Evolution is mathematically impossible

[tas8831]

Are you ever going to admit that the cardiac ganglion does NOT send motor information to the larynx? Or are your own sites used for 'support' also in error?

How about the cardiac plexus? The RLN's have nerve fibers there.

How about it?

How about you acknowledge your major blunder with the cardiac ganglion before desperately tossing out another term you do not understand?

 

[Speedwell]

You'll just have to take my word for it.

Suppose he did say it. Why do you think it's important?

 

[tas8831]

Yes - because there is no such thing as a "mechanical neuron".

I used the term to differentiate it from chemical signals. It is my own invention.

Then your invention is garbage. You seem to be absolutely immune to learning. You try to cover up your obvious errors by first ignoring the corrections, then when that fails, you play cutesy.

Not very Alpha.

Of course, you are still in error, even based on YOUR OWN source - the "mechanical" part is the architecture - you know, the stuff you think unimportant (I have to question your competence in whatever profession you pretend to have had).

Let me remind what YOU posted in an attempt to justify your claim "Sorry, I was referring to chemical, not mechanical, neurons."


Electromechanical neurons.
"An electrical synapse is a mechanical and electrically conductive link between two neighboring neurons that is formed at a narrow gap between the pre- and postsynaptic neurons known as a gap junction."

Why is this so hard for you?

 

[tas8831]

So no signals pass directly from the gut to the larynx?

That is because you are ignorant of all things biological. 'Warning signal to the throat'? You thought it was the gut because you do not understand biology.
Do you not even read the websites that YOU link to and quote?

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

 

[tas8831]

So there's an actual record of everything that Carl Sagan ever said publically?

You initially said it was attributed to him, then you referred to it as a quote. You are unreliable.

 

[tas8831]

This might be what I meant by 'smoke signals'. Perhaps you can help explain it in layman's language.

Cell Signaling | Learn Science at Scitable

Perhaps you can stop pontificating on things that you do not understand and have exhibited no desire at all TO understand.

Nothing in these recent exchanges refers to "smoke signals". That link IS in layman's terms, and I am not going to waste my time writing paragraphs about basic biology for you to ignore it all with a one-liner troll-post.

Until you can be a man and fess up to the refutations of your wrong and often silly "theorizing", I am just going to ignore your one-liner trolling and re-post the things you have ignored which contain explanations of your many errors:

So no signals pass directly from the gut to the larynx?

Cool how you ignore lengthy posts explaining your errors, only to spout off these dopey one-liners.

The answer is - none that anyone knows about, and if such a pathway did exist, it would be counter to all that IS known about neurophysiology and neuroanatomy.

You seem to think that nerves are bi-directional. They are not. That nerve fibers from the gut synapse in a ganglion that fibers coming from the heart also synapse in does not indicate that there must be some kind of bidirectional exchange.

Here you go, Alpha - try learning before pontificating:
How do neurons work?

But as I have documented and copy-pasted for you 4 or 5 times (and you have ignored this - religiously, one might say), even one of the very sources that YOU linked to and quoted explains how these things work in real life:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

As you are spectacularly ignorant of these areas, and do not seem to understand even the basics, I will define a couple necessary terms to help you out, maybe so that you stop making yourself look pathetic so often -

AFFERENT - going toward
EFFERENT - going outward or away
PARASYMPATHETIC/SYMPATHETIC - part of the autonomic nervous system; parasympathetic/sympathetic nuclei in the spinal cord gray matter or brain RECEIVE afferents from the gut and other organs; these nuclei then send out efferents (motor) as needed to adjust organ function (respond to stimuli)
MEDULLA - part of the brainstem, contains many autonomic nuclei
SUBCORTICAL - below the cortex, i.e., 'internal' brain structures
CORTICAL - surface gray matter of the brain - the stuff you see when you look at a brain. These parts of the brain process sensory inputs. Sensory inputs from, for example, a distended intestine may require expulsion of the gut contents (diarrhea - carried out via autonomic responses) and the cortex interprets this as pain in the gut, nausea, etc. You may moan (vocalize) or whimper or make huff breaths as a RESPONSE, via motor (efferent) output to the larynx (and diaphragm).
VAGUS NERVE - a cranial nerve that leaves the skull and provides about 75% of all parasympathetic innervation to the viscera. One branch of which is the RNL.
NUCLEUS - in neuroanatomy, a nucleus is a cluster of neurons in the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)
GANGLION - in neuroanatomy, a ganglion is a cluster of neurons outside of the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)

Good? Good.

By definition, afferent nerves or nerve fibers are carrying sensory impulses INTO the spinal cord and/or up to the brain. As YOUR OWN source explained (see above).
That some of these fibers dump first into a ganglion before going to the brain is IRRELEVANT as to their direction - they do NOT then send motor fibers from that ganglion out to other organs. When you had 'concluded' that the gut sends fibers To the esophagus, you were looking at biology the way a creationist engineer with no biology knowledge does - you apparently thought that nerve fibers are like copper wires in circuits, and can thus carry action potentials any which way.
I am frankly shocked that you have been going on about these things for YEARS, and STILL do not possess the most basic biological information so as to make at least plausible speculations.

Now, yet again, the stuff you ignored:

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

How much research has been done on neural pathways during upchucking?

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
​

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
​

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

Are you not at least going to acknowledge that I EXPLAINED these things to you and provided sources for you to double check? Is it really that hard for a 'Christian' creationist to exhibit a little humility?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You seem to think that nerves are bi-directional. They are not. That nerve fibers from the gut synapse in a ganglion that fibers coming from the heart also synapse in that there must be some kind of bidirectional exchange.

So impulses only travel one way through the Vagus nerve?

 

[tas8831]

So impulses only travel one way through the Vagus nerve?

Impulses only travel one way in the fibers within the vagus nerve.

Another cutesy one-liner troll post.

And what you ignored:

This might be what I meant by 'smoke signals'. Perhaps you can help explain it in layman's language.

Cell Signaling | Learn Science at Scitable

Perhaps you can stop pontificating on things that you do not understand and have exhibited no desire at all TO understand.

Nothing in these recent exchanges refers to "smoke signals". That link IS in layman's terms, and I am not going to waste my time writing paragraphs about basic biology for you to ignore it all with a one-liner troll-post.

Until you can be a man and fess up to the refutations of your wrong and often silly "theorizing", I am just going to ignore your one-liner trolling and re-post the things you have ignored which contain explanations of your many errors:

So no signals pass directly from the gut to the larynx?

Cool how you ignore lengthy posts explaining your errors, only to spout off these dopey one-liners.

The answer is - none that anyone knows about, and if such a pathway did exist, it would be counter to all that IS known about neurophysiology and neuroanatomy.

You seem to think that nerves are bi-directional. They are not. That nerve fibers from the gut synapse in a ganglion that fibers coming from the heart also synapse in does not indicate that there must be some kind of bidirectional exchange.

Here you go, Alpha - try learning before pontificating:
How do neurons work?

But as I have documented and copy-pasted for you 4 or 5 times (and you have ignored this - religiously, one might say), even one of the very sources that YOU linked to and quoted explains how these things work in real life:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

As you are spectacularly ignorant of these areas, and do not seem to understand even the basics, I will define a couple necessary terms to help you out, maybe so that you stop making yourself look pathetic so often -

AFFERENT - going toward
EFFERENT - going outward or away
PARASYMPATHETIC/SYMPATHETIC - part of the autonomic nervous system; parasympathetic/sympathetic nuclei in the spinal cord gray matter or brain RECEIVE afferents from the gut and other organs; these nuclei then send out efferents (motor) as needed to adjust organ function (respond to stimuli)
MEDULLA - part of the brainstem, contains many autonomic nuclei
SUBCORTICAL - below the cortex, i.e., 'internal' brain structures
CORTICAL - surface gray matter of the brain - the stuff you see when you look at a brain. These parts of the brain process sensory inputs. Sensory inputs from, for example, a distended intestine may require expulsion of the gut contents (diarrhea - carried out via autonomic responses) and the cortex interprets this as pain in the gut, nausea, etc. You may moan (vocalize) or whimper or make huff breaths as a RESPONSE, via motor (efferent) output to the larynx (and diaphragm).
VAGUS NERVE - a cranial nerve that leaves the skull and provides about 75% of all parasympathetic innervation to the viscera. One branch of which is the RNL.
NUCLEUS - in neuroanatomy, a nucleus is a cluster of neurons in the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)
GANGLION - in neuroanatomy, a ganglion is a cluster of neurons outside of the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)

Good? Good.

By definition, afferent nerves or nerve fibers are carrying sensory impulses INTO the spinal cord and/or up to the brain. As YOUR OWN source explained (see above).
That some of these fibers dump first into a ganglion before going to the brain is IRRELEVANT as to their direction - they do NOT then send motor fibers from that ganglion out to other organs. When you had 'concluded' that the gut sends fibers To the esophagus, you were looking at biology the way a creationist engineer with no biology knowledge does - you apparently thought that nerve fibers are like copper wires in circuits, and can thus carry action potentials any which way.
I am frankly shocked that you have been going on about these things for YEARS, and STILL do not possess the most basic biological information so as to make at least plausible speculations.

Now, yet again, the stuff you ignored:

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

How much research has been done on neural pathways during upchucking?

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
​

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
​

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."
​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

Are you not at least going to acknowledge that I EXPLAINED these things to you and provided sources for you to double check? Is it really that hard for a 'Christian' creationist to exhibit a little humility?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Impulses only travel one way in the fibers within the vagus nerve.

Another cutesy one-liner troll post.

And what you ignored:


Perhaps you can stop pontificating on things that you do not understand and have exhibited no desire at all TO understand.

Nothing in these recent exchanges refers to "smoke signals". That link IS in layman's terms, and I am not going to waste my time writing paragraphs about basic biology for you to ignore it all with a one-liner troll-post.

Until you can be a man and fess up to the refutations of your wrong and often silly "theorizing", I am just going to ignore your one-liner trolling and re-post the things you have ignored which contain explanations of your many errors:


Cool how you ignore lengthy posts explaining your errors, only to spout off these dopey one-liners.

The answer is - none that anyone knows about, and if such a pathway did exist, it would be counter to all that IS known about neurophysiology and neuroanatomy.

You seem to think that nerves are bi-directional. They are not. That nerve fibers from the gut synapse in a ganglion that fibers coming from the heart also synapse in does not indicate that there must be some kind of bidirectional exchange.

Here you go, Alpha - try learning before pontificating:
How do neurons work?

But as I have documented and copy-pasted for you 4 or 5 times (and you have ignored this - religiously, one might say), even one of the very sources that YOU linked to and quoted explains how these things work in real life:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

As you are spectacularly ignorant of these areas, and do not seem to understand even the basics, I will define a couple necessary terms to help you out, maybe so that you stop making yourself look pathetic so often -

AFFERENT - going toward
EFFERENT - going outward or away
PARASYMPATHETIC/SYMPATHETIC - part of the autonomic nervous system; parasympathetic/sympathetic nuclei in the spinal cord gray matter or brain RECEIVE afferents from the gut and other organs; these nuclei then send out efferents (motor) as needed to adjust organ function (respond to stimuli)
MEDULLA - part of the brainstem, contains many autonomic nuclei
SUBCORTICAL - below the cortex, i.e., 'internal' brain structures
CORTICAL - surface gray matter of the brain - the stuff you see when you look at a brain. These parts of the brain process sensory inputs. Sensory inputs from, for example, a distended intestine may require expulsion of the gut contents (diarrhea - carried out via autonomic responses) and the cortex interprets this as pain in the gut, nausea, etc. You may moan (vocalize) or whimper or make huff breaths as a RESPONSE, via motor (efferent) output to the larynx (and diaphragm).
VAGUS NERVE - a cranial nerve that leaves the skull and provides about 75% of all parasympathetic innervation to the viscera. One branch of which is the RNL.
NUCLEUS - in neuroanatomy, a nucleus is a cluster of neurons in the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)
GANGLION - in neuroanatomy, a ganglion is a cluster of neurons outside of the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)

Good? Good.

By definition, afferent nerves or nerve fibers are carrying sensory impulses INTO the spinal cord and/or up to the brain. As YOUR OWN source explained (see above).
That some of these fibers dump first into a ganglion before going to the brain is IRRELEVANT as to their direction - they do NOT then send motor fibers from that ganglion out to other organs. When you had 'concluded' that the gut sends fibers To the esophagus, you were looking at biology the way a creationist engineer with no biology knowledge does - you apparently thought that nerve fibers are like copper wires in circuits, and can thus carry action potentials any which way.
I am frankly shocked that you have been going on about these things for YEARS, and STILL do not possess the most basic biological information so as to make at least plausible speculations.

Now, yet again, the stuff you ignored:

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
​

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
​

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."
​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

Are you not at least going to acknowledge that I EXPLAINED these things to you and provided sources for you to double check? Is it really that hard for a 'Christian' creationist to exhibit a little humility?

I accept that nerve impulses only go one way in any nerve fiber.

The way the body communicates with itself isn't fully understood, by science's own admission. That leaves the door open to many theories. Don't you agree?

You also have to remember how this all got started, to wit:

Science believes that the route of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is an unfortunate accident of evolution.

I believe it is the result of purposeful design.

I have been, and will continue, to brainstorm this topic.

For you and others to freak out the way you have over this is...strange.

 

[Queller]

I personally saw and heard Sagan say the same thing on a science show years ago. So you have my word on it.

Great. Let's see his work.

 

[Queller]

You'll just have to take my word for it.

Why should we?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why should we?

I'm an honest man with a good memory.

 

[Queller]

I'm an honest man with a good memory.

And I should believe you because....

 

[tas8831]

I accept that nerve impulses only go one way in any nerve fiber.

The way the body communicates with itself isn't fully understood, by science's own admission. That leaves the door open to many theories. Don't you agree?

No. When did "science" admit this? That you can find woo-sites claiming all sorts of things that "science doesn't know" does not mean those things are valid or true. It is like those click-bait links like "10 things science lied to us about", and then the first one is "Pluto is a planet." No lies, just headlines.

"Theories" (actually hypotheses or in your case, pure speculation) on alternate and 'undiscovered' physiologies for already-understood pathways in attempts to rescue ancient numerologist tales do not fir the bill for filling in the gaps in scientific knowledge.

You also have to remember how this all got started, to wit:

Science believes that the route of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is an unfortunate accident of evolution.

It is not a belief - it is something that can be observed during development - a development whose pathways and trajectories are conserved in all vertebrates.

I believe it is the result of purposeful design.

Who cares what you believe oin this? You have been shown to be wrong on pretty much every thing you have "theorized" about to try to save you failing beliefs.

Look at the time I wasted trying to explain to you the actual reason there are RLNs in the first place - a YEAR ago, and you are still making the same basic "arguments":

Does science actually admit "design"?

Does science actually admit "design"?

I have been, and will continue, to brainstorm this topic.

And your brainstorming is, as I and others have repeatedly documented, a joke. But you cannot accept that, because Jesus.

For you and others to freak out the way you have over this is...strange.

Gee, golly, such freaking out over a fellow that boasts of his super high IQ, uses that boast as a 'justification' for his dismissal of evolution, who then repeatedly makes patently absurd and incompetent claims about biology, only to have them repeatedly demonstrated to be nonsense, who then just keeps making similarly foolish claims even as he totally ignores explanations of his errors.
Totally the behavior of a super intelligent and logically-thinking super genius.

And the things you keep ignoring, just in this thread:

This might be what I meant by 'smoke signals'. Perhaps you can help explain it in layman's language.

Cell Signaling | Learn Science at Scitable

Perhaps you can stop pontificating on things that you do not understand and have exhibited no desire at all TO understand.

Nothing in these recent exchanges refers to "smoke signals". That link IS in layman's terms, and I am not going to waste my time writing paragraphs about basic biology for you to ignore it all with a one-liner troll-post.

Until you can be a man and fess up to the refutations of your wrong and often silly "theorizing", I am just going to ignore your one-liner trolling and re-post the things you have ignored which contain explanations of your many errors:

So no signals pass directly from the gut to the larynx?

Cool how you ignore lengthy posts explaining your errors, only to spout off these dopey one-liners.

The answer is - none that anyone knows about, and if such a pathway did exist, it would be counter to all that IS known about neurophysiology and neuroanatomy.

You seem to think that nerves are bi-directional. They are not. That nerve fibers from the gut synapse in a ganglion that fibers coming from the heart also synapse in does not indicate that there must be some kind of bidirectional exchange.

Here you go, Alpha - try learning before pontificating:
How do neurons work?

But as I have documented and copy-pasted for you 4 or 5 times (and you have ignored this - religiously, one might say), even one of the very sources that YOU linked to and quoted explains how these things work in real life:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

As you are spectacularly ignorant of these areas, and do not seem to understand even the basics, I will define a couple necessary terms to help you out, maybe so that you stop making yourself look pathetic so often -

AFFERENT - going toward
EFFERENT - going outward or away
PARASYMPATHETIC/SYMPATHETIC - part of the autonomic nervous system; parasympathetic/sympathetic nuclei in the spinal cord gray matter or brain RECEIVE afferents from the gut and other organs; these nuclei then send out efferents (motor) as needed to adjust organ function (respond to stimuli)
MEDULLA - part of the brainstem, contains many autonomic nuclei
SUBCORTICAL - below the cortex, i.e., 'internal' brain structures
CORTICAL - surface gray matter of the brain - the stuff you see when you look at a brain. These parts of the brain process sensory inputs. Sensory inputs from, for example, a distended intestine may require expulsion of the gut contents (diarrhea - carried out via autonomic responses) and the cortex interprets this as pain in the gut, nausea, etc. You may moan (vocalize) or whimper or make huff breaths as a RESPONSE, via motor (efferent) output to the larynx (and diaphragm).
VAGUS NERVE - a cranial nerve that leaves the skull and provides about 75% of all parasympathetic innervation to the viscera. One branch of which is the RNL.
NUCLEUS - in neuroanatomy, a nucleus is a cluster of neurons in the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)
GANGLION - in neuroanatomy, a ganglion is a cluster of neurons outside of the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)

Good? Good.

By definition, afferent nerves or nerve fibers are carrying sensory impulses INTO the spinal cord and/or up to the brain. As YOUR OWN source explained (see above).
That some of these fibers dump first into a ganglion before going to the brain is IRRELEVANT as to their direction - they do NOT then send motor fibers from that ganglion out to other organs. When you had 'concluded' that the gut sends fibers To the esophagus, you were looking at biology the way a creationist engineer with no biology knowledge does - you apparently thought that nerve fibers are like copper wires in circuits, and can thus carry action potentials any which way.
I am frankly shocked that you have been going on about these things for YEARS, and STILL do not possess the most basic biological information so as to make at least plausible speculations.

Now, yet again, the stuff you ignored:

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

How much research has been done on neural pathways during upchucking?

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
​

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
​

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."
​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

Are you not at least going to acknowledge that I EXPLAINED these things to you and provided sources for you to double check? Is it really that hard for a 'Christian' creationist to exhibit a little humility?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. When did "science" admit this? That you can find woo-sites claiming all sorts of things that "science doesn't know" does not mean those things are valid or true. It is like those click-bait links like "10 things science lied to us about", and then the first one is "Pluto is a planet." No lies, just headlines.

"Theories" (actually hypotheses or in your case, pure speculation) on alternate and 'undiscovered' physiologies for already-understood pathways in attempts to rescue ancient numerologist tales do not fir the bill for filling in the gaps in scientific knowledge.


It is not a belief - it is something that can be observed during development - a development whose pathways and trajectories are conserved in all vertebrates.
Who cares what you believe oin this? You have been shown to be wrong on pretty much every thing you have "theorized" about to try to save you failing beliefs.

Look at the time I wasted trying to explain to you the actual reason there are RLNs in the first place - a YEAR ago, and you are still making the same basic "arguments":

Does science actually admit "design"?

Does science actually admit "design"?


And your brainstorming is, as I and others have repeatedly documented, a joke. But you cannot accept that, because Jesus.
Gee, golly, such freaking out over a fellow that boasts of his super high IQ, uses that boast as a 'justification' for his dismissal of evolution, who then repeatedly makes patently absurd and incompetent claims about biology, only to have them repeatedly demonstrated to be nonsense, who then just keeps making similarly foolish claims even as he totally ignores explanations of his errors.
Totally the behavior of a super intelligent and logically-thinking super genius.

And the things you keep ignoring, just in this thread:



Perhaps you can stop pontificating on things that you do not understand and have exhibited no desire at all TO understand.

Nothing in these recent exchanges refers to "smoke signals". That link IS in layman's terms, and I am not going to waste my time writing paragraphs about basic biology for you to ignore it all with a one-liner troll-post.

Until you can be a man and fess up to the refutations of your wrong and often silly "theorizing", I am just going to ignore your one-liner trolling and re-post the things you have ignored which contain explanations of your many errors:


Cool how you ignore lengthy posts explaining your errors, only to spout off these dopey one-liners.

The answer is - none that anyone knows about, and if such a pathway did exist, it would be counter to all that IS known about neurophysiology and neuroanatomy.

You seem to think that nerves are bi-directional. They are not. That nerve fibers from the gut synapse in a ganglion that fibers coming from the heart also synapse in does not indicate that there must be some kind of bidirectional exchange.

Here you go, Alpha - try learning before pontificating:
How do neurons work?

But as I have documented and copy-pasted for you 4 or 5 times (and you have ignored this - religiously, one might say), even one of the very sources that YOU linked to and quoted explains how these things work in real life:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

As you are spectacularly ignorant of these areas, and do not seem to understand even the basics, I will define a couple necessary terms to help you out, maybe so that you stop making yourself look pathetic so often -

AFFERENT - going toward
EFFERENT - going outward or away
PARASYMPATHETIC/SYMPATHETIC - part of the autonomic nervous system; parasympathetic/sympathetic nuclei in the spinal cord gray matter or brain RECEIVE afferents from the gut and other organs; these nuclei then send out efferents (motor) as needed to adjust organ function (respond to stimuli)
MEDULLA - part of the brainstem, contains many autonomic nuclei
SUBCORTICAL - below the cortex, i.e., 'internal' brain structures
CORTICAL - surface gray matter of the brain - the stuff you see when you look at a brain. These parts of the brain process sensory inputs. Sensory inputs from, for example, a distended intestine may require expulsion of the gut contents (diarrhea - carried out via autonomic responses) and the cortex interprets this as pain in the gut, nausea, etc. You may moan (vocalize) or whimper or make huff breaths as a RESPONSE, via motor (efferent) output to the larynx (and diaphragm).
VAGUS NERVE - a cranial nerve that leaves the skull and provides about 75% of all parasympathetic innervation to the viscera. One branch of which is the RNL.
NUCLEUS - in neuroanatomy, a nucleus is a cluster of neurons in the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)
GANGLION - in neuroanatomy, a ganglion is a cluster of neurons outside of the brain or spinal cord that perform a common task(s)

Good? Good.

By definition, afferent nerves or nerve fibers are carrying sensory impulses INTO the spinal cord and/or up to the brain. As YOUR OWN source explained (see above).
That some of these fibers dump first into a ganglion before going to the brain is IRRELEVANT as to their direction - they do NOT then send motor fibers from that ganglion out to other organs. When you had 'concluded' that the gut sends fibers To the esophagus, you were looking at biology the way a creationist engineer with no biology knowledge does - you apparently thought that nerve fibers are like copper wires in circuits, and can thus carry action potentials any which way.
I am frankly shocked that you have been going on about these things for YEARS, and STILL do not possess the most basic biological information so as to make at least plausible speculations.

Now, yet again, the stuff you ignored:

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
​

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
​

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."
​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

Are you not at least going to acknowledge that I EXPLAINED these things to you and provided sources for you to double check? Is it really that hard for a 'Christian' creationist to exhibit a little humility?

I think you should study human nature a little more.

 

[Astrophile]

I recently posted a quote attributed to Carl Sagan regard the astronomical odds against evolution.

Whatever Carl Sagan said, I think that you must have misunderstood it. The process of evolution is not improbable; given the biological facts, evolution must occur. The relevant facts are that living things reproduce themselves and that the offspring are slightly different from the parents in heritable ways. If these differences are advantageous, in the sense that they give the offspring a better chance of reproducing themselves, they are likely to be transmitted to the next generation; if the differences give the offspring a worse chance of reproducing, they are not likely to be transmitted to the next generation because there will probably not be a next generation. Over long periods these small differences between one generation to the next can accumulate to become large differences; in changing environments (and environments are always changing), the differences that accumulate are those that make the members of a species better adapted to the environment that it lives in. Thus, an evolutionary process leading to a change of 'kinds' is an inevitable part of biology in any self-reproducing species with imperfect replication.

What Carl Sagan may have been referring to was the astronomical odds against a particular outcome of the evolutionary process. The evolution of the present biosphere was extremely improbable, but then the evolution of any particular biosphere out of the almost infinite number of possible outcomes was equally improbable. As Stephen Jay Gould said, if we could turn the clock back 600 million years and then re-run the evolutionary process, the resulting biosphere would probably have very little in common with the present biosphere. It is the old analogy of a lottery; beforehand, the odds against any particular person winning the lottery are very high, but afterwards we are not surprised to know that somebody has won it.

 

[tas8831]

Still not sure how I "misconstrued" this...



Hosea 13:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

King James Version (KJV)


I know, I know - they deserved it because their parents had 'rebelled' against Jehovah...

 

[tas8831]

I think you should study human nature a little more.

Right - I forgot that people that have set themselves up as super-intelligent geniuses who have "studied" things don't like it when they are shown to have been totally wrong over and over, ala Donnie DumDum Trump.

I guess this is your 'alpha' way of apologizing?

 

[tas8831]

Version 2

I think you should study human nature a little more.

I think you should study biology a little more.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Version 2
I think you should study biology a little more.

Lack of knowledge of human nature is a bigger problem.