Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

I haven't looked at the evolutionary explanation in details, as I've said, I would start off with asking if the nerves are even recognizable in a fossil ? (probably not) from that point on, see why then can we affirm how the nerves of our fishy ancestors were connected. (comparing with modern day fishes doesn't spell 'bullet proof' to me at least) Because I believe that the christian God exists, and that the Bible is his inspired word. See the good summary of this position in the great debate I'm into.I don,t think it is intelligent to marry my theology to the 'facts' of today, as I am sure to be widowed tomorow

This could be where you're going wrong. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that feelings emanate from the heart. If you are prepared to ignore a few hundred years of well documented work in a broad cross section of the medical sciences based on the word of Dr. Alex Loyd (note spelling), you might want to reconsider your choice.In the unlikely event that a naturopath/psychologist/internet quack ever does find the secret to curing all diseases, as he claims to have done, I would like to think this little tidbit of information would be presented to the world in a form other than an $800 set of DVD's. Like maybe a paper or two? If nothing else, the ethics of such a path would mark him as beneath contempt.While I would like to wish you luck in your continued search for explanations, I have to tell you, if you honestly cannot discriminate between the nature of information available from the academic world and that of "cure-all" hucksters, you will not get far.Capt.

---

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

Such as causing appendicitis.C'mon, by contrast with the homologous organs in herbivores, it's almost pointless.And it gets to be vestigial precisely because its purpose is a vestige of homologous organs in herbivores.

Don't be disingenuous. We both know that many go around with wide eyed wonder at the amazing "perfection" of the human body. This "perfect design" is used as "evidence" for the existence of a creator. That nonsense and illogic is where the disteleological argument originates. If no one tried to use the teleological argument then the opposite wouldn't be brought up.The RLN is used as an example because it fits so very well in with the rest of the evolutionary information and because it is not possible to make up an ID explanation for it unless one goes back centuries (no, millenia) to when the brain was a cooling organ and the heart was the source of emotion. When that is what an IDist is driven to it just emphasizes the unlikelihood of a teleological argument for the RLN being reasonable.

But that is exactly the opposite of what you claimed, i.e. that he said it had no purpose. You won't after I've posted an answer to it, because you are a gentleman.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As I've said in another reply, I no longer hold the position that Vestigial organs were by definition thought to be useless. This was the understanding that was transmitted, for whatever reason, to the population, but not exactly the one held by biologists.The fact that Darwin acknowledged the possibility of such a situation (rudimentary organ but with a function) doesn't mean, however, that he, and those who developped the idea afterwards such as Wiedersheim, expected the majority of rudimentary organs to be functionless. Which is plausible since it having a function would only happen if it had 2 functions, which is less frequent than a one function organ. (At least with the knowledge of the time)This would explain why the population got the (wrong) impression that vestigial organs were by definition functionless.Other than that I don't know how this wrong definition could have been given to the common layman.

Hoorah! I thought you were presenting him as an evolutionist. Why else did you bring him up?In any case, my point still stands. No scientists gave evidence in the Scopes trial. The judge ruled that the question of who was right and who was wrong about evolution would have no place in his courtroom, and that the only question in law was whether Scopes had broken the law against teaching evolution by teaching evolution. Which he admitted that he had. "The population"? No, I think you'll find that it's just you and your creationist chums.And why did you learn a false meaning of the word? Because creationist liars repeatedly told you that that's what it meant.If you ask 100 people what "vestigial" means in biology, then I guess 90 will have no idea, 5 will be familiar with biology, and 5 will have been indoctrinated by creationists to say something utterly untrue.But the people who have been fed lies don't get to outvote the people who know what biologists are actually talking about, nor would this be the case if the split was 6%:4% or 7%:3%. The idiots don't get to decide what the biologists mean. The biologists mean what they mean.

I almost have the impression you didn't read the beginning of this topic.I brought it up because Granny Magda had a hard time believing that there were up to 180 organs that were claimed as vestigial in the human body in the late 1800's- early 1900's. When I say ''the population'' I'm talking about the common meaning everybody has. At the very start of the topic, me and GM were discussing about what was the original meaning of 'vestigial organ' Did it mean functionless ? Did it permit it to have a function ? etc.I brought a pair of definitions from dictionnaries, and both of the definitions stated functionless. He then said that this is not what is found in professional dictionnaries. This is where we came to the conclusion that the common understanding of vestigial organs was different amongst non-specialists (such as those writing the dictionnaries) and the specialists.

I may have misunderstood the sense in when you were quoting him. It doesn't matter.The fact is that no-one, at all, whatsoever, who might have by a strange quirk of your own personal rules of nomenclature been called "Zoologist Newman", gave evidence in the Scopes trial. No scientist gave evidence in the Scopes trial. In which case you are utterly hopelessly wrong.Let me say again what I said before, in the hope that you'll understand it.If you ask most people for the meaning that "vestigial" has when talking about biology, then they'll either say "I don't know" or stare at you like you're crazy.If you ask someone who knows about the theory of evolution and what it means, they'll give you an accurate definition, such have as been used for "rudimentary" or "vestigial" features ever since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.And if you ask a creationist, they'll recite a dumb lie that has nothing to do with the definition used by biologists.Well, they can if they want. The fact is that Darwin never claimed that these features in general must have no function; and nor does any evolutionist that you're arguing with.You don't get to hijack scientists' meaning and scientists' words and make them mean something different from what scientists mean just because you don't like what we're saying and because it would be easier for you to argue wirh us if we were saying something else.If people could do that, then why couldn't I hijack the word "creationism" to mean "evolution" and then thank you for finally admitting that I'm right?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So obviously I'm not a professional of the scopes trial, and I merely took my information on wikipedia. On further research, this Newman seems to be Horatio Hackett Newman. If I understand what I am reading about it, it was in written testimony.(This books makes reference to him: The Scopes Trial: A Brief History with Documents - Jeffrey P. Moran - Google Livres)Up to date, I haven't seen anywhere what you are claiming right now. You are accusing me of hijacking words ?If so, I find it a bit disturbing considering what I said on the subject. If not, what was that last part about and for ?To prove that, at the very least, the definition of vestigial organ as I understood it is a bit widespread, I'll just bring up some dicitonnary definition I guess:

quote:

---

degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.

---

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionnary

quote:

---

Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor

---

The world book Encyclopedia

quote:

---

vestigial organ an undeveloped organ that, in the embryo or in some ancestor, was well developed and functional.

---

Vestigial organ | definition of vestigial organ by Medical dictionary

quote:

---

An organ that was once useful in an animal’s evolutionary past, but now has no apparent nor predictable function [based on the behavior of the species (or sex) in which they are found, or the anatomy of the particular feature]: e.g., male mammae, rudiments of pelvis and hind limbs in snakes, wings on many flightless birds.

---

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=ves...Of course, some sites do have a definition that acknowledges that some functions might remain. Wikipedia is an example. But the fact that I can find many places were the definition is not accurate on this subject, is a bit revealing of the global misunderstanding there seems to have in none-professional circles.you seem to be disagreeing on this based on your idea that if we asked people what it meaned, we would get the correcte definition by normal people who have some knowledge about it, be stared awckwardly by the others, and have a fake definition by creationists.I mean, you may think that, but I don't really considerer this as anything other than pure supposition, until you or me actually do it ...AbE. I just found a couple others:

quote:

---

structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use

---

Asimov, I., Words of Science, Signet Reference Books, New York, p. 30, 1959.

quote:

---

which has lost its function in the course of evolution, and is usually much reduced in size

---

Gamlin, L. and Vines, G., The Evolution of Life, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987.

quote:

---

An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms.

---

Tootill, E., The Facts on File Dictionary of Biology, Facts on File, New York, p. 318, 1988Once again I'll reiterate that I don't doubt the actual definition of the word. I have spent enough time on this side-subject, and I probably won't answer back as I seriously am a bit tired of the subject since I already fully discussed with GM and now you, twice in the same topic ...Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Because your creationist liemasters lied to you --- and you assume that you are "the common layman".But I too am "the common layman". I read up on what biologists actually say, and I also, as a matter of historical curiosity, read what Darwin actually wrote. I too was a layman --- my PhD is in math, not biology. I also was a "common layman". But I did learn what biologists meant when they used certain phrases, such as "vestigial", because I learned what biologists meant from biologists, who wanted me to understand biology, rather than from pathetic creationist creeps who wanted me to misunderstand biology.And does it not set off a few alarm-bells ringing in your head?Your creationist liemasters only want you to read what some biologist might tell you about evolution --- after they have lied to you about the meaning of the words employed by that biologist, so that they can be certain that even if you read what the biologist has to say you will be incapable of understanding him.Once they have lied to you about what biologists mean when they say "vestigial", they can allow you to read biology books where you will read about vestigial features. If they have made it a point of dogma that "vestigial" means something different from "vestigial", then the liemasters can rest assured that you won't understand biology.How nice for them. But you are being swindled.

You may well be correct. Newman's evidence was not presented to the jury, but it was taken notice of by the court in case Scopes wanted to appeal.If I recall correctly, Scopes was found guilty by law and then innocent on a technicality, so the question never arose. I'll set off fireworks.I should be interested, by the way, to know how you got such a large collection of erroneous statements so quickly. I'm going to guess that it was not from an evolutionist website.

Or ... I could have opened a dictionnary and read the wrong definition ...either one works I guess

the two firsts I had already mentioned in this thread. The two next came from the first page of google search of the words 'vestigial organ definition'The three last ones from a CMI article.Your welcomePS when you say evolutionist website, what do you mean ? Something like talkorigins ?

Not that I think you are interested in my perspective, but I should first correct myself. What he did basically say is many problems stem from issues with the heart. I never bought his videos. I have met him and I have seen him demonstrate his work on several strangers. What he has is somewhat similar to another alternative health method that I have used.I have been searching today on the subject of the RLN on the net. I have found more interesting stuff I could mine further. The moderators would rather me explain it in my own words so I will refrain from cutting a pasting it here. Ah what the hell, I don't care if they suspend me so here is a cut and paste: Neuroanatomists describe the innervation of the larynx as complicated and they are still trying to work out exactly what the specific targets are of the nerves.Here is something that is odd. With superior laryngeal nerve paralysis (this is the one that comes off and is not circuitous) people have difficulty increasing loudness and getting a high pitch. They also have vocal fatigue and an inability to sing. The vocal folds lack their normal tone and will not lengthen sufficiently. In contrast, paralysis of the recurrent nerve results in a weak voice that can sound like Mickey Mouse.As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.I have not found a so-called bad design after some research. The inverted retina is not a bad design nor is the appendix. I don't think there is any need for perfection just adequacy. How perfect does perfection have to be? And if and when perfection is acheived, could that something be even more perfect? Many health problems people have stem from abusing our lifestyle but that is another subject.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.