Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do snakes have traits that prevent them from suffocating when they are swallowing large food items.........
-_- it creates tons of visual problems, actually. Why do you think optical illusions are a thing? The image the eye processes is so flawed that the brain has to fill in the gaps with what it thinks belongs there. That's why our occipital lobe has to be so large.
yes. but its still not a real eye, which is much more sophisticated.-_- would you not consider a camera the technological equivalent?
-_- anyone that doesn't consider the blindspot to be a problem is fooling themselves. Have you considered that the blindspot legitimately causes you to entirely overlook items small enough to fit entirely within it in your field of vision? Which could include items such as a venomous spider. But no, overlooking that "is not really a problem", apparently.again: if its make no problem for vision then its not realy a problem.
Try unnecessarily complicated. Don't you find it the least bit ridiculous that your own eyes can't even process an image as being upright, so our brains have to flip it? Even the most basic of cameras can manage that, but this "sophisticated" eye can't?yes. but its still not a real eye, which is much more sophisticated.
Our eyes are adequate for survival, but they are far from ideal. "Good enough" is not an indication of intelligent design.I've never been bothered by my blind spot, or my brain filling in the space (but that's just me). The design is very functional for our limited and temporary use.
-_- Ignoring most of my post just to post some baseless claims. I should be getting used to that, but I don't, nor will I find such behavior acceptable.Aren't some snakes designed with a special tube that allows them to breathe while swallowing large prey. Clearly a design feature, not a 'trait'. It also cannot be explained by evolution.
I've never been bothered by my blind spot, or my brain filling in the space (but that's just me). The design is very functional for our limited and temporary use.
Some snakes possess a special tube that allows them to breathe while swallowing large prey. Clearly an evolved 'trait'. It also can be explained by evolution.Aren't some snakes designed with a special tube that allows them to breathe while swallowing large prey. Clearly a design feature, not a 'trait'. It also cannot be explained by evolution.
That link pretty much says it all.
So predictable that the creationist tries to laugh off a pretty obvious instance of poor design. That it works well is not evidence that it is good design. But the creationist knows no bounds when it comes to faith protection.True. For nearly 6000 years millions (if not billions) of people were blissfully unaware of this horrible visual impairment.
Our eyes are adequate for survival, but they are far from ideal. "Good enough" is not an indication of intelligent design.
-_- Ignoring most of my post just to post some baseless claims. I should be getting used to that, but I don't, nor will I find such behavior acceptable.
Obviously, as a trait which benefits organisms which swallow prey whole (like snakes do), the trait is easy to explain via evolution. Every trait is derived the same basic way, and this tube isn't some sort of special, evolution defying trait.
Plus, you don't even think about the fact that tons of organisms swallow large food items whole, yet your so called "designer" deemed that only snakes would get this feature. What for? Did this designer favor snakes for some arbitrary reason? It doesn't make any sense, from a design perspective, to only give one group of organisms which swallow large prey items whole a mechanism by which not to choke from it. From an evolution perspective, since populations only gain traits that arise via mutations, it makes perfect sense for many lineages to lack traits which would present an obvious benefit; there isn't any intelligence behind which traits become present in the population, so they work with what they get and what they already have.
Our eyes are adequate for survival, but they are far from ideal. "Good enough" is not an indication of intelligent design.
Our eyes are the victims of generations of physical degeneration. We really don't know how good our eyes were at the beginning of creation, but in any case they were perfect for the vision that God intended them to provide. Heck, they're still pretty good.
No, human eyes are pretty meh. Birds have far better eyesight, generally, and their eyes have the same issues of blind spots, etc. Though, compared to other animals, our senses of smell and hearing are far worse.Our eyes are the victims of generations of physical degeneration. We really don't know how good our eyes were at the beginning of creation, but in any case they were perfect for the vision that God intended them to provide. Heck, they're still pretty good.
Irrelevant; all of these animals have the potential to choke, you know that for a fact. So explain why you, as a designer, would ONLY give snakes this mechanism to help prevent choking? Why not make all organisms have the capacity to chew, so that it is indisputably on them if they do choke? To be extremely blunt, even snakes choke sometimes, because their anti-choking adaptations are imperfect and they can end up swallowing live prey (which gets lodged in the throat as it struggles).Some snakes need the tube because they take so long to swallow large prey. We'd have to examine the anatomy of those other 'gulpers' to really know.
No, human eyes are pretty meh. Birds have far better eyesight, generally, and their eyes have the same issues of blind spots, etc. Though, compared to other animals, our senses of smell and hearing are far worse.
Support assertion with data and evidence.
-_- nothing we do currently wreaks our vision, and humans demonstrably don't have as good of hearing as, say, dogs (which share our noisy environment). It's not as if everyone on the planet gets hearing damage before the age of 5, yeesh. Smell is even less impacted by the lifestyles of most people, with only people working with harsh chemicals or smoking having that sense damaged to any notable extent.Birds need better vision to survive. Our senses are dulled by 'civilization' (Loud music wreaks havoc on hearing).
I plead common sense.
I plead common sense.
It was "necessary"?
God is constrained by what is necessary?
The path is what it is because of the retention of the early embryonic development pattern in vertebrates. Fish have the same aortic arch pattern as mammal embryos do - but their equivalent branch of the vagus just goes in a more or less straight line:
That this pattern is retained in mammals can be understand simply via evolution.
The creationist has to admit that God, darn it, just couldn't see the potential issues with this 'design', which could have been avoided by just Commanding the RLN to, instead of growing straight out from the developing brain like it does in fish, to take a slight cranial turn to go 'above' the 4th aortic arch.
By the way, I see that you ignored my better design of the eye, too - it would have been easy to have no blind spot at all, were the eye actually designed. Having the blindspot requires additional 'fixes' after the fact, which is not good design.
Who suggested that it do so?
And if someone had, WHY couldn't it do so if you believe that the one true deity, creator of the universe could have simply willed it so?
We should care what you believe about this why?
You never offer any evidence or even explanations, just what you 'believe' or have 'brainstormed.'
There is an obvious reason for this, and we all know what it is...
Actually, we do -
The Vagus Nerve—Cranial Nerve X - Pain Review - CHAPTER 11
That is very extensive and you may have to pay for it, but for crying out loud - I have linked and then re-posted the same basic information I think three times already! You just don''t read or can't understand what others post for you!
It is like you WANT to remain ignorant on this stuff - plausible (not really) deniability???
Which ones? And what kind of fibers does it 'connect' to? And do you think these "connections" help your fantasy?
Here is what Gray's tells us:
The Recurrent Nerve (n. recurrens; inferior or recurrent laryngeal nerve) arises, on the right side, in front of the subclavian artery; winds from before backward around that vessel, and ascends obliquely to the side of the trachea behind the common carotid artery, and either in front of or behind the inferior thyroid artery. On the left side, it arises on the left of the arch of the aorta, and winds below the aorta at the point where the ligamentum arteriosum is attached, and then ascends to the side of the trachea. The nerve on either side ascends in the groove between the trachea and esophagus, passes under the lower border of the Constrictor pharyngis inferior, and enters the larynx behind the articulation of the inferior cornu of the thyroid cartilage with the cricoid; it is distributed to all the muscles of the larynx, excepting the Cricothyreoideus. It communicates with the internal branch of the superior laryngeal nerve, and gives off a few filaments to the mucous membrane of the lower part of the larynx.
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.
Sure, there are filaments (fibers) that 'connect' to the heart and other muscles.
These are MOTOR fibers, meaning that they are coming OUT OF the brain. Fibers do NOT go from the heart TO the larynx - no, the fibers that go TO the heart are simply sharing the bus, as it were, with the motor fibers going to the larynx.
The answers are in the links I have already provided. You don't read real information though, you just peruse creationist garbage and 'brainstorm.'
Or creationists could re-create it and see how that works.
Common sense is just a way of writing ”what I think is right”. It has no weight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?