Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

[I edited the above quote of your post to replace open and close square brackets with double-quote marks so as to avoid formatting issues]

You mean, so that "quote" tags aren't stripped out when they are within "code" tags?

No, so that code tags aren't stripped out. Or am I confused and they are only stripped out when within quotes that themselves are being stripped out?

~~ Paul

The arguments were the source of the change over time, is it mutation driven selection, or did some intelligent agent meddle in the process (whatever that agent may be). The video I posted, for example, shows the giraffe's laryngeal nerve getting super long, when it it is possible that it could only have to traverse a short distance if an intelligent agent was involved. This is a result that would be expected from a process that can only work with what it has available, such as neo-darwinism.

The argument against the intelligent design of the Giraffe recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), that it is the expected imperfect result of RM + NS, collapses when examined closely. 

"(1) There is evidence that supposed fundamental evolutionary constraints which would prevent loss of the circuitous route of the RLN do not exist. This implies that there is some beneficial function for the circuitous route.
(2) The path of the RLN allows it to give off filaments to the heart, to the mucous membranes and to the muscles of the trachea along the way to the larynx.
(3) There is dual-innervation of the larynx from the superior laryngeal nerve (SLN) and RLN, and in fact the SLN innervates the larynx directly from the brain. The direct innervation of the larynx via the SLN shows the laryngeal innervations in fact follow the very design demanded by ID critics like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins. Various medical conditions encountered when either the SLN or RLN are damaged point to special functions for each nerve, indicating that the RLN has a specific laryngeal function when everything is functioning properly. This segregation may be necessary to achieve this function, and the redundancy seems to preserve some level of functionality if one nerve gets damaged. This dual-innervation seems like a rational design principle"

(at https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/medica...s_for_the/). 

"...the preferred design of Coyne, Dawkins and Smith actually DOES exist in our bodies, as the larynx is innervated from above, directly from the brain.

Given the different medical conditions encountered when the laryngeal nerves (such as the SLN and RLN) are damaged, it seems that the two nerves are performing distinct functions. The SLN–which innervates from above–has something to do with producing higher-pitched sounds, and the RLN–which innervates from below–has something to do with producing lower-pitched sounds.

Rather than being an “imperfect design,” perhaps the dual innervation of the larynx from both above and below is a good design principle — a form of redundancy, or complementation to help minimize the impact upon function if one of these two nerves is damaged. Thus we see hints of function and design optimization in the innervation of the larynx."

(at https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/direct..._the_lary/).

Also https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/wolf-e...under_neo/, and https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_re...al_nerve_/.

Point #2 is exactly why I finally commented (after reading, hundreds upon hundreds of comments in thread)... This is not a 'two way street', nor is it a case of Godzilla being so big that it needs a second brain, the nerve does its work.

The RLN is also present in other animals, you know... Like us. The idea that it's route is any more inefficient in giraffes because it's more pronounced (or long) is just odd, we don't get a "better" positioning despite it being shorter.

It's not that its inefficient, its the predicted result of the neodarwinian theory (working with whats available to you. The same overall design was carried over from say, fish, and due to the changing morphology of the animals, the same overall route is used, even when it seems odd (giraffes).

The argument against the intelligent design of the Giraffe recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), that it is the expected imperfect result of RM + NS, collapses when examined closely. 

(at https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/medica...s_for_the/). 

(at https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/direct..._the_lary/).

Also https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/wolf-e...under_neo/, and https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_re...al_nerve_/.

Collapsed is a strong word. I skimmed the links. They have explanations that are all over the place. Yes the nerve probably has functions all over the place, that's why it still exists. One of the links mentions that when the nerve is truncated, it loses function. But its not just truncated, this is associated with other abnormalities, in addition to potentially less innervation of the larynx. But this isn't really the main focus of why it appears to support RM + NS.

The reason that this could be taken as evidence of RM + NS is because the design appears conserved between a Giraffe, and a fish. The same overall design was carried over, and taken to an extreme. There does not appear to be any 'going back to the drawing board', so to say.

Now, I don't personally think that RM + NS is the only mechanism responsible for evolution.  But there are many fine lines here. What is to distinguish RM + NS, and say... gradual changes? 

That is where studies on protein structure can be used. How fast do genes coding for non-essential portions of proteins incur mutations? Does this match how far back we expect common ancestry with the species to occur? I recall reading this is often the case, but I don't have time to look that up right now. Then you have cases of mutations that seem to have been incurred, and carried on to ancestors (vitamin c production knockout, retroviral inserts, etc.)

So, there are many reasons to believe that organisms descend with modifications.

[Laird]

No, so that code tags aren't stripped out. Or am I confused and they are only stripped out when within quotes that themselves are being stripped out?

Correct: "code" tags are only stripped out when within quotes that themselves are being stripped out.

Go back to Kamarling's post #785 and click "Reply": you will see that the "code" tags aren't stripped out, only the "quote" tags within the "code" tags are stripped out. You even noted this in your subsequent post #796:

"The stuff inside [code], for example, is missing".

i.e. You recognised that the "code" tags themselves weren't stripped out. It was only the "quote" tags within them that were stripped.

Correct: "code" tags are only stripped out when within quotes that themselves are being stripped out.

Here is what I see when I reply to post #764, with 'x' at the start of each tag:
-----------------------------------------
[xquote=Kamarling pid='13624' dateline='1516422194']Hi darkcheese - Welcome to the forum.

Just a point of procedure regarding quoting and replies. I think it is easier for the reader to determine which are the quotes and which are the responses if the quotes are self-contained and the responses are outside the "quote box".

You can use the tags to begin and end a quoted passage. These are typed thus when entering text:

[xcode][/xcode]

I'm enjoying your posts so far and hope you continue to contribute.[/xquote]
-----------------------------------

Why is the code missing? Surely the quote tags within it are not interpreted.

~~ Paul

It's not that its inefficient, its the predicted result of the neodarwinian theory (working with whats available to you. The same overall design was carried over from say, fish, and due to the changing morphology of the animals, the same overall route is used, even when it seems odd (giraffes).

Do you realize how arbitrary it is to propose that another, theoretical, route would be more "intelligent" (a subjective concept in its own right) when the current one works?

Do you realize how arbitrary it is to propose that another, theoretical, route would be more "intelligent" (a subjective concept in its own right) when the current one works?

Could be arbitrary or not. But ‘arbitrary’, or very large decisions that don’t look like the result of gradual changes would not be a hallmark of neodarwinism.

I can see that this is a thing that is close to your heart, and not being particular interested in this futile back-and-forth, I will just let you be content with it. However, as someone that is hearing the argument for the first time -and being familiar with the function of the RLN -I still feel that it's a wholly unconvincing argument for either side. If you wanted something really impractical involving giraffes, try looking into the way in which they are born.

I can see that this is a thing that is close to your heart, and not being particular interested in this futile back-and-forth, I will just let you be content with it. However, as someone that is hearing the argument for the first time -and being familiar with the function of the RLN -I still feel that it's a wholly unconvincing argument for either side. If you wanted something really impractical involving giraffes, try looking into the way in which they are born.

 I really don't care too much about the giraffe thing, thought that was what other people wanted to discuss since they replied to it (if you look at my post, it was basically a bolt-on). And I'm sorry if you think this is futile, its interesting to get people's perspectives. My background is more in molecular bio, hence my mentioning catalytic domains and conserved regions. 

Something I care about would be more like this. How can the same intelligent agent that produced say, the flagella, the eye, all the systems of the body that work in tandem, let some of the diseases that exist continue to be? Especially inherited ones, like Huntington's disease. Certainly, we (as humans) understand what the disease is now too. Why can't it just be set back to 'normal'? Is the intelligence just selective?

Maybe the intelligence comes and goes like a gardener and his/her crops.