Does science actually admit "design"?

[Shemjaza]

There's one way to find out; cut the many nerve fibers emanating from entire length the giraffe's RLN that connect to various organs along the path, and see what happens.

That's silly.

If I complain that a plumber cut some corners and had a pipe running at head height out a window before joining the sewer system, he doesn't prove me wrong by kicking out the pipe.

It's a crummy design, that it works okay doesn't change that.

 

[Abraxos]

As obvious as Creation and ID are, they do not make much sense to me in science. They both can not be falsified through the sciences; they can only purport a conclusion that happens to be supportive and consistent with a belief/worldview. It's more about the seeking of confirmations rather than the method to seek falsifications in order to improve upon, or to dismiss to find new or better hypothesis', etc.

 

[Shemjaza]

As obvious as Creation and ID are, they do not make much sense to me in science. They both can not be falsified through the sciences; they can only purport a conclusion that happens to be supportive and consistent with a belief/worldview. It's more about the seeking of confirmations rather than the method to seek falsifications in order to improve upon, or to dismiss to find new or better hypothesis', etc.

You haven't read a single post in the thread about how evolution is demonstrated or could be falsified, have you?

 

[tas8831]

I meant in terms of function. When I wire a 3-three pole switch the common neutral alternates between being 'hot' and being 'not'. Same circuit, different function.

Sure, because genes and nervous systems work EXACTLY like the wiring of a switch.

And you know this because of your extensive knowledge and experience in anatomy, physiology and genetics. Er, wait, you have already admitted.. Never mind.

 

[tas8831]

There's one way to find out; cut the many nerve fibers emanating from entire length the giraffe's RLN that connect to various organs along the path, and see what happens.

Even better - learn some embryology and you wouldn't need to tinker like an 'engineer' and make silly guesses by making analogies to electronics and the like.


The RLN takes the path it does because of a conserved developmental process, seen in all vertebrates.


During the early stages of development, when the nervous system, digestive system, face/head, and circulatory system are just starting out, ALL vertebrates lay down virtually identical primordia - at this stage of development, they are all literally right next to each other - heart and primordial circulatory system, brain/brainstem/cranial spinal cord, digestive/respiratory system (pharynx) - all jam packed right next to each other.

Bear with me - this is a bit later in development that what I was referring to, but the basic proximity of structures is still pretty clear:

The area around that red splotch in the middle is the developing heart. That ball-shaped thing above that is the developing mandible. To the left of the red splotch/developing heart is the last remaining parts of the pharyngeal apparatus ('gill slits'), to the left of that, the circular thing is the developing external ear. The 'clear' region on the left, extending up into the head, is the spinal cord/brain. You can see little tendrils emanating from the area of the brainstem traveling 'through' the pharyngeal apparatus region (actually, around the pharynx - that clearish region) , heading toward the heart. In the adult, these tendrils (nerves associated with the pharyngeal arches) will extend down through the neck area. The larynx is developing somewhere just under the mandible in this picture. What you cannot see in these pics are the blood vessels emanating and traveling back to the heart, but they are there, and those 'tendrils' (nerves) pass between some of these aortic arches.

See? All right next to each other.

In the human, the larynx 'migrates' lower into the neck. The nerves that supply it are 'dragged' along with the migrating larynx, but since they passed between aortic arches (most of which are now regressing, being co-opted to form adult vessels, etc.) , the nerves are 'pulled' way down into the mediastinum, even as they are connected to the larynx, which stays in the neck.

No need to posit silly electrician-type trial and error tests. Just a little relevant knowledge. But to use a 'design' analogy - it is like doing all the wiring for a car before the frame is built, and then having to route the wiring for, say, the starter around the rear seats and then back into the engine. An act that would get a human designer at the very least laughed at, I should think.
And thats the point - there is no design, just left over developmental processes that 'worked'.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

 

[tas8831]

This is a recapitulation statement (lot's of those in there). Just consider "formed" past tense, had formed; problem solved.

Oh, well, thats that! How convenient! Never mind that regardless of the tense, the order of events is inconsistent. But that is what apologetics is for, right? Reconciling the irreconcilable?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The question is not whether it is better for the nerve to be functional or not, but whether re-routing the nerve would be a better design.

It seems to me that the tiny nerve filaments that connect to various organs along the path are better protected within the long cord sheath. It looks like a very good design.

https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_recurrent_laryngeal_nerve_/

"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)

Also the nerve isn't as extremely "recurrent" as is posed by evolutionists as it branches off the vegus nerve just above the aortic arch, descends only slightly before for ascending to the larynx.

Figure 2. A diagram of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve which branches off from the vagus nerve. Note that the superior laryngeal nerve transverses directly to the larynx, and the recurrent laryngeal nerve innervates several structures as it travels back up to the larynx.
Illustration by Susan Windsor. Copyright © 2010 Institute for Creation Research. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Recurrent laryngeal nerve design - creation.com

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh, well, thats that! How convenient! Never mind that regardless of the tense, the order of events is inconsistent. But that is what apologetics is for, right? Reconciling the irreconcilable?

Maybe you should ask your pastor about this (or you could just tear those pages out).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Even better - learn some embryology and you wouldn't need to tinker like an 'engineer' and make silly guesses by making analogies to electronics and the like.


The RLN takes the path it does because of a conserved developmental process, seen in all vertebrates.


During the early stages of development, when the nervous system, digestive system, face/head, and circulatory system are just starting out, ALL vertebrates lay down virtually identical primordia - at this stage of development, they are all literally right next to each other - heart and primordial circulatory system, brain/brainstem/cranial spinal cord, digestive/respiratory system (pharynx) - all jam packed right next to each other.

Bear with me - this is a bit later in development that what I was referring to, but the basic proximity of structures is still pretty clear:

The area around that red splotch in the middle is the developing heart. That ball-shaped thing above that is the developing mandible. To the left of the red splotch/developing heart is the last remaining parts of the pharyngeal apparatus ('gill slits'), to the left of that, the circular thing is the developing external ear. The 'clear' region on the left, extending up into the head, is the spinal cord/brain. You can see little tendrils emanating from the area of the brainstem traveling 'through' the pharyngeal apparatus region (actually, around the pharynx - that clearish region) , heading toward the heart. In the adult, these tendrils (nerves associated with the pharyngeal arches) will extend down through the neck area. The larynx is developing somewhere just under the mandible in this picture. What you cannot see in these pics are the blood vessels emanating and traveling back to the heart, but they are there, and those 'tendrils' (nerves) pass between some of these aortic arches.

See? All right next to each other.

In the human, the larynx 'migrates' lower into the neck. The nerves that supply it are 'dragged' along with the migrating larynx, but since they passed between aortic arches (most of which are now regressing, being co-opted to form adult vessels, etc.) , the nerves are 'pulled' way down into the mediastinum, even as they are connected to the larynx, which stays in the neck.

No need to posit silly electrician-type trial and error tests. Just a little relevant knowledge. But to use a 'design' analogy - it is like doing all the wiring for a car before the frame is built, and then having to route the wiring for, say, the starter around the rear seats and then back into the engine. An act that would get a human designer at the very least laughed at, I should think.
And thats the point - there is no design, just left over developmental processes that 'worked'.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Are those giraffe embryos?

 

[tas8831]

So, you don't believe that 'the body has a mind of it's own'?

Concession accepted.

 

[tas8831]

Are those giraffe embryos?

Mouse.

Here are human, giraffe, and/or dolphin. Or are they?

They are all different, I will say that. It is hard to find pictures of different embryos at the same developmental stage, but I tried. You could find out yourself if you weren't so intellectually lazy.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe you should ask your pastor about this (or you could just tear those pages out).

I know all about apologetics. I find it pretty funny.

Still waiting for evidence from anatomy shows Intelligent Design Creation.

 

[tas8831]

It seems to me that the tiny nerve filaments that connect to various organs along the path are better protected within the long cord sheath. It looks like a very good design.

LOL!

Amazing - one creationist essay written by a creationist lawyer and you think you've supported your layman's notions. How cute!


Funny thing about this "protection" farce - when I was dissecting cadavers, the first thing we would do is remove the skin. Once an incision is made, it is easiest to use your fingers to separate the skin from the underlying fascia. When doing this, I used to like to watch the 'interaction' of the skin and the underlying tissues (not molecules) - I could watch individual nerve fiber bundles stretch and then finally tear. No bigger bundles for 'protection' - just tiny, filament-like nerve fibers, all by themselves.

It is so precious to see people pontificate on things they clearly have reason to.

By the way - the desperate creationists over at the DI apparently didn't tell folks like you that the RLN is a branch off of the vagus nerve, which extends well down into the abdomen, and the 'delicate' (lol!) fibers they were so concerned about could just as easily have branched directly from the vagus, were the designer 1. real and 2. competent.

Why, even the esteemed Dr. Lönnig doesn't mention this .... for some reason... It is almost as if these wizards are hiding something from people with backgrounds in, say, engineering or 3D modeling or business...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL!

Amazing - one creationist essay written by a creationist lawyer and you think you've supported your layman's notions. How cute!


Funny thing about this "protection" farce - when I was dissecting cadavers, the first thing we would do is remove the skin. Once an incision is made, it is easiest to use your fingers to separate the skin from the underlying fascia. When doing this, I used to like to watch the 'interaction' of the skin and the underlying tissues (not molecules) - I could watch individual nerve fiber bundles stretch and then finally tear. No bigger bundles for 'protection' - just tiny, filament-like nerve fibers, all by themselves.

It is so precious to see people pontificate on things they clearly have reason to.

By the way - the desperate creationists over at the DI apparently didn't tell folks like you that the RLN is a branch off of the vagus nerve, which extends well down into the abdomen, and the 'delicate' (lol!) fibers they were so concerned about could just as easily have branched directly from the vagus, were the designer 1. real and 2. competent.

Why, even the esteemed Dr. Lönnig doesn't mention this .... for some reason... It is almost as if these wizards are hiding something from people with backgrounds in, say, engineering or 3D modeling or business...

To my wiring analogy, the RLN is similar to a 'loop' found in many common electrical circuits. Great design, and economical as well. If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response. Someday you guys will get it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL!

Amazing - one creationist essay written by a creationist lawyer and you think you've supported your layman's notions. How cute!

You have a problem with Gray's Anatomy?

 

[tas8831]

The comment goes directly to the RLN of the giraffe (why am I the only one that knows this stuff?).

LOL!

How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? Or that the throat tightens and the voice becomes weak under certain stressful situations. This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe.

So....

A non-biologist such as yourself posits that you are the only one that 'understands' the "mind of the body" [sic] - "influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain"



No.... You are apparently the only one that does NOT understand how the nervous system works.


Let us deconstruct the simple-mindedness of your high-IQ/spectacularly uninformed folly:


"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened?"


Vocal signals LEAVE the brain, they do not go to it. :LOL:


In all of your study of anatomy, did you not once stop to inquire as to how these things actually work?

But let us employ your naive jargon - the same way ANY 'signal' gets to any part of the body when anything with a nervous system gets frightened.


You see, we cannot alter the speed of nerve impulses. Only the frequency of them. The speed of nerve impulses vary depending on the type of neuron (do you know what a neuron is? I mean without googling?), whether the axon is myelinated, the diameter of the axon, etc.
Regardless, it is at least 0.5 meters/sec. And that is for small diameter, unmyelinated fibers.

Fibers from viscera transmit impulses at around 15 m/sec - the larger, myelinated fibers can transmit at speeds up to 130 m/sec, but that is the high-end.

Fear or surprise are emotional responses to stimuli - stimuli received from our senses (smell, sight, hearing for the most part) by the brain, which then generates a response that, if there is a motor component (such as making a sound) then is sent out of the brain via motor neurons (whose speed of transmission is on the higher-end). So from the instant a 'scary' image or sound or smell is detected, it has to travel the few inches from sensory receptor to brain - get processed by thousands of neurons which are located nano- to millimeters apart from each other, then down motor neurons to the 'voice box'. In a giraffe, that greatest travel distance is along the RLN, maybe 15 feet according to creation.com (a totally 'trustworthy' site, right?) - so if we take the low end speed for motor neurons (which are myelinated - 12 m/sec), we are looking at a whopping 1/3 second.

Impulses get to where they are going "so fast" because that is how things work at the cellular level in the nervous system.

Shouldn't a person with an IQ of 135 that has been 'arguing' about evolution for at least a few years and who claims to have studied anatomy actually know these things?



Anyway...


"Or that the throat tightens and the voice becomes weak under certain stressful situations."


See above.

"This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain."



Sorry - do you know NOTHING of basic physiology?


ALL such reactions require brain (or at least spinal cord) input, and what you naively call "visceral" reactions are just reflexive, and STILL require brain/spinal cord input.


"The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."

Yup. In at most 1/3 of a second.


I don't think anyone has claimed that the routing of the RLN is physiologically a problem. What HAS been claimed is that it is a rather circuitous route and should a human designer route important wirings in such a fashion, I should think that they would, at least, be laughed at.
Whereas, if one understands development - and the evolutionary history behind it - it makes sense.

You know... One of the reasons I 'go after' creationists like you is your arrogance. You think that your mere shallow opinions on things biological are true because they prop up your religious ideology. You refuse to allow that you might actually not understand things at the depth you think you do, at a depth needed to successfully argue against people that actually DID study anatomy and physiology and genetics and evolution, as opposed to skimming a few creationist pamphlets.


Your attempted rescue of the RLN issue is absolutely HILARIOUS, because you clearly think you made some major point, yet it took me longer - about 15 times longer - to type my response than it did for me to see that you are 100% clueless regarding simple, freshman-level nervous system anatomy and physiology, despite claiming to have studied it.

And doubtless, you will condescend from on high about how I am squirming for dominance or whatever.

But the actually educated on here will see the truth. And laugh.

 

[tas8831]

To my wiring analogy, the RLN is similar to a 'loop' found in many common electrical circuits. Great design, and economical as well. If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response. Someday you guys will get it.

Someday you non-biologists might realize that when you write things like "If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch" we can tell how spectacularly clueless you are about anatomy and physiology.

Keep them coming!

Oh and this gem - "'my heart was in my throat' response" - you really think that this emotional response is triggered directly by the heart?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

What a hoot!

I think I will share this with my anatomy students today - they need a good laugh.

 

[tas8831]

You have a problem with Gray's Anatomy?

LOL!

No - I have a problem with people pretending that they understand things they don't - or people that should know better leaving details out to try to prop up their fantasies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

ALL such reactions require brain (or at least spinal cord) input, and what you naively call "visceral" reactions are just reflexive, and STILL require brain/spinal cord input.

So I'm right after all.

Spinal Cord - Brain, Spinal Cord, and Nerve Disorders - Merck Manuals Consumer Version

Neurologic Examination - Brain, Spinal Cord, and Nerve Disorders - Merck Manuals Consumer Version

Scroll down to "Reflexes".

What is the difference between "unconscious response" (my term), and "reflex" (your term)?

 

[tas8831]

So I'm right after all.

Spinal Cord - Brain, Spinal Cord, and Nerve Disorders - Merck Manuals Consumer Version

Neurologic Examination - Brain, Spinal Cord, and Nerve Disorders - Merck Manuals Consumer Version

Scroll down to "Reflexes".

What is the difference between "unconscious response" (my term), and "reflex" (your term)?

LOL!

My gosh, the desperation...

This is even worse that your molecules=tissues desperation antics.

Please let us all review your original (erroneous) assertions/implications:

How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? Or that the throat tightens and the voice becomes weak under certain stressful situations. This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe.​

After I show that your position is poppycock, you engage in a desperate face-saving maneuver in which you want to address only this one point:


"What is the difference between "unconscious response" (my term), and "reflex" (your term)?"



Why, one has to wonder, are you attempting to divert focus onto a single term rather than your layman's notion that:

How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened?​

"Unconscious vocal signals" do NOT 'get to' the brain, they are INITIATED IN the brain.

Or maybe this layman's notion:

Or that the throat tightens and the voice becomes weak under certain stressful situations. This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain.​

Um..... NO. This is NOT what the 'throat tightens' is. Look up "visceral reaction" in your newly found medical source. What do you see?

Or since this is all a mere difference in terminology (according to your new antic) - maybe "visceral response"?

Nope.

The 'body' does not control the "voice box" - that is not how it works, and trying to divert attention away from the fact that you do not understand how the body works by trying to salvage a 'win' by focusing on a single word is only making you look desperate.

WAIT! There is more:

The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe.​

The signal gets there FROM THE BRAIN, not the 'body'. In your new medical source, since it deals with medical issues, we can see from this:


"Paralysis of one vocal cord can result from brain disorders, such as brain tumors, strokes, and demyelinating diseases (such as multiple sclerosis), or damage to the nerves that lead to the voice box (larynx). Nerve damage may be caused by noncancerous (benign) and cancerous (malignant) tumors; neck injury; surgery to the neck, such as surgical removal of the thyroid gland or spinal surgery; a viral infection of the nerves; Lyme disease; neurotoxins (substances that poison or destroy nerve tissue), such as lead, mercury, and arsenic; or the toxins produced in diphtheria. The cause is unknown for some people."

If 'the body' controlled the larynx (i.e., speech), then why aren't the viscera considered as a possible source for vocal cord paralysis? And by the way - there are no nerves that go from viscera to the larynx, in case you were thinking of looking for an out.

Why can you not simply admit that you are out of your depth and move on? Squirming for dominance or something?





I eagerly await the next installment of "Yeah but, what about X???"......