Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles

by cofty 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, you have an obsession with copy and paste. I did not copy and paste. I looked it up in the printed edition, the emphasis being on the embryology. I don't intimidate by textbook. By the way, I don't see you listing your sources all the time. Why do you expect it of others then?

  What research did you do in the study of of the origin of eukariotic cells? You read a few books. Same here. So let's not dwell on it.

  Fish ancestors and the tree of life. Again, that is funny. From fish to man. I just don't see it, even after millions of years.

  As I mentioned, the laryngeal nerve, aorta and vas deferens works well. All of these designs contributed to the survival of the species. Why I mentioned embryology, all the above must be packaged in embryonal form first. Gradually these will be rolled out in an orderly manner in a healthy embryo. Most of these "impracticle" designs could be traced back to embryology and the deposit of stem cells. One should not only examine the end product, but also where it comes from.

  Take my word for it, we are brilliantly designed. When I look at history, I marvel at the fact that man has survived all the adversities thrown at him. I believe one should only criticize a design if and when one can improve on it. So far I don't see any improvements by the geneticists. If its not broken, it's not necessary to fix it.

  It's late. Time for bed.

  
  
• 

  cofty

  the laryngeal nerve, aorta and vas deferens works well

  Of course it does. We have already agreed that.

  They are suboptimal. Could the intelligent designer really not think of a way to connect a nerve from the brain to the larynx in a giraffe without a 15ft detour?

  Explaining the steps in the embryology of the RLN or the vas deferens does not begin to answer the objection to intelligent design. Evolution from fish ancestors explains it perfectly.

  So far I don't see any improvements by the geneticists

  Total non-sequitur.

  This thread is one of the least compelling examples of evidence for common ancestry. And yet you have not been able to explain how it can be reconciled with an intelligent designer.

  The conversation can be summed up as follows...

  OP - When the vas deferens develops in a human embryo it takes a ridiculous route over the pubic bone and urethra. This is easily explained by comparing the embryology of our fish ancestors.

  Vidqun - That is because of embryology.

  Take my word for it

  Nope
• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, there’s always two sides to a story. Here’s another variation on the theme. Anyway, this is how I see it:

  The most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution. 1

  Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from a single-cell zygote to adult. The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development. For this reason, adult anatomy can be understood only in the light of development. An analogy Blechschmidt uses to help elucidate this fact is the course of a river, which "cannot be explained on the basis of a knowledge of its sources, its tributaries, or the specific locations of the harbors at its mouth. It is only the total topographical circumstances that determine the river's course." 2

  Due to variations in the topographical landscape of the mammalian body, the "course of the inferior [meaning lower] laryngeal nerve is highly variant" and minor anatomic differences are common. 3 Dissections of human cadavers found that the paths of the right and left recurrent laryngeal nerves were often somewhat different from that shown in the standard literature, illustrating Blechschmidt's analogy. 4

  1. Blechschmidt, E. 2004. The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth. B. Freeman, transl. New York: North Atlantic Books, 188.
  2. Ibid, 108.
  3. Sturniolo, G. et al. 1999. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Related to Thyroid Surgery. The American Journal of Surgery. 177: 487-488.
  4. Steinberg, J. L., G. J. Khane, C. M. C. Fernanades and J. P. Nel. 1986. Anatomy of the recurrent laryngeal nerve: A redescription. The Journal of Laryngology and Otology. 100: 919.
• 

  cantleave

  Vidquin. Never quote a reference you have have not read. Your very sloppy use of Jerry Bergmen's article on the Institute for Creation "Science",(a complete travesty of a site BTW), references Blechschmidt's book,which describes the path of the laryngeal nerve during the embryonic development, but no where does that book refute the evolutionary development.

  The sloppy Bergmen article actually writes

  Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution

  Note the highlighted text is not from the original Blechschmidt text but an inference made by Bermen that is not inferred from the original text. The book is about embryology not evolutionary development and never once refers to evolutionary development..

  Likewise, there is no reference to evolutionary development in either the 1999 Sturmiolo paper "The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Related to Thyroid Surgery", which is an evaluation of surgical procedures (you can read the abstract here) or the Steinberg's 1986 paper "Anatomy of the recurrent laryngeal nerve," which is just an anatomical description, not an evolutionary history.

  Bergmen tries to make out the sub-optimal design is a consequence of embryonic development when he states in his ridiculous article "For the laryngeal nerve, the ligamentum arteriosum functions like the hyoid bone to allow movement. Nerves cannot normally be severed during foetal development and then regrown somewhere else, nor can the body sever nerves to allow the movement of existing nerves elsewhere where they reconnect "

  He is stating exactly the point Cofty makes in the opening post, only rather than looking at the evolutionary cause, he is putting it down to embryonic development.. Embryonic development, of course, reflects what happened during evolution. The bottom line is that if the Laryngeal nerve was designed it would go directly from A - B without detouring via C.

  
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  No, Cantleave, you are missing the point and clouding the issue.

  Did you miss this point: Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from a single-cell zygote to adult. The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development.

  I, personally, ascribe the position of the laryngeal nerve to the development of the fetus, "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," and not because of bad design. Blechschmidt compares it to the course of a river, which "cannot be explained on the basis of a knowledge of its sources, its tributaries, or the specific locations of the harbors at its mouth. It is only the total topographical circumstances that determine the river's course." This has been confirmed by dissection of human cadavers. The fact that Blechschmidt believes in the theory of evolution is not important. Whatever the case, he will not be using the position of the laryngeal nerve in the human body as a proof of this theory, I can assure you.
  

  The article you mention actually discusses the benefits of this arrangement, so it's not bad design at all. Actually, it's brilliant.
• 

  cofty

  Thank you Cantleave.

  I had read that article by ex-JW Jerry Bergman recently while researching the RLN and noticed how he used WT tactics of carefully edited quotes.

  Deeply dishonest. No wonder Bergman is an object so so much ridicule.

  Vidqun - As I said yesterday describing the embryology of strange feature doesn't answer why it's strange in the first place. Only looking at the evolutionary history of the embryology does that. Every feature of an organism's phenotype is a result of embryology.

  When natural selection favoured alleles that caused gonads to move further from the body's core there was no selection pressure for which side of the pubic bone or urethra they moved. The suboptimal outcome only becomes apparent as the process continues but evolution has no way of going back and fixing it. We are stuck with a bizarre bit of anatomy.

  Imagine as you walk around the edge of your garden to water the flower beds you realise the hose is now on the wrong side of the tree which is in the middle of the lawn. You could walk back around the tree to get the hose on the correct side or you could just keep pulling out lots more hose.

  Having made the same sort of blind error, evolution has no option but to keep feeding out 15 more feet of recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe or to keep growing the vas deferens despite it being wrapped around the pubic bone and the urethra.

  An intelligent designer would tweaked the embryology of giraffes and human males to avoid these wasteful and inelegant mistakes.

  Describing the intelligent designer's mistake step-by-step is to avoid the actual question. If there is an intelligent designer every step of every embryology in every species was a conscious decision by the designer.

  Is she/he inept or lazy?
• 

  cofty

  Actually, it's brilliant.

  A 15 foot detour down a giraffe's neck around the aorta and back up again in order to connect the brain to the larynx a few inches away is brilliant design. Really?

  I used to be a telecomms engineer. I would have got sacked for routing a cable like that.

  The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development.

  So the answer to my question is - inept. That is the best he could do.

  I, personally, ascribe the position of the laryngeal nerve to the development of the fetus

  That is a truism It doesn't begin to address the actual question.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  If I mention the contents of articles and text books and don't quote the source, I am in the dogbox. If I do give the source of the information, I am also in the dogbox. I am happy to be in the dogbox, but I will nevertheless say my say, whether you like it or not. Let’s just make sure we practice what we preach. Don’t you know, What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  Benefits of the current RLN setup (the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is not poorly designed, but rather is clear evidence of intelligent design):

  Much evidence exists that the present design results from developmental constraints.

  There are indications that this design serves to fine-tune laryngeal functions.

  The nerve serves to innervate other organs after it branches from the vagus on its way to the larynx.

  The design provides backup innervation to the larynx in case another nerve is damaged.

  No evidence exists that the design causes any disadvantage.1

  
  

  Cofty, see what I wrote to Cantleave. I don’t want to keep on repeating myself.

  But to add to that, some of us prefer to look at the big picture. If one asserts that the RLN is a poor design you assume that a better design exists, a claim that cannot be asserted unless an alternative embryonic design from fertilized ovum to fetus - including all the incalculable molecular gradients, triggers, cascades, and anatomical twists and tucks - can be proposed that documents an improved design. After this had been accomplished, such a person can criticize the existing design to his heart’s content. Until then, shut up or ship out.

  1. Bergman, J. 2010. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design. Acts & Facts. 39 (8): 12-14.

  Dr. Bergman is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Toledo Medical School in Ohio.
• 

  cofty

  including all the incalculable molecular gradients, triggers, cascades, and anatomical twists and tucks - can be proposed that documents an improved design.

  Trivially simple for an intelligent designer. You seem to be saying that the 15 foot detour of the RLN in a giraffe really was the very best god could do. Could he really not figure out a way to avoid it? Is that your best defense of an omnipotent god?
• 

  Vidqun

  Yes, God did that for a reason that you will soon find out. Revision: template, embryology. The giraffe is a beautiful animal. I only have praise for it and its designer.