Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve: Part II
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 75 (572626)
08-06-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
08-06-2010 3:41 PM


But there is no reason for the nerves fibers which communicate with the larynx to be so routed. You would further need a good reason why all the nerve fibers should be bundled together as the recurrent nerve.
If the shortest rail connection between Ottawa and Montreal was via Vancouver, one could hardly justify that design decision by pointing out that some people do in fact want to get off the train at Vancouver.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 08-06-2010 3:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 75 (572694)
08-07-2010 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Huntard
08-07-2010 3:16 AM


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.
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.
Get your sackcloth and ashes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2010 3:16 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2010 8:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 75 (572710)
08-07-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Huntard
08-07-2010 8:53 AM


Perhaps we're at cross-purposes here.
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.
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2010 8:53 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2010 9:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 75 (572722)
08-07-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ICdesign
08-07-2010 9:30 AM


Of course, unlike evolution, a design hypothesis does not explain why the various bits of the body start off in the wrong places and then have to migrate to the right ones.
Also, like slevesque, you have taken the existence of the particular bundle of nerve fibers known as the RLN as a given. So you write: "In addition, the laryngeal branch splits up into other branches before entering the larynx at different levels. These many RLN branches serve several other organs with both motor and sensory branches" ... without asking why the particular nerve fibers that serve the larynx couldn't just have gone straight to the larynx.
These considerations would doubtless have occurred to you if you'd spent half a minute thinking about anatomy instead of spending five seconds stealing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ICdesign, posted 08-07-2010 9:30 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ICdesign, posted 08-07-2010 10:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 75 (572805)
08-07-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICdesign
08-07-2010 4:24 PM


Re: Doh....!!
I'm not even sure what you evolutionists are complaining about with the RLN. Is there anyone out there who is having a problem because of the design of their RLN?
Yes. It makes some poor unfortunate people pretend that an obvious botch job is the work of an omniscient God.
Your mission should be to show how the evolutionary model
is a better explanation for the design of the human body.
We've done that. The routing of the RLN makes perfect sense for fish, where it goes in direct route. Adaptations of vertebrate anatomy gave it a circuitous route in tetrapods.
If all you can come to the table with is your sniveling about the RLN being 7inches too long... well it makes me feel like I came to the knife fight toting a 44 magnum.
And a target painted on your foot.
Among many other sound design reasons (outlined in the link provided by Percy from which I used excerpts also), the reason due to developmental constraints is more than good enough to explain this intelligent design plan.
And as I pointed out, you then need a reason for the developmental constraints, which we have and you don't.
Instead of whining about being 7 inches too long you need to be showing how it is possible that evolution once again managed to produce another body function with the "appearance" of purpose.
Same way as usual.
Where did the RLN originate from? How did it randomly end up connected to the larynx as well as the other organs it services. What is the probable path random mutation and natural selection took to end up with the end result we see in the current RLN system we now have?
Maybe this will enlighten you.
Now, perhaps you could provide an explanation of how God made the RLN by magic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICdesign, posted 08-07-2010 4:24 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ICdesign, posted 08-07-2010 6:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 75 (572852)
08-08-2010 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICdesign
08-07-2010 6:46 PM


Re: Doh....!!
No that didn't help at all. This doesn't show where it originated from nor the step by step evolutionary process of how it developed and progressed into the human body.
You haven't showed how we randomly ended up with obvious purpose from a system that has no purpose.
If you really don't know what the theory of evolution is, there are books about it.
yes I can. Read all about it in Genesis chapter:2
Nope, no details.
....got to run..thanks for all you nothing
Your command of syntax is equaled only by your grasp of biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICdesign, posted 08-07-2010 6:46 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ICdesign, posted 08-08-2010 1:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 75 (572869)
08-08-2010 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICdesign
08-08-2010 1:07 AM


Re: Doh....!!
I am well aware of the religion of evolution.
As a method of pretending to knowledge, that was about as convincing as writing "I am well aware of the musical instrument known as a haddock".
The problem is I haven't seen any books that explain the details of where the RLN came from ...
If you have never looked in a book to find the answer, that is your problem.
And if you won't look at the diagram I supplied you showing the homologue of the RLN in fish, that too is your problem. I am happy to supply you with information, but if you then choose to wallow in self-imposed ignorance, that's no skin off my nose.
... and the probable path of how it randomly and miraculously ended up providing such a clear and obvious purpose.
So you really know nothing about the theory of evolution? Not even the basics?
You poor chap.
Obviously, none of you have a clue either according to your empty posts.
We have given you much more than a clue. Your inability to get a clue, or anything resembling one, remains your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICdesign, posted 08-08-2010 1:07 AM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-08-2010 5:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 75 (572950)
08-08-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICdesign
08-08-2010 5:40 PM


Re: Moderator Comment: You can't get blood from a stone.
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.
Perhaps you could set an example for us all by explaining in detail how, in your opinion, a dog cremated the universe in six ways.
You could start by telling us where it got an oven big enough.
Either that, or we could discuss our actual views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICdesign, posted 08-08-2010 5:40 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 75 (573021)
08-09-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICdesign
08-09-2010 5:32 AM


Re: Moderator Comment: You can't get blood from a stone.
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.
And so he recommended us to stop posting?
Well that makes sense in Opposite World.
I think I have a fairly sound grasp on what the theory of evolution is claiming.
And you are wrong, which is why you go around posting stuff like this.
I was also asking how evolution could know the nerve was in jeopardy of breaking.
This tells us that you don't have a clue what the theory of evolution is.
I think the responses show it is actually you yourselves that don't understand your own theory.
And this cozy little fantasy may help you sleep at night.
However,it also means that if by some whilom chance there was something wrong with the theory of evolution, you would never find it out. Because of not knowing what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICdesign, posted 08-09-2010 5:32 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 75 (573113)
08-09-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ICdesign
08-09-2010 6:55 PM


I need to read up more on mutations. Honestly, it seems like Darwinists use a mutation like some magic wand to try and explain away all the problems with the theory.
Kinda like Newtonians and gravity.
I was trying to find out how the RLN originated. Not which organism had it first as much as how and why random mutations plus natural selection would have produced it. Evolution has no purpose so how and why did it migrate (according to you guys of course) to the organs it services and the larynx?
For that you'd have to consider the nature of development.
Consider, for example, the fact that ours skull are just the right sizes to hold our brains. Now, given that everyone's skull and brain come in different sizes ... is that just a huge coincidence, or is there something more subtle going on?
The gill evolving into a larynx?.... all you have is an inference and I just don't have that kind of faith.
All we have is evidence, and you just don't have that kind of knowledge.
I still think you are writing checks reality can't cash like giving evolution the power to make decisions ...
And you are, of course, totally, utterly, ludicrously, laughably wrong.
You really, really, really need to learn what the theory of evolution is, or how can you hope to discuss it.
... but I would rather do some more learning about mutations before saying more on that subject.
You might want to find out a little something about natural selection, too.
I don't really think your house of cards will crash on EvC but it is a fun thought ...
If fantasies about the demise of evolution were horses, then creationists would ride.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ICdesign, posted 08-09-2010 6:55 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 75 (574449)
08-15-2010 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICdesign
08-15-2010 7:15 PM


Re: Doh....!!
What exactly is it that would "know" the organism would die and not reproduce?
Nothing whatsoever. But a fatal defect would cause the organism to die and not reproduce. Meaning that the mutation causing the defect would not be propagated through the gene pool.
Is this not foreknowledge? Is this not thinking and reasoning?
No. That's an organism with a fatal defect dying. Thinking, reasoning, and clairvoyance are not necessary for that to happen.
C'mon, this is basic stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICdesign, posted 08-15-2010 7:15 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 75 (574489)
08-16-2010 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICdesign
08-16-2010 5:06 AM


Re: Doh....!!
I would like to talk about how natural selection is actually super natural in the future some time but for now...
There's nothing supernatural about dead organisms not being able to reproduce. It would be kinda supernatural if they could.
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. "Would" die is a future event.
As Huntard explained, it's not refraining from reproducing because it would die, but because it's dead.
I would also point out that there are organism which do die of reproducing. Salmon, for example, or male praying mantises. Obviously any mutation causing a salmon or mantis to refrain from reproducing would also be lost from the gene pool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICdesign, posted 08-16-2010 5:06 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024