Jump to content


Photo

One Nerve Cell Disproves Intelligent Design?

CreationIntelligent Design Evolution laryngeal nerve Richard Dawkins Rick Gerhardt logical fallacies

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 September 2017 - 09:36 AM

I think not. 

 

 

In short an Evolutionist claims he found bad (or rather sub-optimum) design in the fact that the laryngeal nerve is longer that it would have to be.

 

laryngeal_nerve.jpg

 

He now claims this is proof against intelligent design (or creation) and would actually "prove Evolution". 

 

He also claims the retina of the eye is bad design. 

 

Now I spotted several fallacies e.g. strawmen and a number of others. But one thought that came into my minds was that, "if this is really bad design, why don't you design a better organism for us and we than have a look at it, testing whether it's indeed better than the existing design?"

 

Here is one way to debunk the claim made in the video:

 

Conclusions

Arguing that the left RLN is poorly designed implies that God should have used different embryo developmental trajectories for all the structures involved to avoid looping the left RLN around the aorta. One who asserts that the RLN is a poor design assumes that a better design exists, a claim that cannot be asserted unless an alternative embryonic design from fertilized ovum to fetus--including all the incalculable molecular gradients, triggers, cascades, and anatomical twists and tucks--can be proposed that documents an improved design. Lacking this information, the "poor design" claim uses evolution to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Furthermore, any alternative embryonic design pathway would likely result in its own unique set of constraints, also giving the false impression of poor design.

The left recurrent laryngeal nerve is not poorly designed, but rather is clear evidence of intelligent design:

  • Much evidence exists that the present design results from developmental constraints.
  • There are indications that this design serves to fine-tune laryngeal functions.
  • The nerve serves to innervate other organs after it branches from the vagus on its way to the larynx.
  • The design provides backup innervation to the larynx in case another nerve is damaged.
  • No evidence exists that the design causes any disadvantage.

The arguments presented by evolutionists are both incorrect and have discouraged research into the specific reasons for the existing design.
http://www.icr.org/a...e-not-evidence/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • mike the wiz and Blitzking like this

#2 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 14 September 2017 - 09:20 PM

Much evidence exists that the present design results from developmental constraints.

The idea of developmental constraints doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense for a designer supposed to have created life from scratch, especially if that designer is supposed to be supernatural.

Is there any design deficiency that couldn't be explained away with "well it's probably the best design possible given these constraints"?

#3 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 19 September 2017 - 11:49 PM

In short an Evolutionist claims he found bad (or rather sub-optimum) design in the fact that the laryngeal nerve is longer that it would have to be.
 
laryngeal_nerve.jpg
 
He now claims this is proof against intelligent design (or creation) and would actually "prove Evolution". 
 
He also claims the retina of the eye is bad design.


I just listened to Stuart Burgress talking about the laryngeal nerve. And his remark was that most people that came with these bad design accusations really didn't know anything about design.

For example, one big reason to design the laryngeal nerve the way it is designed is to introduce redundance in the design. If you look at the picture you see there are alot of nerves that branch from the laryngeal nerve. And these nerve branches have to be accessible even if the main path is broken, so the designer made the path redundant.

https://en.wikipedia...y_(engineering)







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: CreationIntelligent Design, Evolution, laryngeal nerve, Richard Dawkins, Rick Gerhardt, logical fallacies

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users