Why evolution is true

[Nearly Sane]

To get to the other side, of course.

Because they had a wee calf

[Gordon]

Because they had a wee calf

Superb!

[Nearly Sane]

Superb!

Not original but seemed fitting. It does benefit if you think with a West coast accent.

[Aruntraveller]

To get to the other side, of course.

Pull the udder one.

[Dicky Underpants]

Pull the udder one.

She was only a common country cow, but she liked her 'uddersfield.

I'll get me coat.

Anyone fancy talking about evolution again?

[Spud]

Negative arguments against intelligentdesign:
Bad design, such as the circuitous path followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perfectly explainable if evolution is assumed: it can be traced to the innervation of gills in fish, so goes back a long way to our piscine ancestors.

Hi Steve,
I seem to have retired from this forum in order to think about why the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a good design.
I've concluded, for today anyway, that from an intelligent designer's point of view it would be more efficient to use a common plan for all vertebrates rather than one for those without a neck and another for those with a neck (especially if you've only got six days to do it). If it means the long-necked ones had to use thicker myelin sheaths to get the nerve impulses to the larynx quick enough, that doesn't matter.

[SteveH]

Hi Steve,
I seem to have retired from this forum in order to think about why the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a good design.
I've concluded, for today anyway, that from an intelligent designer's point of view it would be more efficient to use a common plan for all vertebrates rather than one for those without a neck and another for those with a neck (especially if you've only got six days to do it). If it means the long-necked ones had to use thicker myelin sheaths to get the nerve impulses to the larynx quick enough, that doesn't matter.

Oh, come on - you're getting desperate now! the R.L. nerve is only one of many examples, and the time constraint hardly matters to an omnipotent being.

[Spud]

Oh, come on - you're getting desperate now! the R.L. nerve is only one of many examples, and the time constraint hardly matters to an omnipotent being.

Since there are too many examples to look at, I'll stick with the rl nerve.

[ippy]

That we start out life as a little fish makes sense, since before birth we are surrounded by fluid. Could be an argument for evolution and intelligent design. Since there are too many examples to look at, I'll stick with the rl nerve.

Wasn't there something about stop digging?

ippy

[Maeght]

That we start out life as a little fish makes sense, since before birth we are surrounded by fluid. Could be an argument for evolution and intelligent design. Since there are too many examples to look at, I'll stick with the rl nerve.

It could be an argument for it - if you are really, really desperate for it to be true.

[Spud]

It could be an argument for it - if you are really, really desperate for it to be true.

Or already convinced.

[Spud]

Wasn't there something about stop digging?

ippy

I find it interesting, ippy. Thanks though - I'll try not to overdo it!

[Maeght]

Or already convinced.

No. You maybe convinced of the conclusion but clearly from your posts you are looking really hard to try to get the observations to fit that conclusion. As I say, really, really desperate for it to be true.

[ippy]

I find it interesting, ippy. Thanks though - I'll try not to overdo it!

Too late Spud, put your scientist hat on and dump the other one, you must know it makes sense.

Regards ippy

[Spud]

No. You maybe convinced of the conclusion but clearly from your posts you are looking really hard to try to get the observations to fit that conclusion. As I say, really, really desperate for it to be true.

So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.

[Gordon]

So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.

Spud

I suggest you really need to get yourself a decent textbook on evolution: one written by the experts and not creationist claptrap.

[Maeght]

So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.

There is evidence to support both evolutionary processes. That they occur over different time periods is not an issue unless you want it to be.

[Sebastian Toe]

So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.

No. That's evolution and a very good way to highlight how it works. If, that is, you are prepared to put in a bit of research.

[Maeght]

So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.

Desperation for what by the way?

[SteveH]

So the turtle fossil dated a hundred million years old is recognizable as a turtle, yet the ancestors of modern whales, dated as tens of millions of years old, look as if they might not even have been able to swim? No, that's desperation.

Nowt wrong with that. Some creatures are so well adapted to their environment that they haven't changed much in millions of years (crocodiles, as well as turtles, for example) while others have changed considerably.
I do find amusing the way fundies regularly say that some aspect of evolutionary theory is "desperation", when their own idiotic hypothesis is fuller of holes than a leaky colander. Spud's recent attempts to explain why the recurrent laryngeal nerve isn't an example of bad design look pretty desperate to me.

[wigginhall]

Well, it seems to assume uniform change across all species, which is a creationist fantasy.  As Steve said, there's no reason why one family cannot remain the same,  and another changes, depending on environmental pressures..

[Spud]

Well, it seems to assume uniform change across all species, which is a creationist fantasy.  As Steve said, there's no reason why one family cannot remain the same,  and another changes, depending on environmental pressures..

As I was writing that post I thought the response would be that there must have been a time during which something else changed into turtles through environmental pressures. I think it's claimed that a transitional fossil has been found.

Nowt wrong with that. Some creatures are so well adapted to their environment that they haven't changed much in millions of years (crocodiles, as well as turtles, for example) while others have changed considerably.
I do find amusing the way fundies regularly say that some aspect of evolutionary theory is "desperation", when their own idiotic hypothesis is fuller of holes than a leaky colander. Spud's recent attempts to explain why the recurrent laryngeal nerve isn't an example of bad design look pretty desperate to me.

I haven't really said much, and I wasn't particularly serious about it, except to note that there is a common body plan in tetrapods which could be used to infer both I.D. and evolution.

I have seen other people on the net suggesting there are good reasons for the circuitous route. In particular, one doctor pointed out that it passes close to various lymph nodes, which means that if those nodes become enlarged due to a disease process, the nerve can be irritated causing hoarseness or cough. Thus it could be an early warning system, both to warn the owner and others that he is sick. If he has an infectious disease such as tuberculosis then this is clearly useful.

Try gently squeezing the sides of your trachea below the larynx. That's where the RLN is, and you might notice the need to cough. A possible defense mechanism in case of external pressure on the airway?

A possible analogy explaining how the design is necessary is where you are driving on a motorway and you pass the house you want to visit, but have to stay on the motorway until the next exit. You can't have an exit for every house you pass.

Here's a cross section of the human neck:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-cross-section-through-neck-7710121.html

The vagus travels down the neck within a sheath containing the internal carotid artery and jugular vein. It may not be possible for it to branch while contained in this sheath.

Another point, which is neither here nor there but worth a mention, is that it isn't just the larynx that is wired backwards, but the whole trachea and the upper 1/3 of the oesophagus too. These seem to be a functional unit, necessary for swallowing and coughing. The muscles innervated by the RLN are concerned with the opening and closing of the airway and oesophagus, whereas the muscle innervated by the Superior laryngeal nerve is concerned with speech, allowing changes in pitch.

Lastly: if you view the circuitous route as a vestige of evolution, you may end up barking up the wrong tree, instead of encouraging research into the specific reasons for its design.

[Alan Burns]

The mutations are random ......

That is a questionable assertion.

The DNA molecule can be likened to a very complex piece of computer code, far more complex than any man made computer program.  When I was a student in the early days of computing, we used to use a punched card for each line of computer code, and some of my programs required hundreds of punched cards.   Sometimes there would be a random incident which caused a change in the sequence of cards, such as a missing card, or a stray card from another program being included, or some cards getting mixed up in the wrong order, or a card with a hole punched in the wrong place.  In any of these scenarios I know from bitter experience that the result would be a program which either no longer worked or which output rubbish.  If such a random incident actually produced an improvement in my results it would have been hailed as truly miraculous.  There is a big price to pay for every beneficial mutation caused by purely random events, and our human DNA must have undergone billions of beneficial mutations in its transition from simple single cell organisms to the complex human beings we are today. 

But were they all randomly generated?  I think not.

[torridon]

That is a questionable assertion.

The DNA molecule can be likened to a very complex piece of computer code, far more complex than any man made computer program.  When I was a student in the early days of computing, we used to use a punched card for each line of computer code, and some of my programs required hundreds of punched cards.   Sometimes there would be a random incident which caused a change in the sequence of cards, such as a missing card, or a stray card from another program being included, or some cards getting mixed up in the wrong order, or a card with a hole punched in the wrong place.  In any of these scenarios I know from bitter experience that the result would be a program which either no longer worked or which output rubbish.  If such a random incident actually produced an improvement in my results it would have been hailed as truly miraculous.  There is a big price to pay for every beneficial mutation caused by purely random events, and our human DNA must have undergone billions of beneficial mutations in its transition from simple single cell organisms to the complex human beings we are today. 

But were they all randomly generated?  I think not.

Well that is what the fossil record suggests, not to mention comparative studies of morphology and all we have learned from genetics.  There are said to be dozen of regions of the human genome currently under selection pressure; do you really think God is busy there firing charged particles at us or otherwise interfering with cell replication to bring about his desired genetic change in key areas ?  What a bizarre way of thinking.  Why didn't he just get us right in the first place ?

[Enki]

That is a questionable assertion.

The DNA molecule can be likened to a very complex piece of computer code, far more complex than any man made computer program.  When I was a student in the early days of computing, we used to use a punched card for each line of computer code, and some of my programs required hundreds of punched cards.   Sometimes there would be a random incident which caused a change in the sequence of cards, such as a missing card, or a stray card from another program being included, or some cards getting mixed up in the wrong order, or a card with a hole punched in the wrong place.  In any of these scenarios I know from bitter experience that the result would be a program which either no longer worked or which output rubbish.  If such a random incident actually produced an improvement in my results it would have been hailed as truly miraculous.  There is a big price to pay for every beneficial mutation caused by purely random events, and our human DNA must have undergone billions of beneficial mutations in its transition from simple single cell organisms to the complex human beings we are today. 

But were they all randomly generated?  I think not.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html