Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve: Part II

These excerpts were copied from an ICR website written by Jerry BergmanThe RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from a single-cell zygote to adult. The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development. For this reason, adult anatomy can be understood only in the light of development.Developmental VariationsThe human body begins as a sphere called a blastocyst and gradually becomes more elongated as it develops. Some structures, such as the carotid duct, are simply obliterated during development, and some are eliminated and replaced. Other structures, including the recurrent laryngeal nerve, move downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical (neck) location down into the thoracic (chest) cavity.As a result, various arteries and other structures must be elongated as organs are moved in a way that allows them to remain functional throughout this entire developmental phase. The right RLN is carried downward because it is looped under the arch that develops into the right subclavian artery, and thus moves down with it as development proceeds.The left laryngeal nerve recurs around the ligamentum arteriosum (a small ligament attached to the top surface of the pulmonary trunk and the bottom surface of the aortic arch) on the left side of the aortic arch. It likewise moves down as the thoracic cavity lengthens. The body must operate as a living, functional unit during this time, requiring ligaments and internal connections to secure various related structures together while also allowing for body and organ movement. For the laryngeal nerve, the ligamentum arteriosum functions like a pulley that lifts a heavy load to allow movement.As a result of the downward movement of the heart, "the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerves becomes different on the right and left sides." These nerves cannot either be obliterated or replaced because many of them must function during every fetal development stage. No organ could exist that is functionless during its development, an axiom that also applies to the nervous system. This movement appears designed to position the left RLN downward as the body elongates.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, including the upper esophagus, the trachea, the inferior pharynx, and the cricopharyngeus muscle, the lowest horizontal bandlike muscle of the throat just above the esophagus. The fact that the left RLN also gives off some fibers to the cardiac plexus is highly indicative of developmental constraints because the nerve must serve both the larynx (in the neck) and the heart (in the chest).After looping around the aorta, the RLN travels back up to innervate the larynx. The superior and recurrent laryngeal nerves then innervate an area known as Galen's anastamosis.It then migrates caudally as the embryo enlarges by differential growth of the head and thorax areas, taking the nerve with it. The diaphragm cannot have evolved step-wise, since a partial diaphragm results in an imperfect chest-abdomen separation. Even a small defect results in herniation of the gut contents into the chest--which either compresses the lungs or results in strangulation of the gut.Without explaining the nerve structure's design system, function, and ultimate connections, alleging that the RLN is a poor design is a meaningless assertion.Edited by ICDESIGN, : listed the source of information

If you think you have a superior RLN design why don't you volunteer to have a surgeon go in and shorten yours so we can see how much better it works? ahh...if only God were as smart as you......I thought the excerpts of the ICR article by Jerry Bergman covered that just fine.

I want to see the proof that a different design would be superior. Its not enough to make the claim. What could have been is called speculation.

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?Your mission should be to show how the evolutionary model
is a better explanation for the design of the human body.
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.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.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.
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?

OK, how does this sound to you? How bout a body that will never age? Never feel pain. Can pass through solid objects. Can disappear and in the snap of a finger reappear anywhere you desire on the planet?This is what Jesus could do in his resurrected body and the bible tells us we will have the same type of body in the future.You have lots of big words about design but they are worthless till you can produce a working model.Please revisit post #14 and support your position with something concrete.

Read: Mark chapter:16; Luke chapter:24; 1Corinthians chapter:15
and Revelation chapter:21...lets see. should I trust what you think or should I trust what the Holy Bible says? ..umm. Its a tough choice but I think I will go with the bible!I made a reference to revisit post #14 last time but I meant #15.
Here it is one more time:Your mission should be to show how the evolutionary model
is a better explanation for the design of the human body.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.Instead of whining about the RLN 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.
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?

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. yes I can. Read all about it in Genesis chapter:2....got to run..thanks for all you nothing

I don't misrepresent the bible and I challenge you to go to private messaging where I will be happy to quote the exact verses from the exact book references I sent that will prove you are the one misrepresenting the truth. This much I do agree upon which is why I now drop this conversation for this thread.Why don't you try going on topic and give the detailed answer I have asked for several times going back to post #15Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

please go back on topic and give a detailed answer I have asked for several times from post #15.

I am well aware of the religion of evolution. 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.Obviously, none of you have a clue either according to your empty posts. ...the thanks is the same with or without the r

First of all, a drawing of the nerve in the fish next to a drawing of the nerve in a human does nothing but prove both have the nerve.
It does nothing, zero, ziltch to show where the nerve originated from or how it ended up with a major purpose when even you Darwinists yourselves admit evolution has no purpose.The vast majority of the theory of evolution is inferred with no trail of transitional forms to substantiate your outrageous claims.
Evolution is a religion requiring huge leaps of faith. Here is another inference with absolutely no transitional forms that are half gill and half larynx. Yes,really! Wild faith is the only explaining I see taking place.

Full of it is exactly what I was thinking, thank you! How would evolution know the organism would die if that nerve broke? Are you telling me evolution has reasoning ability?

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. I do agree I will never get any blood out of this stone so I am
austa-la-bye-bye

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. [qs]you've shown your understanding of evolution to be terribly lacking[qs] I think I have a fairly sound grasp on what the theory of evolution is claiming. I was simply asking where the RLN originated from and how it came to serve such obvious purpose. I was also asking how evolution could know the nerve was in jeopardy of breaking.I think the responses show it is actually you yourselves that don't understand your own theory.

OK, well thanks everyone for the feed back. My ICR post was really all I wanted to contribute to this thread.
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.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?The gill evolving into a larynx?.... all you have is an inference and I just don't have that kind of faith.I still think you are writing checks reality can't cash like giving evolution the power to make decisions then waving your mutation wand...but I would rather do some more learning about mutations
before saying more on that subject.I don't really think your house of cards will crash on EvC but it is a fun thought I won't post anymore on this thread but I hope to see some of you again when I submit a topic about "purpose"
Gods best plan to you,
IC