Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 16 of 480 (535657)
11-17-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:09 AM


Re: Clutching at Straws
Hi Slevesque
I have read the article in your link.
The author summarises by making the point that failing to identify a function is not evidence that there is no function. I completely disagree. Observing no function is strong evidence of no function, but not necessarily proof.
I accept that there may be many organs that were cited in the past as being vestigial, but which have since been found to possess some function. However, as far as I am aware, no such function has been found for all organs, including the RLN.
Also, the article and your argument miss an important point. Vestigial organs are exactly what you would expect to find under the Theory of Evolution. In fact, you could say Evolution DEMANDS that there should be vestigial organs. It would be evidence against Evolution if there were no apparent vestigial organs. And Evolution does actually provide an explanation of the function of vestigial organs — I.E. that they had a PAST function that is no longer required. That is a simple and complete explanation. It is indisputable that there are some gaps in our biological knowledge, but Evolution fills this gap in perfectly.
There is always the opportunity to provide a better explanation than the Theory of Evolution does in this case, but it would have to be a heck of a good one.
Fair play to you, though, for having a go at this one without any support!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:09 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 4:32 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 17 of 480 (535727)
11-17-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Granny Magda
11-17-2009 5:41 AM


Re: Clutching at Straws
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 - Wikipedia
The 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 11-17-2009 5:41 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Granny Magda, posted 11-17-2009 5:39 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 480 (535730)
11-17-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Larni
11-17-2009 3:52 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 11-17-2009 3:52 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 11-17-2009 6:04 PM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 19 of 480 (535734)
11-17-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-17-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Clutching at Straws
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-17-2009 5:56 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-17-2009 5:10 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 11-19-2009 10:21 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 20 of 480 (535735)
11-17-2009 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-17-2009 7:52 AM


Re: Clutching at Straws
The author summarises by making the point that failing to identify a function is not evidence that there is no function. I completely disagree. Observing no function is strong evidence of no function, but not necessarily proof.
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.
However, as far as I am aware, no such function has been found for all organs, including the RLN.
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.
Also, the article and your argument miss an important point. Vestigial organs are exactly what you would expect to find under the Theory of Evolution. In fact, you could say Evolution DEMANDS that there should be vestigial organs. It would be evidence against Evolution if there were no apparent vestigial organs. And Evolution does actually provide an explanation of the function of vestigial organs — I.E. that they had a PAST function that is no longer required. That is a simple and complete explanation. It is indisputable that there are some gaps in our biological knowledge, but Evolution fills this gap in perfectly.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-17-2009 7:52 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 11-17-2009 5:45 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 30 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-18-2009 5:47 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 9:51 AM slevesque has replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 21 of 480 (535745)
11-17-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-17-2009 4:18 PM


Re: Clutching at Straws
I hope I made it simple and clear. For a more detailed explanation read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp
The fatal flaw of the rationalization you present is that it presupposes that a designed eye would have to be made from the same components as the one we have. Explaining why the existing components have to be arranged in the manner that they are in order to function properly rather misses the point. If one were designing an eye without the need to use rely on existing or evolvable structures, one wouldn't use cells that needed such a Rube Goldberg arrangement to stay functional.
It's rather like buying an old boat and inheriting an accumulation of modifications and retrofits. Yes, that fan needs to be there to cool that piece of equipment, and the equipment needs to be there because the hose from the other thing comes through the bulkhead a bit too low, and the hose needs to be that low because the other thing that used to be under the fluxgate of the auto pilot was a lot bigger than the new new one...and so on. But, if you were designing the thing from scratch, you wouldn't need the fan because the piece of equipment wouldn't need to be there, because...etc., etc.
I read the link as a long-winded rationalization that demonstrates convincingly that the components of the eye are ill-suited to their current application.
Capt.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : html

Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 4:18 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 5:42 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 22 of 480 (535747)
11-17-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:41 PM


Re: Clutching at Straws
Hi Slevesque,
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:41 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 23 of 480 (535748)
11-17-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Capt Stormfield
11-17-2009 5:10 PM


Re: Clutching at Straws
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-17-2009 5:10 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 5:53 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 29 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-17-2009 9:00 PM slevesque has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 24 of 480 (535749)
11-17-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
11-17-2009 4:32 PM


Re: Clutching at Straws
I have to make comment on this;
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 4:32 PM slevesque has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 25 of 480 (535751)
11-17-2009 5:48 PM


Can we try something more simple?
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? Why are our genitals so exposed to damage? Why do we hurt, damage and even kill ourselves when we fall over? Was the ground softer pre-fall? Why do our bones break, limbs dislocate, etc? Why do we need to eat? Why do we need to breathe?
Compared to these, the RLN seems a stroke of genius

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 11-17-2009 6:07 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 26 of 480 (535752)
11-17-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
11-17-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Clutching at Straws
a minimum of a hundred years of Cray [supercomputer] time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second
Yeah, and how much time would it take to precisely model the atomic vibrational modes of a large rock when I bang it with a hammer? Considerably more. How awesomely and fearfully made are those large rocks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 5:42 PM slevesque has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 27 of 480 (535755)
11-17-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:45 PM


Did you really want him/her in your camp?
Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 3:41 PM Larni has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 480 (535756)
11-17-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by cavediver
11-17-2009 5:48 PM


Re: Can we try something more simple?
Hi cavediver,
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 5:48 PM cavediver has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 29 of 480 (535768)
11-17-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
11-17-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Clutching at Straws
Are you seriously comparing the human eye to an old boat ?
Yes.
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 ...
Thank you for illustrating the difference between an undesigned system (the old boat) and a designed system (F1 engine).
Now,...
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.
...this is where your emotional commitment gets you to saying things that are just silly. We have instrumentation that outperforms the human eye in every parameter. Please think about this a bit. That kind of apologetic was starting to look pretty threadbare by the middle of the last century. As for the Stevens quote, Cavediver has already pointed out the meaninglessness of such factoids. Computer factoids in particular are dangerously pointless, since Moore's Law pretty much guarantees that in a surprisingly short time you will end up explaining why the fact that a computer can perform a particular task way faster than a human isn't so important after all. Heed Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Sound words for those using the creationist argument from incredulity.
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...
The design of the eye has been criticized for much more than just the blind spot. What part of an optimized design would require me to wear filters over my eyes a good share of the year to avoid premature blindness from reflected sunlight? Seems like a designer would have built that in. After all, it's His sun. Seems like evolution wouldn't have since it has little if any effect on the ability of mammals to pass on their genes during their reproductive years. Parsimony suggests I am evolved.
Professor Dawkins should have consulted experts in the domain before sending it to print.
I suspect he did. What makes you think that your creationist quote mines are correct in their assessment of the situation? (or for that matter, even reflect the actual intent of their authors?)
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 5:42 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 4:11 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 30 of 480 (535820)
11-18-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
11-17-2009 4:32 PM


Re: Clutching at Straws
Slevesque
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.
Come on. You can't claim that providing an explanation for something (provided it is entirely logical and reasoned) is "feeding on the gaps". It is good not to be complacent and to examine other possible explanations for vestigial or "badly designed" organs, but Evolution provides a perfectly logical and complete explanation - by far the best explanation - and so you need to come up with an even better explanation as an alternative. Those who attribute vestigial organs to being a consequence of Evolution are not being lazy. The fact that it is very easy to explain this problem by the Theory of Evolution does not make that a poor explanation. It makes it a very good one! When you have a clear, simple, easy answer, one that fits in perfectly with the whole of the Theory of Evolution, why do you have to look for an alternative or more complex one?
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.
I accept that it may not be a true vestigial organ (I.E. it is not completely redundant), as it clearly still has a function. But, again, Evolution provides a complete explanation for the circuitous routing. Evolution does not "feed on the gaps" in the way that Creationism feeds on "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution provides a completely logical explanation for vestigial, inefficient or vulnerable organs. (I thnk "inefficient" and "vulnerable" are better terms than "badly designed" and get away from the dysteological argument).
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.
I’m not a biologist (no shit!) but I understand that organisms are very complex and that no individual or species is likely to survive if it is dragging along completely useless organs. So it is extremely unlikely that you will find many, if indeed any, completely useless organs. Just to consider the evolution of the whale. It starts as a four-legged species that lives partly on land and partly in the water. As it evolves to live more and more in the water, it’s limbs will gradually change to become more adapted for use in the water and less well adapted for use on land. The function of the limbs changes, but there is always likely to be a function as long as the limbs are there. If you’ve got something, it’s more of an advantage for it to have a minor function than no function at all! Whales now have very short vestigial rear limbs tucked into the lines of the body. I would be willing to guess that even though there may be no obvious purpose to this limb, as it is it must form an integral part of the whales’ skeletal structure and its buoyancy/balance in the water. I.E. the rest of the body must have adapted gradually to compensate for this remaining limb as it became smaller and smaller, so that it was always incorporated into the whole, otherwise it would be like dragging an anchor. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be to the whales’ advantage finally to rid themselves of this remaining stump, but ONLY if this happens gradually and the rest of the body adapts as necessary to compensate for this.
So, back to the RLN, it is possible that while it is routed as it is, the body may have adapted to take advantage of that routing. And it is worthwhile investigating to see if this is the case. (Although, I don’t think you’ve provide any proper examples with evidence that it has, only some vague suggestions!) But that wouldn’t change the fact that it is routed that way primarily as a consequence of evolution and that it is likely it would have been more advantageous if it had been possible to have a shorter route between the brain and the larynx.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 4:32 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 4:23 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024