Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

Actually, it's because your total failure to understand the theory of evolution is incorrect.Honestly, you guys make me laugh. You spend half your time pretending that evolution is all about "random chance" and couldn't have produced any adaptation whatsoever, and the other half of your time pretending that evolution should have produced absolutely perfect adaptation and that the theory of evolution must be wrong because not everything is perfect. Then your lack of a point of view could have been better communicated by silence than by hundreds of words of what appears to be total gibberish.Please find out what the theory of evolution is, learn a little basic anatomy, maybe find out what the scientific method is --- oh, and learn how to use the forum's quote function. Then maybe you will have a point of view, and be able to express it.

What does that have to do with the nerve looping around the aorta?How does an animal listening for subtle sounds relate at all to the path of the nerve between sound generating tissues and the brain?And what does any of this have to do with your alleged experience with someone's computer?Capt.

I will answer your questions assuming you are not one of those who don't want to hear an explanation for the pathway of the RLN unlike many of those on this forum. They just want their Darwinism and that is it. Most of them don't want to know or begin to understand God or any other supernatural designer. They are not interested in understanding intelligent design. It becomes obvious after a while.Honestly, ((I don't know)) and as far as I know, it might be a bad design. Darwinists on this forum would rather die than admit organisms could have been designed. I am looking for some explanations. Feelings and emotions probably emante from the heart. This is based on the work of Dr. Alex Lloyd. If feeling emanate from the heart then, those frequencies are communicated through the voice. There is a program that apparently translates the sounds, or frequencies of your voice. I am not sure how it does this. I come across two companies that use this technology. I'm not sure if they would appreciate me posting links to them.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Of course we understand it. I'll wager I know more about cdesign proponentism that you do. That's why I know it's dishonest crap and you don't. I think you'll find that pretty much all of us would tell a harmless lie than suffer death. You see, we're not in the least like all those religious fanatics who'd rather be burned alive by other religious fanatics than agree that one incomprehensible dogma about the Trinity was better than the other.Science won't punish me in the afterlife if I'm wrong about it, and if a bunch of fundies threatened to kill me unless I recanted my evolutionism, I'd recant away. Eppur si muove. Fortunately, it hasn't come to that. Oh good grief.Do people's feelings and emotions change if they have a heart transplant?How about if they suffer damage to the areas of their brains that are responsible for their feelings and emotions?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And pigs probably fly, we just haven't seen any do as such yet. huzzah for scientific probably's and if's.

Hi Dr.A. No of course not. I think we can all agree that you don't have to be a creationist to realize that the appendix (for example) was said to have no function for over 50 years. And of course, multiple functions have been found for it in recent years.No need for a creationist to tell me this, I consider it pretty much common knowledge.

The citation was taken from wikipedia. And I think that the zoologist in question was on the creationist side. I've discussed this issue of vestigial organ, it's meaning and it's origin with GM in the early pages of the text. Rediscussing it with you would probably bring up the same things, so I suggest you just look back at how it unfolded back then.To make it brief, the conclusion was that the layman interpretation of vestigial organs was 'functionless', whereas in the scientific circles it was possible that a vestigial organ had a secondary function.The question then is why did the population get the functionless impression of the word ? A historical research would probably be required to know this, but if I could think it possible that it is because this is how it was presented to them. When the 'vestigial organ' list of Widersheim was presented to layman's as proof of evolution, maybe was it presented as a list of the functionless organs we had because of evolution.Dunno, as I said, searching for the origin of the word and why the population got a wrong impression of it is a research study on it's own.

I consider design arguments as a form of teleological argument. Since the intelligent design movement doesn't identify the Designer, it means they only advocate the 'design -) designer' relationship.I mean, the RLN could well be a bad design, but it would only imply a none perfect designer.This is why I say the dysteological argument is theological, because it must assume something about the designer, and then refute his existence on that point. Which is, in fact, that he is perfect. This is why it will bring up theological changes (if the argument is accurate): Is God perfect ? What is the sense of the word perfect, in relevance to God ? etc.

From memory, it is in the section where he talks about rudimentary organs.He is saying that one such organ will have maintained a function if it had at the beginning two functions, and that, after having lost it's primary function, it will still be used for it's secondary one. Something around those lines.This is after having talked about rudimentary organs in a general sense, where it has a function and then loses it, and takes some time to have it discarded by NS. The two-function vestigial organ is just a sub-concept of this more general one.This is all by memory, I'll go back and read it since my memory may be faulty here. I'll edit this post if necessary.

Why isn't it obvious that the RLN is the way it is because that's how it evolved?There's a great explanation for it in Message 37, thanks to Granny.Isn't that much more plausible than "It really was designed but we just haven't found out the reason yet"?Esspecially with the Giraffes... I mean, that does make the design pretty terrible. And that their RLN does the same thing as everyone elses really strongly suggests that we're related, dontcha think? To reuse such a poor plan in such a large neck really makes the designer look umm, not intelligent.

---

ABE:in Message 113 you wrote: Why can't you see that it really implies that it wasn't designed at all? And further, that it did, in fact, evolve?Not every single thing has to have been specifically designed? Why couldn't the designer allow some things to evolve?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Slevesque, you neglect the wealth of information that ties the RLN back to it's fishy origins. There is no mystery to solve. The RLN is the way it is because of how mammals got to be here the way they are.The facts of paleontology, genetics and development all easily explain the RLN's route. That has been pointed out in this thread repeatedly. There is no need to any additional unsupported conjectures. The path leading the giraffe's detour is darned clear.Those who suggest this is an example of poor design only do so on the goading of those who try to use any kind of teleological argument of any kind.

The RLN is not bad or poor design - it is (as the thread title suggests) blatent unintelligent design. Even a poor designer wouldn't design that route for the RLN unless it were blind drunk at the time. There is no need to argue dysteologically when the reason for the route of the RLN is so obvious from the evolutionary standpoint.

I am referring to the Dysteological side of the argument. Sure, I understand that the RLN route is 'explained' by evolution, but this applies to any organ-body part. My finger nails are explained by evolution, but it is not used as evidence against a designer.This is the difference with this specific example. It is seen as bad design and so used as an argument against a designer. This is the dysteological aspect of the question, and this is what I am adressing, and also the one that was put forward in the opening post.(Because, notice that the evolutionary aspect of it would also be a whole other subject of debate)

Because, as I've said, I didn't debate the 'evolutionnary explains it' aspect of the issue, only the dysteological aspect.On the evolutionnary aspect, I would start by asking if nerves are identified in the fossils of our fishy ancestors, and start from there I suppose. BUt I don't have time since I gotta concentrate on the Great Debate I'm into. In a nutshell, because evolutionnary theory does not rely only on this piece of evidence. I find that it fails on other levels as well. And so, in the overall picture, I find that it inadequate and a designer, much more fitting.

Forget the overall picture for a second and consider just this piece of evidence. The evolutionary explanation is much better than any explanation where this POS was intelligently designed, don't you think?Now, back to your overall picture... It seems you've got a false dichotomy behind you. Why couldn't something be designed to evolve? Its not necessarily an either/or proposition.Also, when you have an overall picture (where evolutionary theory is inadequate and design is more fitting) and you zoom in all the way down to the gnat's ass, (or the RLN in this case), and you find that evolutionary theory IS more adequate and fitting than design, isn't that an indication that maybe your overall picture is skewed?Honestly, from the view from my car, it really does look like the water was designed to fit within the pothole