proving evolution as just a "theory"

[The Times]

So you're just coming up with your own nonsense terms. Got it.

We have a brain and can create language and terms that we can use to understand one another. They don't have to be in text books or taught at school.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's not how evolution works.
Where are you getting these ideas about evolution from?

Probably from The Handbook of Fatuous Nonsense for Beginners.

There are members here who are capable of presenting their anti-evolutionary views in a logical, intelligent, coherent, respectful manner. And then there are others.

 

[The Times]

That's not how evolution works.
Where are you getting these ideas about evolution from?

It is a picture from Berkley. Here it is.....

What do you think that presto and all those species came to be overnight and without transmutations?

Your kidding right?

 

[pitabread]

That's not how evolution works.
Where are you getting these ideas about evolution from?

Reading their posts, it's like they mixed up the science section with the science fiction section in their local library...

 

[The Times]

LOL.



Why couldn't it happen in a similar way to the picture I posted? You've got a vivid imagination.

Or more likely a POE.

You don't believe that presto and all those species in the picture below came to be overnight and without countless failed transmutations.

There would exist so numerous of failed transmutations over millions of millions of failed attempts, that earth would be a graveyard riddled and I mean riddled of transmutation fossil remains. Let me know if you happen to dig one up in your backyard, that is if you have a yard.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I call it......"Alternate State"

Is that like those "Alternate Facts" that creationists talk about? The rest of us just call them lies.

Within species it is adaptation, not evolution.

So if we entertain your erroneous definitions for a moment, where would the incompatible ends of a ring species fit into this, would those changes in alleles be adaptation or evolution?

We need to drfine our terms properly. Species is kind. The fish after its kind, the dog after its kind, the cat after its kind.

Species is kind. Inter species mutations is adaptation, is not evolution.

....soooo.... really then, we could just call them differences - the fact remains that regardless what you want to call it, it does involve changes in alleles in a population, the very definition of evolution.

Inevitably they would be an inbetween species, that is a transmutation, if we take Evolution Theory at its assertion that a mineralised rock became a whale and a whale developed legs and walked on land to become a primal man.

In actual fact, Cetateans (dolphins, whales, etc.) came from land mammals adapting to life in the water, if you could imagine something bigger than an otter progressing to a carnivorous version of a hippo, progressing to something like a seal/walrus/manatee ==>eventually whale, then that is the progression you would see over the past 50 million or so years of its evolution.

All mammals though derived from synapsids (which is a particular type of reptile) for which we can still find living fossils today in my home country of Australia - I have a few monotremes in the form of platypuses living in a pond not far from where I live - these and echidnas are a leftover relic, mammals that still lays eggs! They literally are the inbetween species you're looking for.

Now, let's see you tapdance that away...

Where are these.....

You, my friend, totally and completely fail at understanding what the Theory of Evolution is. This is imagination unless you can point out where this might fit in the tree of life?

 

[The Times]

I see evidence everywhere for a single intelligent designer, who simultaneously created different species, without any cross contamination of species. The inherent embedded Fibonnici DNA pattern found across species highlight a single designer signiture. Transmutation of species would indicate evolution and a totally alien DNA signiture. We do not find a different DNA signiture and in this respect we have no choice but to acknowledge a single intelligent designer. Thankyou!

 

[The Times]

Is that like the term "Alternate Facts"? The rest of us just call them lies.

Well I would not call anyone a liar, when I discern them to be utterly confused by long term indoctrination. I consider them victims, at times self inflicted victims.

So if we entertain your erroneous definitions for a moment, where would the incompatible ends of a ring species fit into this, would those changes in alleles be adaptation or evolution?

Anything that happens within a life cycle and not millions of millions of years through genetic transmutation is adaptation, built into the species to make transition. Like a tadpole to a frog and a caterpillar to a butterfly.

soooo.... really then, we could just call them differences - the fact remains that regardless what you want to call it, it does involve changes in alleles in a population, the very definition of evolution.

It is allowed so much as it is designed for adaptation. You discover it in a beaker and then jump for joy and call it evolution, when all you have achieved is given it inputs and in response the plant machinery responds within its operating mode. You can swing it from one end to another, it is just like finding its limits of operation. What does that prove.

In actual fact, Cetateans (dolphins, whales, etc.) came from land mammals adapting to life in the water, if you could imagine something bigger than an otter progressing to a carnivorous version of a hippo, progressing to something like a seal/walrus/manatee ==>eventually whale, then that is the progression you would see over the past 50 million or so years of its evolution.

So we should see billions of variations of the transitioning in fossils. Unless you think that the process was flawless from one species to another.

All mammals though derived from synapsids (which is a particular type of reptile) for which we can still find living fossils today in my home country of Australia - I have a few monotremes in the form of platypuses living in a pond not far from where I live - these and echidnas are a leftover relic, mammals that still lays eggs! They literally are the inbetween species you're looking for.

Just one or two maybe? Not good enough to prove evolution. Just like I can't plot a straight line from sydney to melbourne, if I didn't have multiple markers and a laser pointer. You said millions of years. Ok we need millions of markers to make an approximation of that straight line to prove the path of Evolution from one species to another.

You, my friend, totally and completely fail at understanding what the Theory of Evolution is. This is exactly what Evolution wouldn't predict.

Really! So is this your disclaimer?

 

[tas8831]

What does all this mean friend. When I read it, it sounds like I am debating a very religious man, who is holding up to religious dogma like the Evolution Theory. Am I right?

Not even close.

When I read your reply, I see a person that knows he has nothing to offer to show that his beliefs have merit and is instead intent to engage in condescending, projective, and evasive verbiage to cover this up.

Ta ta.

 

[Aman777]

As a an engineer luck is not a position of a rationale mind. I have shown that to accept evolution theory one must throw away a rationale mind and to embrace a religious like doctrinal dogma, that is appealing on the surface.

False, since God's Truth agrees in every way with every discovery of science and history.

I can see why evolution theory would be appealing to some who yearn for the sensationalist views, like the Earth is Flat theory.

Adam's Earth was Flat. Put dry ground on top of water and you too will have a model of Adam's Earth, which was "clean dissolved" in the flood. Isa 24:19

I have no problem with people who religiously and piously hold their religious dogma.

How bout me, since I support what I post with the AGREEMENT of Scripture, science and history? You seem to have a problem with your interpretation of Genesis. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)

Is this Biblical claim correct?

Yes, BUT it hasn't happened yet. How could a perfect God look upon the 20k children who will die of starvation and disease in the next 24 hours and say, It is very good? The perfect God, who sees the end from the beginning Isa 46:10 will NOT say, It is very good, until it is perfect, at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Amen?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Well I would not call anyone a liar, when I discern them to be utterly confused by long term indoctrination. I consider them victims, at times self inflicted victims.

Well, this indoctrination leads to productive and functional contributors to society in scientific and biomedical research, evidence based medicine, farming and agriculture technologies, etc. The Theory itself is confirmed by finding after finding and lays a predictive framework that makes accurate prediction time and time again.

Now, Creationism on the other hand produces nothing of value besides indoctrination to its respective religion. It also inhibits its victims in participating in any of the above mentioned fields of contributing endeavour.

Anything that happens within a life cycle and not millions of millions of years through genetic transmutation is adaptation, built into the species to make transition. Like a tadpole to a frog and a caterpillar to a butterfly.

Sure. I'm talking about changes in alleles in a population over time though, not biological metamorphosis.

It is allowed so much as it is designed for adaptation. You discover it in a beaker and then jump for joy and call it evolution, when all you have achieved is given it inputs and in response the plant machinery responds within its operating mode. You can swing it from one end to another, it is just like finding its limits of operation. What does that prove.

Again, I'm talking about changes in alleles in a population over time. There aren't any limits in this process, these alleles are known to accumulate mutations constantly, and if left unchecked in two sets of isolated populations that were once the same, they eventually lead to a speciation event where the two populations will eventually not be able to interbreed and then continue on to diverge in their appearances and functions forever, never being able to create viable offspring again - we see this in ring species as well as in horse/donkey hybrids, and lion/tiger hybrids, etc. This is literally the speciation event that means they'll never converge as one species ever again.

So we should see billions of variations of the transitioning in fossils. Unless you think that the process was flawless from one species to another.

No, didn't you even read what I wrote? Is an Otter transitional? Is a Hippo transitional? How about Seals? Walruses? Manatees? All of these creatures have literally come from completely land-based mammal species and in all likeliness could probably themselves be transitioning to a Whale-like form too. In short, we have a very rich fossil record of the land mammal to sea mammal progression of the cetateans, do any of their fossils look like intermediate failures?

Just one or two maybe? Not good enough to prove evolution. Just like I can't plot a straight line from sydney to melbourne, if I didn't have multiple markers and a laser pointer. You said millions of years. Ok we need millions of markers to make an approximation of that straight line to prove the path of Evolution from one species to another.

No, not just two, these are just two examples I can examine myself of the evolution from synapsids which the theory of evolution predicted would have been present in the fossil record - we're just lucky enough that these two made it through alive and aren't relegated to a footnote in the fossil record.

The Fossil record is a very rich record of the mammal transition from synapsids in its own right. We have thousands of them. Because we have thousands of them, we've been able to track the subtle gradient of the evolution of the mammalian middle ear from the four part jaw bones of the synapsid family we arose from:

See: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 for a more comprehensive breakdown on what we know - feel free to point out something there and challenge it, we can work through it and see where your understanding goes wrong.

Really! So is this your disclaimer?

Nope, Observation.

 

[HiEv]

Only God existed before anything existed. Everything that exists resides within God's creative eternal being. Created things exist. God is.

You just said, "God existed," before things existed (which you just disproved by saying that God existed), and then you immediately try to pretend that God didn't exist because only created things exist? This is every bit as absurd as it appeared to be.

You don't get to redefine the meaning of the word "exists" because it's inconvenient, nor do you get to redefine it to include exactly what you're trying to prove. It may be inconvenient but you can't create a rule, and then make a special exception to that rule for your particular explanation. Furthermore, the word "exists" in no way implies that it refers to created things.

Finally, you provided not one shred of objective evidence to support your claim. Where is your objective evidence that God "is", much less existed before everything else?

Yes, consciousness is tightly coupled with brain functioning as you note.

Consciousness isn't merely "tightly coupled" with a brain, it's entirely dependent on a brain. We have no objective evidence of a consciousness independent of a brain (or any similar physical medium).

But consciousness resides in the spiritual realm as part of our soul; the subjective experience of consciousness is not physical. Yes, I am a dualist and I think Christianity supports that.

If that were the case, then we'd see evidence of that. Instead, we see the opposite. If memories, personality, preferences, etc. existed outside the brain, then damage to the brain wouldn't change those things. And yet, we see all of those things affected by physical processes on the brain, and no evidence that they come from outside the brain. There is nothing we have ever come across in the study of consciousness that does not appear to be based in the physical processes of the brain.

So where is your evidence for your claim? And how do you explain all of the evidence to the contrary?

The is no evidence that the subjective experience of consciousness springs from matter.

What are you talking about? All of the evidence points to the physical brain as the source of consciousness.

In college I studied Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence/Cognitive Science, and that included studying the biological basis for consciousness. My senior thesis for AI/CogSci was a model for writing programs using simulated neurons. There is no science that I'm aware of that supports a non-physical source of consciousness. If you think there is, please point me to it.

I think only the dualist view makes sense; that consciousness or mind is something new, not merely a configuration of physical material matter.

You can think that all you want, but that doesn't make it true or supported by evidence.

Do you care about believing as many true things and as few false things as possible? If so, then you should only accept claims when they're sufficiently supported by objective evidence, and not merely because you like it or because you want it to be true.

Heck, dualism doesn't even solve the problem of consciousness, it's just another attempt to push one explanation off onto a bigger mystery again. If you can't even provide objective evidence for a soul, then you can't use it as an "explanation" for consciousness.

Let me ask you, how does dualism explain what we see from patients who've had split-brain surgery done on them (usually in order to help with severe cases of epilepsy), where they cut the corpus callosum, which connects the two halves of the brain together? This surgery results in two separate consciousnesses, one governing the left half of the body, and one governing the right half. Not only are they separate consciousnesses, but they can only communicate indirectly, the same way as you'd communicate with another person. In one case there was even an individual whose one brain hemisphere was theist, while the other hemisphere was an atheist:

Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist

This is one evidence among many that the physical brain is the source of consciousness, and that consciousness can't be anything which is separate from the brain.

If the consciousness is separate from the brain, then how would splitting the brain in two produce two separate consciousnesses? I really want to know how a dualist can reconcile this fact with their position.

It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that consciousness is what the brain does, and it's an entirely physical process.

 

[HiEv]

realy? lets test this claim: according to this criteria if we will find a self replicating car\robot\watch that are able to reproduce (and made from organic components) in a far planet, we cant conclude that it's the result of design?

LOL. You really love building your assumptions of design right into the argument, don't you?

Cars, robots, and watches are things that, in our experience, are the products of humans. If what you're talking about is the product of natural processes, then how does it count as a car, robot, or watch?

The fact is, we conclude that things are the result of design by seeing evidence of humans designing such things, such as car factories, "Made in China" on it, or being made of things we know are also the product of humans.

The question should be: if we find a self-replicating organism on another planet that we're able to reproduce, can we conclude that it's the product of design? And the answer is no, you can't merely assume a designer. It might be designed, it might not, but the fact that we could reproduce it is not evidence that it could only be designed. It would take actual evidence of the designer itself actually designing them to reach that conclusion. The fact that something is possible, doesn't make it the only possibility.

Also, you don't need to post pictures or links on the bacterial flagellum. I both know what it is and I know that the science doesn't support your conclusions regarding it.

What is the connection to design detection? if we had only one or two species you may asked why there is no more species. right?

No, I wouldn't have. And, in fact I clearly didn't ask that about any species where there are only one or two examples in that order.

The reason why is that I want to know why your "intelligent designer" thought over 350,000 species of beetles is necessary, when there are only a bit over 5,000 species of mammals. This is a question you simply dodged answering.

also remember that a speciation isnt a new family of a beetle.

Do you understand the difference between a species and a family? Or what speciation is?

It goes order, family, genus, then species. Beetles are the order known as Coleoptera. If there was a new species of beetle which would be in a new family, then that indeed would be an example of speciation, though normally one does not simply skip to adding a new family like that (I'm not clear if you're claiming that, but see further down where I discuss this point).

To quote Wikipedia: "Speciation is the evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct species." So a "new family of beetle" is an example of speciation by definition.

so the number of species may tell us nothing about the number of different beetles. so or so: it doesnt have any connection to the question about motors and robots.

What?!? The number of species tells us the number of different kinds of beetles.

And, uh, yea, it doesn't have anything to do with motors or robots. I don't know why you thought you had to bring that up. LOL

proud in what exactly?

Your argument that there is some advantage to the backwards retina. You spent your whole time acting like it proves creationism, when all you did was ignore all of the other points I made about problems with the eye.

i only want to show you why no one is able to detect "bad design" in nature. by the same logic we can claim that car has a bad design, since it have this trait:

Spare tire - Wikipedia

now, if an alien will see this he will claim for a bad design, since this is a wrong place for a tire to be place. as i said: any claim about bad design is a bad argument.

LOL. You jumping to conclusions about what aliens might believe in no way proves that nobody can ever demonstrate examples of design. It's frankly hilarious that you have to rely on imaginary aliens in order even attempt to make such a claim.

You've been handed an example of bad design. You've utterly failed to explain it in your framework. This is just an attempt to ignore it.

Also, I'm neither an alien nor a moron. You don't need to link me to a Wikipedia article on what a spare tire is.

because that was evolutionists claim for many years. as dawkins put it:

“Once again, send it back, is not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot.”

Richard Dawkins, (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, pp353-354.

since we now know that this trait actually improve vision, the designer isn't an idiot after all, and dawkins is wrong.

LOL. The line you quoted referred to the blind spot in the eye, which verifiably exists! Dawkins wasn't wrong at all!

Here's the quote in context:

One consequence of the photocells pointing backwards is that the wires that carry their data somehow have to pass through the retina and back to the brain. What they do, in the vertebrate eye, is all converge on a particular hole in the retina, where they dive through it. The hole filled with nerves is called the blind spot, because it is blind, but 'spot' is too flattering, for it is quite large, more like a blind patch, which again doesn't actually inconvenience us much because of the 'automatic Photoshop' software in the brain. Once again, send it back, it's not just bad design, it's the design of a complete idiot.

So, you quote mined, and then you either failed to notice that your quote mine was talking about something that was verifiably still true, or you deliberately implied that it was about something else.

Regardless, one example of something that we thought was bad, but turned out to not be as bad as we thought does not wipe out all of the other examples of bad design. Each example has to be dealt with individually. Your attempt to pretend this one thing wipes out all the rest is absurd, especially considering that I gave you multiple examples of different problems with the way the eye is constructed.

such as? give an example. are you referring to a disease?

I already gave you examples. To repeat, we have blind spots and we're prone to detached retinas, glaucoma, and presbyopia due to the layout of the human eye.

according to this source it may has several functions:

Laryngeal Nerve Anatomy: Introduction, Vagus Nerve (Cranial Nerve X), Superior Laryngeal Nerve

"The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. Several nerves in the larynx control these tasks."

and:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia

"The nerves also carry sensory information from the mucous membranes of the larynx below the lower surface of the vocal fold,[17]:847–9 as well as sensory, secretory and motor fibres to the cervical segments of the esophagus and the trachea."

(facepalm) Yeah, and where do all of those things occur? They all occur where the nerve ends at the top of the throat.

My point was that the nerve had no other functions which would explain the circuitous route that the nerve takes, from the brain, all the way down to the heart, and then back up to the top of the throat.

It's like you ignore the important part of my point so you can answer some other easier question.

so what? so evolution doesn't predict this fossil. and yet we found it. so evolution is false, or it isnt a scientific theory.

No! That's not how science works! LOL

Evolution can predict things based on known data, but we know that we do not have a complete fossil record, so evolution totally predicts that there will be changes to some small parts of our model of evolution as we discover new fossils and other such data. Merely finding a new fossil that wasn't specifically predicted doesn't disprove evolution. In order for that to happen you'd have to find a fossil that the theory of evolution would predict isn't possible.

The model still works just fine with this new data. It's really only a small change that ultimately makes the model more accurate.

Seriously, how exactly do you think science works that what you said was a valid argument?

it was merely the most likely explanation under the creation model too. as i explained.

No, you didn't explain that. You merely asserted it.

I asked you what creationism model predicts that, and so far it's been nothing but crickets.

according to this any fossil cant fit with this criteria. we can also claim that some fossils are still missing. so evolution will have no problem to explain even such a situation. many fossils are still missing in the older layers. and you dont see any evolutionist claimming that evolution is false because of that.

What part of "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" do you not get? That's the given example of a fossil that doesn't fit that criteria. If one existed there would be no way to explain it within the evolutionary model. I don't know why you're pretending that examples can't exist when you've been given one.

dont be so sure:

Sea anemone genome reveals ancestral eumetazoan gene repertoire and genomic organization. - PubMed - NCBI

"The sea anemone genome is complex, with a gene repertoire, exon-intron structure, and large-scale gene linkage more similar to vertebrates than to flies or nematodes"

Rather than merely quoting something that doesn't actually not fit within the evolutionary model, please explain how this fails to fit it.

Also, the organism you're talking about has had ~3.5 billion years of evolution to get to that point, the same as all organisms alive today, so I don't know why you think it proves anything when we're talking about the fact that complexity is something that could have been found long ago.

What would disprove ID/creationism to you?

first: we still wait to see if we can test evolution at all.

You don't need to wait, we can already do that. It reliably makes predictions. If it didn't, then that would be evidence against it. That's how you test things in science, you try to disprove it by testing its predictions.

second: if you can show how one family of creature can evolve into another one (say a cat into dog)

One family doesn't evolve into another one, that's not how evolution works. A species evolves into another one.

I totally called this one. Every time I ask creationists what evidence would have to exist to prove to them that evolution is real, they ask for something that evolution actually says doesn't happen.

Species change over time. If a species changes enough from its ancestors, or diverges enough from groups that were once a single species, then it will get classified as a different species. If that species then continues to gather more traits which make it distinct from other species, and then splits off into other species, then at some point taxonomists may label them as a separate family from the root species.

There isn't a genetic switch that is flipped that changes something from one family to another, it's simply a label given by humans to help categorize species and their evolutionary relations.

Cats and dogs both share a common ancestor deep in the Carnivora order. So, at one time there was a single species that gave birth to all the members of the Carnivora order. If we somehow lived at that time, that creature wouldn't be in its own order, or even its own family, because there wouldn't be enough child-species for it to be worth giving it its own order. It's in its own order now because of all of the child-species that came after it. A group we would categorize at the species level today could be the common ancestor of an unheard of family millions of years from now, depending on how evolution goes.

So cats don't evolve into dogs. Organisms don't evolve from one family to another. That's not what evolution claims. That's not how it works. They simply evolve, splitting off into new groups occasionally, and then we categorize them. Any categorizations of "family" are based upon the species' relationship within the modern collection of all species that have ever lived.

On the other hand, if you're asking for a mammal species to evolve into something so different it would have to be categorized as a whole different family, within our lifetime, then again you're demanding that I provide you with something evolution says won't happen before you would accept evolution. Mammals simply don't evolve that much in that short a timespan.

That being said, we have plenty of examples of evolution of the sort that I believe you're trying to ask for. For example, I recommend looking up the evolution of whales some time. If you think that doesn't qualify, I'd love to hear you explain why.

it will falsified the creation model.

What "model"? How can it falsify anything if it makes no testable claims?

i never said that it's evidence against evolution. i said that this isnt evidence for evoltion.

That's what I meant. You're saying "bacteria is still bacteria" is somehow evidence against the fact that evolution occurred. That's simply wrong. Evolution doesn't require a bacteria form a whole new domain for it to still be an example of evolution.

evolution is also about common descent and changes in the family level. so i think that we should agree about the definition for evolution first.

You're talking about the theory of evolution, while I was talking about the fact of evolution. Those are two things that people easily confuse (as you just demonstrated).

So to repeat my quote:

Again, evolution (not the theory of evolution by natural selection, just evolution) is simply a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. That's all it is. If you think it's something more than that, then you're simply misinformed.

See how I tried to clarify between the two? So if someone says that organisms evolve, all that means is that populations of organisms have changes in their traits over generations. That this indeed happens is a demonstrable fact.

In any case, since evolution is testable, please tell me what would disprove ID/creationism to you? And this time don't put in evidence of that are things that evolution actually says won't happen. (Funny enough I listed the "dogs evolving from cats" argument as an example of something evolution says won't happen, and thus shouldn't be asked for as an example of proof for evolution, because that's not anything evolution says will happen, in another thread here.)

 

[Jimmy D]

We have a brain and can create language and terms that we can use to understand one another. They don't have to be in text books or taught at school.

Problem is when we invent terms and use language that no one else understands it's difficult to get your "ideas" across.

 

[sfs]

Problem is when we invent terms and use language that no one else understands it's difficult to get your "ideas" across.

It doesn't help when the ideas themselves are divorced from reality.

 

[tas8831]

I see evidence everywhere for a single intelligent designer, who simultaneously created different species, without any cross contamination of species. The inherent embedded Fibonnici DNA pattern found across species highlight a single designer signiture. Transmutation of species would indicate evolution and a totally alien DNA signiture. We do not find a different DNA signiture and in this respect we have no choice but to acknowledge a single intelligent designer. Thankyou!

The argument from awe.

How impressive.

I'm sure Sunday School children will find such argumentation overwhelming. But I do suggest brushing up on your spelling.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have a brain and can create language and terms that we can use to understand one another. They don't have to be in text books or taught at school.

Not taught at school, but we learn from the people around us from a very young age.

 

[tas8831]

because that was evolutionists claim for many years. as dawkins put it:

“Once again, send it back, is not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot.”

Richard Dawkins, (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, pp353-354.

since we now know that this trait actually improve vision, the designer isn't an idiot after all, and dawkins is wrong.

Please explain how this improves vision. I know that creationists have written essays claiming this, but that does not make it so.

according to this source it may has several functions:

Laryngeal Nerve Anatomy: Introduction, Vagus Nerve (Cranial Nerve X), Superior Laryngeal Nerve

"The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. Several nerves in the larynx control these tasks."

and:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia

"The nerves also carry sensory information from the mucous membranes of the larynx below the lower surface of the vocal fold,[17]:847–9 as well as sensory, secretory and motor fibres to the cervical segments of the esophagus and the trachea."

100% irrelevant as to its tortuous course.

Developmental biology explains it, creationism co-opts it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There would exist so numerous of failed transmutations over millions of millions of failed attempts, that earth would be a graveyard riddled and I mean riddled of transmutation fossil remains. Let me know if you happen to dig one up in your backyard, that is if you have a yard.

1. fossils are rare and fragile; the vast majority of organisms that die never become fossils, and plenty that do end up breaking apart long before we have a chance to discover them.
2. the worst of the worst mutations result in death before birth/hatching, and those don't end up fossilizing either.
3. we have found fossils of sick organisms before.