Evolution answers

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Are you saying you don't get the science or the humor? It has got to be funny when bird predation of the peppered moths is used as an example of natural selection in text books and not a picture of a bird eating a peppered moth is shown.

Are you claiming birds don't eat moths?

Please read the quote again. I said not a picture of a bird eating a peppered moth is shown in the textbooks that claim bird predation is the cause for population changes in the white and dark peppered moth numbers.

Yes, I know. And your point would be?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Exhaust systems are a great example for talking about the difference between designed and evolved systems, actually. Form follows function in designed systems, but in evolved systems you're stuck with the ideas before you and all you can do is modify them in the least costly manner possible to achieve the minimal benefit change required to achieve a higher level of survival. In evolved systems "Failure is always an option," because multiple models in the environment mean that the system is hedging its bets. Some ideas succeed, others fail, the core engineering continues one way or the other.

Nice way of putting it.

It brings to mind several examples of structures in organisms that were apparently created by two different design teams. One of the teams got it right the first time, while the other submitted a shoddy design that they were stuck with.

Example: The octopus eye is much more efficient than the human eye. No blind spot, no extra brain-power needed to invert the image. It's not that evolution corrected the problem at some point, the structures appear to have started out that way in both cases.

Clearly, one of the design teams was more on the ball than the other.

The only question is: Why was the design for the species that the earth was supposedly created for, the one which has been given dominion over all other species, assigned to the "B" team in the planning phase of development?

 

[barehl]

The multi-function role the laryngeal nerve serves affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy:

“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.”

It is DESCRIBED in Gray's Anatomy, not explained.

I agree with aggle-rithm. Grays describes it rather than explains it. The nerve bundle would work better if it took the shortest route and did not loop back up.

 

[justintime]

I agree with aggle-rithm. Grays describes it rather than explains it. The nerve bundle would work better if it took the shortest route and did not loop back up.

The functions of the laryngeal nerve is dived into 2 parts. There is the superior laryngeal Nerve SLN which follows a more direct route. But the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve (RLN) follows a different path by branching off the Vagus nerve at the base of the brain, travels down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and travels back up the neck to ennervate the larynx, or voice box because it serves a multi-function purpose. So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx.

"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."

in·ner·vate definition
verb
AnatomyZoology
gerund or present participle: innervating

1. supply (an organ or other body part) with nerves.

 

[ehcks]

BTW: Upon what page of which edition of Gray's is the explanation for the course and optimal function of the recursive laryngeal nerve of the giraffe "explained"..."mate"?

By the way, are we sure he meant Gray's Anatomy and not Grey's Anatomy?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The functions of the laryngeal nerve is dived into 2 parts. There is the superior laryngeal Nerve SLN which follows a more direct route. But the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve (RLN) follows a different path by branching off the Vagus nerve at the base of the brain, travels down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and travels back up the neck to ennervate the larynx, or voice box because it serves a multi-function purpose. So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx.

"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."

in·ner·vate definition
verb
AnatomyZoology
gerund or present participle: innervating

1. supply (an organ or other body part) with nerves.

This explains everything except the one thing we were discussing: Why it has to go down and then back up.

To use the car exhaust analogy, this would be like the exhaust going all the way to the back of the car then back to the front before connecting to the catalytic converter. It's irrelevant that it might connect to various sensors and other doodads along the way. The question is, why make two passes by each connection instead of one?

 

[justintime]

People don't point out flaws in things in order to provide support for the theory of evolution, they do this to demonstrate why the belief that these things were the product of an intelligent design is laughable.

(Although, I suppose the counter-argument to that would be that the creator was either careless or incompetent.)

First they looked for answers in fragments of bones. Now they are confronted with the complexities of design in humans and animals which are rather perplexing that evolution cannot account for. So they are back to blaming the master designer. Rather than taking this convoluted path they could just as easily blamed the master designer for everything and accepted the fact that that is the way it is and they cannot do a darn thing about it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This explains everything except the one thing we were discussing: Why it has to go down and then back up.

To use the car exhaust analogy, this would be like the exhaust going all the way to the back of the car then back to the front before connecting to the catalytic converter. It's irrelevant that it might connect to various sensors and other doodads along the way. The question is, why make two passes by each connection instead of one?

And a question that evolution explains beautifully with reference to anatomy of shorter vertebrates and the limitations of evolution.

 

[Dinwar]

First they looked for answers in fragments of bones. Now they are confronted with the complexities of design in humans and animals which are rather perplexing that evolution cannot account for. So they are back to blaming the master designer.

The contest of this post are fiction. Any resemblance to any actual arguments, real or imaginary, is purely coincidental.

 

[Sideroxylon]

First they looked for answers in fragments of bones. Now they are confronted with the complexities of design in humans and animals which are rather perplexing that evolution cannot account for. So they are back to blaming the master designer. Rather than taking this convoluted path they could just as easily blamed the master designer for everything and accepted the fact that that is the way it is and they cannot do a darn thing about it.

It's not a matter of blaming a designer it's a matter of seeing a solution of a kind that evolution must resort to.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So they are back to blaming the master designer.

Again...if life was designed, the evidence suggests there were at least two designers. Or one who couldn't make up his mind about how the eye should be designed.

Certainly not a "master".

 

[aggle-rithm]

And a question that evolution explains beautifully with reference to anatomy of shorter vertebrates and the limitations of evolution.

JIT's straw-grasping also completely ignores the fact that comparable nerve structures in species that haven't changed much in tens of millions of years have a more direct route, exactly as one would expect if evolution were true.

 

[justintime]

And a question that evolution explains beautifully with reference to anatomy of shorter vertebrates and the limitations of evolution.

But Dawkins used the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe to challenge intelligent design. Evolution does not have an answer for this anomalous pathway.

 

[phunk]

But Dawkins used the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe to challenge intelligent design. Evolution does not have an answer for this anomalous pathway.

Evolution DOES have an answer, while ID does not. That's the whole reason it was brought up in this thread.

 

[justintime]

Evolution DOES have an answer, while ID does not. That's the whole reason it was brought up in this thread.

Evolution has a theory.

 

[Resume]

Evolution has a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation . . .

 

[ehcks]

Evolution has a theory.

Theories are answers.

 

[Dinwar]

Theories are answers.

Plus, nothing else has even that much.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Evolution has a theory.

Not this again.

Theories are comprised of many facts in relation to each other. Theories occupy the highest tier of knowledge in science and have undergone rigorous testing. You're not going to get any better answer than a theory.

 

[justintime]

Not this again.

Theories are comprised of many facts in relation to each other. Theories occupy the highest tier of knowledge in science and have undergone rigorous testing. You're not going to get any better answer than a theory.

The only scientific fact about evolution is the variations in species. This is observable, verifiable and quite evident. The change from one species to another is pure speculation, conjectures and fabrication.