Does science actually admit "design"?

[tas8831]

Ya got me there. But I'll wait; sooner or later science will prove me right.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[tas8831]

Remember I'm just brainstorming here as my intuition tells me the design has purpose, just as my intuition told me that the eye had to be dissected for the 'blind spot' to be realized.

Oh wow! Did your brainstorming also tell you that EVERYTHING in the body had to be dissected to be described?


Did your intuition also tell you that you description of the effect of the blind sport was, as usual, laughable incorrect as I documented?

Does your intuition tell you where you can find support for your claim about "near perfect peripheral vision"?

LOL!

Betas...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The heart doesn't generate 'nerve signals.'

Really? Read my link.

Instead of 'brainstorming' from a position of total ignorance, how about you read some of the references I have linked/quoted for you for a change?

Yours aren't germane to the topic. I like this one better.

Chapter 01: Heart-Brain Communication - HeartMath Institute

Are you afraid that if you actually learn some basic science that you will finally see how truly foolish and simple-minded your anti-evolution positions are?

Are you afraid to learn something new that might support my theory, or are you too 'entrenched' in traditional knowledge?

"Their insight, rigorous experimentation and courage to follow where the data led them, even though it did not fit the well-entrenched beliefs of the scientific community of their day, were pivotal in the understanding of the heart-brain connection."

I'm certain that the left RLN will be shown to be involved in this phenomenon sooner or later. Are you certain that it will not?

 

[tas8831]

If it's position under the aortic arch was necessary during early growth and it was pulled down subsequently to it's final position then it is entirely appropriate to be where it is.

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.

As has been noted by others it cannot somehow disconnect and then reconnect later to suit the evolutionists.

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?

That said I believe it has a function that requires it to be right where it is.

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...

We just don't know what that function is exactly.

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???

What is clear is that it makes connections along it's length to various organs.

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.'

What is needed of course is for the evolutionists to disconnect it and reconnect it to their liking and then observe the results.

Or creationists could re-create it and see how that works.

 

[xianghua]

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.

if it doesnt make any problem to vision then how you can call it "bad design"? on the other hand: are you smart enough to make an eye?

 

[tas8831]

Really? Read my link.

Why? Have you read any of the links I have provided?

Yours aren't germane to the topic. I like this one better.

They outlined the pathways of the RLN. So yeah, I guess they would not have been germane to your layman's fantasies.

Chapter 01: Heart-Brain Communication - HeartMath Institute

Are you afraid to learn something new that might support my theory, or are you too 'entrenched' in traditional knowledge?

Your "theory" about the heart commanding the larynx?

That is not supported or even hinted at in that link.

Just another one of your dopey red herrings.


Let us all recall that your wild guess based on silly creationism is that the gut and the aorta sends signals directly to the larynx.

My bet is that you will alter your original claim and modify it to include the brain in the loop - alas, you have stated - and I have already quoted - that this occurs without brain involvement.

Oops!


Your link indicates nor implies anything of the sort.

Your keyword searches continue to fail you, and you lack the relevant smarts to understand this.

"Their insight, rigorous experimentation and courage to follow where the data led them, even though it did not fit the well-entrenched beliefs of the scientific community of their day, were pivotal in the understanding of the heart-brain connection."

I'm certain that the left RLN will be shown to be involved in this phenomenon sooner or later. Are you certain that it will not?

Yes, I am. I am also confident that you will try to modify your original claims so that "this phenomenon" that you refer to will be something other than your original claim.

Got to save the ego/creation beliefs, after all.

The hyperbolic language at your non-scientific site is typical of an advocacy website.


Now, when one of your keyword searches does not backfire and you do actually find that the aorta (not the heart) or the gut sends motor fibers directly to the larynx via the RLN, I will apologize. Until then, red herrings and ignorance are about the best you've been able to come up with, as is typical for creationist Dunning-Kruger effect sufferers.

As an aside - one can note that this 'creationist's gambit' is a standard ploy - creationist makes wild claim premised on their desire for Genesis to be history; claim gets shot down; unable to accept that they are wrong (and thus by extension, their beliefs may be in error), the creationist desperately seeks justification; creationist searches for support - not finding any, the creationist tries to head off on tangents, hoping none will notice the bait-and-switch; they get caught, and just keep doing more of the same; eventually, they will discover something distantly related to their original claim that has merit, imply that this was claim all along and claim victory. This very scenario has played out on this forum at least 3 times in the last couple of months - and these are just the ones I have taken part in (pshun's claims re: cladistics; justatruthseeker's claims about hybridization; OWG's claims about 3 or 4 things) . I have no doubt that there are many other examples.

 

[tas8831]

if it doesnt make any problem to vision then how you can call it "bad design"? on the other hand: are you smart enough to make an eye?

It makes extra work for the brain to compensate for it.


I am smart enough to see a better way to make it. Of course, I do not pretend to be able to do so, I am merely responding to requests - but thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.

Robot penguin proves evolution!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why? Have you read any of the links I have provided?



They outlined the pathways of the RLN. So yeah, I guess they would not have been germane to your layman's fantasies.




Your "theory" about the heart commanding the larynx?

That is not supported or even hinted at in that link.

Just another one of your dopey red herrings.


Let us all recall that your wild guess based on silly creationism is that the gut and the aorta sends signals directly to the larynx.

My bet is that you will alter your original claim and modify it to include the brain in the loop - alas, you have stated - and I have already quoted - that this occurs without brain involvement.

Oops!


Your link indicates nor implies anything of the sort.

Your keyword searches continue to fail you, and you lack the relevant smarts to understand this.



Yes, I am. I am also confident that you will try to modify your original claims so that "this phenomenon" that you refer to will be something other than your original claim.

Got to save the ego/creation beliefs, after all.

The hyperbolic language at your non-scientific site is typical of an advocacy website.


Now, when one of your keyword searches does not backfire and you do actually find that the aorta (not the heart) or the gut sends motor fibers directly to the larynx via the RLN, I will apologize. Until then, red herrings and ignorance are about the best you've been able to come up with, as is typical for creationist Dunning-Kruger effect sufferers.

As an aside - one can note that this 'creationist's gambit' is a standard ploy - creationist makes wild claim premised on their desire for Genesis to be history; claim gets shot down; unable to accept that they are wrong (and thus by extension, their beliefs may be in error), the creationist desperately seeks justification; creationist searches for support - not finding any, the creationist tries to head off on tangents, hoping none will notice the bait-and-switch; they get caught, and just keep doing more of the same; eventually, they will discover something distantly related to their original claim that has merit, imply that this was claim all along and claim victory. This very scenario has played out on this forum at least 3 times in the last couple of months - and these are just the ones I have taken part in (pshun's claims re: cladistics; justatruthseeker's claims about hybridization; OWG's claims about 3 or 4 things) . I have no doubt that there are many other examples.

That link pretty much says it all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ya got me there. But I'll wait; sooner or later science will prove me right.

Ironically, that's an unscientific position. You seem trapped in faith-based wishful thinking.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ironically, that's an unscientific position. You seem trapped in faith-based wishful thinking.

Faith-based thinking provides certainty. Mankind can use more of it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The heart doesn't generate 'nerve signals.'

It does - it feeds back information to the brain on blood pressure and chemistry via the vagus nerve, and from pain sensors via sympathetic nerves routed through the upper thoracic spinal cord.

That's about all - how the CNS responds to that information is a different story.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Faith-based thinking provides certainty. Mankind can use more of it.

It's better to live with uncertainty than to be certain of answers that are, or might be, wrong.

As Feynman once said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."

 

[bhsmte]

Faith-based thinking provides certainty. Mankind can use more of it.

It also requires psychological gymnastics to convince oneself of certainty.

Some folks are good at that, some folks just can't claim to know something for sure, when they can't reconcile it in their brain.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It also requires psychological gymnastics to convince oneself of certainty.

It may require some torture, like giving up pleasurable immoral, or harmful, behaviors, but gymnastics?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's better to live with uncertainty than to be certain of answers that are, or might be, wrong.

As Feynman once said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."

Better for Feynman maybe.

 

[bhsmte]

It may require some torture, like giving up pleasurable immoral, or harmful, behaviors, but gymnastics?

When one must ignore, deny and try to discredit well evidenced science to hold onto and protect a faith belief, it does indeed require psychological gymnastics. Along with this, comes fully developed and crude defense mechanisms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When one must ignore, deny and try to discredit well evidenced science to hold onto and protect a faith belief, it does indeed require psychological gymnastics. Along with this, comes fully developed and crude defense mechanisms.

That door swings both ways. Defense of one's position is regarded as an attack on the other's.

 

[bhsmte]

That door swings both ways. Defense of one's position is regarded as an attack on the other's.

Denying only certain scientific evidence, because it goes against a faith belief, yet accepting other science, only swings one way.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

if it doesnt make any problem to vision then how you can call it "bad design"? on the other hand: are you smart enough to make an eye?

True. For nearly 6000 years millions (if not billions) of people were blissfully unaware of this horrible visual impairment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Denying only certain scientific evidence, because it goes against a faith belief, yet accepting other science, only swings one way.

So If I left the faith I would automatically cleave to evolution? I didn't believe it before I was converted and I won't believe it if (God forbid) I ever unconvert.