It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The laryngeal nerve of a Giraffe. (autopsy)

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: jeramie
So in this case, evolution developed something that is non-beneficial? The giraffe must have had a need for this so-called inefficient nerve.


I was pondering that as well. The nerve may aid in the giraffes ability to bend its neck backwards without putting tension on the nerve.


It's not that evolution developed something non-beneficial. It just did not eliminate something because it was non-detrimental.


Yes.... we have both stated that several times.

The situation we were discussing in regards to your reply was focused on the possibility that it is there because it is necessary and thus not evolved out instead of it not being evolved out because it is non-detrimental.
edit on 1-3-2015 by doompornjunkie because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Imagine a 4 legged animal evolving into a 2 legged animal......At some point the front legs would no longer be of use but so heavy the animal could not survive.....Really think in terms of what it would look like.



That being said I do believe species evolve over time. But a rabbit will not become a elephant. And this is why god must exist.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: boymonkey74

Imagine a 4 legged animal evolving into a 2 legged animal......


Humans. Or rather, quadrupedal into bipedal.
edit on 1-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: boymonkey74

Imagine a 4 legged animal evolving into a 2 legged animal......At some point the front legs would no longer be of use but so heavy the animal could not survive.....Really think in terms of what it would look like.



That being said I do believe species evolve over time. But a rabbit will not become a elephant. And this is why god must exist.


Like a T-rex?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

The arms may evolve smaller at the same time.
The time scale is massive many tiny changes add up over time.

www.timetoast.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Yup
.

I'm looking up about homologous structures.

Its just amazing.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
You know that when a Giraffe is a baby inside its mummys tummy it is very small. Giraffes are not conceived as big tall animals and dont get the long necks till after they develop over the gestation period. Then after their mummys give birth to them their little necks grow even bigger.

A doc E Blechschmidt explained some fascinating detail about how and why this happened, had some scientific evidence and an analogy about a river

But around here we better not let the truth get in the way of some good scientific religious faith beliefs

Now I could link or paste a wall of text but it wont change any minds, the faith in some is to strong to question.

Now can someone show me a better design option than the one on the giraffe existent, taking into account it was once a baby in its mums tum?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Might just talk to myself for a bit, just muse on the information in the OP

What type of scientist (I wonder if they are) wouldnt know about Dc Blechschmidt work? I do. maybe they are genuinely that ignorant though I find it very difficult to believe, should they even be scientists if they cant find Blechschmidts work and then consider it, even offer it to the public as an alternative.
What if they do know Blechschmidts work and just ignored it, denied it flat out. Then they would be conspiring to lie to the public, they would be furthering their field of science based on assumption and fallacy. Add outright lying and the gullibility of many and...
People are not that stupid are they, surely?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: doompornjunkie

I had to look at the video again to verify just where the larynx is located. It is positioned ,basically, just beneath the base of the skull so there is no need to determine just how much length would be needed to relieve tension over the entire 6 foot length of the neck. As I said, I think a few extra inches would suffice.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

S&F'd. Yes it's another good example of either evolution at work (i.e small, cumulative changes over time) or a phenomenally bad designer.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


S&F'd. Yes it's another good example of either evolution at work (i.e small, cumulative changes over time) or a phenomenally bad designer.


Can you answer my question in relation to my previous post

"Now can someone show me a better design option than the one on the giraffe existent, taking into account it was once a baby in its mums tum?"

or are you just marching along with the other believers enmasse


Boymonkey you are invited along as well

In fact anyone??????


Its just a reasonable question, am I being ignored, thats fine

My statement and question should be as well because it makes it clear you have been making silly assumptions again. Assumptions that deny simple science, simple evidence and simple logic, Why?
To further push your faith? Yes/no?

So we have an evolution believing scientist explaining why the giraffes laryngeal must be the way it is, then a simple question asking for an alternative simpler, evolution streamline method and ..................we wait

Please dont let me kill the thread.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
What type of scientist (I wonder if they are) wouldnt know about Dc Blechschmidt work?


Are you referring to Erich Blechschmidt? The german creationist doctor who believed in supernatural "morphogenetic fields" which affect the development of an embryo?

His hyopthesies are rejected, basically, because in the 1930s genetics showed us the true mechanism of embryonic development and that ideas about a "morphogenetic field" were not required to explain it.

Why should any modern scientist be required to know or even care? That's like expecting your local surgeon posses knowledge about the history of leeching...

Bad ideas that are shown to be wrong are thrown out. They may be reviewed every now and again, just to be sure, but there's no use wasting your time beating a dead horse.


I do. maybe they are genuinely that ignorant though I find it very difficult to believe, should they even be scientists if they cant find Blechschmidt's work and then consider it, even offer it to the public as an alternative.
What if they do know Blechschmidt's work and just ignored it, denied it flat out. Then they would be conspiring to lie to the public, they would be furthering their field of science based on assumption and fallacy. Add outright lying and the gullibility of many and...
People are not that stupid are they, surely?


It's not conspiracy or lying to reject a bad idea - especially when you can prove a competing idea (genetics) to be fact based on evidence.

We don't give equal footing to discussions about geology to flat-earthers, or put equal stock into what the water diviners are saying when surveying where to drill for water, or consult with astrologers when sending out space probes. Do you think that we should?
edit on 1/3/2015 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Typos..... typos everywhere.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: borntowatch
What type of scientist (I wonder if they are) wouldnt know about Dc Blechschmidt work?


Are you referring to Erich Blechschmidt? The german creationist doctor who believed in supernatural "morphogenetic gields" which affect the development of an embryio?

His hyopthesies are rejected, basically, because in the 1930s genetics showed us the true mechanism of embryonic development and that ideas about a "morphogenetic field" were not required to explain it.

Why should any modern scientist be required to know or even care? That's like expecting your local surgeon posses knowledge about the history of leeching...

Bad ideas that are shown to be wrong are thrown out. They may be reviewed every now and again, just to be sure, but there's no use wasting your time beating a dead horse.


It's not conspiracy or lying to reject a bad idea - especially when you can prove a competing idea (genetics) to be fact based on evidence.

We don't give equal footing to discussions about geology to flat-earthers, or put equal stock into what the water diviners are saying when surveying where to drill for water, or consult with astrologers when sending out space probes. Do you think that we should?


Thats a sidestep beyond anything I have seen before, no wait, its the same old same old.
lets try it again with out all the side stepping

So we have an scientist explaining why the giraffes laryngeal must be the way it is, then a simple question asking for an alternative simpler, evolution streamline method and ..................we wait

and you are correct Blechschmidt does appear the be a creationist.
Aside, I have asked a question, do you have a better design?
Irrespective of Blechschmidt beliefs, care to explain why he is wrong?

and Yes he did believe in "morphogenetic fields" and they are supernatural and possibly real, I dont know and am not interested in "morphogenetic fields" in any way shape or form in this thread.
I am discussing the giraffes laryngeal and why its designed that way, so should you be. "Morphogenetic fields" are irrelevant to Blechschmidts comments about the growth.....enough said I think

Thats the discussion, or do you want to take it somewhere else because you cant answer my questions



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Calm down. I was only trying to work out who in heck's name you were talking about, since you only referred to the guy by his last name.

Can you summarise for me Blechschmidt's position on the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe? I suspect he said that it makes sense if you consider embryological development, in which case can you detail why this should be the case? Thank you.

Given that information I shall ponder on what he said. I might even give you the answer you seek, if you are lucky.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: boymonkey74

Wait a second... if the whole point of evolution is to evolve into more adaptive and efficient species, why was evolution unable to allow for the giraffe to evolve to remedy the inefficient nerve?


That's not how evolution works. Evolution relies on random mutations that get bred through future generations. We are talking about insanely large spans of time. If it caused no detriment, then any mutations that would lead to changing the nerve wouldn't have increased the odds of survival for the individual giraffe with the mutation.

For example, look at random features in people that we no longer need. Look at body hair. Sure, there are occasional people born with zero body hair but, since body hair doesn't threaten our survival, those hairless people will breed at the same rate as the rest of us, not squeezing out the hairy body folks. But... let's say there was a virus that was contracted through hair follicles. If that happened, the hairless people would breed at a more successful rate and, over the course of several generations, hairy people would eventually be bred out of our species.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Calm down. I was only trying to work out who in heck's name you were talking about, since you only referred to the guy by his last name.

Can you summarise for me Blechschmidt's position on the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe? I suspect he said that it makes sense if you consider embryological development, in which case can you detail why this should be the case? Thank you.

Given that information I shall ponder on what he said. I might even give you the answer you seek, if you are lucky.


Calm down?

I have already asked a question and you sidestepped it and now you are asking me a question so you can answer my next question....possibly if I get lucky. Didnt get lucky with the first question did I, guess I wont expect much from you in the future.

I find it a little preturbing when a person who believes in evolution sidesteps a question and then starts a strawman argument against a recognised doctor of science because the said doctor believes in something a little out there.
Mr Dawkins said earth was probably seeded by aliens, would you dismiss everything Dawkins states because of his one cooky belief. Of course I jest, everything Dawkins says STRIKES ME AS INSANITY.

Now I am more than happy to answer your question but how about you have a crack at mine first, its called manners, its also how people have conversations and we tend not to talk over each other.

These forums tend to get lost easy and other questions and posters tend to derail an issue.

So if you dont mind, one step at a time.

re the Giraffes laryngeal, a simpler alternative, effective, working, evolution streamline method

I dont think I will get lucky here.


edit on b2015Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:49:40 -060033120150pm312015-03-01T20:49:40-06:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Calm down. I was only trying to work out who in heck's name you were talking about, since you only referred to the guy by his last name.

Can you summarise for me Blechschmidt's position on the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe? I suspect he said that it makes sense if you consider embryological development, in which case can you detail why this should be the case? Thank you.

Given that information I shall ponder on what he said. I might even give you the answer you seek, if you are lucky.


Calm down?

I have already asked a question and you sidestepped it and now you are asking me a question so you can answer my next question....possibly if I get lucky. Didnt get lucky with the first question did I, guess I wont expect much from you in the future.

I find it a little preturbing when a person who believes in evolution sidesteps a question and then starts a strawman argument against a recognised doctor of science because the said doctor believes in something a little out there.
Mr Dawkins said earth was probably seeded by aliens, would you dismiss everything Dawkins states because of his one cooky belief. Of course I jest, everything Dawkins says STRIKES ME AS INSANITY.

Now I am more than happy to answer your question but how about you have a crack at mine first, its called manners, its also how people have conversations and we tend not to talk over each other.

These forums tend to get lost easy and other questions and posters tend to derail an issue.

So if you dont mind, one step at a time.

re the Giraffes laryngeal, a simpler alternative, effective, working, evolution streamline method

I dont think I will get lucky here.



This post = 99% bluster. It's totally transparent faux outrage which would fail to impress a small child, let alone anyone who is mildly cognizant.

The actual 1% of content is this -

"re the Giraffes laryngeal, a simpler alternative, effective, working, evolution streamline method "

That's the explanation you have given me. Hardly descriptive, is it?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
www.icr.org...

Description of the article in link: "Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design", by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

For people with lacking google-fu - or who are just lazy.

Personally, I agree with the article. Be it a human or a giraffe, it is ridiculous and bigotry to state something is of bad design, when we hardly know even the basics of how the thing we evaluate works - even less so how it came to be, evolved or was designed.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
False bluster is an appropriate statement, its just amateur theatrics by me to get a valid response from anyone here. Maybe shame you into offering an answer.

The simple truth is I have asked a simple question re the design of the giraffe and so far, inexplicably (cough cough) i have been offered nothing

Now please by all means continue sidestepping the question that I asked everyone on this thread prior to your arrival.
and no I have no intention answering the question you asked till I get a reasonable response to my question.
its called manners.

Here is a tip Son of nothing, you should start attacking my religion, my educashion (see that, left myself open) my ability to understand and reason.
Thats far easier to do than answer the question I asked

Now my question is simple, if the design is poor, if there is a better design than the one existing in the giraffe, what is it, how does it work and why is your design better. Its not very difficult, its simple design.

Now if you have any scientific nouse then I am sure my question should be very descriptive, or you just being a little coy?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Evolution does not disprove a creator, or intelligent design. We are not privy to the process that the creator used to make anything. What, if anything, the authors of the OT knew of the happenings of Genesis would have been explained to them in a way they could understand. Not unlike anthropomorphism. I seriously doubt men of that time would have understood the concepts involved in science. It was explained to them in a childlike manner. Trying to fit the happenings of our creator into a human understanding of physics is the problem. We are in our infancy of understanding these things. It is so arrogant that we think we are so damn smart.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join