Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

But when you think about it, that's a pretty worthless prediction. In fact I would call it an unfalsifiable prediction. Why? Simple, no matter the time spent searching for this function, even if it is not found in a thousand years, you can still say "well, eventually it will be found!"So, no, this is not a scientific prediction. At least, I don't think it is.

It would have led to what? There is no evidence that looping under the aorta offers any benefit. What evidence are you alluding to? Evidence in your own fantasies?

The analogy would need to be extended in order to include examples (such as the RLN) where ID predicts the discovery of further evidence. ​

And it does. ID predicts that there should be foot prints. There aren't any. The ID response? The foot prints are really there, but you can't see them right now.

No we have observed coded information being created only by intelligent persons.

We have also seen it produced through natural means such as reproduction. We also observe coded information in non-organic materials, such as the coded orbitals in atoms.ABE: "Therefore, because the source of coded information is intelligence, and not some other characteristics human happen to share in common, the only thing we can conclude about the originator of the coded information in nature is that he/it is intelligent."You are trying to show that the originator of DNA is an intelligence. Instead of demonstrating it you have assumed it. You assume the conclusion.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

After 1000 years of searching for transitional fossils, supposing none would have been found, Darwin could have said ''well, eventually they will be found!''.This characteristic of predictions is just the result of the fact that a universal negative being unproveable.. We would never be able to absolutely prove ''it has no function'' just as we would never be able to absolutely prove ''no transitional fossils exist''.

tell me how much research has been done on this ?

Archaeopteryx was found during his lifetime, and Darwin also mentioned the transitional eyes found in the class Articulata. You are claiming that the route serves a function. It is up to you to either evidence this claim or retract it.

150 years of modern medicine and anatomical study.

I guess it's easy to convince yourself that your approach echoes Darwin's if you make things up. The fossil evidence has always supported evolution, from the sparse amount available in Darwin's day right up through the ever-growing mountains of fossil evidence available today. You may be misremembering what Darwin actually wrote in Origins when he predicted that future fossil discoveries should reveal increasing numbers of transitional fossils, which turned out to be the case. Or you may be thinking of Darwin's concern about the lack of very, very old fossils, which of course have since been found in copious numbers.At no time did Darwin postulate a mechanism for which he had no evidence and predict that evidence for it would be uncovered in the future. That's the tack you're taking in this thread.When people have the evidence they talk about the evidence. When they don't then they turn requests for evidence into discussions about excuses for why there's no evidence. That's why after a couple hundred years the theory of design hasn't advanced at all. Just find a genetic bottleneck 4350 years old (or whatever number of years ago you like), or find flood evidence, or find an ancient lab where creatures were designed and implemented, or ancient global transportations systems, or evidence of whatever you think design requires, but find at least one little shred of evidence.--Percy

Real world evidence isn't always black and white, as footprints in the sand are. At this point, the definition of coded information would be needed. (PS In reproduction, the coded information comes from the previous coded information. Since it cannot be it's own origin, this does not qualify as it's origin) I'll put it in formal form to show there is no begging the question:All coded information comes from an intelligent source
DNA is coded information
therefore DNA comes from an intelligent sourcepremise no1 is proven inductively.
premise no2 is a fact

150 years of modern medicine and anatomical study.

Red Herring. Tell me how much research has been done on the route of the RLN.AbE by the way, that was a fallacy of Division, if you hadn't noticed ...Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Only if "we will discover it one day" and "I can explain the predicted and verified results of the competing theory" are taken on some sort of faith. Two competing theories -One makes predictions that have been verified and which have led to the discovery of new evidence that itself has led to new falsifiable predictions which has again led to new evidence etc. etc. The scientific method of progress in action.The other theory leads to no verified predictions and simply states that "one day" it''s predictions will be borne out whilst still claiming that it is a valid theory because all of the predicted results of the theory it is competing with can be explained by means of post-hoc interpretation.I say no contest. But which do you consider superior?

Based upon the evidence he did have, Darwin predicted the existence of evidence he didn't yet have. That is how a prediction works.Based upon the evidence I have, I predict the existence of evidence I don't yet have.And even if the mechanism that is the source of my prediction is not true, this does not mean my prediction is not true. This is the genetic fallacy. So even though you disagree with my ID framework, this does not allow you to descredit my prediction. That's because we are in a subject for which I do not have the evidence, and have never hidden it. The very fact that I make a prediction implicitly states that currently, their is a lack of evidence.this does not mean that in any other related subject, I will also have no evidence. This is the area of YEC, but yeah, maybe I should.

Let's put it another way.Has ID theory ever resulted in a discovery?You can blather on about predicting unknown evidence all you want but the crunch point of a scientific theory is essentially discovery (by means of prediction) - That is the yardstick.If ID has never ever led to a single discovery then on what basis can it possibly be advocated scientifically?Has an ID "scientist" ever discovered anything? Ever?

Hi Slevesque, No, you tell us. There is no compelling reason for mainstream medical researchers to go looking for a secondary function for the RLN. This is not like the appendix; no-one is going around removing laryngeal nerves. We already have an explanation for the origin of the RLN. With no pressing clinical reason for looking further, there is no need for research.The idea that the RLN has an unknown secondary function - an idea which is intrinsically very far fetched, since the nerve doesn't connect to anything in the chest cavity - is the illegitimate brainchild of the creationism/ID crowd. Are they funding research? If not, why not? It's their baby.It is not the responsibility of serious medical researchers to patch up the holes in your religious apologetics. They have better things to do with their time, like curing illness for instance.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

And as I have said, I haven't followed the intelligent Design movement enough to answer that.But I could say that YEC has produced fulfilled predictions. This is essentially because YEC is acomplete worldview, with a complete hypothesis of the history of the earth.As opposed to ID, which is sometimes so broad (guided-evolution ? Aliens as designers ? etc.) that it loses predictive capabilities. But as I'm trying to show, this does not mean it has none, as I am capable of making a prediction on an ID basis.I do think that IDers have predicted that 'junk DNA' would be found to have functions and not be useless. This is a prediction in the process of being fulfilled as the amount of useful DNA has jumped from 3% to 30% since then (by memory, figures may vary )