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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

So if the point of evolution isn't to become a more efficient and adaptive species in order to survive, what is the point then?




posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


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?

Just in case you missed RotSoN's answer while cherry-picking his post for things to get pompous and blustery about:

Yes. The laryngeal nerve would not loop beneath the heart (as it does in all mammals, for historical — i.e. evolutionary — reasons) but would take a more direct route to the larynx from the brain. It would involve a difference in design from all other mammals. No problem for an omnipotent Creator, but no easy task for evolution; it would mean going back to the ancestors of fishes and starting all over again.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Evolution doesn't have a point. It just happens, because it can't help happening.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

That flies in the face of every reason everyone ever gave for why organisms evolve.

So evolution isn't to survive, it just happens for the sake of happening?



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace


That flies in the face of every reason everyone ever gave for why organisms evolve.

No, it does not. It is basic to evolutionary theory, and has been since Darwin.


So evolution isn't to survive, it just happens for the sake of happening?

It doesn't even happen for the sake of happening. Must I repeat myself? It happens because it can't help happening.


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



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Just in case you missed RotSoN's answer while cherry-picking his post for things to get pompous and blustery about:

Yes. The laryngeal nerve would not loop beneath the heart (as it does in all mammals, for historical — i.e. evolutionary — reasons) but would take a more direct route to the larynx from the brain. It would involve a difference in design from all other mammals. No problem for an omnipotent Creator, but no easy task for evolution; it would mean going back to the ancestors of fishes and starting all over again.


Really
So can you show me a better design, yes its still a question unanswered.

and while you are at it can you TOTALLY rule out for me there is no other purpose for that nerve than the larynx....or are you just making a blind and baseless assumption like those on the video.

I would ask for evidence as well as an answer that the laryngeal has only one purpose
(Here is a tip, everyone else has realised how stupid your position is and retreated, best you do the same)


and please dont think its anger



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Unless there is evidence for an alternative use or purpose for the nerve, there is no reason to think that there is one. That which is proposed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

How do we know your head wasn't also designed to be a ramming device?



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



So if the point of evolution isn't to become a more efficient and adaptive species in order to survive, what is the point then?


You misunderstood his statement. There is no "point" in evolution.

I've come to understand that it's all "mathematical" in nature.

Sometimes I like to talk about the smooth rocks in streams. How did they come about? By erosion and abrasion of course! What's the point?

[edit] I forgot to post a link
www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 3/3/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: borntowatch

Unless there is evidence for an alternative use or purpose for the nerve, there is no reason to think that there is one. That which is proposed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

How do we know your head wasn't also designed to be a ramming device?


I understand and totally accept your position.
fortunately millions and millions of others dont and knowledge has increased because people have searched and explored and even thought beyond your logic.

Seriously consider what you have just said, ask a good friend how it sounds, how it might pertain to science.

This man didnt do what the evidence and years of theory dictated, he took a chance

en.wikipedia.org...


I can think of some people who should exclusively use their bonces as battering devices, because they refuse to read information that is public knowledge that may suggest alternative purposes.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Astyanax
Just in case you missed RotSoN's answer while cherry-picking his post for things to get pompous and blustery about:

Yes. The laryngeal nerve would not loop beneath the heart (as it does in all mammals, for historical — i.e. evolutionary — reasons) but would take a more direct route to the larynx from the brain. It would involve a difference in design from all other mammals. No problem for an omnipotent Creator, but no easy task for evolution; it would mean going back to the ancestors of fishes and starting all over again.


Really
So can you show me a better design, yes its still a question unanswered.

and while you are at it can you TOTALLY rule out for me there is no other purpose for that nerve than the larynx....or are you just making a blind and baseless assumption like those on the video.

I would ask for evidence as well as an answer that the laryngeal has only one purpose
(Here is a tip, everyone else has realised how stupid your position is and retreated, best you do the same)


and please dont think its anger


This has been answered many times. If the nerve had been designed, a better design would have been as short and direct from point a to point b as possible.

So that's that answered.

You can postulate all you like about other potential as yet undiscovered purposes of the nerve until you're blue in the face, but until YOU demonstrate a good reason for the length and route of the nerve, without referring to evolutionary causes then you are not showing open mindedness, you're being willfully ignorant.

The FACTS are:

The nerve only has one demonstrable purpose.
The initiation point of the nerve impulse and the receptor point are within a handful of inches from each other.
The nerve follows an extended route that fits perfectly with the theorized evolution of the species.
If this creature were intelligently designed, is shows a lack of intelligence by the designer.

Remember, my self and others on here are simply stating that the nerve has the function of carrying input from A to B, and we have an understanding of why it follows the route it does.

The OP is simply stating that for him, the routing, and his understanding of the subject confirms his understanding of the evolutionary process. He also states his agreement with Dawkings, that if anything demonstrates the absence of a designer, its this nerve.

You are stating that this is not the case as the nerve "might" have another purpose that requires its routing, and could have been designed.

You say you would require proof that the nerve has no other purpose. An idiotic request. You, and others have come up with many "mights" and "maybes" throughout this thread. Brilliant, you have your hypothesis. Now instead of arguing that if it has another purpose other than the obvious, it could have been intelligently designed, why not set out to prove its other purpose. Or demonstrate how you think a person might set out to provide an absence of evidence, that is to prove that something doesn't do something.

I feel a Nobel prize from science, and canonization from the church if you do

BTW, you really can stop saying that you query hasn't been answered. It may not have been answered how you would have liked it to, but answered it has been.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

seriously - you need to do a foundation course in formal logic / critical thinking

the burden of responsibility is on YOU to show a secondary function and purpose to the larayngeal nerve .

so come on - show is this amazing " creation science " < sic >



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Barry Marshall had a hypothesis, which he then tested (albeit haphazardly and not within recommended safety precautions). In his case he was extremely fortunate - he could just as easily have been wrong.

But Barry Marshall never argued from ignorance as far as I am aware. He never went around saying "science can't disprove the bacterium hypothesis, therefore it must be true".

He may have even had good evidential reasons for believing in his idea, I do not know specifically.

If every research scientist went around doing what he did, we would soon not have very many of them left. His case, his experience is not typical. He is the exception to the rule. History is littered with men who held fast to a predujiced idea which turned out to be wrong.

The wiki article also notes that those who criticised his hypothesis actually showed the right level of scientific skepticism, given the circumstances.

ETA - I should stress that last point; at the time before Marshall had generated evidence by testing his hypothesis, it would have been unreasonable to expect any rational person to just believe in his idea without evidence.
edit on 3/3/2015 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Because



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Delete
edit on 3-3-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

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?





At what point did the t-rex walk on all four........A elephant is not going to become a 2 legged animal over time. It is not possible or plausible.
edit on 3-3-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


So can you show me a better design

I just did.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

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?





At what point did the t-rex walk on all four........A elephant is not going to become a 2 legged animal over time. It is not possible or plausible.


The answer is; long before it ever was a T-Rex. The earliest dinosaurs (including the forerunners of T-Rex) were bipedal, so it must have been at some point before the entire group diverged from other reptiles.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: borntowatch

seriously - you need to do a foundation course in formal logic / critical thinking

the burden of responsibility is on YOU to show a secondary function and purpose to the larayngeal nerve .

so come on - show is this amazing " creation science " < sic >


No the burden of responsibility is on scientists who study this stuff, they have heaps of theories, care to research them.
No dont, it could be to risky and also prove you completely wrong.

Your stance is akin to saying the earth is flat, its ludicrous and short sighted and you call me stupid. Go glance in the mirror.

Critical thinking as opposed to accepting what you are told by a Dawkins? video.

Who is religiously delusional.
? Science is about testing, theorising and failing/succeeding, you are suggesting that shouldnt happen.

Are you serious, you call me religiously brainwashed



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: idmonster


This has been answered many times. If the nerve had been designed, a better design would have been as short and direct from point a to point b as possible.

So that's that answered.

You can postulate all you like about other potential as yet undiscovered purposes of the nerve until you're blue in the face, but until YOU demonstrate a good reason for the length and route of the nerve, without referring to evolutionary causes then you are not showing open mindedness, you're being willfully ignorant.

The FACTS are:

The nerve only has one demonstrable purpose.
The initiation point of the nerve impulse and the receptor point are within a handful of inches from each other.
The nerve follows an extended route that fits perfectly with the theorized evolution of the species.
If this creature were intelligently designed, is shows a lack of intelligence by the designer.

Remember, my self and others on here are simply stating that the nerve has the function of carrying input from A to B, and we have an understanding of why it follows the route it does.

The OP is simply stating that for him, the routing, and his understanding of the subject confirms his understanding of the evolutionary process. He also states his agreement with Dawkings, that if anything demonstrates the absence of a designer, its this nerve.

You are stating that this is not the case as the nerve "might" have another purpose that requires its routing, and could have been designed.

You say you would require proof that the nerve has no other purpose. An idiotic request. You, and others have come up with many "mights" and "maybes" throughout this thread. Brilliant, you have your hypothesis. Now instead of arguing that if it has another purpose other than the obvious, it could have been intelligently designed, why not set out to prove its other purpose. Or demonstrate how you think a person might set out to provide an absence of evidence, that is to prove that something doesn't do something.

I feel a Nobel prize from science, and canonization from the church if you do

BTW, you really can stop saying that you query hasn't been answered. It may not have been answered how you would have liked it to, but answered it has been.


So we agree, its a stupid unproven assumption and you have no evidence to back it up

all that talk just to agree with me, well done but you could have saved yourself all the effort

Huzzah, we are on the same page.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

FFS - i have not called you stupid - YET but theres still time

and yes i do call you religiously brainwashed as you demonstrate it so aptly

as i stated previously - if you or any other creationist wants to claim that the laryngeal nerve has a secondary function and purpose - the burden is on you to demonstrate this

that is science .

its that simple

so - what is the secondary purpose of the laryngeal nerve ???



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

It Is possible, it is plausible, and it is proven via genetics, molecular phylogeny and the fossil record. Whales, or more precisely all cetaceans, were once quadrupedal land mammals. They now have no fully developed legs (though they do have many vestigial morphological features) but it doesn't change the fact that they share common ancestry with the Hippopotomas as well as several other extinct, carnivorous ungulates. The hippo is just the last surviving genetic tie that cetaceans have to their land dwelling past.

If you're going to make statements of fact such s those you make above, its strongly encouraged to support them with some sort of citation. Otherwise it comes off as an ignorant opinion stated as fact. Especially in lieu of the fact that ALL dinosaurs were initial bipedal and walked in a similar fashion to modern birds and mammals. Quadrupedal herbivores(all theropods/carnivorous dinosaurs remained bipedal) did not emerge until the early Jurassic Epoch.

In a similar fashion, all primates began as quadrupedal tree dwellers.I think its safe to say that Its pretty obvious when looking at humans, their bipedalism and ease of adaptability to a multitude of environmental niches, to see that we are no longer solely tree dwelling quadrupeds. there are a number of our relatives who utilize more than one method of locomotion and have adapted to many different niches...you know,an example of that "in between stage" deniers of evolution keep begging for, staring directly at and seeing right through?




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join