Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

Why do snakes have traits that prevent them from suffocating when they are swallowing large food items.........

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.

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.

 

[xianghua]

-_- 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.

again: if its make no problem for vision then its not realy a problem.

-_- would you not consider a camera the technological equivalent?

yes. but its still not a real eye, which is much more sophisticated.

 

[PsychoSarah]

again: if its make no problem for vision then its not realy a problem.

-_- 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.

Plus, the optical illusion effects can cause confusion and eye strain; how are those things "not really a problem"? Perspective can become confused, causing one to misjudge distances, say, between themselves and a deer, so they miss their opportunity to catch their prey and go hungry.

is this not annoying to look at?

Such "sophisticated, intelligently designed" eyes can't even tell that there aren't any black dots in between these squares, even when you are aware of it? You can try as hard as you want, but you'll never be able to perceive all of the white dots as their actual color.

yes. but its still not a real eye, which is much more sophisticated.

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?

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Our eyes are adequate for survival, but they are far from ideal. "Good enough" is not an indication of intelligent design.

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.

-_- 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.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Golly - you must not have near perfect peripheral vision!

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.

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.

Wow - making assertions IS easy!

 

[tas8831]

That link pretty much says it all.

Yes - it says nothing even close to what you apparently hoped it did.

And awesome how you - yet again - proved your trollishness by ignoring the rest of that post.

It is the creationist's way!

 

[tas8831]

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

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

Support assertion with data and evidence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

You are assuming intent when there is no evidence to justify it. It's like asserting that a random rock was made with the intent of being used as a hammer just because it is possible to hammer in a nail with it. Plus, you are also assuming that human eyes were better at some point when there is no evidence for that. Even the bible doesn't suggest anything about human senses has changed (aside from, perhaps, "spiritual awareness", which is not a sense humans demonstrably have ever had), so you are just making empty conjecture even as far as your own religion goes.

-_- nearly everyone needs reading glasses by the age of 40-45, so what exactly is "good" here? Not only that, but even young children which have perfectly "good" vision are farsighted, and this becomes actually worse until the age of 6-7 in which it levels off and then starts to become better with finally having a proper eye shape in the teens. What for? All this does is force the eyes to accommodate more and potentially wear out the accommodation mechanisms in the eye all the faster so that the eye just can't handle doing it anymore in your 40s.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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).

All these choking problems which could have easily been prevented by making the breathing tubes and the eating tubes entirely separate.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Birds need better vision to survive. Our senses are dulled by 'civilization' (Loud music wreaks havoc on hearing).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Support assertion with data and evidence.

I plead common sense.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Birds need better vision to survive. Our senses are dulled by 'civilization' (Loud music wreaks havoc on hearing).

-_- 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.

Also, NEED? Since when is design limited by needs? A car doesn't NEED a sunroof, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it has one. Design is about optimizing, it is about making something the best at the desired functions it can be. So unless you can demonstrate that giving humans better vision would be impossible or would be detrimental to how humans function, you cannot claim that there is an actual reason for humans to have meh vision.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I plead common sense.

Court denies the plea. Provide data and evidence that human eye sight was better in the past.

 

[pitabread]

I plead common sense.

Common sense is usually neither common nor sensical.

 

[VirOptimus]

I plead common sense.

Common sense is just a way of writing ”what I think is right”. It has no weight.

 

[tas8831]

Pity that so many creationists ignore facts in order to pretend that their opinions have merit. Then again...

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Common sense is just a way of writing ”what I think is right”. It has no weight.

It has no weight unless employed. Common sense tells me that removing invasive lake weed overgrowth would help clear up the water. The scientists employed here to make such recommendations don't think so. They think it's better to 'study' the lake some more (meaning there is more money for them if the lakes remain polluted).

Common sense eating doesn't add 'weight' either.

A lot of damage is done through lack of common sense.

Common sense is an asset, not a liability.