Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

The fatal flaw of the rationalization you present is that it presupposes that a designed eye would have to be made from the same components as the one we have. Explaining why the existing components have to be arranged in the manner that they are in order to function properly rather misses the point. If one were designing an eye without the need to use rely on existing or evolvable structures, one wouldn't use cells that needed such a Rube Goldberg arrangement to stay functional.It's rather like buying an old boat and inheriting an accumulation of modifications and retrofits. Yes, that fan needs to be there to cool that piece of equipment, and the equipment needs to be there because the hose from the other thing comes through the bulkhead a bit too low, and the hose needs to be that low because the other thing that used to be under the fluxgate of the auto pilot was a lot bigger than the new new one...and so on. But, if you were designing the thing from scratch, you wouldn't need the fan because the piece of equipment wouldn't need to be there, because...etc., etc.I read the link as a long-winded rationalization that demonstrates convincingly that the components of the eye are ill-suited to their current application.Capt.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : html

---

Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

Yes. Thank you for illustrating the difference between an undesigned system (the old boat) and a designed system (F1 engine).Now,... ...this is where your emotional commitment gets you to saying things that are just silly. We have instrumentation that outperforms the human eye in every parameter. Please think about this a bit. That kind of apologetic was starting to look pretty threadbare by the middle of the last century. As for the Stevens quote, Cavediver has already pointed out the meaninglessness of such factoids. Computer factoids in particular are dangerously pointless, since Moore's Law pretty much guarantees that in a surprisingly short time you will end up explaining why the fact that a computer can perform a particular task way faster than a human isn't so important after all. Heed Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Sound words for those using the creationist argument from incredulity. The design of the eye has been criticized for much more than just the blind spot. What part of an optimized design would require me to wear filters over my eyes a good share of the year to avoid premature blindness from reflected sunlight? Seems like a designer would have built that in. After all, it's His sun. Seems like evolution wouldn't have since it has little if any effect on the ability of mammals to pass on their genes during their reproductive years. Parsimony suggests I am evolved. I suspect he did. What makes you think that your creationist quote mines are correct in their assessment of the situation? (or for that matter, even reflect the actual intent of their authors?)Capt.

Because systems, and parts of systems, have been added, replaced, repaired, partly removed, adapted to other purposes, and so on, over a long period of time. The work has been done by different people, with different goals and different abilities. Much of the maintenance done ends up being done in an ad hoc manner, often in the face of time sensitive needs (must cross the strait today, just make it work somehow). Not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Near as I can figure, you believe that if you assume your conclusion then a non-analogous analogy is a good thing??Perhaps I could have been clearer. The point of the boat metaphor is to demonstrate that just because something works, that does not mean it is an optimal design, or any kind of design at all. The old boat works, but no one would design it that way if they were starting from scratch. Similarly, the eye works. But it could have had a much more streamlined and trouble-free design, had it not had to evolve from existing, modifiable components.Like the RLN, the eye has an evolutionary history that makes sense of the compromises that are evident. A good design, OTOH, unconstrained by evolutionary history, would put the nerves in the back, skip the need for a blind spot entirely, and make a regenerative system that didn't require an opaque layer. Personally, I'd cover the receptors with a clear layer that served all their maintenance needs and also provided photosensitive variable opacity UV protection. And also I'd like something like a nictitating membrane. Have you ever heard of cataracts? UV exposure is one of several causative factors, and yes, they used to be a common cause of blindness.KP

What does that have to do with the nerve looping around the aorta?How does an animal listening for subtle sounds relate at all to the path of the nerve between sound generating tissues and the brain?And what does any of this have to do with your alleged experience with someone's computer?Capt.

This could be where you're going wrong. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that feelings emanate from the heart. If you are prepared to ignore a few hundred years of well documented work in a broad cross section of the medical sciences based on the word of Dr. Alex Loyd (note spelling), you might want to reconsider your choice.In the unlikely event that a naturopath/psychologist/internet quack ever does find the secret to curing all diseases, as he claims to have done, I would like to think this little tidbit of information would be presented to the world in a form other than an $800 set of DVD's. Like maybe a paper or two? If nothing else, the ethics of such a path would mark him as beneath contempt.While I would like to wish you luck in your continued search for explanations, I have to tell you, if you honestly cannot discriminate between the nature of information available from the academic world and that of "cure-all" hucksters, you will not get far.Capt.

---

Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

Yeah, that darned reality, eh! What's a believer to do?
Can this be taken as an admission that your postings to date aren't really about the subjects being discussed per se, but rather about trying to leave a bit of rationalization room in your head? Worked for me. For about 15 minutes in 1973.Good luck, I feel your pain.KPPS: When you finally shake off the haze, it will feel like when someone opens the window in a stuffy room.

...you are approaching problems like this: When you accept that conclusions should follow evidence, you will find life much clearer.Capt.1st attempt at including photo, so apologies if chaos ensues.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

Yes, exactly. Thus illustrating conservative Christianity's folly of fixating on a worldview that arose before the world had been viewed. If a world view cannot accommodate the reality of the world, then conclusions must have been arrived at a bit backwards, n'est-ce pas?KP