The laryngeal nerve of a Giraffe. (autopsy)

a reply to: borntowatch

You've been somewhat angry since you first responded to this thread. I simply chose to ignore you based on that rather than the validity of your question.

You've already implied we're all sycophants. How could we ever hope to muster the mental acuity required to answer?

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

This post = 99% bluster. It's totally transparent faux outrage which would fail to impress a small child, let alone anyone who is mildly cognizant.

The actual 1% of content is this -

"re the Giraffes laryngeal, a simpler alternative, effective, working, evolution streamline method "

That's the explanation you have given me. Hardly descriptive, is it?

Oh and its far easier for me to magnify the flaws in your faith if I know what they are.
Cant really argue with your position if you are to scared to reveal your position, cant explain where your theory falls if you dont have a theory.
Cant point out the faults in the issue if you dont make a statement


and then I cant move my goal posts if you dont have any goal posts of your own

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: borntowatch

You've been somewhat angry since you first responded to this thread. I simply chose to ignore you based on that rather than the validity of your question.

You've already implied we're all sycophants. How could we ever hope to muster the mental acuity required to answer?

Mental acuity? Its science, all you need is evidence and reason, acuity can stay in the bag.

and no I am not angry, its just simple me asking for a little evidence and reason. That should be the first priority of any discussion, didnt call everyone sycophants either, just sheep following the herd mentality if anything.
Dont mistake my position, I accept why so many believe in evolution, it makes sense, its believable and has some basis in logic. I just want to see the evidence. A long nerve does not prove anything on its own, if anything I see it proves incredible design.

A book was written
Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, Kelly C. Smith states that "if a design in nature is clearly inferior to what a human engineer could produce, then we are entitled to [reject ID]." (p. 724)

I think thats a fair statement by kelly, so I am just asking to see the better design, common sense?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: borntowatch

You've been somewhat angry since you first responded to this thread. I simply chose to ignore you based on that rather than the validity of your question.

You've already implied we're all sycophants. How could we ever hope to muster the mental acuity required to answer?

Here is a thought, dont read what i write as if I am angry, read it as if I am being patronising, I think thats a better fit.

originally posted by: PilgriMage
www.icr.org...

Description of the article in link: "Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design", by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

For people with lacking google-fu - or who are just lazy.

Personally, I agree with the article. Be it a human or a giraffe, it is ridiculous and bigotry to state something is of bad design, when we hardly know even the basics of how the thing we evaluate works - even less so how it came to be, evolved or was designed.

Thanks for the link.

I think I have a better grasp of Blechschmidt's hypothesis. He is basically saying that the ridiculously long laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is the way it is because it needs to be that way during fetal development (which is what I suspected he would say).

The most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.

To which I can only respond - why didn't the designer design it (ie the whole system) better in the first place? The omnipotent and all-powerful designer is limited to developmental constraints? Why would that be? Doesn't the designer design those developmental constraints?

I mean, it makes sense to an 'evolutionist' to believe in developmental constraints, which is essentially what they've been saying for donkey's years - that these things exist for a reason. In the case of the laryngeal nerve, it's placement in fish is straight forward and logical, but as fish evolved into reptiles and mammals and the other structures nearby went into the chest, the nerve is forced (by developmental constraints) to remain in the same relation to other structures now in the chest area.

Incidentally, that Bergman guy seems like a bit of an idiot when he says things like this -

"Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngeal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim."

Which is a strawman, as no one is claiming "faulty" design here, and this childish statement "disproves" nothing whatsoever. The claim is of "poor design" and there is a subtle yet significant distinction between the two. I can design a poorly laid out electrical circuit, which could very well work perfectly in concert with some other circuit or process, yet it still could be poorly designed or laid out.

In short, I'm not terribly impressed by either of these guys. The arguments posted reek of post hoc rationalization fueled by a fundamentalist based world view.

a reply to: borntowatch

Now my question is simple, if the design is poor, if there is a better design than the one existing in the giraffe, what is it, how does it work and why is your design better. Its not very difficult, its simple design.

Well my design would be not to have the laryngeal nerve looping around the aorta, since there is no reason for it. It works exactly the same, but it's better because there isn't metres of wasted nerve tissue.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Eunuchorn

The nerve goes all the way down the neck and back up to the brain...If designed it would only be a couple of inches to the brain but as the giraffe evolved (neck got bigger) the nerve went down its neck and back up. When it didn't need to.

Boymonkey, you seem to be convinced that this is a bad design. But can you please enlighten me as to the consequences of the "nerve not going up inches to the brain then back down"?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: borntowatch

You've been somewhat angry since you first responded to this thread. I simply chose to ignore you based on that rather than the validity of your question.

You've already implied we're all sycophants. How could we ever hope to muster the mental acuity required to answer?

Same question to you sir:

Can you please enlighten me as to the consequences of the "nerve not going up inches to the brain then back down"?

a reply to: boymonkey74
double post

a reply to: borntowatch

I was about to respond but ReturnofTheSonOfNothing somewhat hit the point I was going to. If it was in fact designed then there seems to be no reason the designer could not have made it however it wished rather than be confined to developmental constraints. Of course then we can say that all evidence, including any fossil we discover, was also put in place by a designer much like building earth in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

No matter how I look at it even if this is not evidence of evolution it doesn't seem to be proof of any other idea. I find much more compelling evidence of intelligence design in things like the fibonacci sequence and other magic numbers that seem to pop up in nature.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: PilgriMage
www.icr.org...

Description of the article in link: "Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design", by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

For people with lacking google-fu - or who are just lazy.

Personally, I agree with the article. Be it a human or a giraffe, it is ridiculous and bigotry to state something is of bad design, when we hardly know even the basics of how the thing we evaluate works - even less so how it came to be, evolved or was designed.

Thanks for the link.

I think I have a better grasp of Blechschmidt's hypothesis. He is basically saying that the ridiculously long laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is the way it is because it needs to be that way during fetal development (which is what I suspected he would say).

The most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.

To which I can only respond - why didn't the designer design it (ie the whole system) better in the first place? The omnipotent and all-powerful designer is limited to developmental constraints? Why would that be? Doesn't the designer design those developmental constraints?

I mean, it makes sense to an 'evolutionist' to believe in developmental constraints, which is essentially what they've been saying for donkey's years - that these things exist for a reason. In the case of the laryngeal nerve, it's placement in fish is straight forward and logical, but as fish evolved into reptiles and mammals and the other structures nearby went into the chest, the nerve is forced (by developmental constraints) to remain in the same relation to other structures now in the chest area.

Incidentally, that Bergman guy seems like a bit of an idiot when he says things like this -

"Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngeal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim."

Which is a strawman, as no one is claiming "faulty" design here, and this childish statement "disproves" nothing whatsoever. The claim is of "poor design" and there is a subtle yet significant distinction between the two. I can design a poorly laid out electrical circuit, which could very well work perfectly in concert with some other circuit or process, yet it still could be poorly designed or laid out.

In short, I'm not terribly impressed by either of these guys. The arguments posted reek of post hoc rationalization fueled by a fundamentalist based world view.

So your assumption is if I read your position correctly?

"which could very well work perfectly in concert with some other circuit or process"

It has only one purpose, one circuit, this system by itself is designed for no other purpose than the one that is self evident.

Is it a sad indication of intelligence that someone may look at a light switch and not see the circuit is also linked to a smoke detector, alarm system.
Its like an evolutionist who calls the tail bone a vestigial, not realising its importance to the bowel and its necessity in childbirth
Did I hear ignorance?

Care to move your posts?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: PilgriMage
www.icr.org...

Description of the article in link: "Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design", by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

For people with lacking google-fu - or who are just lazy.

Personally, I agree with the article. Be it a human or a giraffe, it is ridiculous and bigotry to state something is of bad design, when we hardly know even the basics of how the thing we evaluate works - even less so how it came to be, evolved or was designed.

Thanks for the link.

I think I have a better grasp of Blechschmidt's hypothesis. He is basically saying that the ridiculously long laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is the way it is because it needs to be that way during fetal development (which is what I suspected he would say).

The most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.

To which I can only respond - why didn't the designer design it (ie the whole system) better in the first place? The omnipotent and all-powerful designer is limited to developmental constraints? Why would that be? Doesn't the designer design those developmental constraints?

I mean, it makes sense to an 'evolutionist' to believe in developmental constraints, which is essentially what they've been saying for donkey's years - that these things exist for a reason. In the case of the laryngeal nerve, it's placement in fish is straight forward and logical, but as fish evolved into reptiles and mammals and the other structures nearby went into the chest, the nerve is forced (by developmental constraints) to remain in the same relation to other structures now in the chest area.

Incidentally, that Bergman guy seems like a bit of an idiot when he says things like this -

"Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngeal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim."

Which is a strawman, as no one is claiming "faulty" design here, and this childish statement "disproves" nothing whatsoever. The claim is of "poor design" and there is a subtle yet significant distinction between the two. I can design a poorly laid out electrical circuit, which could very well work perfectly in concert with some other circuit or process, yet it still could be poorly designed or laid out.

In short, I'm not terribly impressed by either of these guys. The arguments posted reek of post hoc rationalization fueled by a fundamentalist based world view.

So your assumption is if I read your position correctly?

"which could very well work perfectly in concert with some other circuit or process"

It has only one purpose, one circuit, this system by itself is designed for no other purpose than the one that is self evident.

Is it a sad indication of intelligence that someone may look at a light switch and not see the circuit is also linked to a smoke detector, alarm system.
Its like an evolutionist who calls the tail bone a vestigial, not realising its importance to the bowel and its necessity in childbirth
Did I hear ignorance?

Care to move your posts?

Great analysis!

Especially this part:

look at a light switch and not see the circuit is also linked to a smoke detector, alarm system.

originally posted by: borntowatch

So your assumption is if I read your position correctly?

"which could very well work perfectly in concert with some other circuit or process"

It has only one purpose, one circuit, this system by itself is designed for no other purpose than the one that is self evident.

Go back to Bergman's quote - "works in perfect harmony with the left laryngeal nerve"

Is it a sad indication of intelligence that someone may look at a light switch and not see the circuit is also linked to a smoke detector, alarm system.
Its like an evolutionist who calls the tail bone a vestigial, not realising its importance to the bowel and its necessity in childbirth
Did I hear ignorance?

Care to move your posts?

- Did I hear ignorance

If you can hear anything at all it's the sound of my eyes rolling in their sockets so hard and so quickly they are making an audible noise..

a reply to: edmc^2

The assumption in the video and by others here is the RLN performs just one job, it has a singular purpose.
Science is now discovering that it may have many more reasons to be what and where it is.

Its all still about learning the truth and science catching up with its purpose.
Sadly the assumptions made here abouts is akin to stone age australopithecus's building a computer with rocks and woven tree fibres-.

So I cant answer your question because I dont know, what I can say is I am making no assumptions based on ignorance.

The nerve is there, it is long and it may have many other roles to fill.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Great analysis!

Especially this part:



"look at a light switch and not see the circuit is also linked to a smoke detector, alarm system."

The assumption is its a light switch, its a poor assumption.

a reply to: borntowatch

Maybe it picks up radio waves?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: edmc^2

Great analysis!

Especially this part:



"look at a light switch and not see the circuit is also linked to a smoke detector, alarm system."

The assumption is its a light switch, its a poor assumption.

No you missed my point - it's a circuit.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Maybe it picks up radio waves?

Maybe, I dont know what else it could do, radio waves sounds very cool.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Maybe it picks up radio waves?

Maybe, I dont know what else it could do, radio waves sounds very cool.

Because, hey why not? Science can't prove it doesn't, right? Giraffe laryngeal nerve = radio antenna... confirmed.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Maybe it picks up radio waves?

Maybe, I dont know what else it could do, radio waves sounds very cool.

Because, hey why not? Science can't prove it doesn't, right? Giraffe laryngeal nerve = radio antenna... confirmed.

Geez,

yhou people are clueless.

It has nothing to do with "radio waves" but the "circuit" has to do with balance.