|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
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.
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) 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.
And an intelligent engineer would choose the direct route.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
quote: Laws of logic don't care what's fair or unfair. (and I didn't get the double plus good part)
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No offense taken, but I think if the reasoning used is flawed in general, why even bother to discuss a particular subset case ? 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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 consideration Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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 consideration
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You just restated it doesn't need to, not how you know it doesn't need to. 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.
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 ? Because we can look for the lever, and there is none. On the flip side, how do you know that there is one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Laws of logic don't care what's fair or unfair. Since when have you been using logic? Your entire argument is an appeal to emotion and illogic.
(and I didn't get the double plus good part) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Exactly. So why bring up those "what ifs"?
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)
Only because you apparently can't let go of god as a designer just yet.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024