Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

You were doing a fine job of being wrong all by yourself, but we do what we can

You are leaving me confused.You believe that the Perfect Designer has produced perfect designs in the lifeforms on this planet.Your response regarding the comments about the apparent bad design of the RLN, indicates that you believe it to be another indicator of the unimaginable intelligence of the Designer.You, obviously, believe what you are writing.What information do you have that leads you to the belief that the circuitous routing of the RLN is a good design?So far, all the quotes you have provided (mostly without citation...ie...plagiarism) do not support your contention. The fact that you used them in support of your position indicates that you really don't understand the information within those quotes.It looks like you are grasping at straws to support your belief rather than using evidence to define that belief.I could be wrong. However, your failure to provide some supporting evidence makes everyone else seem more right.Why walk away if you believe that the evidence is on your side?

On this seperate issue, I should point out that only the individual whose work has been allegedly copied has the right to a legal challenge on the issue of plagiarism. You cannot assume the character of this individual nor can you assume where their best interests lie. Can you be sure that the person doesn't approve of their quotes being used and hasn't already granted permission or waived their rights on any articles to an employer?I should further point out that you clearly misunderstand what plagiarism is as it involves using someone else's words or ideas and passing them off as your own. If you indicate something is a quote from elsewhere but don't provide the source this is not plagiarism. This infact can be legally done to protect sources.

I'm with Al on this one, at least in terms of it not being plagiarism. He's been pretty clear all along that he is referring to other peoples work, just frustratingly shoddy in actually making it easy to find what particular papers he is referring to, and unbelievably bad at actually interpreting the papers to find any that support any of his actual claims.As to any sort of legal challenge, I'm not sure why that is a relevant issue. When schools and universities dicipline or expel students for plagiarism it is not due to legal issues but due to an ethical breach. It is certainly not the case that these institutes need the author of the original material to be involved in any way.TTFN,WK

We shouldn't have to. You made no contribution, apart from "quoting" articles that don;t support your claims in the slightest. Got any real evidence, or would you care to retract?

This isn't a legal challenge, is it. You're the one who stated in Message 191 As an excuse for your not supporting your own contention. Then you supplied quotes without citation. I was merely pointing out, in that little aside, that you were contradicting your own claim. Color me unsurprised.Way to latch onto something that will draw attention away from the fact that you don't address the real issue. Of course the issue being avoided is that your quotes do not support your claims. I'm not the first to point this out.Can you direct us to any research which supports your contention that the routing of the RLN is required for the tonal quality of human speech? So far, your meager display of source material has only shown that you don't read so very good.

So you agree then that the tightening of the vocal cords cannot be achieved as efficiently when the laryngeal nerves have been damaged!You are therefore suggesting that the normal laryngeal nerve is constantly sending signals to tighten the muscles? This means that the nerve and muscles would be in a constant state of overwork which would be grossly inefficient. If tension in the nerve and muscles was inbuilt then the nerve and muscles could remain relaxed and ready for vocalization at a moments notice.

Uhm... yes? No I'm not. Where did I say this? This does not happen constantly, just when needed. No, since it's not happening constantly. This is self contradictory. Either nerves and muscles are tense (what is a "tense nerve"anyway?), or they are relaxed, they can't be both at the same time.

This is true. No one has disputed this. In fact, this can be brought up as a refutation of your claims. The longer a nerve is, the easier it is to damage. The easier it is to damage, the more likely it is to impact the sending of signals. I guess the long nerve is a bad idea. Ok, serious question here: is English not your first language? The paragraph above doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Either you don't speak English very well, or you are woefully uninformed on the workings of muscles and nerves. Or both.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

He would be right to suggest this, almost all nerve/muscle systems work like this, it is called 'muscle tone'.The signals might only be to a subset of the fibres within the whole muscle but such signals are a fact of the neuromuscular system. Why overwork? The signals don't have to be at their full capacity, muscle tone is due to unconscious low level stimulation to keep the muscles in a state of readiness for contraction. So I guess you are offering this to us as a further example of unintelligent design since God made the neuromuscular system grossly inefficient, right?TTFN,WK

Is this some sort of bullying tactic?

The first point is whether you believe the vocal cords and related muscles are in a tightened or tense state by default or in a relaxed state by default. Huntard believes that they are in a relaxed state by default which contradicts all the evidence I have seen. I believe we have already covered this point.

I never said that. You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills. When you said: "You are therefore suggesting that the normal laryngeal nerve is constantly sending signals to tighten the muscles?" I said that:A) I never said such a thing.
B) Assumed you meant the entire muscle and nerve all the time.If my assumption of B) was wrong, I appologize for that.Regardless, Wounded King is right in what he is saying. -----So, where does that leave us?Well, still at the same point we were at at the beginning. You claimed the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve was crucial for our ability to speak and swallow. You have not given us a shred of a scintilla of a scrap of evidence for this claim. So, care to retract it, or finally provide some evidence?

Well, I don't know about you....but I am off bingeing before the world cup starts.

Really? Because you are the one who brought up the vocal cords being open as their normal state, and that is generally considered to be their relaxed position. Of course it is really more complex than this since both opening and closing of the cords are controlled by opposing sets of muscles both of which are innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerves.As I mentioned before even a 'relaxed' muscle is undergoing continuous low level stimulation to maintain tone.If Huntard were to say that the vocal cords normal open position were the relaxed state then that would be a perfectly acceptable statement supported by the biology.You really are giving the impression here that you don't really understand the first thing about how muscles work generally or the laryngeal muscles specifially.TTFN,WK