Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

quote:

---

Because there's no advantage to survivability if it does.

---

But that's not true, and in fact it is in opposition to the claims in the beginning of this thread: that the indirect route gave more risks of injuries, and I could also add that it also takes more ressources to make/maintain. (and a different in response time, but the difference is probably nearly-invisible to selection)

quote:

---

For evolution, it is completely irrelevant that it takes the long route, it has no impact on survival. However as an engineer, it's completely stupid to make it take that route.

---

Supposing it were true that their would be absolutely no advantage to take one route over another, then an ingeneer would be free to choose whichever one he wants.

quote:

---

No, since the people that have it go directly there are functioning completely fine in every aspect. Until you show it has a different function, than " what ifs" are not going to get you anywhere.

---

We both know it's not as simple as that in biological systems. We have layers upon layers of secondary and back-up systems that make such simple logic difficult to apply.

quote:

---

Because there is nothing about the route which adds to function in the same way that routing more electrical cord does not add function to the tv.

---

You just restated it doesn't need to, not how you know it doesn't need to.But using your analogy, how do you know the extra cord length isn't pulling a lever somewhere in the indirect portion of the route ?

Injuries during surgery, yes, in the natural world there will be precious little that can injure the RLN and not cause some major problems other than the RLN being damaged. And an intelligent engineer would choose the direct route. Again, until you can show that there is a function that is filled by this indirect route, all you have is "what ifs", not very convincing.

quote:

---

Don't you find it unfair that the ID crowd is allowed to point to "brilliant designs" and yet critics are not allowed to criticize any designs? Should we start calling biological designs "double plus good"?

---

Laws of logic don't care what's fair or unfair. (and I didn't get the double plus good part)

quote:

---

What we are asking is why didn't the designer use the direct route, assuming that the route was available to the designer? For evolution, they are equal at the phenotype level so one is not selected over the other.

---

If one route does exactly the same thing as the other route, without any negatives so that none is selected over the other, then who cares what the engineer did as both options were available to him and both equally valid in every aspect.

But that's just it, from an engineering point of view, it doesn't make sense. It's completely stupid to do it like that.Look at the giraffe clip a few posts back. If an engineer would come up with a design like that in his education, he'd be flunked immediately.

quote:

---

Injuries during surgery, yes, in the natural world there will be precious little that can injure the RLN and not cause some major problems other than the RLN being damaged.

---

More cord means more maintenance, and more length in which malfunctions can occur. More oxygen needed for more cells, more blood vessels to follow the length.

quote:

---

And an intelligent engineer would choose the direct route.

---

If both options are just equally as good, an intelligent designer would choose the direct route, and an equally intelligent designer would choose the other without any difference in the end result.

quote:

---

Again, until you can show that there is a function that is filled by this indirect route, all you have is "what ifs", not very convincing.

---

You are mistaken in thinking I am trying to make a convincing teleological argument out of all this. I am not because as of 2010, no clearly defined other functions have been identified.I am simply showing that this dysteological argument is unconvincing, both in a general case (argument from ignorance) and in this specific case (if truly no advantageous function exists, natural selection should favor the direct route)

quote:

---

But that's just it, from an engineering point of view, it doesn't make sense. It's completely stupid to do it like that.

​

Look at the giraffe clip a few posts back. If an engineer would come up with a design like that in his education, he'd be flunked immediately.

---

He'd be flunked because his teacher would identify inconvenients in his chosen route over a more direct route. However, if his teacher could not identify any advantages into taking any other route, as you are advocating, then 'flunking' (verb?) him would be unjustifiable.

That was kinda my point, and further that if you don't want to bother discussing it, then why even post?It'd be better to just have a new thread discussing the problems with dysteleological arguments....

I usually try when entering a subject to start off in the general, ''in theory'' aspect of things and apply it to the specific case that is being discussed. But obviously, it can sometimes take some time before we can get past the general part.And in the subset case where the general underlying logic is flawed, in a way that the specific argument looses it's ''convincing punch'' (a fallacy shouldn't be convincing), then yeah I tend to just discuss the general aspect and not much the particular aspects. As is the case with this thread, and was the case with your previous thread you linked.AbE But your rant is being taken in considerationEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Ok, I get it.Like I said: I don't like it It seems like you're avoiding the issue.But carry on. Its no big deal and certainly not a "problem" or anything... take this as constructive criticism

That doesn't stop it from being a bad design. There is no functional difference between running 100 feet of electrical cord around the living room to plug the TV in, but it is certainly a bad design. There is a reason that Rube Goldberg cartoons were found in the funnies and not in engineering textbooks.

A never connection is a nerve connection. With myelinated nerves there is very little difference in response time, especially for something which is not vital to fight or flight responses. Because we can look for the lever, and there is none. On the flip side, how do you know that there is one?

Since when have you been using logic? Your entire argument is an appeal to emotion and illogic. It is a reference to the book "1984" where people are not allowed to criticize the government (aka "Big Brother"). No matter what the government did it was assumed that it was in the best interest of the citizen so they were not allowed to criticize. In this thread you have taken the same stance. No matter how kludgey or backwards a design is it is assumed that it is so for an important funcational reason, even if no such evidence exists. Even more, no one is allowed to criticize these designs.

No, he would be flunked.Or perhaps you can tell us what grade you would give an engineering student if they turned in this design for an automatic backscratcher:

It was easier for evolution to lengthen the RLN with every step, then it was to completely rewire it. Since evolution is not an engineer, it can't see where the nerve should go, so rewiring it is not an option. No he wouldn't. You go tell your electrician if he comes to rewire your house that you want him to run the cables though the house four times before reaching the end poiint some 5 feet away from the start point. See how he lloks at you then. Exactly. So why bring up those "what ifs"? Only because you apparently can't let go of god as a designer just yet.