Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

And after reading your posts I will go ahead and agree you're tapped.I think we're done here.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

Intelligent design was hatched long before the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision."Through these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have, at first, derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws.... [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being"That was a quote from The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy written by none other than Sir Isaac Newton

Please get back to the RLN. Thank you.

The appendix was thought for years to be just a vestigial structure (has no function). However, fairly recently, researchers at Duke University discovered it has at least one function and that is to keep healthy levels of probiotic bacteria in your intestines. Those who have it removed are more likely to develop Crohn's disease.

Looking for the effects of damage could also be foretelling. But damage doesn't necessarily mean destroyed.Unethical? We have gone at it before PaulK and I know you are no proponent of intelligent design. I would have thought it would have been ethical to correct a mishap of the Darwinian process. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you are not so sure the RLN is a result of Darwinian evolution?

quote:

---

Looking for the effects of damage could also be foretelling. But damage doesn't necessarily mean destroyed.

---

But it should at least give a pointer of where to look for any function dependent on the nerve operating properly.

quote:

---

Unethical? We have gone at it before PaulK and I know you are no proponent of intelligent design. I would have thought it would have been ethical to correct a mishap of the Darwinian process. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you are not so sure the RLN is a result of Darwinian evolution?

---

It might seem so to someone who places some abstract idea of perfection above the interests of the patient. However, even if you had a practical means of rerouting the nerve with no significant risk of damaging it (and you don't) major surgery to correct a feature which is merely poorly designed carrying with it some minor risks would be highly questionable in itself.

I never did make any demands for the surgery. I simply assumed perhaps it has been done to an animal with a similar design and since some of you are so sure it is a poor design, you have read about the results of damage or destruction to the nerve.My position is "I do not know" if it is a bad design or not and I proposed a hypothesis. 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 will define that as 'Darwinian dogma'. Sorry if that makes you upset. I called her bluff in my last post to her believing this was the case.

quote:

---

I never did make any demands for the surgery.

---

Really ? Message 56[quote] I simply assumed perhaps it has been done to an animal with a similar design and since some of you are so sure it is a poor design, you have read about the results of damage or destruction to the nerve. [/qs]Even with animal experiments there are obvious problems. Animals are unable to self-report symptoms, any effects noted could easily be due to side-effects of the surgery, and the surgery would be unable to produce an optimal design anyway. And if we cannot get useful results out of the experiment then it is unethical to perform it even on animals.

quote:

---

My position is "I do not know" if it is a bad design or not and I proposed a hypothesis. I think you, GrannyMagda and many others insist it is a bad design simply because something wants you to believe this other than evidence.

---

But of course the position that it is a poor design IS based on evidence. It is you and slevesque who are are throwing up speculations rather than follow the evidence that we have. Indeed, so far as I can tell the whole basis of your hypothesis - a connection to the aorta - is missing. The recurrent laryngeal nerve branches off the left vagus nerve and loops around the aorta, before ascending again to the larynx.

quote:

---

I will define that as 'Darwinian dogma'.

---

I'll call that "the pot calling the kettle black".

It was my bluff I was referring to. I didn't assume GrannyMagda was a surgeon and if she was one, spend the money of performing one in order to prove me wrong. No it is not, your position is based on the assumption that a designer would have never designed it that way. You assume your knowledge of science covers all ignorance on the subject and you know enough about this network of nerves to make this determination. I say you don't know enough.I could have stated, "Don't worry PaulK and others, we (proponents of I.D.) will find the reasons for the RLN through science." If I did mean that, it would be a dogmatic assumption.I also know from previous debates that you have to get the last word PaulK. You can have it because I have drilled my point here.

quote:

---

No it is not, your position is based on the assumption that a designer would have never designed it that way. You assume your knowledge of science covers all ignorance on the subject and you know enough about this network of nerves to make this determination. I say you don't know enough.

---

But of course, that is just your assumption. Just as you assumed a connection to the aorta.The fact is that the nerve takes a long, meandering path from the brain to the larynx, and there is no sign that it needs to do so. Damage to the nerve shows symptoms relating to the larynx, not to anything else. There are no signs of other connections (or any sensible reason for other connections) on offer.

quote:

---

I also know from previous debates that you have to get the last word PaulK. You can have it because I have drilled my point here.

---

By which you mean that I don't like to let falsehoods go unanswered.

Traderdrew, I think you're still missing the point. What about them? A) No it doesn't. B) I never said any such thing.The RLN does not connect to the aortic arch. It simply takes a detour around it, making no neural connection as it goes past and doing absolutely nothing in the chest cavity. The RLN connects the brain and the larynx. That's it. The diagram you linked to shows as much. This is simply gibberish and irrelevant gibberish at that.If you want to suggest that the RLN has some role in emotion, you need to provide evidence for that. All you have done is point to the role of speech in communication. As has been pointed out repeatedly, lots of body parts are involved in communication, the face, the eyes, the hands. None of them connect to the RLN so we can safely conclude that the RLN is not needed to express emotion.If you think otherwise, please provide some kind of solid evidence to that effect. Muscles that are not connected to the RLN. Thus, the RLN is not needed to communicate emotion. What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying that no such experiment has taken place. If performed in humans, such an experiment would be unethical in the extreme. Your best bet there would be to hop into a time machine, go back to WWII and ask Joseph Mengele to help you out.As it happens though, we don't need any experiments to see that the RLN's long detour exposes it to unnecessary risk of injury. Here is Wiki on the clinical significance of the RLN;

quote:

---

The nerve is best known for its importance in thyroid surgery, as it runs immediately posterior to this gland. If it is damaged during surgery, the patient will have a hoarse voice. Nerve damage can be assessed by laryngoscopy, during which a stroboscopic light confirms the absence of movement in the affected side of the vocal cords.

​

Similar problems may also be due to invasion of the nerve by a tumor or after trauma to the neck. A common scenario is paralysis of the left vocal cord due to malignant tumour in the mediastinum affecting the left branch of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The left cord returns to midline where it stays.

​

* If the damage is unilateral, the patient may present with voice changes including hoarseness.
* Bilateral nerve damage can result in breathing difficulties and aphonia, the inability to speak.
* The right recurrent laryngeal nerve is more susceptible to damage during thyroid surgery due to its relatively medial location.

---

Note that the longer the nerve and the more areas of the body where it must travel, the greater the exposure to possible injury. This is just simple logic. A shorter nerve, that took a direct route would be at much less risk of damage. Pay attention. I didn't say that the RLN had no function. Oh, I think I can. EFT is based upon pseudo-scientific bullshit. Your personal anecdotes are not evidence in its favour, they are irrelevant. EFT is irrelevant. EFT is not the topic, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is the topic. Well gosh, vestigial organs and your crass misunderstandings of them are not the topic either. The topic is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Fine. Great. Doubts as to whether your vague musings could justify the description "hypothesis" aside, you have every right to concoct a hypothesis. Just don't expect me or anyone else to give a shit until you can produce evidence. Considering that you are not a neurologist and that you give the impression of being deeply ignorant of anatomy, I'm not holding my breath. Oh yes? Where exactly did you "call my bluff"? I assure you traderdrew, I'm not bluffing. I call the RLN a bad design because it exposes itself to increased risk (as compared to a more direct route) fopr zero benefit. That's bad design. You are the one with the problem here. Your dogma tells you that this feature must have been designed; that is why you are left groping around for an alternative function that probably doesn't exist and (at best) for which you have not one shred of evidence.Let's be clear, if you want to suggest a function for the RLN, other than controlling the muscles of the larynx, YOU NEED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THAT FUNCTION. Idle musings don't count. Appealing to arguments you might have at some point in the future doesn't count. Making vague gestures toward pseudo-scientific nonsense doesn't count.Present solid and compelling evidence that the RLN has an alternative function that necessitates its detour or withdraw.Mutate and Survive

---

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

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?

Hello slevesque, I see you are forced to resort to personal abuse to fill out your posts. Oh boo-hoo.Yes I'm closed minded. How very closed-minded of me to demand evidence for a hypothesis before taking it seriously. How closed-minded of me to dismiss the dogma-driven speculations of non-neurologists on the subject of nerves. How very closed-minded of me to dismiss arguments that are based upon gross misunderstandings of biology.What a closed-minded rotter I am.You may have heard the saying "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out."? This is exactly what you are doing. Forgive me if I don't join you. And to date, this remains the only sensible thing you have said on the subject. This topic has nothing to do with vestigial organs and your apparent inability to understand what they are. This portion of your argument (such as it is) is founded upon a total misapprehension, thus it is completely invalid. Oh look, more unevidenced assertions. You seem to like these.For the record, your assertions are not so very far-fetched. I'm not saying that they are (in Message 10 I say as much; you ask "do you not think that it's wiring could end up having a positive effect, a function ?" and I respond "Maybe - name it."). I am not saying that it is impossible or even especially far-fetched that a function might be found. What I am saying is that until such a function actually is found it is unacceptable to make appeal to it in debate. Debate with the evidence you actually have not the evidence you might like to have.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Correct typo.

---

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

I find it astonishing that you would try to claim that anyone is arguing from a position devoid of evidence when you have stated: 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.

I gave a superficially plausible explanation in the beginning, but they are not permitted it seems. Even if it is logically plausible, and even if they are presented as a genuine guess (and not as any sort of fact) I would be interesting to know what are those reasons to think it has no function ?I mean, the fact that it is the result of evolution isn't a reason to think it has no function, as you stated above.An appeal to our current level of knowledge also isn't a reason, because we all agree that our knowledge is far from complete