The laryngeal nerve of a Giraffe. (autopsy)

a reply to: EternalSolace

Evolution is not linear and does not have a purpose. There is no guarantee of improvement, most of that is luck. Evolution follows the environment. When it changes, the organisms either die out or survive. The better adapted organisms at the time, survive. The thing is, a trait that may be beneficial now, could easily become detrimental given a big change to the environment. So then creatures that were once well adapted, become threatened with extinction. This cycle keeps going and the one consistent thing about the earth over the years is change. Seasonal cycles, Glaciation cycles, cycles that involve our position in the milky way, impact events, etc etc.

The giraffe is perfect evidence of this. It didn't just go from A to B. It went from A to C to M to J to X to E to B. There is no set pattern or direction to evolve in and increase in complexity is never guaranteed, neither is survival. Improvements are relative, based on what helps them survive or gives them an advantage over others when competing for food sources.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: idmonster


This has been answered many times. If the nerve had been designed, a better design would have been as short and direct from point a to point b as possible.

So that's that answered.

You can postulate all you like about other potential as yet undiscovered purposes of the nerve until you're blue in the face, but until YOU demonstrate a good reason for the length and route of the nerve, without referring to evolutionary causes then you are not showing open mindedness, you're being willfully ignorant.

The FACTS are:

The nerve only has one demonstrable purpose.
The initiation point of the nerve impulse and the receptor point are within a handful of inches from each other.
The nerve follows an extended route that fits perfectly with the theorized evolution of the species.
If this creature were intelligently designed, is shows a lack of intelligence by the designer.

Remember, my self and others on here are simply stating that the nerve has the function of carrying input from A to B, and we have an understanding of why it follows the route it does.

The OP is simply stating that for him, the routing, and his understanding of the subject confirms his understanding of the evolutionary process. He also states his agreement with Dawkings, that if anything demonstrates the absence of a designer, its this nerve.

You are stating that this is not the case as the nerve "might" have another purpose that requires its routing, and could have been designed.

You say you would require proof that the nerve has no other purpose. An idiotic request. You, and others have come up with many "mights" and "maybes" throughout this thread. Brilliant, you have your hypothesis. Now instead of arguing that if it has another purpose other than the obvious, it could have been intelligently designed, why not set out to prove its other purpose. Or demonstrate how you think a person might set out to provide an absence of evidence, that is to prove that something doesn't do something.

I feel a Nobel prize from science, and canonization from the church if you do

BTW, you really can stop saying that you query hasn't been answered. It may not have been answered how you would have liked it to, but answered it has been.

So we agree, its a stupid unproven assumption and you have no evidence to back it up

all that talk just to agree with me, well done but you could have saved yourself all the effort

Huzzah, we are on the same page.

HAHAHA. My mistake, I thought you were against evolution and for intelligent design.

I think a lot of people here think you are championing ID.

Still, I might not have needed to direct all of my post at you, but at least it might help the ignorant elsewhere.

(I always use ignorant in its truest form meaning unaware or onknowing, never in its vulgar form)

originally posted by: idmonster
HAHAHA. My mistake, I thought you were against evolution and for intelligent design.

I think a lot of people here think you are championing ID.

He has referred to himself as a creationist more than one time, so if he's pretending that he's not well it would be a ..... lie. I tend to just ignore this guy lately because he doesn't add anything at all to any conversation, he just rants and raves like he's got a bone to pick with everyone.

a reply to: Barcs

I know. He's doing that thing where they pretend that you've made their point for them.

My stance is quite clear, His stance is quite clear. Just thought I'd play him at his own game.

When it comes to blind stupidity, He's no tooth!

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: SubTruth

Whales, or more precisely all cetaceans, were once quadrupedal land mammals. They now have no fully developed legs (though they do have many vestigial morphological features) but it doesn't change the fact that they share common ancestry with the Hippopotomas as well as several other extinct, carnivorous ungulates.

Going to share what you consider those vestigials are with the rest of the world, because I think someone could be wrong.
If you're going to make statements of fact such s those you make above, its strongly encouraged to support them with some sort of citation. Otherwise it comes off as an ignorant opinion stated as fact.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: borntowatch

FFS - i have not called you stupid - YET but theres still time

and yes i do call you religiously brainwashed as you demonstrate it so aptly

as i stated previously - if you or any other creationist wants to claim that the laryngeal nerve has a secondary function and purpose - the burden is on you to demonstrate this

that is science .

its that simple

so - what is the secondary purpose of the laryngeal nerve ???

I am not claiming it does, I am claiming it could have one.
You are claiming it doesnt?

Once upon a time people use to give xrays on the street, they couldnt see the radiation, no evidence, no problem.
Once Upon a time people couldnt see bacteria and never washed their hands or themselves, imagine the problems in hospitals back then.

To say NO IT DOESNT is an assumption and that is just pure ignorance, why cant you understand that?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: borntowatch

FFS - i have not called you stupid - YET but theres still time

and yes i do call you religiously brainwashed as you demonstrate it so aptly

as i stated previously - if you or any other creationist wants to claim that the laryngeal nerve has a secondary function and purpose - the burden is on you to demonstrate this

that is science .

its that simple

so - what is the secondary purpose of the laryngeal nerve ???

I am not claiming it does, I am claiming it could have one.
You are claiming it doesnt?

Once upon a time people use to give xrays on the street, they couldnt see the radiation, no evidence, no problem.
Once Upon a time people couldnt see bacteria and never washed their hands or themselves, imagine the problems in hospitals back then.

To say NO IT DOESNT is an assumption and that is just pure ignorance, why cant you understand that?

And they formulated a hypothesis, and set out to find evidence to support their claims.

What they didn't do, is stamp their feet, cross their arms and cry, "i can see inside you" or "not cleaning hands will kill you", and leave it at that.

Nobody in science says "NO IT DOESN'T". what they say is "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE".

And that is a very different statement.

So, to paraphrase myself..stop stamping your feet, you have a hypothesis that the laryngeal nerve has a secondary purpose that explains the distended route it takes therefore proving that it was designed intelligently. Go experiment and show us!

ETA - Just so you know, I am an aTheist. The capital T means, that while I see no evidence to support the requirement for a god/designer(s), and therfore cannot conform to any religion currently offered. I realy wish it were true! I want there to be some guiding force or entity to make sense of being alive. In essence, I do not believe there is a god(s), but wish there was!

a reply to: borntowatch

please stop lying about my stance on this issue - its undignified

my in thread posts

there are only two - so its easy to see you are lying

but i will state :

the laryngeal nerve [ in all mammals ] demonstrates zero EVIDENCE of any secondary purpose or function

originally posted by: idmonster

And they formulated a hypothesis, and set out to find evidence to support their claims.

What they didn't do, is stamp their feet, cross their arms and cry, "i can see inside you" or "not cleaning hands will kill you", and leave it at that.

Nobody in science says "NO IT DOESN'T". what they say is "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE".

And that is a very different statement.

So, to paraphrase myself..stop stamping your feet, you have a hypothesis that the laryngeal nerve has a secondary purpose that explains the distended route it takes therefore proving that it was designed intelligently. Go experiment and show us!

ETA - Just so you know, I am an aTheist. The capital T means, that while I see no evidence to support the requirement for a god/designer(s), and therfore cannot conform to any religion currently offered. I realy wish it were true! I want there to be some guiding force or entity to make sense of being alive. In essence, I do not believe there is a god(s), but wish there was!

This has nothing to do with religion, why even bring that into it, you are trying to punch clouds.

Irrespective of its function/s, how about designing something better than what is already there.

I havnt seen a design yet, only a comment about making it smaller and that doesnt take into account development in the womb, in fact it was just a silly comment as opposed to a design.

and deer Ignorant ape, if I have said the wrong thing I am sorry, there are always a lot of comments, walls of texts and its easy to lose track of different people.. My apologies if I confused you with some one else.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Awww I want to kiss it's tongue hanging out it mouth

originally posted by: idmonster

Yeah thats very clever, though a little childish.
Can you tell me why that design is better? Can you tell me how .....

You have ignored my position re development inside the mummy's tummy

Please also consider that the stomach needs to be connected to the throat in case the poor creatures ingest something that is unsuitable and needs to be vomited out.

Now I dont think you are ...I dont think that is your image, did you steal it and claim it as your own?
Do you have a reference or are you that clever?

Are you assuming that the nerve only has one purpose.

In addition, "the laryngeal branch splits up into other branches before entering the larynx at different levels."11 These many RLN branches serve several other organs with both motor and sensory branches, including the upper esophagus, the trachea, the inferior pharynx, and the cricopharyngeus muscle, the lowest horizontal bandlike muscle of the throat just above the esophagus.12 Neuroanatomists describe larynx innervation as "complicated" and they are still trying to work out the specific targets of its nerve branches. The fact that the left RLN also gives off some fibers to the cardiac plexus is highly indicative of developmental constraints because the nerve must serve both the larynx (in the neck) and the heart (in the chest).

www.icr.org...

Yes I know its a creation science link but its not my job to prove it wrong, its yours.

Now what that means is the nerve may service other organs, get that, may service other organs.
Did you take that into account in your design, obviously NOT.
But hey, your design is really cool, just based on some severe possible ignorance, maybe science will find an answer when it gets developed enough to provide a valid scientific answer as opposed to ASSUMPTION.

But I will link walls of texts and go on some more because its fun

The fact is that even in humans in 0.3 to 1% of the population the right recurrent laryngeal nerve is indeed shortened and the route abbreviated in connection with a retromorphosis of the forth aortic arch. ("An unusual anomaly ... is the so-called 'non-recurrent' laryngeal nerve. In this condition, which has a frequency of between 0.3 - 1%, only the right side is affected and it is always associated with an abnormal growth of the right subclavian artery from the aortic arch on the left side" - Gray's Anatomy 2005, p. 644.; see also Uludag et al. 2009; the extremely rare cases (0.004% to 0.04%) on the left side appear to be always associated with situs inversus, thus still "the right side"). Nevertheless, even in this condition its branches still innervate the upper esophagus and trachea (but to a limited extent?). Although this variation generally seems to be without severe health problems, it can have catastrophic consequences for the persons so affected: problems in deglutition (difficulties in swallowing) and respiratory difficulties (troubles in breathing) (see Rammerstorfer 2004; moreover "dysphagia (if the pharyngeal and oesophageal branches of nonrecurrent or recurrent inferior laryngeal nerve are injured)" - Yang et al, 2009)

If mutations for such a short cut are possible and regularly appearing even in humans (not to mention some other non-shorter-route variations), - according to the law of recurrent variation (see Lönnig 2005, 2006), they must have occurred already millions of times in all mammal species and other vertebrates taken together from the Silurian (or Jurassic respectively) onwards. And this must also be true for any other (at least residually) functionally possible shorter variations of the right as well as of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve. Inference: All these 'short-cut mutations' were regularly counter-selected due to at least some disadvantageous and unfavourable effects on the phenotype of the so affected individuals (including any such mutants in the giraffes). Hence, they never had a chance to permeate and dominate a population except for the above mentioned very small minority of the (right) 'non-recurrent' laryngeal nerve, which is perhaps already accounted for by the genetic load ("The embryological nature of such a nervous anatomical variation results originally from a vascular disorder, named arteria lusoria in which the fourth right aortic arch is abnormally absorbed, being therefore unable to drag the right recurrent laryngeal nerve down when the heart descends and the neck elongates during embryonic development." Defechereux et al. 2000). Thus, even from a neo-Darwinian point of view, important additional functions of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens should be postulated and looked for, not to mention the topic of embryological functions and constraints.

There is heaps more explaining why your position is invalid, you may want to read it, most likely not.

www.evolutionnews.org...

So effectively the silly design is still existent while it could have been bred out
I wonder why, maybe its a good design after all and your assumption is wrong?

More???

Indeed, hints of important functions for the RLN nerve can be seen in the old authority, Gray's Anatomy, which states regarding the normal human design:

As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.

So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx. Pro-ID biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, in his article "The Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe: Does it Prove Evolution?," quotes a passage from a much more recent 1980 edition of Gray's Anatomy stating much the same thing:
As the recurrent laryngeal nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor [Constrictor pharyngis inferior].
(Gray's Anatomy, 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589)
www.evolutionnews.org...

Anyway there is lotsa and lotsa more, seems embarrassing the amount of information out there you have ignored.

Actually I dont think any atheist evolutionist would be embarrassed, I am guessing indignant would be a better description of the attitude.

originally posted by: borntowatch

Yeah thats very clever, though a little childish.
Can you tell me why that design is better? Can you tell me how .....

I have never said its better, just what i would expect to see if it had been designed. As for childish, you seemed unable to understand the concepts of "shortened" and 2taking a more direct route", and a picture speaks a thousand words.

You have ignored my position re development inside the mummy's tummy

Because its irrellevant, unless your saying that the designer is incompetent and was unaware of the final outcome of his/her design.

Please also consider that the stomach needs to be connected to the throat in case the poor creatures ingest something that is unsuitable and needs to be vomited out.

Irrelevant when discussing the laryngeal nerve, or are we now discussing the artistic merit of the diagram?

Now I dont think you are ...I dont think that is your image, did you steal it and claim it as your own?
Do you have a reference or are you that clever?

The pic on the right is in the public domain, I have alatered it to show a shortened nerve. Never claimed it as an original work, nice try at a strawman tho'

Are you assuming that the nerve only has one purpose.

I make no assumptions, just report the observable evidence. You are asserting that it might have more than one purpose. A nice hypothesis...go test it.

In addition, "the laryngeal branch splits up into other branches before entering the larynx at different levels."11 These many RLN branches serve several other organs with both motor and sensory branches, including the upper esophagus, the trachea, the inferior pharynx, and the cricopharyngeus muscle, the lowest horizontal bandlike muscle of the throat just above the esophagus.12 Neuroanatomists describe larynx innervation as "complicated" and they are still trying to work out the specific targets of its nerve branches. The fact that the left RLN also gives off some fibers to the cardiac plexus is highly indicative of developmental constraints because the nerve must serve both the larynx (in the neck) and the heart (in the chest).

I repeat, a nice hypothesis...go test it. Or provide a link to the work of "they" that are.

www.icr.org...


Yes I know its a creation science link but its not my job to prove it wrong, its yours.

Incorrect. Its the claimants job to prove the statement. In this instance you/they need to prove you/they are correct

Now what that means is the nerve may service other organs, get that, may service other organs.
Did you take that into account in your design, obviously NOT.

May it! It might also count heartbeats and provide the rhythm for a Latin waltz

But hey, your design is really cool, just based on some severe possible ignorance, maybe science will find an answer when it gets developed enough to provide a valid scientific answer as opposed to ASSUMPTION.

Hello pot, have you met the kettle!

a reply to: borntowatch

You're still sort've missing the point.

if I am designing the giraffe, and you tell me that the laryngeal nerve has to perform all of those other functions, i'm probably going with:



So even if the secondary functions are proved, from a design perspective its still a poor effort.

After reading this whole thread I cant help but shake my head.

I am reminded of an ant trying to tell an engineer that he designed a 747 wrong.

And just how pointless debating these issues are here.

Borntowatch, I appreciate your effort and tenacity. I hope on some level you find these debates entertaining, because I know you realize even if you provided 'proof' this nerve ended up being critical for digestion, peristalsis and respiration it would still be deemed by the ants as a bad design.

The huborus in these threads is stifling.

originally posted by: stosh64

I am reminded of an ant trying to tell an engineer that he designed a 747 wrong.

"It looks like a design flaw, but it's actually not because god works in mysterious ways".

Real convincing case you got there.

And just how pointless debating these issues are here.

True, but probably not for the reasons you believe.

Borntowatch, I appreciate your effort and tenacity. I hope on some level you find these debates entertaining, because I know you realize even if you provided 'proof' this nerve ended up being critical for digestion, peristalsis and respiration it would still be deemed by the ants as a bad design.

Or you could, you know, substantiate such a ludicrous claim with evidence rather than saying "but but but!" in the face of facts.

The huborus in these threads is stifling.

The irony of clinging to long outdated faith-based beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence? Agreed.

originally posted by: idmonster

This picture pretty much nails it and it is clear evidence that the giraffe's neck has gotten longer over time, hence the nerve extending that far down. If you go back to its ancestor, you'll likely find the nerve exactly like in picture 2, but without the long neck and long nerve. As one can clearly see it extended over time, so the nerve did as well.

I can't think of any reason a designer would run a nerve in a giant loop, when it can easily be connected above.

Please also consider that the stomach needs to be connected to the throat in case the poor creatures ingest something that is unsuitable and needs to be vomited out.

This cracked me up. It is a NERVE in the neck, not part of his throat!!! Why even type something so ignorant and uninformed? This dude just rants and raves and posts nothing but creationist propaganda. The fact that he'd call you childish over a simple drawing speaks volumes. It's always childish when it shows his viewpoint is absurd, but whenever it's a web link from ICR or a fake evolution site it's absolute truth. Hilarious. Thanks for this, Born, you just made my lunch break complete!

I find people's views on a "designer" are so stunted and narrow it's untrue. Quite frankly "designer" is a poor word to use for what people are referring to.

Why on earth a giraffes physiology should disprove a "designer" (of sorts) baffles me. The world isn't perfect - And it took a Giraffe to show this to you?

Call me dimwitted, ignorant or just misguided. But although I don't know what this life is all about, I do know that a nerve in a Giraffes neck will not change my faith in "something"

Some people are just like 'ah-ha ammunition - let's try prove them wrong again' .. When really I think the answer wlil lie somewhere in-between what you're insinuating and what you're arguing against.