Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 0/64 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3971 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 72 of 480 (536506)
11-23-2009 1:33 PM 		Reply to: Message 57 by slevesque
11-23-2009 1:25 AM

Not the only one that thinks this way
slavesque writes:
​
I hve found GM (Granny Magda] to be very close-minded on this topic.
​
I have repeated many times only 3 pages of discussion that as of today, there is no proved function of the route the RLN takes. I repeated this in almost all of my posts.
​
But of course, since I say that I am confident that, since our knowledge of biology is far from complete, a function will be identified for it, (A situation that has happened at least 100 times in the history of medicine) he has called this smokes and screens.
​
I appreciate that you agree that the route the RLN takes has not been shown to have any purpose, but Granny Magda is not alone if he was dubious of your conclusion that "since our knowledge of biology is far from complete, a function will be identified for it".
​
Is it not possible that because of the mechanics of evolution (bottom up rather than top down) there might be many purposeless forms? Or, is the entire universe the "mother-of-all-conspiracy-theories", where everything has a purpose and nothing is accidental?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by slevesque, posted 11-23-2009 1:25 AM slevesque has not replied
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3971 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 74 of 480 (536511)
11-23-2009 2:04 PM 		Reply to: Message 67 by traderdrew
11-23-2009 12:10 PM

Bad design
traderdew writes:
​
I think you, GrannyMagda and many others insist it is a bad design simply because something wants you to believe this other than evidence.
​
I find it astonishing that you would try to claim that anyone is arguing from a position devoid of evidence when you have stated:
I should do more investigating but I believe the design is because we feel emotions in our bodies and we can convey them through the sounds of our voices. We can convey trouble or stress or fright with our voices. When we feel emotions we do not feel them in our brains, we feel emotions in our bodies.
​
We can call the RLN "bad design", and we do so based on the evidence that the long detour serves no purpose and actually poses a risk, but what should really be said is that it is "not designed". Evolution works bottom up, not top down. I'm not qualified to discuss what is known about the evolutionary history of the RLN's ridiculous detour, but I see no particular logic in jumping to the conclusion that it DOES serve some as yet unknown purpose.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by traderdrew, posted 11-23-2009 12:10 PM traderdrew has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by traderdrew, posted 11-24-2009 10:50 AM Briterican has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024