So it seems that it does in fact have a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles, mucuous membranes and the esophagus.
No it doesn't. The Vagus nerve, of which the Laryngeal nerve is a part does. The Laryngeal nerve, as the name suggests, only goes to the larynx, it doesn't connect to anything else.
Can a discussion be continued based on this new information ?
It isn't exactly new, we know what the different nerve endings of the Vagus nerve connect to, and it does nothing to the argument that the Laryngeal nerve doesn't have to take that route from a design standpoint.
Watch this video of the dissection of a giraffe again, the nerve that goes down is the Vagus nerve (listen to the woman doing the dissecting, she esplains this), which "splits" at the bottom and the Laryngeal nerve is the nerve that runs right back up again. Why would it do this? It could just "split" right at the top, have the rest of the Vagus nerve go down, and have the Laryngeal nerve connect to the larynx. At least, from a design point.
While the page deals with the vagus nerve generally, it also discusses its various branches of communication severally. And slevesque's quote is specifically about the recurrent branch of the vagus nerve, it says that right there in the quote.
Yes, but isn't this supposed to be about the Laryngeal nerve? that doesn't have to be recurrent, does it? Like I said, it could "split" from the rest of the Vagus nerves at the top, and let the rest continue downward.
Or am I missing something here?
Get your sackcloth and ashes.
Gladly, I just don't seem to see where I went wrong.
The laryngeal nerve is the name for a bundle of nerve fibers, some of which terminate at the larynx and some of which don't get that far. It doesn't just designate the ones that terminate at the larynx.
You're using "laryngeal nerve" to mean the nerve fibers which do terminate at the larynx, but that's not what it means in medical terminology --- it includes those that are part of that whole bundle of nerves but which (for example) terminate at the cardiac plexus. Which slevesque's quote and link should have made clear. That was your mistake.
Aha.
Slevesque's mistake is to treat the existence of this bundle of nerves (the recurrent laryngeal nerve) as though its existence was somehow inevitable, rather than just being a term we've adopted to describe the facts as we've found them. Under that assumption there is a good reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve should go round by the heart --- it needs to connect with the cardiac plexus. But then of course the specific nerve fibers which connect to the larynx don't need to be part of the recurrent pharyngeal nerve.
Does that straighten things out? (So to speak.)
It does, and I see where I went wrong. So, for that, I appologize. I do think however that the main point remains. The nerves that connect to the larynx do not need to go all the way down the neck.
You might be aware of it, but you don't know anything about it.
The problem is I haven't seen any books that explain the details of where the RLN came from and the probable path of how it randomly and miraculously ended up providing such a clear and obvious purpose.
And you won't find any. The main reason for that being that evolution is not a random process.
Obviously, none of you have a clue either according to your empty posts.
How would evolution know the organism would die if that nerve broke? Are you telling me evolution has reasoning ability?
Of course not. But if a random mutation would cause that to happen, leading to the death of the organism, the organism can't reproduce, and thus the mutation isn't propagated.
Re: Moderator Comment: You can't get blood from a stone.
ICDESIGN writes:
There you have it folks. My questions regarding how mindless evolution is making decisions and providing purpose when it does not have that capability is not worth responding to.
That's not what Percy said. He said it to you will likely do little good. I can only imagine this is becaue so far you've shown your understanding of evolution to be terribly lacking.
I do agree I will never get any blood out of this stone so I am austa-la-bye-bye
Re: Moderator Comment: You can't get blood from a stone.
ICDESIGN writes:
Actually, I think he stepped in because my line of questioning was leading to your (Darwinists) house of cards being in jeopardy of crashing down.
Oh please, you didn't even ask the right questions, as Dr. Adequate amply demonstrated. If we asked you the question he asked you, would you also not think that explaining to us what you really think is futile? I eman, he gets every fundamental thing wrong, just like you did in your questions.
I think I have a fairly sound grasp on what the theory of evolution is claiming.
The things you post here make on esuspect otherwise.
I was simply asking where the RLN originated from and how it came to serve such obvious purpose.
That answer has been given, I suggest you read the posts again.
I was also asking how evolution could know the nerve was in jeopardy of breaking.
It doesn't "know"anything. The simlpe truth of the matter is, that if it breaks, and the organism dies, and if the braking was due to a mutation, then that mutation will not be passed along, meaning that the risk of"the nerve breaking is reduced.
I think the responses show it is actually you yourselves that don't understand your own theory.
Of course, the people here who actually study evolution and biology don't know what it says, while you, who haven't studied anything about it, know everything there is to know about it.
With all do respect to your working knowledge of RM/NS I am still stuck on this statement Sir. What exactly is it that would "know" the organism would die and not reproduce?
Well, I'm just a laymen with some knowledge, that's all.
I see two others have already answered your question, but I will put it in my own words.
Nothing "knows" the organism will die, it simply dies. When an organism dies before it can reproduce, the mutation that led to that death will of course be lost, since it couldn't pass it along to its offspring. As you can see, there is no knowledge involved here, simple logic dictates this.
Is this not foreknowledge? Is this not thinking and reasoning?
No, if you die before you can reproduce, which is due to your body being weak/inadequate/whatever other reason, you can't pass along your genes, and thus the mutation that led to your dying "prematurely" will be lost, it's as simple as that.
Hey. thank you guys for the courteous replies. Believe it or not (probably not ) I do understand the basic principals you guys are sharing with me. I would like to talk about how natural selection is actually super natural in the future some time but for now...
Sure, start a topic when ready.
it seems to be clear to everyone but me so I guess I must be a dumb ass. To me if the organism isn't propagating because it would die if it did, then it would have to know it was going to die and make a choice based on that knowledge.
But that's not what happens, nor what we said. The organism dies before it can reproduce, not becuause it reproduces. It doesn't "know" it will die by propagating, it dies before it is physically possible for it to do so (for example, it is still an infant). It would be like when a human is born with a serious birthdefect, this human than lives till the age of 4, then it dies. As you can see, 4 years of age is not enough to be physically able to reproduce, and so, the mutation that caused his birthdefects will not be passed on to its offspring, because it never made any. This is what we're trying to explain to you. If a mutation cause the RLN to "break" anytime before the organism is an adult (and be able to reproduce), leading to the death of the organism, then that mutaion will die off with that organism, because it never gets passed along.
"Would" die is a future event.
Yes, and if it dies before it is capable of reproducing (which is what we're going with in this scenario), then of course all of its bad mutations are lost.
OK, That's not what I was getting out of what you said before. I understand your point of view when you word it this way. I must have been reading it with misguided emphasis on my part or something like that. Sorry about that.
No problem mate, glad you got it now.
I still have questions concerning that whole nerve stretching process from the TOE point of view but I will have to address them at a later date.
Sure, whenever you're ready, though I think Percy already went ahead and explained it a bit.
Thanks for your coolness and God's best laid plans to you,
You're welcome, as long as we all keep our cool, discussion will be quite pleasant I think.
™ Version 4.2
