14 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is part of God's plan which we cannot comprehend. He works in mysterious ways.[/sarcasm]
I would just like to know how on earth creationists in this forum would explain this particular example of evolution’s blunders: why would an intelligent designer make the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe go from its brain and all the way down the neck to then go around some arteries only to circle back all the way back up to the larynx?
http://sc ...[text shortened]... e this is exactly the kind of sloppy design of anatomy you would expect from a mindless process.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
14 Aug 10
Isn't it worth considering that natural selection and evolution are very different change concepts when looked at from a time perspective. I.e. a fish to a giraffe is millions of years, however we have seen the human race grow in average height by a significant proportion in just a few decades without any "evolutionary" changes.
Neck length changes in an animal which we today call a giraffe, could have taken place over a relatively short space of time and not allowed for, nor required, significant evolutionary change to the nerve channel profile of the said animal.
Come on scientists, be scientific across all dimensions.
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by divegeesterBut our laryngeal nerve follows the same path, all the way down pass the heart and back up again. If it just went the 'direct' route it would only take a few centimetres.
Isn't it worth considering that natural selection and evolution are very different change concepts when looked at from a time perspective. I.e. a fish to a giraffe is millions of years, however we have seen the human race grow in average height by a significant proportion in just a few decades without any "evolutionary" changes.
Neck length changes ...[text shortened]... nnel profile of the said animal.
Come on scientists, be scientific across all dimensions.
If someone was designing a car, they wouldn't have the spark plug leads travelling all the back way under engine, round the front axle and back up to the engine again. If animals were 'designed' the laryngeal nerve is a shocking design, but this 'design' makes sense in terms of evolutionary history
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobSo science has all the answers for this design or flaw as they call it? This extra length has no other use?
But our laryngeal nerve follows the same path, all the way down pass the heart and back up again. If it just went the 'direct' route it would only take a few centimetres.
If someone was designing a car, they wouldn't have the spark plug leads travelling all the back way under engine, round the front axle and back up to the engine again. If animals wer ...[text shortened]... erve is a shocking design, but this 'design' makes sense in terms of evolutionary history
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNot being a Giraffee difficult to know if it gives than advantage over the path
I would just like to know how on earth creationists in this forum would explain this particular example of evolution’s blunders: why would an intelligent designer make the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe go from its brain and all the way down the neck to then go around some arteries only to circle back all the way back up to the larynx?
http://sc ...[text shortened]... e this is exactly the kind of sloppy design of anatomy you would expect from a mindless process.
where you think that nerve should be.
Kelly
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75There would inevitably be a very slight reduction in the probability of the giraffe surviving compared to a hypothetical giraffe which has that nerve taking the more obvious direct route.
So exactly what problems if any arise from this design?
This is because there would be a variety of biological costs for having that extra length of nerve which would include:
1, extra protein and nutrients needed to grow that extra length of nerve that could have gone to, say, the leg muscles thus making it able to run faster etc.
2, extra amount of energy needed to send an electrical signal from the brain to the larynx –this could be critical in a situation where the giraffe is short of energy.
3, extra delay in time needed to send an electrical signal from the brain to the larynx due to the extra distance of the route.
4, extra weight of the unnecessary extra length of nerve in the neck.
5, the greater risk of the nerve being fatally injured if the neck is injured below the larynx.
None of these disadvantages are significant but that wouldn’t change the fact that it would be rather silly for an “intelligent designer” to design the neck to give all those disadvantages –rather like me designing a car with the wire for the front lights go from the control switch to the boot of the car and then circle back to the front -a flaw that is not significant but still silly to make.
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThese do not seem to be arguments applied to all new features that evolution
There would inevitably be a very slight reduction in the probability of the giraffe surviving compared to a hypothetical giraffe which has that nerve taking the more obvious direct route.
This is because there would be a variety of biological costs for having that extra length of nerve which would include:
1, extra protein and nutrients needed to ...[text shortened]... e car and then circle back to the front -a flaw that is not significant but still silly to make.
gets credit for, so why apply them now? Every time a new limb or nerves or any
piece of a system that isn't fully functional starts to show up you would run into
these types of difficulties. Why expend the resources necessary to keep the new
things being formed when their usefulness isn't doing anything yet but taking up
resources that could be used elsewhere.
Kelly
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat possible advantage could it have taking the longer route? There could only be disadvantage in the unnecessarily longer route (disadvantages which are explained in my previous post )
Not being a Giraffee difficult to know if it gives than advantage over the path
where you think that nerve should be.
Kelly
“…where you think that nerve should be…”
Where I think it “should” be if it didn’t evolve but rather was put there by a super-intelligent designer is where it would take the shortest route from the brain to the larynx.
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThat was kinda my thinking with the "could you improve a giraffe manually" question.
Not being a Giraffee difficult to know if it gives than advantage over the path
where you think that nerve should be.
Kelly
Since it's a nerve, it could very well influence the organs around it along the way. No?
14 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“…These do not seem to be arguments applied to all new features that evolution
These do not seem to be arguments applied to all new features that evolution
gets credit for, so why apply them now? Every time a new limb or nerves or any
piece of a system that isn't fully functional starts to show up you would run into
these types of difficulties. Why expend the resources necessary to keep the new
things being formed when their usefulness isn't doing anything yet but taking up
resources that could be used elsewhere.
Kelly
gets credit for, so why apply them now?...”
I point out the fact that there are biological costs in having an unnecessary organ/bit of organ now because this example of a nerve taking an unnecessary long route is an example of that and it shows a flaw in the design.
“….Every time a new limb or nerves or any
piece of a system that isn't fully functional starts to show up you would run into
these types of difficulties….”
What “difficulties”? Are you referring to difficulties in the living thing surviving?
“…Why expend the resources necessary to keep the new
things being formed when their usefulness isn't doing anything yet but taking up
resources that could be used elsewhere….”
Exactly! -that’s one of the things I was I sort-of was implying in that post.
Oddly, you make the point for me –unless I have misunderstood what you mean?
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSometimes when KellyJay starts to think for himself, he comes to conclusions that gives him a contraposition relative to his former authorities. I recommend Kelly to think for himself more in the future.
“…Why expend the resources necessary to keep the new
things being formed when their usefulness isn't doing anything yet but taking up
resources that could be used elsewhere….”
Exactly! -that’s one of the things I was I sort-of was implying in that post.
Oddly, you make the point for me –unless I have misunderstood what you mean?
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasImagine if we all started to think for ourselves!
Sometimes when KellyJay starts to think for himself, he comes to conclusions that gives him a contraposition relative to his former authorities. I recommend Kelly to think for himself more in the future.
Sometimes we think we are but...
Its harder for some to shake the shackles of the past.
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonGee, that makes so much sense, now that it's been pointed out. How obvious that natural selection would dictate the convoluted path of the nerve... seeing how it was the path of least resistance, the path which most economically served its purpose of survival.
I would just like to know how on earth creationists in this forum would explain this particular example of evolution’s blunders: why would an intelligent designer make the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe go from its brain and all the way down the neck to then go around some arteries only to circle back all the way back up to the larynx?
http://sc ...[text shortened]... e this is exactly the kind of sloppy design of anatomy you would expect from a mindless process.
That Richard Dawkins: what a buffoon.
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI find it hilarious that humans can criticize how a perfectly functioning animal is designed. Kinda like a bunch of cavemen criticizing a motherboard design.
I would just like to know how on earth creationists in this forum would explain this particular example of evolution’s blunders: why would an intelligent designer make the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe go from its brain and all the way down the neck to then go around some arteries only to circle back all the way back up to the larynx?
http://sc ...[text shortened]... e this is exactly the kind of sloppy design of anatomy you would expect from a mindless process.