War, or peace with science and Christians?

[nebula]

What I find amusing is how these scientists will see something that makes no sense to them and automatically assume it is imperfect without having first tested to see if their better solution really is better!...

So when I saw Dawkins' presentation on the laryngeal nerve, I began to question his and the others' assumption. In what you read, did they perform an experiment to determine how well the larynx would function had the nerve attached directly to the larynx instead of looping down and back up?

I will tell you this much, the larynx partly functions by being raised and lowered. (You can see this in guys, it is what is called "the Adam's apple".) In case you did not know, the larynx is attached to the trachea (wind pipe). So by the nerve running up the trachea to the larynx, it enables the nerve to move with the raising and the lowering of the larynx. Now, if the laryngeal nerve were to have a more direct attachment, it would be wedged between muscles that constrict and expand to create the movement of the larynx as well as other neck and speech movements. In other words, it might become pinched by the muscles, which would defeat purposes, would it not?

Nebula, from an evolutionary development perspective, it all makes sense when you trace the evolution of the nerve pathways. In fish, the nerves in question take a direct route to their endpoint, however, in humans the left laryngeal nerve loops around the aorta before ascending back up the neck! This likely makes the nerve more susceptible to damage and a shorter, direct route would. There is no reason from a design perspective I can think of to require the nerve pathways in question (left and right laryngeal nerves) to descend to the chest and then ascend back to the neck.

Yeah, well I thought of one.

When someone can show that the direct route would not cause a problem, I'll consider your "there is no reason" words.

[MorningGlory]

Yeah, well I thought of one.

When someone can show that the direct route would not cause a problem, I'll consider your "there is no reason" words.

LOL, it sort of difficult to meet your criteria unless someone has a severed nerve that has been reattached with no other damage to surrounding tissue. On the other hand, there are other, more direct, innervation pathways to the muscles that move the larynx. Somehow these work just fine without having to do loop-d-loops around the heart.

I get the impression that you believe you could design a better human.....unfortunately, there is only one Creator and He has designed things to His specifications.

[Guest JacobLewis]

As Sam said, only one of our two laryngeal nerves takes the roundabout path to the larynx. Why would only one need to make the detour?

D-9: The only true judge of a good or bad mutation is survival, however mutations certainly can have positive or negative results for both whatever piece of anatomy the mutated gene controls and the organism as a whole. You are absolutely correct though, it depends completely upon the environment in which the organism exists.

This is my issue Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. It is based almost solely on the fact that some organisms have survived for so long without evolving, however this does not mean that evolution must occur rapidly, only that when mutations occurred they were deleterious as the species in question was already very well adapted to it's environment, or because by mere chance the organism never underwent a useful mutation within the population that has not changed.

[Hawkins]

As Sam said, only one of our two laryngeal nerves takes the roundabout path to the larynx. Why would only one need to make the detour?

D-9: The only true judge of a good or bad mutation is survival, however mutations certainly can have positive or negative results for both whatever piece of anatomy the mutated gene controls and the organism as a whole. You are absolutely correct though, it depends completely upon the environment in which the organism exists.

This is my issue Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. It is based almost solely on the fact that some organisms have survived for so long without evolving, however this does not mean that evolution must occur rapidly, only that when mutations occurred they were deleterious as the species in question was already very well adapted to it's environment, or because by mere chance the organism never underwent a useful mutation within the population that has not changed.

Science is about how things "normally" work out in our realm. By far science has never discovered the absolute law. All the laws for the 4 known (not to mention the unknown) field forces are working only separately but still waiting to be united. People (scientists or not) just religious believe that they know all things to judge that miracle shall not occur. For example, people religiously judge that "walking on water" shall not occur. But on the other hand, science itself never claimed that gravity is fully understood (noone actually knows what gravity is, in the new string theory it is assumed that gravity is the only "material" which can penetrate multi-dimensional spaces).).

Edited December 30, 2010 by Hawkins

[nebula]

Yeah, well I thought of one.

When someone can show that the direct route would not cause a problem, I'll consider your "there is no reason" words.

LOL, it sort of difficult to meet your criteria unless someone has a severed nerve that has been reattached with no other damage to surrounding tissue.

LOL - in other words you want to live with your untested claim.

How un-scientific of you.

On the other hand, there are other, more direct, innervation pathways to the muscles that move the larynx. Somehow these work just fine without having to do loop-d-loops around the heart.

Innervating the muscles surrounding the larynx and innervating the larynx itself are two different things.

[nebula]

As Sam said, only one of our two laryngeal nerves takes the roundabout path to the larynx. Why would only one need to make the detour?

Is it a detour?

In contrast to Prothero's claim, the vagus nerve (the longest of the cranial nerves) travels from the neck down toward the heart, and then the recurrent laryngeal nerve branches off from the vagus just below the aorta (the largest artery in the body, originating from the left ventricle of the heart and extending down the abdomen). The RLN travels upward to serve several organs, some near where it branches off of the vagus nerve, and then travels back up to the larynx.2

This is the reason it is called the left recurrent laryngeal nerve. In contrast, the right laryngeal nerve loops around the subclavian artery just below the collarbone, and then travels up to the larynx. Of note is the fact that the longer left RLN works in perfect harmony with the right laryngeal nerve, disproving the faulty design claim.

And as I said to Sam, you all are making assumptions without testing them or even studying the possibilities.

Aside from the developmental reasons for the circuitous route, certain benefits of overlapping sensory and motor innervations result when one of the nerves is slightly longer. One reason why laryngeal nerve branches are located both above and below the larynx (both branch off the vagus) is because this design allows some preservation of function if either one is interrupted. The redundant pathway also provides some backup in case of damage to one of the nerves.

<snip>

Finally, several studies found that the existing path occupies a relatively safe position in a groove that renders it less prone to damage or injury than a more direct route.15

Source

So do you have anything beyond assumptions?

[nebula]

And again, Jacob, would you please explain what you are talking about here?

As for how the anatomical structure of the eye . . . discredit intelligent design (either the psuedo-science or the biblical creation account):

The human eye is built inside out causing the mind to do a large amount of what would otherwise be unnecessary work to render the photons that do make it onto it's rods and cones into a true perception of the physical world.

I saw your explanation on the other thread after I responded on this thread.

I did not understand your explanation, as you claimed the "wires" send light signals back to the lens, and things like that.

There are no neurons attached to the lens.

As for this explanation, I don't get it either.

What do you mean by "inside out"?

The mind does no work until after the action potential is sent through the optic nerve. So what does the build of the eye have to do with the work the mind does?

[Believer112]

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (Agnostic)

At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief. Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

Fred Hoyle (1915

[Guest]

.... Abiogenesis has made some real progress since the youngest relevant quote nearly two decades old!....

As Old As The First Lie

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c)

And As Deadly As The Second

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Genesis 3:4

The Philosophies Of Mankind

Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour. Ecclesiastes 10:1

Can Lead A Child

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11

Into Perdition

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 16:25

Thinking

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Ecclesiastes 8:11

Look

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

How Smart Am I

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe

.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

[Believer112]

Conservative genes are usually interesting. I'm curious to hear what creationists think of switching genes from one organism to another. The Boule gene from humans works fine in flies, a little odd that our genes can help flies correctly produce gametes if we are not biologically related. Another is the HOX genes in flies and chickens.

Hox Hype

Has Macro-evolution Been Proven? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0215hox_hype.asp