Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

I predict that the indirect route of the RLN will be found to have a function and therefore be advantageous compared to the direct route.

slevesque writes: ​ And I could ask him back, that if he finds the evidence for Design unpersuasive, how is it that he is persuaded by a hypothesis that has even less evidence?

This sounds a lot like knee jerk, "Oh yeah, well so are you," rather than something that you really believe. But if you do really believe what you just said then the difference of opinion is at the very fundamental level of how one assesses evidence. Design fails the evidence test at the very first level of consideration because it postulates a never-before observed process by a never-before observed entity. Evolution postulates observed and well studied processes still occurring before our very eyes in the here and now and which is completely consistent with life just going about its business of living and reproducing one generation after another.The value of your ideas isn't how strongly you're convinced by them, but rather by the power of your evidence to persuade others. Consensus develops in science when a phenomenon has been observed and studied to the point where its implications are apparent to a preponderance of scientists. You yourself may be personally convinced by secondary levels of what you consider evidence for design in vestigial organs and junk DNA, but it not only isn't persuasive to those who give precedence to real-world data, it doesn't even look like evidence to them.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

In other words you have none. Just as I thought. That is what we call talking out of your ass.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And how does that distinguish your theory from the ToE prediction regarding this same phenomenon?What we are looking for is predictive means of distinguishing the competing validity of two theories - Yes?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

slevesque writes: ​ I predict that the indirect route of the RLN will be found to have a function and therefore be advantageous compared to the direct route.

Yeah, well, this is the route chosen by a lot of IDists. First argue that the evidence supports design, then when that position becomes untenable argue that evidence will eventually be uncovered that supports design.If design were a real theory then, just like evolution, you would be able to construct scenarios based on evidence for what really happened in the past. If IDists were conducting real science then they would be seeking to create a theory founded upon evidence that can produce predictions and be used to interpret the evidence to reconstruct the history of life. Instead they focus on a public relations program intended to convince a public that lacks scientific knowledge and judgement.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Exactly.A scientific prediction should lead to the discovery of new evidence relevant to understanding the question at hand.

Do you predict that a function will eventually be found for the human vomeronasal organ? Or for the accessory olfactory bulb of the brain, one of which was hooked up to your VNO before you were born, but was resorbed by the time of your birth?No, holding a toothpick in your nostril does not count as a useful function for a vomeronasal organ.....

This is halfway true. ID is like seeing feet tracks in the sand, and postulating that a human being did it. Yes it is a never-before observed entity, but not a never-before observed process. we have seen other humans with the same characteristic (the form of their feet) do the same thing (the tracks in the sand). So even if we never actually saw what did the tracks, we can conclude at least one aspect of it's person: it has human-like feet.In the same way is Intelligent Design. They observe coded information in nature, and because they have already seen numerous times coded information being created, and everytime by an intelligent person, they conclude that an intelligent person did this. So even if we never actually saw who did the code, we can conclude one aspect of it's person: it is intelligent.And I will already answer one objection: ''Yes but by your reasoning, you should also conclude another aspect of it's person: it is human, since the all previous times you saw coded information being created, intelligence wasn't the only common characteristics: they were also all human''.The answer is that this is true, but the source of the capacity to create coded information is identified as their intelligence, not their humaneness. In fact, applying this objection to the analogy above shows how it is fallacious (the objection): Every time I saw feet tracks in the sand being formed, the person not only had human feet, but it also had human hands. Should I therefore conclude that the person who made the present feet tracks (the ones I haven't seen formed) also had human hands ? Of course not, because the source of the form of the tracks does not come from the hands, but from the feet.Therefore, because the source of coded information is intelligence, and not some other characteristics human happen to share in common, the only thing we can conclude about the originator of the coded information in nature is that he/it is intelligent. Nothing more.So in resume. Half true: never-before seen entity:yes. Never before seen process: no.

Biology is not my forte, especially with english terms. and with abreviations.Are these systems considered vestigial without function ?

Given your recent statements, ID is closer to not seeing tracks in the sand but claiming that they really are there even if you can't see them at the moment. So we have observed an intelligence making the DNA found in all life? That is a new one. At best, the source of DNA is unknown. Until you present evidence otherwise you have no foundation to claim how it came about. You have assumed your conclusion.

But that's sort of the nature of a prediction, isn't it ? Darwin first argued the evidence that supported his theory of evolution and common ancestry. But when his theory became 'untenable' (not the right word here, but I used your terminology) in the light of the fossil evidence of the time, he predicted that further evidence will eventually be uncovered that supports common ancestry.Not much of a difference. My prediction isn't particularly different (we'll have to remember this thread to bump it when the time comes)

The analogy would need to be extended in order to include examples (such as the RLN) where ID predicts the discovery of further evidence.This is because I made this analogy strictly for the example of coded information. Because I tried to make it as simple as possible. No we have observed coded information being created only by intelligent persons. And we have observed coded information in nature. Be more specific please.

Has ID ever made a prediction that has been verified?

And if I was a biologist, I would right away start a research project to find a new function to the RLN in regard to the route it takes. My prediction would have led to this. And this new evidence would be relevant to understanding why the RLN still take that route, even when evolution could have made it change. (remember: evolution is cleverer than you!)My prediction is legitimate

I haven't been following the ID movement enough to answer that.But as I am showing, ID is, in theory, capable of being the source of a prediction.