Al, everyone, thank you. Oscar, re the laryngeal nerve, it may well serve a purpose that we are still unaware of, just as the appendix was thought by some to be a useless evolutionary holdover until quite recently (as these things go). But I think we had that argument in one of the previous Bible threads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

''The reason some Christians believe in a literal 7 day (6 really) creation, and the "young earth" is because in the original text, the word used for "day" in Genesis is a literal 24 hour day...that is their understanding of language''

- yeah, you can debate the meaning of the word day til the cows come home. But how can the idea of a day, a 24 hour period (+/- micro seconds), how can it have any meaning before there was a sun in the sky going around the earth... which is what, the 4th 'day'. It makes very little sense, infact I think it is largely genesis 1 which makes me set fire to every bible I try to read... (similar to "The Music of the Ainur" being the reason for me putting down the Silmarillion)


"Uhhhh when used in this way, the idea of God gives an entire explanation to everything. Unlike science, which just stays "that's the way it is". It explains HOW but it doesn't explain the WHY. "

- no, God doesn't give a why, because you can't ask him why he created everything just so, it raises questions of why evil, why freewill, why god requires faith - if God then you must first know the mind of God to add anything to the WHY question. And finite humans can never truely know the infinite mind of God. Though the possibly finite laws of physics help is understand the work of God (if you believe God created the universe), this is, to my mind, the very essence of enlightenment - though science is distracted by utility and other human concerns, creating technology, making material profit...

"Basically I'm saying God did it and you on the other hand think that in another billion years, we'll have X-men running around through mutations with natural selection or environmental pressures......"

No, you're saying that IF we have X-men running around, you will go on to explain that God did that too, but you can't predict what God will do. Whereas the evolutionary theory says that we will have mutations and selection (either sexual or natural) will drive them to create new species and features in current species.

Look at antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It is a completely new feature of bacteria which was selected for by the presence of huge amount of antibiotics used (either in our food supply - chickens, pigs, and cattle - or our hospitals) that was the environmental pressure which drove the selection. Herbicide resistance among diseases attacking plants do the same.

And you will tell me God did it, rather than saying humans use of antibiotics and herbicide did it. To what end?

'So that's a graviton for you: a mathematical trick to describe quantized gravitational fields in an alternative but equivalent way.' - yes, but we don't have a quantum theory of gravity, that mathematical trick doesn't work for gravitation, and we don't have experimental verification because, as the weakest force in physics, quantised gravity is also the most difficult to detect (though we're getting more and more sensitive equipment) We do however have general relativity. Which says gravity is the effect of the curvature of space-time. No particles there, no quantization, just waves, if i understand correctly (iiuc).

'Why, for example, is the universe accelerating in its expansion?'

- why would you assume we'd understand phenomena on the scale of the Universe, when we don't have a lab on that scale. The longest human-made labs we have are from earth to the voyager probes, and they seem to be accelerating weirdly (though it's probably thermal...) If your question is, why can't we answer hard questions with science, then i can tell you, it is because they are hard, but we're doing pretty well.

@Mujus "just as the appendix was thought by some to be a useless evolutionary holdover until quite recently (as these things go). "

Well the facts at hand are rather simple, removing the appendix doesn't kill the patient. So if by useless you mean, not vital, then yes it is. (can you think of any other organ as unimportant)

Notice the finesse in meaning there, it's pretty important. For the very same reason that posting out of context snippets of the bible is not useful, you're not conveying a message, your meaning is out of context. I have to go out and find that book of the bible to figure out what you're talking about... and without being precise in meaning you end up saying something which is mis-interpreted.

"re the laryngeal nerve, it may well serve a purpose that we are still unaware of,"

Well (almost) anything is possible. However... there is no evidence whatsoever that this odd route of the nerve serves any purpose. You also fail to provide any such evidence because of course you don't have it.

Meanwhile there is a perfectly simple and reasonable explanation supported by huge amounts of empirical evidence (the theory of evolution) that explains just fine how the nerve would take that inefficient route without it having a purpose.

Therefore stating that the odd route of this nerve may "well" serve a purpose is about as useful as stating that there may well live tiny undetectable fairies under the space bar of your keyboard.

Just because something is possible does not make it a reasonable assumption. I can see how someone that believes in the existence of God might not grasp this concept though.

And even if the laryngeal nerve does have a use, there are many other examples (perhaps less commonly known) of stupid design.

My two favourites are, male nipples, and using one pipe for both food and breathing - which results in human choking to death.

''Well (almost) anything is possible. However... there is no evidence whatsoever that this odd route of the nerve serves any purpose. You also fail to provide any such evidence because of course you don't have it.''

Will this satisfy your quest for knowledge or are you too biased to recant/apologise. Post on the Dawkins website if you so wish.

An extract for you -

''3. However, just to refer to one possible substantial function of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister during embryogenesis: "The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery" – Gray’s Anatomy, 39th edition 2005, p. 1053.
4. Yet, implicit in the ideas and often also in the outright statements of many modern evolutionists like the ones mentioned above is the assumption that the only function of the Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister (and dexter) is innervating the larynx and nothing else. Well, is it asked too much to state that they should really know better? In my copy of the 36th edition of Gray's Anatomy we read (1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589):
"As the recurrent laryngial nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives 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 oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor [Constrictor pharyngis inferior]."
Likewise Rauber/Kopsch 1988, Vol. IV, p. 179, Anatomie des Menschen: "Äste des N. laryngeus recurrens ziehen zum Plexus cardiacus und zu Nachbarorganen [adjacent organs]." On p. 178 the authors of this Anatomy also mention in Fig. 2.88: "Rr. [Rami, branches] tracheales und oesophagei des [of the] N. laryngeus recurrens." – The mean value of the number of the branches of Nervus laryngeus recurrens sinister innervating the trachea und esophagus is 17,7 und for the Nervus laryngeus recurrens dexter is 10,5 ("Zweige des N. recurrens ziehen als Rr. cardiaci aus dem Recurrensbogen abwärts zum Plexus cardiacus – als Rr. tracheales und esophagei zu oberen Abschnitten von Luft- und Speiseröhre, als N. laryngeus inferior durch den Unterrand des M. constrictor pharyngis inferior in den Pharynx. An der linken Seite gehen 17,7 (4-29) Rr. tracheales et esophagei ab, an der rechten 10,5 (3-16)" – Lang 1985, p. 503; italics by the author(s). "Er [der N. laryngeus recurrens] benutzt als Weg die Rinne zwischen Luft- und Speiseröhre, wobei beide Organe Äste von ihm erhalten“ – Benninghoff und Drenckhahn 2004, p. 563).
I have also checked several other detailed textbooks on human anatomy like Sobotta – Atlas der Anatomie des Menschen: they are all in agreement. Some also show clear figures on the topic. Pschyrembel – Germany’s most widely circulated and consulted medical dictionary (262 editions) – additionally mentions “Rr. … bronchiales”.
To innervate the esophagus and trachea of the giraffe and also reach its heart, the recurrent laryngeal nerve needs to be, indeed, very long. So, today's evolutionary explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered. In contrast, the theory of intelligent
4
design regularly predicts further functions (also) in these cases and thus is scientifically much more fruitful and fertile than the neo-Darwinian exegesis (i.e. the interpretations by the synthetic theory).
To sum up: The Nervus laryngeus recurrens innervates not only the larynx, but also the esophagus and the trachea and moreover “gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus” etc. (the latter not shown below, but see quotations above). It need not be stressed here that all mammals – in spite of substantial synorganized genera-specific differences – basically share the same Bauplan (“this infinite diversity in unity” – Agassiz) proving the same ingenious mind behind it all.

www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf

Now now, orathaic. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here:

"...and using one pipe for both food and breathing - which results in human choking to death.".

People using the same 'pipe', as you so eloquently put it, for both breathing and eating does not result in people choking to death willy nilly as you make it sound. And also, if we had a separate throath to breathe through, do you not think that plugging that throat or squeezing it like now would have the same outcome?

'' if we had a separate throath to breathe through, do you not think that plugging that throat or squeezing it like now would have the same outcome?''

Sure, but not with food, which we require on an almost daily basis.

@fulhamish

Thanks. I appreciate the extensive additional info. I have not the medical knowledge to be a good judge as to the validity of it but I'll happily concede that I may have been wrong about the nerve's route not having other functions. I concede this happily because it is not at all relevant to the point I was making when I brought up the example, nor is it contradictory to evolution theory.

The nerve may have gradually evolved to perform these additional functions because it was already taking an inefficient route and could therefore be used for them. Such reuse and adaptation are perfectly in line with evolution theory.

More importantly though, as I mentioned (and orathaic mentioned this as well) it was just one of many examples of imperfections and sub-optimal properties in living organisms, i.e. my argument does not at all depend on this particular example.

Additionally, the evidence for evolution theory is far more extensive than just the existence of imperfections, which are just one of many observed phenomena that are explained by the theory and not even by a long shot the most convincing evidence for the theory. They are however contradictory to intelligent design.

Anyway, below are some more examples of imperfections and suboptimal properties that I copied of http://www.thefullwiki.org/Argument_from_poor_design


The existence of the blind spot in the human eye [3]

In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials. [2]


The human reproductive system includes the following:

In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.

In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.[3]


Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot[4], that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case ([1], p. 328).

Intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers.

The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.

The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches ([1], p. 326).

The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.

The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease.

The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.

The structure of humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [4]

Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.

Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. Defective vitamin synthesis pathways are a hallmark of "higher" animals — of which many are predators — because the prey accumulates vitamins which stem either from the eaten plants or are self-synthesized in the captured individual. Thus, higher animals are mostly unable to return to a purely "vegetarian" lifestyle; while conservation of such pathway genes is of no apparent cost to the animal.

The enzyme rubisco is a very slow enzyme, yet remains the key enzyme in carbon fixation and only overcomes this fact by having massive amounts of it inside plant cells. It is also unable to distinguish between carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen and often attempts to fix oxygen. This causes the enzyme to stop functioning until it is able to kick out the oxygen from the binding site and bind with carbon dioxide.

The enzyme nitrogenase actually preferentially binds with acetylene over di-nitrogen, despite it being the key enzyme used in nitrogen fixation in many bacteria and archaea.

The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this oversight.

The unstable hollow bones built for flight in birds like penguins and ostriches, and the Sturdy bones built for non-flight in animals like bats.

Vestigial third molar (Commonly known as wisdom teeth) in humans. Some other primates with differing jaw shapes make use of the third molar.

The vestigial Femur and pelvis in whales, the ancestor of whales lived on land.

More to your examples later. for now, however, I should just point out that statements such as this:

''Therefore stating that the odd route of this nerve may "well" serve a purpose is about as useful as stating that there may well live tiny undetectable fairies under the space bar of your keyboard.''

are just plain nasty/condescending and, more importantly, inherantly anti-science. To repeat -

''So, today's evolutionary explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered.''

Will you conceede that too?

I guess the arguements for design could imply the existence of aliens. They're not clear on who the designers was/is, so it really does ask us this question, and furthers scientific inquiry.

I can concede that asking more and better questions could further human knowledge even if these aliens turn out to not exist. But questioning a theory and asking intelligent questions is fundamental to the scientific process, so i don't really see a problem with this point.

Whereas teaching design, seems rather like teaching any other debunked set of ideas. Wrong-headed and misleading, at best.

We often ''lie'' in our teaching, by using simplified models to build up - in a constructive way - understanding. I'm certain the claim that 'God did it' begs a question - usually it is 'why did God do it?' - but unfortunately that is something which i think we've all agreed is unanswerable....

'More to your examples later. for now, however, I should just point out that statements such as this:

''Therefore stating that the odd route of this nerve may "well" serve a purpose is about as useful as stating that there may well live tiny undetectable fairies under the space bar of your keyboard.''

are just plain nasty/condescending and, more importantly, inherantly anti-science.'

If you consider my not excepting statements without evidence condescending then I don;t really care about that opinion. It's rather ridiculous to call such anti-science though.

'To repeat -

''So, today's evolutionary explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered.''

Will you conceede that too?'

No, not at all. I already mentioned that it is quite consistent with evolutionary theory for organs to develop new functions, in fact under evolutionary development such adaptations are very much to be expected. The above example of the panda using their radial sesamoid bones as a thumb would be an example of that. So why would evolutionary scientist not look for such adaptations? They only strengthen their case for gradual improvements over grand designs.

Additionally, such adaptations are widely observed in nature and the claim that intelligent design theorists would be looking for them more fervently than evolutionary scientist is based on nothing at all IMO.

And yes, adherents to a single theory can be blinded to what is going on in other related fields. Specialist may not ask questions and fail to see things which would be obvious to another specialist. (i have personal examples but i'll not bore you)

The best set of lectures i've ever seen took many examples from different specialities in biology and used them to highlight a lot of the complexity of human behaviour, the need to synthesis different fields of knowledge. (I highly recommend it by the way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D )

This is not a fact which dismisses any of these field, it merely highlight one of the limits of human intelligence. Any individual finds it difficult to become an expert in all topics. Perhaps we could add that to the list of human imperfections... (though only if we are supposed to be the image of an infinite God.)

Well you initially dismissed the fact (rather rudely) that the nerve might have a purpose - that was it full-stop. Now I have given you pause to think that you might have been wrong on this and the nerve actually does/might indeed have a purpose.
What would happen if every scientist applied your initial reaction? Here it is again:

''Therefore stating that the odd route of this nerve may "well" serve a purpose is about as useful as stating that there may well live tiny undetectable fairies under the space bar of your keyboard.''

How much progress would be made on our understanding of the rôle of this nerve? I will answer your question for you - absolutely none at all; we would be stuck in your biased anti-theist paradigm.

I am afraid that in those terms I am certain that you do indeed have an anti-scientific agenda, just as long as it provides you with a stick to hit the theist with. My friend, given your behaviour in this thread, this is your over-riding purpose. Furthermore you place this above and beyond your commitment to ascertaining the truth.

'What would happen if every scientist applied your initial reaction? ' - fallacy of generalisation.

But you almost have a point. If you had offered evidence, some test which could be repeated, and Oscar had responded like that, then his response wouldn't have been very scientific. But that wasn't offered. At first mere conjecture was offered, and i'm sure some people would have dismissed it, with a possible condescending reply like: 'come back when you have some evidence for your cockamamy idea'

' My friend, given your behaviour in this thread, this is your over-riding purpose. Furthermore you place this above and beyond your commitment to ascertaining the truth.'

Given his behaviour, WHILE ATTACKING THEISTS, not while attempting to make progress in science. Is it any surprise that his responce WHILE IN THIS THREAD, might be different from 'every scientist ...[this]... initial reaction' - You are, unfortunately coming to this conclusion because of your inherently pro-theistic bias.

You lose entirely the very relevant context that the initial conjecture was offered by a professed theist. Did that give Oscar the right to arrogantly dismiss the argument in the most unscientific way he could find? It is at that point in the discourse that my charge of Oscar being anti-scientific must stick.

Moving on, the fact is that there is evidence for the extra-laryngeal function of this nerve and it is pretty sound stuff too. It was Oscar's anti-theist agenda, born of dogmatism, rather than openness, which allowed him to fall into that trap. I do, however, forgive/understand him - on the basis that it is quite likely that he has been watching too many Richard Dawkins recordings on YouTube, particularly that one portraying a giraffe dissection and highlighting this same nerve as a proof of evolution. On this point anyway we now seem to be agreed that this recording is quite likely to be nothing more than the dogmatic ramblings of a rabid anti-theist.

I've taken the advice, given by several in this thread, and included a bit of commentary/introduction to today's post. If you would, check out today's post in the Daily Bible Verses thread and let me know if this is the kind of thing you had in mind.

"What would happen if every scientist applied your initial reaction?

That wouldn't happen. Unlike you seem to think scientists are not a group of monolithically minded people. Discussing and opposing each other views is in their nature.

'Here it is again: ''Therefore stating that the odd route of this nerve may "well" serve a purpose is about as useful as stating that there may well live tiny undetectable fairies under the space bar of your keyboard.'''

How often are you going to quote this? Do you think quoting it more often will convince people of how "rude" I am? Do you even realize that a quote that starts with the word "therefore" is quite obvious taken it out of its context? Can we get past this now? Because, you know, calling your opponent in a debate rude over and over again is a rather lame and uninspired application of argumentum ad hominem.

"How much progress would be made on our understanding of the rôle of this nerve? I will answer your question for you - absolutely none at all; we would be stuck in your biased anti-theist paradigm."

Nope. In fact I would say that this very instance, where I conceded that I may have been mistaken after you provided additional information, even though that information came from a firm proponent of intelligent design, which I consider a false theory, is an excellent example of how I am neither biased nor stuck.

"I am afraid that in those terms I am certain that you do indeed have an anti-scientific agenda, just as long as it provides you with a stick to hit the theist with. My friend, given your behaviour in this thread, this is your over-riding purpose. Furthermore you place this above and beyond your commitment to ascertaining the truth."

Since you are promoting Intelligent Design here, which isn't a scientific theory by any serious standard yet does pretend to be one, between the two of us, you are the one with the anti-scientific agenda.

@Mujus, If fear this conversation has moved on...

Though i would like to know what the point of your bible thread actually is, are you trying to improve other people's lives?

"Moving on, the fact is that there is evidence for the extra-laryngeal function of this nerve and it is pretty sound stuff too."

I wouldn't go as far as calling it "pretty sound stuff", since the article you quoted wasn't published in any serious scientific journal and was written by a single author that is know to be a prominent supporter of the entirely unscientific theory of Intelligent Design.

"It was Oscar's anti-theist agenda, born of dogmatism, rather than openness, which allowed him to fall into that trap."

I'm glad we got the issue of being rude and condescending out of the way.

"I do, however, forgive/understand him - on the basis that it is quite likely that he has been watching too many Richard Dawkins recordings on YouTube, particularly that one portraying a giraffe dissection and highlighting this same nerve as a proof of evolution."

It's not proof. It's evidence. I forgive/understand you though - on the basis that your choice of words quite likely follows from your theistic desire to have 100% certainty where there is none. Your contempt for the respected scientist and Nobel laureate Richard Dawkins is no doubt rooted in your "unbiased scientific" views of the world and not at all based on your sectarian hatred of atheists.

"On this point anyway we now seem to be agreed that this recording is quite likely to be nothing more than the dogmatic ramblings of a rabid anti-theist."

Oh wait, it is based on your hate of atheists.

Also you have clearly misunderstood me. I conceded that I may have been mistaken. Not that I actually was mistaken or even that I was likely mistaken.

And no, I would not agree that mr. Dawkins goes around professing dogmatic ramblings when he talks about biology and evolution. He is IMHO at times somewhat overly insistent when he talks about religion though.

Oh how you tie yourself into elaborate knots. I think that your condescending and unscientific response stands clear for all to see. I do agree, however, that it serves no purpose to repeat it again. Moving on....

''Since you are promoting Intelligent Design here............"

Have I? Please point me to that place. I merely point out that your example of what you describe as ‘’unintelligent design’’ was likely misplaced. To be honest I am not really sure in the matter of ID. I do, however, think that it is perfectly reasonable to hold a generally supportive view of theistic evolution without necessarily going in fully for ID. Therefore I have some questions nn the topic of ID v. NS. For example:

Anyone help me out with how that giraffe neck got so long based on non-theistic directed NS? Man that is some single mutation. If it is not a single mutation, but a series of (00s?) of them how did each one confer an advantage along the way? Please bear in mind that these advantages must win through each time against other competing advantages and that we need to see some intermediate-stage evidence (no reference to false illustrations please). In the highly unlikely event, that it was a single mutation (yes I know something about control genes etc.), then that poor old bugger, the original giraffe. How the hell did he find a mate?

My point is that it is all very well making natural history castles in the sky, but in the end any decent scientist must first of all look at the rate limiting step - the (random) mutation(s) themselves. To the end do evolutionists indulge in the manufacturing of unfalsifiable hypotheses, by looking at morphology and assuming NS driven adaptation?

''Your contempt for the respected scientist and Nobel laureate Richard Dawkins''

Now I know that Dawkins has held the well-funded, courtesy of Charles Simonyi of microsoft fame, chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford. There is a great title for you. I did not realise, however, that he was a Nobel Laureate; details please.

Although he has received a long list of honorary titles and awards I stand corrected on him being a Nobel laureate, he isn't. Obviously this doesn't have any bearing on the fact that he is still very much a respected scientist though, which was my actual point there.

He hasn't done peer reviewed research in a while, but that's because his main task is to popularize and write about science, not necessarily do it.

Don't knock the meme man!

'''Since you are promoting Intelligent Design here............"

Have I? Please point me to that place.'

It's not a specific place so much, it's oozing out of all your posts really.

Firstly you argue against evolution theory over minor details, which even if you are right about them do not even come close to invalidating any point made in the discussion, yet they present them as though they do. This is the typical approach of Intelligent Design proponents, i.e. rather than providing evidence for ID they aim to discredit ET.

Secondly, from my conceding that the nerve may have other functions, you all too eagerly and incorrectly assumed that I had conceded to your false conclusion that this entirely invalidates it as an example of a suboptimal property. Again jumping to conclusions in favor of your theistic approach to science (aka anti-science).

Thirdly, you engaged in one of the most favorite pastime of Intelligent Design proponents: bashing Richard Dawkins.

Fourthly, you consistently demand that a theistic approach to science be taken seriously. Another favorite pastime of Intelligent Design proponents.

Fifthly, you posted a rather long quote of a rabid (to match your choice of words) Intelligent Design proponent (W.E. Loennig) and consider it to carry much weight.

Sixthly, in that quote you included the following passage, completely irrelevant towards showing the laryngeal nerve has other functions, but a rather obvious and explicit promotion of Intelligent Design.

"So, today's evolutionary explanations (as is also true for many other so-called rudimentary routes and organs) are not only often in contradiction to their own premises but also tend to stop looking for (and thus hinder scientific research concerning) further important morphological and physiological functions yet to be discovered. In contrast, the theory of intelligent design regularly predicts further functions (also) in these cases and thus is scientifically much more fruitful and fertile than the neo-Darwinian exegesis (i.e. the interpretations by the synthetic theory)."

You then went on to repeat-quote the first half of this paragraph a number of times. But hey, if you say you're not promoting Intelligent Design, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

"To be honest I am not really sure in the matter of ID. I do, however, think that it is perfectly reasonable to hold a generally supportive view of theistic evolution without necessarily going in fully for ID."

Theistic evolution is barely different from Intelligent Design, in that both essentially revolve around the notion that a supernatural being is the agent of creating the diversity of life as observed on earth. Theistic evolution goes a bit further than Intelligent Design in actually claiming that this supernatural being must be God. Intelligent Design goes a bit further than theistic evolution in its claims of how on-hands the supernatural being was in creating the diversity of life. But really, it's all just the same shit in different packaging.

"Anyone help me out with how that giraffe neck got so long based on non-theistic directed NS? Man that is some single mutation. If it is not a single mutation, but a series of (00s?) of them how did each one confer an advantage along the way? Please bear in mind that these advantages must win through each time against other competing advantages and that we need to see some intermediate-stage evidence (no reference to false illustrations please). In the highly unlikely event, that it was a single mutation (yes I know something about control genes etc.), then that poor old bugger, the original giraffe. How the hell did he find a mate?"

AFAIK there are two theories about the giraffe neck in evolution theory. As they don't contradict each other either or both may be correct. The first and I believe most accepted one is that it gives them an advantage in feeding as they can reach higher into foliage of trees than competing herbivores. This is supported by the fact that indeed they do feed on the higher parts of foliage. The second theory is that male sexual selection gave longer necks the advantage. This is supported by the fact that male giraffes fight each other exclusively by "necking" each other.

Anyway, your posts seem to become sillier as me carry on. No evolution scientist argues that the long neck is a "single mutation". Instead it gradually got longer over a long span of time.

Also note that even though the neck is so long, it still has the same exact amount of vertebrae as other mammals as well as other morphological similarities. So even if we can't be entirely sure about which pressures caused the neck to elongate, just from morphology it is still obvious it did so via small incremental changes from ancestors with shorter necks.

Anyway, I assume that you were already aware of at least the explanation about the foliage and so your question probably wasn't sincere at all. Instead it probably was a setup (or trap) so you can now go ahead and quote some theistic "science" about the giraffe neck to continue your agenda of discrediting evolution theory and accuse everyone that doesn't agree of anti-science.

In amongst all of that A-H you have completely ignored my point on mutation. Par for the course.

Well, I'm not sure what point you were making there. It seemed like you were just repeating your false idea that evolution theorists are not interested in morphology though. I had already responded to that before. They are highly interested in it and it provides a wide array of evidence for evolution theory.