Professor: God Would Not Create the Giraffe’s Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 28, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

One thing evolutionists agree on is that their theory is also a scientific fact. It is a curious point of consensus given that, of all the many, many evolutionary claims, it is the one that is most obviously and undeniably false. It is not that evolutionists fail to prove their theory to be a fact. They most definitely have done so, many times over. But their proofs are not scientific. Read more

Comments

This YEC on the point of giraffes or anything perceived to be bad structure. The fall changed and reaarranged all life. The giraffe didn't look like it did in the pre fall world or the pre flood world. its entirely a adaptation. in fact my niece did a project on the okapi which is probably what a giraffe first looked like soon after the flood. Like in marsupials or our own selves there are less then ideal features. yet these are not from the creator but from adaptive mechanism, and themselves not great, that came later. The giraffe may indeed not be wired greatly. The wiring is not from God but from a process God put in that is itself defective even though successful.. Fall and flood changes biology for YEC folks.Robert Byers_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

vj 20 and 22 Sorry I haven't time to give your lengthy comments their due. I think that molch has responded on the relative merits of the cephalopod eye. I would add there are plenty of colour blind mammals. The more interesting point is how you assess bad design. You write: So here’s the general method I would use for assessing whether an organ is badly designed. First, identify the genes coding for the organ in question. Second, identify a mutation in those genes that would yield a better design for the organ, and then bring about this change artificially. Third, verify that no other vital functions have been damaged in the animal, as a result of the change effected. Fourth, verify that the nature of the animal has not changed. For example, in relation to the vertebrate eye: is the animal in question still a vertebrate, after the mutation in its genes has been implemented? You are effectively saying it is not currently possible to assess wether an organism is badly designed. An "evolutionist" (which incidentally is pretty much coextensive with biologist) would argue by (a) pointing out obvious improvements which appear to be physically impossible (b) pointing out other organisms that implement improvements Neither of these are conclusive - but surely they are evidence - furthermore (to get back to the point of Cornelius post) they are something which biologists have the expertise to assess.markf_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

VJT: More than that, optimisation for a too narrow target invites brittleness once environment shifts. So, robustness demands trade-offs, a certain flexibility and variability. In addition, performance should be seen on the whole, in balance: is it good enough for evident purpose, as opposed to fitting any particular notion of what an ideal design should look like. In context, I seem to recall -- kindly, confirm/correct -- that the glial cells in the eye were recently seen as mini fibre conduits, helping improve the overall function. So, the backways wiring complaint has another layer of concerns. Aside from, the presence of a processor - the brain -- shifts the balance of design constraints and opportunities. If we can give up some possibilities of the eye, but compensate in the brain, that may well be a reasonable compromise. The blind spot seems to be a capital case in point of optimising across the system as a whole not on the individual sub-system, which last is a known source of inferior overall system performance, termed sub-optimisation. For one instance, the eye actually produces an inverted image, righted in the brain. Decades ago someone did an experiment to use a lens to make the eye's image right side up. He was disoriented for days, then the brain adjusted and he saw things right side up again! When he took them off the brain again compensated. Such reserve levels in the design are an awesome testimony to robust design that anticipated all sorts of challenges. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

markf Further to my remarks above on bad design, I'd like to make it clear that "bad" does not merely mean "improvable." The eye could doubtless be improved in countless ways; but if it fulfills its designated end then it cannot be called bad - unless it does a poor job of seeing, in relation to the organism's needs. In his Summa Theologica I, q. 25, article 6, reply to objection 1, Aquinas asks whether God can do better than what he does. He answers that God can always make a thing better "as regards the accidents" (i.e. by giving it more desirable add-on features, and thereby improving it as a thing), "although not as regards the substance." For instance, God cannot make a hippopotamus any more of a hippopotamus than it already is. A hippo is a hippo, simply by virtue of being a creature of that kind. If, however, the word "better" is taken to mean "made in a better way" then Aquinas insists that God cannot make a thing any better than He makes it, because He cannot make it with greater wisdom or goodness:
Reply to Objection 1. When it is said that God can make a thing better than He makes it, if "better" is taken substantively, this proposition is true. For He can always make something else better than each individual thing: and He can make the same thing in one way better than it is, and in another way not; as was explained above. If, however, "better" is taken as an adverb, implying the manner of the making; thus God cannot make anything better than He makes it, because He cannot make it from greater wisdom and goodness. But if it implies the manner of the thing done, He can make something better; because He can give to things made by Him a better manner of existence as regards the accidents, although not as regards the substance.
Aquinas also cites the Biblical verse, "God's works are perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4) fifteen times in his Summa Theologica, and the Biblical verse, "God made man right" (Ecclesiastes 7:30) no less than four times. The clear implication of the foregoing citations is that in Aquinas' view, there are no bad designs in Nature: everything is made with perfect wisdom and goodness. Hence if we discover apparent imperfections in Nature - e.g. pseudogenes, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, or the vertebrate eye - we should take these as a reflection of our ignorance, and try to look for a sound engineering reason why they were made that way.vjtorley_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

molch:
“the amazing design benefits allowed by the creation of a blind spot” and what are those amazing design benefits again?
If you are able to make your argument of imperfection without actually being able to demonstrate any actual detriment, why cannot I make an argument for perfection without having to enumerate any actual benefits? Still, I fully expect that such reasons can and will be discovered, if they are not already known. That's a verifiable, disprovable predicition. And again... if it is really an imperfection, with a real fitness cost, why hasn't evolution long ago eliminated it? Surely the remarkably creative, but purposeless, goal-less process that led to this astonishing organ would have no difficulty weeding out such an egregious defect. In comparison to other features and systems involved it seems such a small thing. The answer should be obvious. It is not a detriment, and there ARE good reasons from an optimization viewpoint for it to be there. Seriously, I, find it difficult to believe that you and other evoloutionists don't fully understand this and just raise this silly objection just because you like to yank our chains.SCheesman_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

markf Thank you for your posts. In response to your specific query about the cephalopod eye: cephalopods don't see as well as humans. They have no color vision. The octopus eye structure is completely different and much simpler than our own. It has been likened to "a compound eye with a single lens." You also mentioned the blind spot. It has been pointed out previously on Uncommon Descent that blind spots are never detected unless one eye is blacked out. Even then, the blind spot is "filled in" by the brain's software. The blind spot is not in the macula (the high visual acuity part of the retina), so when one is actually looking at something, there is no blind spot. In response to your general query about bad design, I would say that bad design, if confirmed in Nature, does not disprove Intelligent Design in general, but it certainly would weaken one version of Intelligent Design. I would certainly agree that bad design renders less probable the hypothesis that the Designer of life was an infinitely wise, benevolent and powerful Being. St. Thomas Aquinas would have also agreed. As he put it: "All natural things were produced by the Divine art, and so may be called God's works of art." Since every artist intends to give his work the best disposition for the proposed end, Aquinas concludes that "God gave to each natural being the best disposition; not absolutely so, but in the view of its proper end." (See Summa Theologica I, q. 91, art. 3, see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1091.htm#article3 .) The proper end of the vertebrate eye is seeing. Aquinas also admits that "an imperfect effect proves imperfection in the agent" (Summa Theologica I, q. 66, art. 1, at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1066.htm#article1 ). Although this argument is put forward in an objection ("On the contrary...") which Aquinas subsequently answers, he does not question the principle itself in his response; he simply asserts that imperfections in Nature are permissible only insofar as they are dictated by God's Wisdom and the need to preserve order in the cosmos. However, it would be absurd to say that God's Wisdom demanded that the vertebrate eye be poorly designed, or that a poorly designed eye was required to maintain cosmic harmony. This brings us to the next question: how do we know if a design is bad? Specifically, how would we go about showing that the design of the vertebrate eye was bad? Simple. We'd have to go and genetically engineer a better one in a vertebrate embryo, and also demonstrate that vertebrates with this new eye would not only see better, but suffer no harmful side-effects. So here's the general method I would use for assessing whether an organ is badly designed. First, identify the genes coding for the organ in question. Second, identify a mutation in those genes that would yield a better design for the organ, and then bring about this change artificially. Third, verify that no other vital functions have been damaged in the animal, as a result of the change effected. Fourth, verify that the nature of the animal has not changed. For example, in relation to the vertebrate eye: is the animal in question still a vertebrate, after the mutation in its genes has been implemented? This is not what evolutionists typically do when they critique the design of organs. Even if a cephalopod eye had better visual acuity than a vertebrate eye, we'd still have to show that such an eye was compatible with a vertebrate body plan, and that the genes which control the development of the vertebrate eye could be artificially engineered to code for a cephalopod eye, without adversely affecting the vertebrate in any other way.vjtorley_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: MF's tactic of ignoring what I( have posted allows him to pretend that Joseph's remarks are all that need to be answered. It is this rhetorical tactic that has been a key component of his evasion of the relevant positive case that he has refused to answer for many, many months, indeed years as I recall. So, observe that -- as was pointed to in 11 -- he plainly has no answer on the merits to the points both Joseph and the undersigned have raised; which in fact are not just our points but points generally raised by design thinkers. MF, sadly, is setting up and knocking over a convenient strawman. It is more than time that those who object to the design inference were at least able to accurately and fairly summarise it and its basis. (And, if objectors are consistently setting up a strawman version to knock over [as we are seeing yet again], that, too, is revealing on their want of a case on the actual merits.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

"Cephalopods are acquatic, which I expect is a rather important factor in eye design" Uhmm, yeah, so are all the aquatic vertebrates... "Also, how are cephalopods at reading and distinguishing fine details at a distance?" Their abilities of distinguishing fine details at a distance seem to be quite astonishing. A crucial ability for high-speed predators. "the amazing design benefits allowed by the creation of a blind spot" and what are those amazing design benefits again?molch_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

In fact, I can argue like an evolutionist but from the other side: "No random process would have been able to achieve the amazing design benefits allowed by the creation of a blind spot... this is evidence of a designer".SCheesman_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

markf
The cephalopods seem to manage OK.
Cephalopods are acquatic, which I expect is a rather important factor in eye design. Also, how are cephalopods at reading and distinguishing fine details at a distance? What is the dynamic range of light levels under which they operate? In other words, cephalopod eyes are wonderful for cephalopods, and, again, though I can't prove this, I expect they can get away without a great number of things which we find quite useful, and indeed essential here on dry land, faced with the range of optical challenges we face. And, to turn it around once again, why did evolution leave the blind spot? The argument works both ways.SCheesman_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

This is only a problem for ID (if you believe the designer to be omnipotent and in favour of the organism’s long and productive life). What part of ID touches on the omnipotence, or even identity, of the designer? And why would any designer, omnipotent or not, be limited to a single desired outcome? There seems to be no problem for ID here. Some potential problem with a theodicy, but then a theodicy has its own tools to answer those problems with. How do you personally determine design or its lack?nullasalus_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

#9 Joseph If none can be found AND there is some specification (yes even “it looks designed” will be OK), then we infer design. OK - I will modify what I deduce from your statements. I believe you are saying that (a) life appears to be designed (b) therefore it is designed unless we can identify a non-designed explanation Is that fair?markf_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

#8 scheeseman Really? I have no way to prove this, but I would assert that the blind spot is absolutely required to optimize other, more important things, and any eye without a blind spot would be demonstrably inferior in far more important ways. The cephalopods seem to manage OK. Also, if the eye is a product of evolution, and the blind spot is so disadvantageous, why hasn’t it been eliminated simply on those grounds? Because evolutionary theory only requires that an organism be good enough to survive in its environment. It is not part of any evolutionary theory that an organism be as efficient as could be conceived. This is only a problem for ID (if you believe the designer to be omnipotent and in favour of the organism's long and productive life).markf_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

[Re . . . ] MF:
So the evidence for design is just the lack of a non-design alternative?
Yet once again -- it is astonishing how inistently this "ID is a negative argument" strawman is played. FYI, MF, as you have been repeatedly advised, we routinely -- and characteristically, even only -- observe that certain phenomena only occur as caused by intelligences, when we see them being formed. For classic instance, digitally coded, functionally specific, complex information, the stuff of billions of Internet documents, and a similar base of computer code and books in libraries, etc etc. We also have a configuration space analysis that tells us that once we see say 1,000 bits of info storage capacity, we are talking about 1.07*10^301 configs, in an observed cosmos that can at most scan 10^150 quantum states in its lifetime, 50 mn times the time since the general date for the singularity. So, the cosmos could not carry out a credible search of the space, i.e a cosmic scope search rounds down comfortably to zero scope. That means islands of function for coded, specific function will be deeply isolated in the space. So, a random walk from an arbitrary -- uninformed -- initial condition that is blind to proximity of shored of function will not be a credible means to get to islands of function. We need oracles, maps, beacons, signs, rules of thumb etc to narrow down the scope of search. Such things, invariably, come from intelligence, in our observation. In short, we have a consistent set of observations on the contrasting capacity of blind chance and mechanical necessity on the one hand, and art on the other. We also have an analysis that makes sense of the observation. We therefore have every good reason to see that dFSCI etc are reliable signs of intentionally and intelligently directed configuration, aka design. To overthrow this, all you need to do is produce an empirically and credibly observed case where blind chance and mechanical necessity produce a case of dFSCI etc, without intelligent intervention in the foreground or behind the scenes. If you continue to repeat long since corrected saws like the above, or other irrelevancies, that is a sign that you have no sound answer on the merits. But of course that is routinely shown by your longstanding refusal to engage this on the merits. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

About that "blind spot"- having two eyes takes care of that...Joseph_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

markf:
So the evidence for design is just the lack of a non-design alternative?
No, that does not follow from what I said. Part of testing for intentional design is eliminating alternatives- parsimony- as in the minimum required to account for X. So demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for X there isn't any requirement for a designer/ agency involvement. If none can be found AND there is some specification (yes even "it looks designed" will be OK), then we infer design. 1 step to falsify the inference and 2 steps to make the inference.Joseph_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

How is the “backwards eye” working out for you?
markf:
OK. But would be better without the blind spot.
Really? I have no way to prove this, but I would assert that the blind spot is absolutely required to optimize other, more important things, and any eye without a blind spot would be demonstrably inferior in far more important ways. Also, if the eye is a product of evolution, and the blind spot is so disadvantageous, why hasn't it been eliminated simply on those grounds? I would return to the fact that it is an important result of optimization, and that argument works no matter which side of this fence you sit on.SCheesman_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

#5 scheesman I don’t see any defense of ID above in any case, just the rejection that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a bad one. I wasn't sure if vj's comment was intended as a defence of ID or just a piece of biological interest. That is why I asked. How is the “backwards eye” working out for you? OK. But would be better without the blind spot. #6 Joseph The way to falsify/ refute/ disprove Intelligent Design is via parsimony, ie remove the requirement for a designer by demonstrating that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it (whatever is being investigated). So the evidence for design is just the lack of a non-design alternative?markf_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

markf, The way to falsify/ refute/ disprove Intelligent Design is via parsimony, ie remove the requirement for a designer by demonstrating that blind, undirected (chemical) processes can account for it (whatever is being investigated).Joseph_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

markf
Does this mean you would accept examples of bad design as disprove of the ID hypothesis?
Good design or bad design are both design, and both indicate intelligence. This is more a theological question. I don't see any defense of ID above in any case, just the rejection that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a bad one. How is the "backwards eye" working out for you?SCheesman_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

vj You have gone to considerable lengths to defend ID by trying to show that the laryngeal nerve is well designed. Does this mean you would accept examples of bad design as disprove of the ID hypothesis?markf_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

I'd like to contest the claim that an Intelligent Designer would not route wiring from the giraffe’s larynx around its aorta, on empirical grounds. If the laryngeal nerve were just involved in controlling the larynx, then Dawkins might have a good point in his criticism of Intelligent Design. The laryngeal nerve comes down from the brain and loops around the arteries near the heart and then goes back up to the larynx. In the giraffe, this seems like particularly bad design. However, the laryngeal nerve actually has several branches all along its length that go to the heart, esophagus, trachea, and thyroid gland. Thus it is involved in a whole system of control of various related organs. It would be very unintelligent to have a single nerve, controlling only the larynx. It would be more intelligent to have it control a lot of related systems all along its length (see this article .) Hence the laryngeal nerve, far from being a problem for intelligent design, actually vindicates it. Creationist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati makes the same point in a recent article entitled, Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve , and adds that its position may have something to do with the development of the animal as an embryo:
Dawkins considers only its main destination, the larynx. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route. Even apart from this function, there are features that are the result of embryonic development - not because of evolution, but because the embryo develops from a single cell in a certain order. For example, the embryo needs a functioning simple heart early on; this later descends to its position in the chest, dragging the nerve bundle with it.
This is a fruitful Intelligent Design hypothesis, and a falsifiable one. If it is wrong, we should know soon enough. Finally, a recent article by Dr. Jerry Bergman, entitled "Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design" (see http://www.icr.org/article/5512/ ), in Acts & Facts 39 (8): 12-14, concludes:
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.
vjtorley_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

There is a nice discussion of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes in this evolutionnews.org post.Granville Sewell_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

From an engineering standpoint what is more efficient than bacteria? If survivability is the goal of biology why did bacteria evolve? Or maybe the accidentalists feel we are all evolving towards bacteria.tribune7_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

One thing evolutionists agree on is that their theory is also a scientific fact.
Oh - I'm not an evolutionist then. For me, a "scientific fact" would be a true observational claim. But evolutionary theory is a more complex beast - it is a whole framework of theories, observations and their interpretations.Heinrich_{December 28, 2010
December
12
Dec
28
28
2010
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply