Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Sceptic wrote:
Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve, so to speak. They are factual assertions. Why design a nerve to be any longer than is strictly necessary? The longer the nerve, the longer it takes impulses to travel along it, and longer nerves are more vulnerable to injury than are shorter ones.
The appendix is another woeful piece of "design". Appendicitis is common and, until recently, often fatal.
If I were to design a better laryngeal nerve, I would run it direct from the Vagus to the larynx.
IIRC, there is a scientific theory which explains the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals. If only I could remember what that darn theory is called.....
These are not factual assertions at all, they are value judgments made on what your concept of a proper designer should do.If not, please give us the scientific standard for "perfect design" and your metrics for measuring how this particular case hits or misses that target.
Anyway, you have not shown any evidence that this nerve can be shortened and retain all functionality. This objection is an old one, first raised by Ruse in 1995 and then again by Denton in 1998. In typical evo fashion, they tried to make as if this is simply a single-function nerve bundle that runs from point A to point B. Since then, we have learned that it isn't, it branches off in several places from the vagus into the trachea, heart and mucous membranes, in addition to looping back up to the larynx where it branches off in at least two places.
“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.” (Gray's Anatomy, Henry Gray and Henry Carter:)
So unless you can show that by taking a direct route all of the neurological functionality mentioned above will be retained, this is a non-objection.
Of course it is a factual assertion. The RLN is way longer than it strictly needs to be. The other minor branches could just as well branch straight off the Vagus at their appropriate level in the neck and thorax. Far tidier, less vulnerable to injury, no loss of function.
If you want to see some really messy wiring, have a look at the brachial plexus:
Sceptic wrote:
Of course it is a factual assertion. The RLN is way longer than it strictly needs to be. The other minor branches could just as well branch straight off the Vagus at their appropriate level in the neck and thorax. Far tidier, less vulnerable to injury, no loss of function.
If you want to see some really messy wiring, have a look at the brachial plexus:
There is nothing factual about it. You are just repeating your assertion, and you have not really answered anything I provided. You have not shown any measurements, nor have you provided proof that your route will retain all the current functionality. You are just speculating and want us to accept your speculation as factual.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
Wow, you are just a walking stereotype of bad skeptical arguments.
It's a fundamental truth. No-one can ever prove a negative. You can't possibly dispute that.
Of course I dispute that.
But why don't you prove the statement "You can't prove a negative" to be true. Or do you just somehow take that to be true?
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
Wow, you are just a walking stereotype of bad skeptical arguments.
How are you old friend? We miss you around here (although I do keep up with your and Puritan's blogs).
Byblos! Glad to see my favorite Catholic friend still around.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
Sceptic wrote:
Of course it is a factual assertion. The RLN is way longer than it strictly needs to be. The other minor branches could just as well branch straight off the Vagus at their appropriate level in the neck and thorax. Far tidier, less vulnerable to injury, no loss of function.
If you want to see some really messy wiring, have a look at the brachial plexus:
There is nothing factual about it. You are just repeating your assertion, and you have not really answered anything I provided. You have not shown any measurements, nor have you provided proof that your route will retain all the current functionality. You are just speculating and want us to accept your speculation as factual.
How much do you know about nerve function? Since the RLN is, itself, a branch of the Vagus nerve, all the RLN fibres are contained within the Vagus higher up in the neck, before the RLN branches off. So, branching the fibres direct to their end-organ will result in no loss of function, would be more efficient, and would make the nerve less vulnerable from chest or neck trauma.
In the case of the pharyngeal branches, these have even further to travel than the laryngeal fibres!
Wow, you are just a walking stereotype of bad skeptical arguments.
It's a fundamental truth. No-one can ever prove a negative. You can't possibly dispute that.
Of course I dispute that.
But why don't you prove the statement "You can't prove a negative" to be true. Or do you just somehow take that to be true?
It is a logical fallacy: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." You cannot prove or disprove an existential negative because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; e.g. if you cannot see colour, this is not evidence that colour does not exist.
Sceptic wrote:
Of course it is a factual assertion. The RLN is way longer than it strictly needs to be. The other minor branches could just as well branch straight off the Vagus at their appropriate level in the neck and thorax. Far tidier, less vulnerable to injury, no loss of function.
If you want to see some really messy wiring, have a look at the brachial plexus:
There is nothing factual about it. You are just repeating your assertion, and you have not really answered anything I provided. You have not shown any measurements, nor have you provided proof that your route will retain all the current functionality. You are just speculating and want us to accept your speculation as factual.
How much do you know about nerve function? Since the RLN is, itself, a branch of the Vagus nerve, all the RLN fibres are contained within the Vagus higher up in the neck, before the RLN branches off. So, branching the fibres direct to their end-organ will result in no loss of function, would be more efficient, and would make the nerve less vulnerable from chest or neck trauma.
In the case of the pharyngeal branches, these have even further to travel than the laryngeal fibres!
I'm sorry, I'm just an ignorant creationist, so I know nothing about nerve function.
Still nothing factual, just speculation. No proof that you will retain full functionality if it looks like you want it to.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
Wow, you are just a walking stereotype of bad skeptical arguments.
It's a fundamental truth. No-one can ever prove a negative. You can't possibly dispute that.
Of course I dispute that.
But why don't you prove the statement "You can't prove a negative" to be true. Or do you just somehow take that to be true?
It is a logical fallacy: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." You cannot prove or disprove an existential negative because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; e.g. if you cannot see colour, this is not evidence that colour does not exist.
Sorry, that has nothing to do with proving negatives. Or you are going to have to explain it better.
You have still not proven your statement: You can't prove a negative" to be true. Please give a formal proof if you can.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
August wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm just an ignorant creationist, so I know nothing about nerve function.
Still nothing factual, just speculation. No proof that you will retain full functionality if it looks like you want it to.
It is an obvious fact that all the fibres in the RLN are contained within the Vagus. The RLN is a branch of the Vagus.
Sure. But there are branches off the RLN into the heart etc, like I quoted from Grays, that apparently has some functionality in that branch...or else why would it branch off from there? You have to show that that all functionality will be retained with your scenario. Even the loss of a single function will negate your argument.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
August wrote:Sure. But there are branches off the RLN into the heart etc, like I quoted from Grays, that apparently has some functionality in that branch...or else why would it branch off from there? You have to show that that all functionality will be retained with your scenario. Even the loss of a single function will negate your argument.
OK, so branch those off at the appropriate level, like I said. The Vagus nerve travels right past the heart.
Ok, answer me this, do you believe that that constitutes proof for the statement "You can't prove a negative"?
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
