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.
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:
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.