Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

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?

Nay, my heels are dug in a deep as yours are.

 

[tas8831]

Lack of knowledge of human nature is a bigger problem.

Employing the Dunning-Kruger Effect to try to prop up one's religious faith is the worst problem of all.

Now, a few of those things you keep ignoring and trying to gloss over:

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?

and:

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]

Nay, my heels are dug in a deep as yours are.

So this is how you justify ignoring documentation of your errors?

How beta...

Some of the things you keep ignoring to try to save face (i.e., the things you ignore that make things way worse for you):

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]

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?

Do you really think I would grant anything to you after your continuing vicious ad hom attacks on me? What have you been smoking?

 

[bhsmte]

I think you should study human nature a little more.

What exactly do you call 'human nature'?

How do you go about studying it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What exactly do you call 'human nature'?

How do you go about studying it?

First you have to accept that there is such a thing.

 

[bhsmte]

First you have to accept that there is such a thing.

Can you answer the questions or not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you answer the questions or not?

Sure.
Human nature is the nature of human behavior, as we observe it.

We 'go about' studying it by first just observing it.

For example we observe that most people don't put their shopping carts away in an orderly manner. From this we draw conclusions;

They don't care.
It's not important to them.
They're in a hurry.
Someone else will straighten them out.
They just didn't think about it.
They just did what others did.
They are not organized in their thinking.
They don't understand the consequences.
They don't see the need.
They rebel against what is required or requested.
There's no direct benefit to themselves.
They desire to make extra work for someone else.
Such tasks are beneath them.

These behaviors and thought patterns can then be applied to a variety of really serious problems that we face. Of course the problem with that is that even those problems will likely not be taken seriously.

In short the study of human nature reveals to us why we have the problems we have, and why we are unable to solve them.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure.
Human nature is the nature of human behavior, as we observe it.

We 'go about' studying it by first just observing it.

For example we observe that most people don't put their shopping carts away in an orderly manner. From this we draw conclusions;

They don't care.
It's not important to them.
They're in a hurry.
Someone else will straighten them out.
They just didn't think about it.
They just did what others did.
They are not organized in their thinking.
They don't understand the consequences.
They don't see the need.
They rebel against what is required or requested.

These behaviors and thought patterns can then be applied to a variety of really serious problems that we face. Of course the problem with that is that even those problems will likely not be taken seriously.

In short the study of human nature reveals to us why we have the problems we have, and why we are unable to solve them.

Any chance, you have personal human behaviors, that are difficult on other people? Or is it, just everyone else who has a problem?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Any chance, you have personal human behaviors, that are difficult on other people? Or is it, just everyone else who has a problem?

If everyone were like me, human nature wise, the world would be a much better place (said in all modesty).

 

[Speedwell]

If everyone were like me, human nature wise, the world would be a much better place (said in all modesty).

No, if everyone was more like ME, human nature wise, the world would be a better place.

 

[bhsmte]

If everyone were like me, human nature wise, the world would be a much better place (said in all modesty).

I believe you just displayed one of those behaviors, as you often do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, if everyone was more like ME, human nature wise, the world would be a better place.

That's good. Between the two us the world is a better place.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe you just displayed one of those behaviors, as you often do.

Not braggin', jes' sayin'.

There are a lot of good people out there, but not nearly enough to overcome those who fall short.

That said I do make some others uncomfortable by my behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes. But I won't lower my standards just to please them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Employing the Dunning-Kruger Effect to try to prop up one's religious faith is the worst problem of all.

Heck, childhood obesity is worse than that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe you just displayed one of those behaviors, as you often do.

After all this time you still don't get it?

 

[bhsmte]

After all this time you still don't get it?

Get what?

 

[tas8831]

Do you really think I would grant anything to you after your continuing vicious ad hom attacks on me? What have you been smoking?

LOL!

High IQ, super alpha male, doesn't know what ad hominem means.

Demonstrating your ignorance over and over is NOT NOT NOT 'ad hominem.'

Did you think this:

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

is an ad hominem? I'm betting you do. But see, competence in an area that you are making arguments in - and lets face it, you are not really asking questions, you are making what you think is an argument - is RELEVANT. Ad hominems are, by definition , focusing on an IRRELEVANT aspect of a person TO MAKE an argument. My ARGUMENTS are not that you are incompetent, for I EXPLAIN why you are wrong.

Get it yet?

But boy do creationists love to hurl these false accusations when they have been shown that they are wrong on things.

Poor things...

Some things you keep ignoring:

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?​

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Get what?

That nothing serious is going on here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL!

High IQ, super alpha male, doesn't know what ad hominem means.

Demonstrating your ignorance over and over is NOT NOT NOT 'ad hominem.'

Did you think this:

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

is an ad hominem? I'm betting you do. But see, competence in an area that you are making arguments in - and lets face it, you are not really asking questions, you are making what you think is an argument - is RELEVANT. Ad hominems are, by definition , focusing on an IRRELEVANT aspect of a person TO MAKE an argument. My ARGUMENTS are not that you are incompetent, for I EXPLAIN why you are wrong.

Get it yet?

But boy do creationists love to hurl these false accusations when they have been shown that they are wrong on things.

Poor things...

Some things you keep ignoring:


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?​

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.

You have a 'selective' memory.