Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

Non-recurrent laryngeal nerves are a rare but consistent anatomical anomaly, there is no evidence that being non-recurrent causes any functional changes in talking, swallowing or vocal range. This is supported by the fact that the non-recurrent nature of the nerve is rarely appreciated prior to being exposed during surgery.Do you have even a single scintilla of evidence to support any of your claims for how the long path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is in fact necesary for it to function?TTFN,WK

No, your refusal to debate in good faith (y'know, like an adult) discredits you quite enough. But you haven't provided anything worth arguing against. In fact, all you've provided is your own opinion, devoid of any backing.What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Like any effort at all. That would have been nice. No. Don't you get it? You are the one who is making your position look foolish. You discredit your own argument by refusing to back it up. Unless you actually want to continue making creationism look foolish, you should probably either provide some evidence for your position or just cut your losses. Asking you for evidence makes you less likely to provide evidence? Boy, living with you must be a bundle of laughs. "Could you pass the salt please Big Al?" "NO! How dare you ask me to pass the salt? Just for that, I shan't pass you any!". Yeah. I think we'll all be able to live with that.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I could quite easily provide some points of reference. Infact just 5-10 minutes on google can provide a whole bunch of links which correlate with my view on the matter. I shall'nt provide you with a link but I can give you a clue -bioinfo-. Google it yourself...lets see you do some work for a change.

But you won't. Oh, sorry, you shall'nt (sic). Yes, because it's everyone else's job to back up your argument.Bullshit. You must make your case. Until such time as you do that, there is nothing to Google. You haven't even explained what you think the elongation of the RLN actually does. You have no argument to refute. You're an arrogant little sod aren't you. Have you even read this thread? I have provided evidence that the RLN's circuitous route has no function. Now it's your turn and all you appear able to do is behave like a petulant child. Disappointing Big guy. Very disappointing.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

From Message 178: Oh, okay. I'll bite.In Message 162 you claim: No, you're wrong. If the nerves were rearranged and connected directly, then it would be easier for us to speak and swallow. The way they have been currently designed makes it harder for us. Therefore the great designer has shown us that he made a mistake in this design.

Lets not get carried away here with anomalys and exceptions. The prevalence of the right nerve being non recurrent is only 0.6% and the prevalence of the left being non recurrent is much much rarer. Practically unheard of infact. As mentioned previously there is a medical article under bioinfo that correlates with my view point. Please check it out.

A medical fact that I should point out from the very site that I mentioned previously, namely bioinfo, states the following "We have found that small, benign, or otherwise asymptomatic lesions of the thyroid gland have a greater tendency to cause vocal cord paralysis in patients with nonrecurrent laryngeal nerves". Hence they are clearly at a disadvantage.

Sure, but those cases where the nerve is non-recurrent, rare thought they may be, don't show any of the things you are claiming would be the result of the nerve losing its long looped pathway. So these exceptions clearly contradict your claims for the results of a direct innervation of the laryngeal muscle, trouble swallowing, problems with vocalisation and limits in tonal range. What does this mean? Are you talking about the BioInfoBank library? That hardly narrows things down since BioInfoBank has links to millions of medical articles through pubmed. So unless you stop beating around the bush and actually give some specific reference that actually supports your claims I don't think there is anything here to discuss. Would that I could!TTFN,WK

Are you sure you didn't just get that from my post on the matter, Message 168?Sadly, this still totally fails to support your claims. Unless that is, you think everyone has a benign thyroid tumour?It certainly doesn't support the claim that the length and stretched nature of the nerve pathway provides any functional difference to swallowing or vocalisation.*ABE* On further reflection one could of course argue that being able to detect thyroid growths at an earlier stage may actually be an advantage. */ABE*TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : It is good not to have tumours

Since there are so many people that have both nonrecurrent nerves and thyroid lesions, yeah, I'm sure it has altered the course of evolution......Where's your evidence for any of this, BigAl? That's not in the same bioinfo article that you won't link to, is it?

You can't expect me to just reiterate someone else's medical journal...that would be plagiarism!

No, but you could tell us in your own words what it says and link to the original. At least then you can show that you're not just asserting this for which there is no evidence.

Not if you give credit to the authors of the article and the journal. High school students do that all the time in research papers and never get gigged for plagiarism.I would really like to read this paper you have referenced. Could you provide a link to it?Edited by LinearAq, : Spelling error corrected

Wierd, cause the medical fact I've found from the site that I linked to before, namely nervenews, had this to say: "We have found that the loss of the recurrance of the laryngeal nerve leads to greater vocal ranges and a larger dilation of the esophogus." So clearly, it IS an advantage.

Actually, my sources are wide and varied. This refers to just one specific article which highlights only one of my points. There are probably far too many sources for me to possibly provide links to all of them.