Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve: Part II

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

Another false statement from you.You did get replies and they all said Evolution does not make decisions or provide purpose.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Perhaps you could set an example for us all by explaining in detail how, in your opinion, a dog cremated the universe in six ways.You could start by telling us where it got an oven big enough.Either that, or we could discuss our actual views.

That's not what Percy said. He said it to you will likely do little good. I can only imagine this is becaue so far you've shown your understanding of evolution to be terribly lacking. Sure, whatever, 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.

Oh please, you didn't even ask the right questions, as Dr. Adequate amply demonstrated. If we asked you the question he asked you, would you also not think that explaining to us what you really think is futile? I eman, he gets every fundamental thing wrong, just like you did in your questions. The things you post here make on esuspect otherwise. That answer has been given, I suggest you read the posts again. It doesn't "know"anything. The simlpe truth of the matter is, that if it breaks, and the organism dies, and if the braking was due to a mutation, then that mutation will not be passed along, meaning that the risk of"the nerve breaking is reduced. Of course, the people here who actually study evolution and biology don't know what it says, while you, who haven't studied anything about it, know everything there is to know about it.

This portion is followed by details on the moving of the organs and the RLN growth to accommodate said movement.Basically, the Greatest Designer (G_D)could not design the human (and all other tetrapod) gestation system such that the RLN would not have to take the round-a-bout route once the fetus was ready to be born.I find this confusing in light of the fact that G_D is suppose to have all knowledge and unlimited resources.I would think that a good designer would optimize the design for the form that the mechanism would be in for the longest amount of time vice the 9 months it would be in development.Sorry. I read what Jerry had to say and it still doesn't look like a good design to me. But, hey, I'm only an engineer.

Yeah that's right. You are going to completely destroy the Theory of Evolution here on EVC. Word came down from the high priest(or is it a priestess we have currently?) that you had to be muzzled before YOU destroyed all of the church of Evolution.Do you truly believe pomposity and self-righteousness improve your lame arguments? You have no grasp of the TOE. This is shown by your posts and your questions. Learn a little about what you are debating against, then come back and ask a coherent, educated question.ABE
If you caused the TOE 'house of cards" to come tumbling down, you would receive a Nobel prize and lots of fame. I don't think you need to worry about them giving you a call.
Oh that's right the evil, atheistic cabal of scientists would not let that happen even though you are correct.
Whatever. How about getting a clue.Edited by Theodoric, : More cowbell!Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And so he recommended us to stop posting?Well that makes sense in Opposite World. And you are wrong, which is why you go around posting stuff like this. This tells us that you don't have a clue what the theory of evolution is. And this cozy little fantasy may help you sleep at night.However,it also means that if by some whilom chance there was something wrong with the theory of evolution, you would never find it out. Because of not knowing what it is.

Right now in this thread the two sides are just lobbing little mini-grenades at each other. Could the participants please try to push their envelopes a little bit in seeking to bridge the disconnect between the two sides? The goal is to get a constructive dialog going.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Did Jerry Bergman ever discuss how an omnipotent and omniscient supernatural deity would be placed under developmental constraints? That's perhaps the strangest explanation I have ever seen."Well, God had to do it that way because God is constrained due to the fact that he designed fish a certain way."I will also leave you with the question I had in the other thread. Is it good design to run 100 feet of electrical cord from your tv through your living room, around the lamp, up and over the couch, and under the coffee table just to plug into an outlet that is only 2 feet from the tv? Good design or bad design?

Hi ICD, Okay. The thing is that your question comes across as a little bit... odd... for a person who understands the ToE. It isn't the kind of question that anyone with a firm grasp of the theory would be likely to ask, save as a rhetorical question.As for where the the RLN originated, I think I made a pretty good effort towards explaining that in Message 39. Do you have any points you want to bring up about that explanation? And I answered you. Evolution doesn't "know" anything. The problem is not about knowing. The barrier to re-engineering the RLN is that evolution works without a goal and it does so by small stepwise changes - every one of which must be beneficial (or at least neutral) in the short term (evolution is unable to plan for the long term). Since the right-side RLN is effectively hooked behind the aortic arch, it can't progress back up around the other side of the arch without either severing the nerve or severing the arch - either one of which would prove lethal to the organism.This doesn't mean that such a mutation couldn't arise; it could. The problem is that any individual that carried such a mutation which severed the RLN would not survive. Dead organisms don't get to add their mutations to the wider gene pool.What evolution can do is to lengthen the nerve little by little. Each step would be small enough to achievable by mutation, safe enough to occur without harming the organism. It's not a perfect solution, but that's exactly what we would expect from an unguided evolutionary process; jury rigged, slightly shoddy solutions that are just good enough. That is exactly what we see in the RLN.Mutate and Survive

---

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

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

Except everyone keeps telling you that Evolution does not make decisions or claim that Evolution has the power to make decisions.The reason people pointed you towards the fish is that fish existed before anything with a larynx. The nerve system evolved before the larynx and when the larynx evolved it just reused pieces parts. It is a great example of why the evidence supports evolution instead of design.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Why don't you open a thread with your questions on the subject of mutations? I'd be happy to try to help you learn about them.