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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Maybe it picks up radio waves?


Maybe, I dont know what else it could do, radio waves sounds very cool.


Because, hey why not? Science can't prove it doesn't, right? Giraffe laryngeal nerve = radio antenna... confirmed.


If thats your best shot well taken.
Lets be a little more mature, science is in its infancy in relation to this stuff or are you saying science has all the answers.

Hey good luck with the know it all theology of science, science is a faith and your faith is built on a solid foundation.

If science cant yet prove something we should just accept what we are told by Mr Dawkins and anyone else who decides what we should believe.

sycophants indeed?




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You're drawing a false equivalency. Religion is the one which claims to have all the answers. Science is upfront about it's uncertainty or ignorance.

This is why science is constantly reviewed when new evidence challenges old conclusions, and it's why every quantified statement in science is given with a corresponding margin of error.

Scientific concepts are based on direct observations of evidence, which is about as far away from the definition of faith as you can get. Faith is believing in things without evidence, and that gullibility is a cherished virtue to the religious.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

You're drawing a false equivalency. Religion is the one which claims to have all the answers. Science is upfront about it's uncertainty or ignorance.

This is why science is constantly reviewed when new evidence challenges old conclusions, and it's why every quantified statement in science is given with a corresponding margin of error.

Scientific concepts are based on direct observations of evidence, which is about as far away from the definition of faith as you can get. Faith is believing in things without evidence, and that gullibility is a cherished virtue to the religious.



Or giraffes with radio antenna necks
Tee hee hee, gullible, you are welcome to think a neck is a antennae, not my job to sway you otherwise.

What makes this whole charade so pathetic is you and your kind think its about winning an argument, winning the fight against creation and the religious.
You questioned nothing about that video, you attacked me because I questioned it, still do, hypocrisy is thick in all your comments.

Question it I did, you didnt, you defend it though clearly it was wrong.

you draw the false equivalency by denying me the right to question it, hypocrisy much, I cant believe you can be so.....



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I deny you nothing. Go ahead. Doubt is good. Doubt is healthy. Question it. Question everything. Question even your bible, if you dare.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

I deny you nothing. Go ahead. Doubt is good. Doubt is healthy. Question it. Question everything. Question even your bible, if you dare.


Yep, I question the bible more than I question evolution and the scientists who trumpet it.

I also tell many around here to never stop questioning the bible, it is called for in the bible.

Unlike you I dont have 100% faith in my chosen faith.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

So you claim to be skeptical of the bible (or at least parts thereof). Can you show me some examples?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The part that says "thou shalt not bear false witness"?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The part that says "thou shalt not bear false witness"?


Badum tish...



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

The part that says "thou shalt not bear false witness"?


Wow thats relevant to the thread, care to place something about giraffes in here to discuss or is this just a personal attack.

Lets talk about the many possible functions the laryngeal nerve may also do apart from the obvious. hey lets not, lets work on personal attacks and making this a religious discussion.

grow up ladies and gents and keep it on topic

Badum tish...



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

So you claim to be skeptical of the bible (or at least parts thereof). Can you show me some examples?


No I cant because obviously this is not the place for it.
This is the place for discussing a better design for the laryngeal nerve...or evidently not.

Wow its quiet around here when it comes to the topic at hand, I wonder why?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 07:43 AM
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?


Evolution is about the best adaptation for its environment. Not the most efficient. Don't correlate the two.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a doctor stating that it can not be engineered because a engineer will adapt his design is a lame argument because two important engineering concepts are kiss= keep it simple ,and if its not broke do not fix it.

so if the fish design worked this would be the perfect design to roll out on my genetically engineered planet.

but as the fish biomechanical devices functioned correctly i can adapt the outside skin using art and design and come up with many abstact ideas like say a giraffe body or koala

edit on 2-3-2015 by stuthealien because: to further elaborate on engineering/art/design



also if i had the fish working protype why would i redesign all the internal structure ,that could take thousands of years to research a fully working design as complex as this .
it would make far more sense to just go with the working internals ,then to redesign each individual model .
edit on 2-3-2015 by stuthealien because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: PilgriMage
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.


LMAO. An ICR link and the guy calls everyone else lazy for not knowing about their false claims. Sorry, give a real scientific source, not a creationist propaganda site.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambs to lions
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.


It's also quite arrogant to think that we are special and were hand designed in the image of a perfect being and to disregard the physical evidence that suggests otherwise.
edit on 2-3-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

i have shown you from an engineering point of view why this doctor/scientist is wrong ,this evil man who is cutting up a giraffe to try to prove evolution.
do you find it strange that he had to cut up a giraffe to prove or convince people that an engineer would not do it this way .
this man is clearly not an engineer so to make assumptions about how a engineer would think is stretching the line.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Fascinating indeed...a minor eww moment regarding the jelly-like stuff at the base of the neck, but pretty amazing thing to see, gotta love telly.

In terms of evolution, it's a theory that is itself evolving. Co-evolutionists are beginning to look at not just how but why, relationally. The giraffe grew tall because tall was more successful, because the best food kept getting taller and taller, and that food gave the edge survivally and was reflected in sexual selection. Evolution is demonstrably proven, that does though not entirely rule out a design element, and a lot of people can still see that, even within scientific communities. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is a matter of personal choice, or, as in my case, a choice to be indifferent but open minded.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
You know, I thought about this nerve issue quite a lot. Since everyone here already knows that our nervous systems are conductors of electricity that have the ability to "connect on another level of energy other than audible sounds we make with our mouths" there could be a real good reason this nerve extends up to 6 feet through the neck. Perhaps to prevent birds from accidentally flying into the neck and stabbing the giraffe with their beaks. There are both positive and negative electrical charges and other frequencies on the + or - side of things that these nerves can tap into or emit the signal in an area around the neck. This nerve could be there to add sensitivity to the neck area since any damage to the neck could become critical to the survival of the giraffe. More nerves = more sensitivity as the bowels and genitals in the human species can confirm. Maybe you should look at the entirety of the subject of nerves, brains and lymph systems and how they work and the fringes of the science beyond what is in the textbooks.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   

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.


You really don't understand evolution through natural selection.

The long neck gives the giraffe an advantage by being able to eat vegetation high up in the air.

Nature is not an engineer the way you are alluding, hence our bodies containing design flaws.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Great thread. Stars, flag.

Yes, the length of the laryngeal nerve in giraffes is an illustration of how evolution proceeds. I wouldn't call it evidence of bad design; giraffes survive and breed pretty effectively, after all. The real point is that it is clear evidence (not that there is any shortage) that the long neck of the giraffe is an evolved trait.


The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

The story is in those tiny increments. Giraffes, of course, evolved from the same 'fish-like ancestors' as the rest of us. Therefore they share similarities in their evolved anatomy. One of these is the relative position of the laryngeal nerve and the aorta. It's the same in all mammals, but only in giraffes does the nerve have to be so improbably long.

This, too, is interesting: another consequence of laryngeal nerve anatomy, though this time the result of human selective breeding (for larger horses):


Horses are subject to equine recurrent laryngeal neuropathy, a disease of the axons of the recurrent laryngeal nerves. The cause is not known, although a genetic predisposition is suspected. The length of the nerve is a factor since it is more common in larger horses, and the left side is affected almost exclusively. As the nerve cells die, there is a progressive paralysis of the larynx, causing the airway to collapse.



edit on 3/3/15 by Astyanax because: of nerves.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace


if the whole point of evolution is to evolve into more adaptive and efficient species...

That isn't the point of evolution.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join