Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

No, it wouldn't. See Taq's example for something that would get an engineering student flunked. Do you think the argument "But it works!" will get him very far?

Out of curiosity:Why cant' you just admit that the path the RLN takes was probably not designed?Why must everything be designed? Can't there be some things that were not designed?

quote:

---

Since when have you been using logic? Your entire argument is an appeal to emotion and illogic.

---

I have no idea where this came from. Please identify the appeal to emotion ...AbE Saying a dysteleological argument is an argument from ignorance isn't an appeal to emotion, even though it may frustrate you Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

Totally false, see Wounded King message no168 (sorry don't know ow to link messages exactly).The direct route option is readily available, and in fact already in the population.

quote:

---

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.

---

He would tell me it is inefficient, because it uses a surplus of cord. But this position is exactly the opposite of when you said:

quote:

---

Because there's no advantage to survivability if it does. For evolution, it is completely irrelevant that it takes the long route, it has no impact on survival.

---

Yet if it is less efficient, as you are now claiming with your electrician example, then it does have a negative impact on survival (wasted ressources)

quote:

---

Exactly. So why bring up those "what ifs"?

---

Where did I bring a 'what if' ?

quote:

---

Only because you apparently can't let go of god as a designer just yet.

---

No, I actually believe aliens designed life on earth. Why do you always bring God in the picture ?

Exactly, he would be flunked. Because it would be less efficient. Because if you are right, and the indirect route has no secondary function, then it only has the negative side-effects: More ressources wasted, more maintenance, more blood vessels, more length on which it can have a failure and break.Look at your picture, these negative side-effects are all also there (except the blood vessels). These are why the Teacher wouldn't accept it. He would tell you it is less efficient then a more direct way to scratch your back.So in fact, you both made a whole 180* and are now saying that the indirect route is actually less efficient. And if this is so, and there are no secondary functions to counter-act, then natural selection would have selected against it and in favor of the direct route. Which comes back to the original question: Why hasn't it done so in the past millions of years ?

OFF TOPIC:Because I believe that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an inadequate mechanism to produce the biodiversity and complexity we study, and I favor the alternate explanation of an intelligent designer.

So, to the topic. this RLN.You come here with the a priori position that it could not have be a result of evolution... and you're offering ad hoc explanation why it could still have been designed.Don't you see the illogic in this?

So you find the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution inadequate, and rely instead on an explanation without any supporting evidence?No wonder they call it creation "science!"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Because "less efficient" can be "good enough" and sometimes thats all it takes to pass on a trait.

He says nothing of the sort. We're talking about the steps taken by evolution here. Also, seeing as it is in such a small part of the population, it points to it indeed being easier to legthen step by step.And evolution only cares if it is good enough. It is. For engineers, it is rather the opposite, it's completely stupid. When you were going on about an as of yet undiscovered function. Because I know you Slevesque. You're a YEC, or have you changed your position lately and do you now believe that aliens designed life here? If you do, then it baffles me as to how the aliens could develop technology to get here, but were such incompetent engineers as to place the RLN like they did.

So you find the moutains of evidence supporting an intelligent designer inadequate, and rely instead on an explanation without any supporting evidence?----See what I did there ? (This is all off-topic. So I won't responde any further)

First, everybody comes in a topic with what could be called a priori. So this is a none-issue.And I originally simply explained how this fits into my worldview.

passing on the trait isn't sufficient, natural selection should eventually fix the better option of the two in the population. Haldane had calculated this can take up to 300 generations or more.

Yes. You told an untruth (to put it euphemistically).

Making a few extra feet of nerve fiber for no other reason than to create a longer route is less effecient. Designer flunks. This assumes that evolving the direct route would not require a drop in fitness. If that assumption is wrong then so is your conclusion. Embryonic development is a very fickle beast. It would require numerous changes in embryonic development that would result in lowered fitness. A designer would not have these problems to deal with.