quite clearly that Darwin and Wiedersham both used the term in its modern sense. there has been no change, apart from amongst those who have misunderstood the term. The opinion of those who have failed to understand what they are talking about can be safely dismissed and it is not relevant to a discussion about biology.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
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.
Then why are you banging on about it? If the RLN isn't vestigial by your definition, then vestigial organs aren't relevant.
This thread isn't about the eye or how wrong you can be about it. It's about the recurrent laryngeal nerve. You admit that you have no answer to that, so... what can you possibly be doing except attempting to throw up a smokescreen?
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
Why do we have such stupid "programming" restrictions in the articulation of our arms? Did we not itch in that impossible-to-reach spot on our backs, pre-fall?
Ah, that spot was put there by the Designer, in order to encourage us to develop tool use.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
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.
Sure.
The basic version is that the RLN is a branch of the vagus nerve, the fourth branch. Now trace our evolution back as far as fish and this branch took a path between the gill arches. This took it back behind the sixth gill arch. This is what we see in modern fish.
Now in a fish this isn't a problem. The gill arches are close together and the nerve only covers a short distance - it all lines up, with each nerve branch going through each gill slit in turn. The problem is that in mammals, the "sixth gill arch" is homologous to and has evolved into the ductus arteriosus, a small channel that allows the blood in a developing foetus to bypass the lungs (this duct closes up soon after birth - usually). The RLN has to go around this. That's why it must take so torturous a route around the aortic arch. Here is a diagram showing the nerve in both fish and mammals (sorry it's a bit fuzzy);
Now this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. If the fourth vagus branch originally went around the far side of the sixth gill arch, then the modern RLN must do the same with regards to the ductus arteriosus. Why? Because one thing that evolution absolutely cannot do is evolve through a stage which, though might have a beneficial effect in a million years time, is lethal in the short term.
For an engineer the problem is simple. The RLN doesn't need to go so far down into the chest. It's unnecessary and it exposes the nerve to a greater risk of injury (just ask any heart surgeon what they think of the of the RLN - the damn thing's in the way!). The obvious solution is to sever the nerve and re-attach it higher up, in the neck, where it needs to be, where it can be much shorter. It doesn't need to go around the ductus arteriosus; the duct serves no function in adults anyway. Problem solved. Here is an illustrative example;
The obvious solution is for the gardener to walk around the tree and back round to the flowerbed from the other side.
Evolution can't do that. Evolution works by mutation and a mutation that broke the nerve would kill the organism. There is no way for the RLN to evolve its way around to the other side of the ductus. (going back to our hapless gardener, it's as though the hose were attached at both ends, stuck around the tree) It's stuck back there, constrained by the limits of what evolution is able to do. So evolution does what it can. It stretches the nerve out, making it longer and longer (equivalent to our gardener lengthening the hose; a poor solution I hope you'll agree). This jury-rigged arrangement is typical of an evolutionary solution, doing what it can, modifying what it is given.
That's what leads to a giraffe with an essential nerve that takes a pointless fifteen foot detour. No engineer would design something wit such an obvious flaw.
For reference (and a much clearer picture of the above diagram) take a look at Evolution by Mark Ridley, the relevant portion of which can be found here.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
Hi JN, welcome to the board. I hope you'll forgive me if I launch straight into your post;
All that aside, here is maybe what a creationist might present as an argument for the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
A hypothetical creationist? Not what you think? You know, it might be a better idea to argue from your own point of view for a while, rather than playing devil's advocate.
The fact that the laryngeal nerve descends into the aorta is why we are able to do pranayama (breathing techniques/breathe control) used in mediation and get the effects(mental stimulation and vocal training) that we do.
Easy to claim, hard to prove. Do you have any evidence for this, by which I mean credible evidence, published by appropriate professionals in reputable journals and subject to peer review? You would need to demonstrate that your claim is true, that these benefits outweigh the risk of injury associated with the RLN and that any benefits demonstrated would disappear if the RLN was up in the neck.
Basically, I'm saying that if you can't prove this, then as far as I am concerned, it's not true.
It also stimulates our initial desire to speak as a child.
Assuming that this is true, why must it go through the chest to do this? How can you show that this would not be possible in a laryngeal nerve that remained in the neck?
The simple process of breathing makes us hear words inside our heads.
I think you need to top up on your medication. This is nonsense.
It is simple circuit theory: connect all the pieces you need together to preform a particular function.
As far as I can tell, this sentence is meaningless.
It connects the breathing apparatus to the speaking circuit(vocal cords).
No it doesn't. The RLN connects the larynx to the brain and the brain to the larynx. Disagree? Evidence please...
Also it defines a natural resonance of the vocal cords, a base sound we make even when breathing.
How would the laryngeal nerve be unable to do this if it were in the neck? Please be specific.
Basically this recurrent laryngeal nerve connects(and synchronizes) all the pieces together into one sensory and motor network/system that is necessary for the production of clear, articulate, and distinct human speech: breath flow control, vocal control, and mouth(includes tongue) control.
Again, no it doesn't. It connects the brain to the larynx and the larynx to the brain. It has nothing to do with the tongue or breath control. Disagree? Evidence please...
Animals/fish/etc. have a direct route and thus no ability to communicate in any complex or meaningful way.
Utter nonsense. The route of the nerve is not the reason fish can't talk. Also, not all animals have a direct route for this nerve. Besides, many animals can communicate in complex and meaningful ways.
To me, this could be as much an argument for evolution as it could be for creationism, though I prefer the evolutionary argument over any typical creationist stance.
I'm sorry, but the above is very far from being an argument for anything as it stands. There is simply too much nonsense, too little evidence.
The whole wiring of the eyes and the blind spot:
Is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, despite Slevesque's attempts to distract us by droning on about it.
Most computers have an external keyboard and mouse, laptops aside. These keyboard and mouse are connected to the computer via a rather long wire. In a sense that is a rather torturous and inefficient (think slow and energy costly) way of communicating between the computer and a human. Why would any intelligent creature design it that way?
Wow. A) The long cords do serve a purpose. They allow you to move the mouse/keyboard away from the computer and control it at a greater distance. B) Unless you are suggesting that computers are not human inventions then yes, an intelligent being designed them. Obviously.
I suggest that you take a look at the explanations that have already been presented for the RLN's detour and address those. At least then, you might be within a stone's throw of reality.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
First, let me say that I understand your consternation at being outnumbered. I have to say, it takes some courage for creationists to post on mostly hostile boards, although the tone of these forums is far less hostile than some.
Second, I'm going to tiptoe quietly around your spiritual experience and all the stuff about ID. ID isn't the topic here. The topic here is the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
I believe the laryngeal nerve (in humans) runs from the brain to the voice box and from the brain to the aorta and wraps around the heart. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
You are wrong, or at least you're not putting it quite right.
The RLN connects the larynx to the brain. It doesn't serve any other region. The bone of contention here is the route it takes to the larynx. If we start at the brain, the RLN travels down into the throat, effectively right past the larynx, down into the chest cavity and around the aortic arch. It then goes all the way back up to the larynx. It doesn't connect to anything in the chest.
I should do more investigating but I believe the design is because we feel emotions in our bodies and we can convey them through the sounds of our voices.
The only reason we feel anything in our bodies is because of our brains. That is what a nervous system is for, carrying signals between the brain and the rest of the body. For the RLN to have any role in emotion, it would need to connect to more than just the larynx; unless you are suggesting that you feel emotion with your larynx?
We can convey trouble or stress or fright with our voices.
So what exactly? We can also convey emotions with our eyes. Look, here's what I'm feeling right now;
This is my hypothesis and as I say I should investigate it further but to prove that it is a bad design (I.D. is falsifiable, believe it or not) then remove or rewire the nerve surgically and find out what happens.
You are missing the point. Whilst we may be incapable of surgically rewiring the RLN, the proposed creator need face no such difficulty. He need only have designed the RLN without so blatant a design flaw. It's not a matter of re-wiring the nerve; if designed by an intelligent designer, it need never have been so shoddy in the first place.
What you are trying to do here is pretty much the same as what slevesque was trying to pull. You are proposing a half-baked idea, a notion so poorly defined that it scarcely merits being described as a hypothesis, and just running with it. You have no evidence for it, it's just a pipe-dream of yours. You talk about looking into it, but what does that really mean? You are no neurologist or anatomist. What do you imagine you are going to find, that the experts have missed?
If you want to propose an alternative function for the RLN, one that requires that it take a detour into the chest, you need to show solid evidence for that. Until you can do that, no-one is going to be impressed with your half-baked notions about arguments you might be able to present at some unspecified point in the future.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
Traderdrew, I think you're still missing the point.
Notice how the nerves are connected.
What about them?
Granny writes:
For the RLN to have any role in emotion, it would need to connect to more than just the larynx;
traderdrew writes:
Well it does. It connects to the aortic arch as you state.
A) No it doesn't. B) I never said any such thing.
The RLN does not connect to the aortic arch. It simply takes a detour around it, making no neural connection as it goes past and doing absolutely nothing in the chest cavity. The RLN connects the brain and the larynx. That's it. The diagram you linked to shows as much.
No, we convey emotional states with our voices.
This is simply gibberish and irrelevant gibberish at that.
If you want to suggest that the RLN has some role in emotion, you need to provide evidence for that. All you have done is point to the role of speech in communication. As has been pointed out repeatedly, lots of body parts are involved in communication, the face, the eyes, the hands. None of them connect to the RLN so we can safely conclude that the RLN is not needed to express emotion.
If you think otherwise, please provide some kind of solid evidence to that effect.
That is a new one to me. I thought we conveyed emotions with the muscles in our faces.
Muscles that are not connected to the RLN. Thus, the RLN is not needed to communicate emotion.
Show me the surgical experiment and the results and I will agree with you.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying that no such experiment has taken place. If performed in humans, such an experiment would be unethical in the extreme. Your best bet there would be to hop into a time machine, go back to WWII and ask Joseph Mengele to help you out.
As it happens though, we don't need any experiments to see that the RLN's long detour exposes it to unnecessary risk of injury. Here is Wiki on the clinical significance of the RLN;
quote:The nerve is best known for its importance in thyroid surgery, as it runs immediately posterior to this gland. If it is damaged during surgery, the patient will have a hoarse voice. Nerve damage can be assessed by laryngoscopy, during which a stroboscopic light confirms the absence of movement in the affected side of the vocal cords.
Similar problems may also be due to invasion of the nerve by a tumor or after trauma to the neck. A common scenario is paralysis of the left vocal cord due to malignant tumour in the mediastinum affecting the left branch of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The left cord returns to midline where it stays.
* If the damage is unilateral, the patient may present with voice changes including hoarseness. * Bilateral nerve damage can result in breathing difficulties and aphonia, the inability to speak. * The right recurrent laryngeal nerve is more susceptible to damage during thyroid surgery due to its relatively medial location.
Note that the longer the nerve and the more areas of the body where it must travel, the greater the exposure to possible injury. This is just simple logic. A shorter nerve, that took a direct route would be at much less risk of damage.
Show me that it has no function by surgically removing it and reworking the pathway you think it should go if a designer designed it.
Pay attention. I didn't say that the RLN had no function.
Why does EFT work? Look up EFT on YouTube. You can't tell me it doesn't.
Oh, I think I can. EFT is based upon pseudo-scientific bullshit. Your personal anecdotes are not evidence in its favour, they are irrelevant. EFT is irrelevant. EFT is not the topic, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is the topic.
The appendix was thought for years to be just a vestigial structure (has no function).
Well gosh, vestigial organs and your crass misunderstandings of them are not the topic either. The topic is the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
My position is "I do not know" if it is a bad design or not and I proposed a hypothesis.
Fine. Great. Doubts as to whether your vague musings could justify the description "hypothesis" aside, you have every right to concoct a hypothesis. Just don't expect me or anyone else to give a shit until you can produce evidence. Considering that you are not a neurologist and that you give the impression of being deeply ignorant of anatomy, I'm not holding my breath.
I think you, GrannyMagda and many others insist it is a bad design simply because something wants you to believe this other than evidence. I will define that as 'Darwinian dogma'. Sorry if that makes you upset. I called her bluff in my last post to her believing this was the case.
Oh yes? Where exactly did you "call my bluff"? I assure you traderdrew, I'm not bluffing. I call the RLN a bad design because it exposes itself to increased risk (as compared to a more direct route) fopr zero benefit. That's bad design. You are the one with the problem here. Your dogma tells you that this feature must have been designed; that is why you are left groping around for an alternative function that probably doesn't exist and (at best) for which you have not one shred of evidence.
Let's be clear, if you want to suggest a function for the RLN, other than controlling the muscles of the larynx, YOU NEED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THAT FUNCTION. Idle musings don't count. Appealing to arguments you might have at some point in the future doesn't count. Making vague gestures toward pseudo-scientific nonsense doesn't count.
Present solid and compelling evidence that the RLN has an alternative function that necessitates its detour or withdraw.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
Hello slevesque, I see you are forced to resort to personal abuse to fill out your posts.
I hve found GM to be very close-minded on this topic.
Oh boo-hoo.
Yes I'm closed minded. How very closed-minded of me to demand evidence for a hypothesis before taking it seriously. How closed-minded of me to dismiss the dogma-driven speculations of non-neurologists on the subject of nerves. How very closed-minded of me to dismiss arguments that are based upon gross misunderstandings of biology.
What a closed-minded rotter I am.
You may have heard the saying "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out."? This is exactly what you are doing. Forgive me if I don't join you.
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.
And to date, this remains the only sensible thing you have said on the subject.
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.
This topic has nothing to do with vestigial organs and your apparent inability to understand what they are. This portion of your argument (such as it is) is founded upon a total misapprehension, thus it is completely invalid.
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.
Oh look, more unevidenced assertions. You seem to like these.
For the record, your assertions are not so very far-fetched. I'm not saying that they are (in Message 10 I say as much; you ask "do you not think that it's wiring could end up having a positive effect, a function ?" and I respond "Maybe - name it."). I am not saying that it is impossible or even especially far-fetched that a function might be found. What I am saying is that until such a function actually is found it is unacceptable to make appeal to it in debate. Debate with the evidence you actually have not the evidence you might like to have.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Correct typo.
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
I gave a superficially plausible explanation in the beginning, but they are not permitted it seems.
That's not what's going on. You have not presented any sort of explanation. plausible or otherwise. You have only presented fragments of pipe-dreams.
If you said that the RLN takes its detour to perform function X in organ Y and gave us some specifics about what that organ and that function might be, fine; you would have an explanation.
What you have given us is the form of an argument, a speculation about what kind of argument might potentially arrive. that is entirely worthless and it is certainly not an explanation.
Explanations are permitted, encouraged even. I have repeatedly asked for them. You just haven't provided any, that's all.
Even if it is logically plausible, and even if they are presented as a genuine guess (and not as any sort of fact)
But you're not even making a guess. You're just wondering out loud what a future guess might look like.
PaulK writes:
I've reviewed the thread and you didn't give any explanation other than speculating that changes in the diameter of the aorta might do something.
slevesque writes:
A reasonable speculation from a layman such as me in this domain.
No, it is not reasonable. The left RLN doesn't connect to the aortic arch. It doesn't connect. Let me just say that one more time; it doesn't connect. I'm sorry to hammer this home in so crude a manner, but I really can't over-emphasise this. The nerve doesn't connect to the aortic arch, so how can it possibly have a function there? The only way I can see would be if the RLN somehow affected some organ in the chest without connecting to it. That places any such claim in the realm of the not-impossible-but-extremely-unlikely.
Don't you see? Any supposition of a function in the chest, for the RLN, would solve your theological problem, but only at the cost of defying the most basic of observable facts about nerves; that they must connect to something to affect it.
Just as when you remove the appendix, no apparent symptoms. This does not mean that it has no function.
But you were just arguing that there is a loss of function when the appendix is removed. If you could point to any actual evidence of a secondary loss of function being caused by RLN damage, you would have an argument. But you can't, so all you have is more appeal to the argument you might possibly, hopefully have at some unspecified point in the future. That just doesn't cut it.
Well, since entering this discussion, I have been searching for research on this. I didn't find any. No tests to verify if this route had any function.
That's because it doesn't connect to anything other than the larynx. How could there possibly be any other function? Why should researchers go running after your phantom secondary feature? To solve your theological quandary?
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
I would respond more fully to your post JN, but I just can't help but keep coming back to this;
Sorry, Granny Magda, I actually have no real point of view in regards to this topic.
Shut up then.
Seriously, if you have no opinion, then I'm not going to waste my time wading through your huge pile of semi-coherent, semi-literate mostly off-topic horse shit.
If the requirement for this forum is that I actually write my own point of view, you wouldn't get any posts from me
I can live with that.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
The RLN was mentioned recently, so here is the open thread.
Whilst I'm here, let's actually take a look at the RLN in all its gory glory. The following video contains scenes that may turn some peoples' stomachs, including scenes of Richard Dawkins that some viewers may find offensive for some reason. They also chop up a dead giraffe. Strong stomachs only!
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
I am a flying visitor and to be honest I can't be bothered.
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.
But your rebuttal indicates to me that you are evolutionists and no amount of evidence would suit you anyway.
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
It's always like this. Creationists are outnumbered on this board and that is certainly one reason for the lack of replies.
Wow. A) The long cords do serve a purpose. They allow you to move the mouse/keyboard away from the computer and control it at a greater distance. B) Unless you are suggesting that computers are not human inventions then yes, an intelligent being designed them. Obviously. 
™ Version 4.2
(1)
