Creation vs. Evolution

[Scaff]

If you watch carefully somewhere around 2 minute mark you can see nerves branching off to the esophagus. Larynx seems to be only it's final destination not it's only destination.

Even so it still makes no sense to travel to the heart before looping back, unless you have your esophagus in a rather strange place.

So once again what is the design derision for the entire detour the RLN takes

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Even so it still makes no sense to travel to the heart before looping back, unless you have your esophagus in a rather strange place.

So once again what is the design derision for the entire detour the RLN takes

The Vagus nerve is traveling down to the heart which the laryngeal nerve branches off of. Humans sometimes has a birth defect that shorten this nerve which isn't beneficial. Since it does happen then why haven't NS select the shorter route in millions of years.

 

[Famine]

The Vagus nerve is traveling down to the heart which the laryngeal nerve branches off of. Humans sometimes has a birth defect that shorten this nerve which isn't beneficial.

You really don't help yourself with language this vague.

Not that this isn't a creationist trademark though.

 

[dylansan]

The Vagus nerve is traveling down to the heart which the laryngeal nerve branches off of. Humans sometimes has a birth defect that shorten this nerve which isn't beneficial.

Why doesn't the nerve branch off at the head so one can go to the heart and the other can go to the larynx, without either being twice as long as the neck?

Since it does happen then why haven't NS select the shorter route in millions of years.

You've just proven you don't understand natural selection.

For natural selection to evolve species with a short nerve, having a short nerve would have to be enough of a benefit as to increase the chance of reproduction, either directly, or by making them less likely to die. The long nerve we see in nature is not dangerous to the animal and it does not shorten the life span. It simply adds a miniscule unnecessary delay to nerve impulses from the brain to the larynx. A delay that wouldn't be there if it were designed, but has explanations through evolution.

 

[Scaff]

The Vagus nerve is traveling down to the heart which the laryngeal nerve branches off of. Humans sometimes has a birth defect that shorten this nerve which isn't beneficial. Since it does happen then why haven't NS select the shorter route in millions of years.

A. It doesn't benefit the species as whole
B. It doesn't further adaptation to our environment
C. You don't just 'pick' a shorter route in evolutionary terms, you can't just cut and shut an existing nerve (but then I've already answered this).

What you have still utterly failed to answer (and have now helpful added in another point you need to address) is why this design 'works'.

Evolution doesn't go back and re-wire an entire body because a more effective solution now could be found, however if ID is true then the most efficient design should have been used (after all this designer is infallible).

So how about you leave evolution for a second and actually answer the question, why has it been designed this way?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

A. It doesn't benefit the species as whole

Even if it was beneficial studies from a few years back reveal how hard it is for a mutation to become fit in a population even in lab conditions.

Evolution doesn't go back and re-wire an entire body because a more effective solution now could be found, however if ID is true then the most efficient design should have been used (after all this designer is infallible).

Yet for some reason NS rewired the eye backward according to Dawkins when Octopus eye is the better "design". I would say evolution is totally useless except for short term gain.

Show me that the designs Dawkins see in living creatures are really illusions.

 

[Famine]

But then you have a demonstrable lack of understanding of the field as a whole and, bizarrely, what you're saying in particular.

Again, the misrepresentation and vagueness of language traits of creationism there.

 

[Scaff]

Even if it was beneficial studies from a few years back reveal how hard it is for a mutation to become fit in a population even in lab conditions.

Yet for some reason NS rewired the eye backward according to Dawkins when Octopus eye is the better "design". I would say evolution is totally useless except for short term gain.

Show me that the designs Dawkins see in living creatures are really illusions.

You don't actualy have a clue what you are on about and once again are missrepresent what people have said.

Oh and I notice you still haven't replied to my question.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I'm far from a know-it-all yet I see evolution supports everything.
NS rewired the eye backward but somehow didn't rewire the laryngeal nerve but both is evidence of evolution and bad design.

 

[dylansan]

Even if it was beneficial studies from a few years back reveal how hard it is for a mutation to become fit in a population even in lab conditions.

Don't continue this discussion until you provide a source for this. You keep claiming all these things about what science has found but haven't provided any way to find them.

Without the context of the actual study, this point in your argument has no value.

Yet for some reason NS rewired the eye backward according to Dawkins when Octopus eye is the better "design".

Show me that the designs Dawkins see in living creature are really illusion.

The eye was not "rewired" from the Octopus eye. We did not evolve from Octopi. Our eye simply developed seperately and differently from the Octopus, which happened to make ours worse. In no sense did our eyes get worse because of natural selection.

I'm getting quite sick of you ignoring our criticisms of your arguments and moving on to other things. Stick with one point at a time until we agree on something and then move on. For one thing, will you admit that the Laryngeal nerve does not disprove natural selection?

And yes, please answer Scaff's question.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

The eye was not "rewired" from the Octopus eye. We did not evolve from Octopi.

I know no one claims we evolved from a modern creature. Octopus eye is an example of co-evolution. Similarities are evidence of evolution except when they are not. Then they are evidence of co-evolution. Everything support evolution.
"Simple" eyes are not wired backwards.

 

[Keef]

The Vagus nerve is traveling down to the heart which the laryngeal nerve branches off of.

Why doesn't it branch off sooner instead of waiting until the bottom to loop back? There's absolutely no reason for the laryngeal nerve to wait so long to branch off. It could branch off immediately. What it could do it something nice and elegant as an engineer would do. Think spark plug wires...

They start where they start and go where they go. The short one doesn't go all the way down then loop back because there's no reason to.

Etc, etc.

 

[niky]

I'm far from a know-it-all yet I see evolution supports everything.
NS rewired the eye backward but somehow didn't rewire the laryngeal nerve but both is evidence of evolution and bad design.

You mean the fact that our eyes and our laryngeal nerves are both poorly and haphazardly laid-out prove intelligent design?

If there were a designer, he'd be a cross between Edward Muntz and Rube Goldberg...

 

[GTP_Ingram]

NS suppose to have the ability to transforms a fish into land creatures (like a giraffe) and back to a sea creature (whale) but it can't even reroute a simple nerve.

Can you not see that what you have said here, if written in plain English, would make quite a convincing argument for Natural Selection?

But anyway, hang on a second...

Octopus eye is an example of co-evolution. Similarities are evidence of evolution except when they are not. Then they are evidence of co-evolution. Everything support evolution.

Are you using sarcasm or is this a spectacular U-turn in your views?

I know no one claims we evolved from a modern creature.

I didn't know an octopus was a 'modern creature.' Fair enough, I've seen them predict the outcome of football matches before, but I've never seen one using Twitter or anything.

 

[Scaff]

I know no one claims we evolved from a modern creature. Octopus eye is an example of co-evolution. Similarities are evidence of evolution except when they are not. Then they are evidence of co-evolution. Everything support evolution.
"Simple" eyes are not wired backwards.

Once again you show a stunning lack of understanding in regard to this subject, you seem to be under the (very mistaken) assumption that one path exists for the evolution of eyes, which is quite simply not true.

http://redwood.berkeley.edu/vs265/landfernald92.pdf

Even Wiki manages to explain this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#One_origin_or_many.3F

...so not being bothered to research correctly isn't even an excuse.

Actually take the time to read these before you start claiming that you understand this process. What does spring to mind however is why your (infallible) designer chose to use a range of eye designs and then saddled the creatures designed in his/her image with the one that is not the most efficient.




Now in addition to my existing question (that you continue to refuse to answer) I ask the following:

• Why did your designer not use a single effective eye across the board?
• Why his/her childeren didn't get the best design?
• and once again what is the design function behind the route of the RLN

You see what gets me about ID is that even if it was correct (and its not) and the designer found a better way of doing something after he finished building people, why didn't we get retro-fitted. after all he/she can just snap his fingers and we are fixed (evolution claims no such mechanism - despite your nonsense claims that it does). This designed could have done it way back before he/she 'let us understand human physiology' and we would be none the wiser.

So one more question 'why has this designer not 'fixed' us yet and when does he/she intend to.

Oh and actual scientific answers please, no 'because he wanted to test the faith they have' based nonsense.

 

[Luminis]

I know no one claims we evolved from a modern creature. Octopus eye is an example of co-evolution. Similarities are evidence of evolution except when they are not. Then they are evidence of co-evolution. Everything support evolution.
"Simple" eyes are not wired backwards.

1) If there was an intelligent designer at work, why don't all creatures have "the best" eye?
2) Every evidence "supports" the theory of evloution because the theory of evolutions is based on all the evidence. So yeah, you are right: Everything supports it. Nothign supports creationism. And that's why creationism/intelligent design is considered bunk.

 

[PAPPACLART]

It seems that some of Humanity is so ignorant and insecure, and thinks that it is so special that surely we must have been designed by some kind of higher power and given a reason and a purpose to be here. Like many Scientist have said, the universe does not love you, there is no "special" purpose for Humanity other than the individual purpose we create for ourselves. The only purpose from a nature/evolutionary perspective is to procreate, and to do this and to do it successfully means that each species has to compete for the same space and resources. That very nature of competing for said resources in a ever changing environment means that the weak die and the strong prosper. Those that prosper do so because they are either or both physically superior or more intelligent/adaptable due to slight genetic differences via selective breeding through natures clever selection/mating processes or through genetic mutations. The stronger survive, procreate and spawn stronger offspring who are better equipped to deal with current and future environmental challenges as well as the many other constantly changing variables.

What you see in nature now, after billions of years is the result of pure randomization/chaos yet what we have looks far from random or chaotic, looking more like something that is designed. Through the act of randomization and chaos in nature/evolution has found an order born out of that randomization/chaos, that moves without any singular direction/director, with all life forms collectively driven by their own individual need to survive and procreate. From random processes we have now a quite complex intertwined system that is inherently balanced until nature from time to time introduces a natural disaster to shake things up.

Randomization/chaos can actually create some quite complex and beautiful things. Look at the Sahara desert as an example. Trillions of grains of sand influence by a random/chaotic and indiscriminate wind can create some quite exquisite patterns in the sand.

There was a fantastic documentary I see regarding chaos/randomization called the Secret Life Of Chaos - I think that was what it was called.

Edit

Here is a video I found, luckily as most have been taken down. http://pages.rediff.com/video/197020/3944150/the-secret-life-of-chaos--bbc-20--low- (hope this is ok to post admin/mods)

 

[dylansan]

Randomization/chaos can actually create some quite complex and beautiful things. Look at the Sahara desert as an example. Trillions of grains of sand influence by a random/chaotic and indiscriminate wind can create some quite exquisite patterns in the sand.

I've always found the argument that random chance could not create us to be one of the most annoying of all against evolution. Your example is pretty good, but now that I think about it, what about snowflakes? They're not designed, but damned if they don't form a really complex, patterned structure.

 

[Dotini]

From the BB to ionization, filamentation, stars, galaxies, life and experience, the universe has persistently and determinedly self-organized into increasing complexity. Almost as if it had a goal or purpose! The anthropic principle posits that it's all about us, but that may be quite naive. Not only is everything in the universe connected, it may in some sense be alive (Hylozooism), and also may be conscious (Pan-psychism). Humanity may be a small, random error, a pimple on the butt of the universe.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Touring Mars]

Humanity may be a small, random error, a pimple on the butt of the universe.

I like it, but I prefer Carl Sagan's words: "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself"...

 

[dylansan]

My favorite that I heard recently was something like

"If you leave hydrogen alone for long enough, it thinks about itself."

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a source right now.

 

[Touring Mars]

My favorite that I heard recently was something like

"If you leave hydrogen alone for long enough, it thinks about itself."

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a source right now.

That's an awesome quote, and I've also heard it before, but I don't recall where/when either...

 

[wfooshee]

I Googled it. The third hit was this thread. The second hit was a Unitarian church!! I gave up, then.

 

[Touring Mars]

I Googled it. The third hit was this thread. The second hit was a Unitarian church!! I gave up, then.

Dylansan ought to claim it...

 

[dylansan]

What's with the new colors TM? I think you've got enough distinction without changing your font.

 

[Touring Mars]

What's with the new colors TM?

For 24 hours, I will be posting only in Purple in tribute to Jon Lord, founding member of Deep Purple, Hammond organ genius, and God (Lord?) of Rock, who sadly passed away today at the age of 71... with all due apologies to Luminis for nicking his font colour

 

[Luminis]

For 24 hours, I will be posting only in Purple in tribute to Jon Lord, founding member of Deep Purple, Hammond organ genius, and God (Lord?) of Rock, who sadly passed away today at the age of 71... with all due apologies to Luminis for nicking his font colour

Nah, it's for a good cause If it's to tribute Deep Purple, what am I gonna do about it?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I've always found the argument that random chance could not create us to be one of the most annoying of all against evolution. Your example is pretty good, but now that I think about it, what about snowflakes? They're not designed, but damned if they don't form a really complex, patterned structure.

What about snowflakes? And what so complex about Sahara desert? Living cells have machines, runs on a power source (ATP) and uses a code. What machine can you make out of snowflakes? What about using snowflakes as a energy source?

You mean the fact that our eyes and our laryngeal nerves are both poorly and haphazardly laid-out prove intelligent design?

I do not believe our eyes or RLN is poor design. Even some scientist disagree with Dawkins poor design arguments since it an unproven assumption instead of looking for the reasons for RLN. They have already learn our eyes are "design" that way for a reason.

 

[Scaff]

What about snowflakes? And what so complex about Sahara desert? Living cells have machines, runs on a power source (ATP) and uses a code. What machine can you make out of snowflakes? What about using snowflakes as a energy source?

I do not believe our eyes or RLN is poor design. Even some scientist disagree with Dawkins poor design arguments since it an unproven assumption instead of looking for the reasons for RLN. They have already learn our eyes are "design" that way for a reason.

Sorry, but does any remote chance at all exist that you will actually bother to answer the questions I have directly asked of you? Edited - I've even added a new one for you.

Now in addition to my existing question (that you continue to refuse to answer) I ask the following:

1. Why did your designer not use a single effective eye across the board?
2. Why his/her children didn't get the best design?
3. Given that you say "our eyes are "design" that way for a reason" could you explain why we have a blind spot?
4. and once again what is the design function behind the route of the RLN?

Or do you simply intend to keep ignoring them?


Oh and.....

Even some scientist disagree with Dawkins poor design arguments since it an unproven assumption instead of looking for the reasons for RLN

Source please as 'some scientist' is more than a bit vague.

 

[Exorcet]

Living cells have machines, runs on a power source (ATP) and uses a code.

How unique.

Stars have a gravity driven fusion energy source that reliably produce heavier elements, and when the next generation of stars form the left over materials from the originals influences their development.

Energy and information are just parts of physics, cells aren't really all the special. They point towards evolution more than anything else.