6 ms·

I wonder what would happens if the larynx nerve cell were actually redesigned properly.

by kiba 15y ago

burgerbrain 15y ago
You could probably surgically test that. My money is on "not much" though. ;)
majmun 15y ago
Signals from brain to some part would go faster few microseconds i guess, and vice versa. And maybe few other hard to reproduce consequences. But why assume that this is bad designed in first place? We can't only by it's look conclude that it is bad design. Most of internal organs don't look nice anyway but they do the job. (they are in fact intended to look bad so average person would get upset if it see it)
dhughes 15y ago
You would have an overwhelming desire to become an Auctioneer.
BoppreH 15y ago
It seems this nerve also controls breathing, so maybe we would be less susceptible to fractures and cuts rupturing it? Could be a tiny, but measurable increase in survival chance. Edit Apparently it's also a concern during invasive surgeries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#Clinical_significance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#Clini...
wbhart 15y ago
This is an excellent point. The article is pretty badly written, and oversimplified, I think. If the argument is somehow that this is evidence of evolution (an argument that is never made in the article, but only ever implied), and therefore evidence that there is no design to life (a pretty specious argument in the first place in my opinion), then the article should at least describe how this should have been plumbed, what the consequences of that would be and why it would be better. The article does not even try to establish that there is no functional reason that it is plumbed this way in mammals. Actually, it doesn't even explain what the function of the nerve is. It is left to the reader to guess. Most importantly, the article does not try to explain why there is an evolutionary obstacle to looping the nerve around the other side of the aorta. It argues that it is "monumentally inefficient" to do it this way, something that evolution should abhor, but does not even try to explain why evolution is so constrained. It seems to me to be a science of the gaps argument. Despite the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, which is not disputed even by many atheists, they seem to be trying to argue for {insert favourite naturalistic theory of origins here} based upon personal ignorance of how a perfect designer would go about doing this. I'm not clear why this even made it to the front page of HN. It seems to have been written solely to stir up debate with people who believe in intelligent design. I think I'd prefer to stick to coding, science and technology.
- stretchwithme 15y ago
  "Despite the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, which is not disputed even by many atheists" This IS disputing that there is overwhelming appearance of design. That many atheists don't dispute it may just mean they are busy. But "many" is not all or even necessarily more than one percent. But the word is frequently used when trying to give the impression of preponderance where none may actually exist. Saying that there is no attempt to find a functional reason for the indirect path of this nerve is not the same as offering proof that there is a reason for it. If there is a reason, offer it. Can't find it? Didn't try?
  - wbhart 15y ago
    Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1} He even uses the word "overwhelming": “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.} Your attempt to get me to do your research for you is noted. The fact that I got voted down for expressing my (perfectly valid) opinion is also noted. This is why I do not like atheist/religious debates on HN. It's not the right forum for it. If I wanted my religious views attacked I'd be subscribed to talk.origins. This is a tech aggregator, not a forum for atheists and Christians to battle it out.
    - stretchwithme 15y ago
      Thanks for sharing the opinion of one person. But opinions aren't proof of anything. Stating something is not an argument. Sorry that you feel your beliefs are under attack. I was addressing the way you were describing the beliefs of others.
      - wbhart 15y ago
        It was clumsily worded, for which I apologise. What I meant to be saying is that many atheists do not dispute the appearance of design, and even some scientists who are atheists do not dispute it. I once sat with a large group of scientists at a certain institution and I heard the following words, "and no matter how much it appears things have been designed, we must resist the temptation to see design in complex systems" (statement was in the context of a discussion of complex biological systems). This became the topic of conversation, and there was broad agreement with this statement. Even if you, and many like you, do not personally believe that there is an appearance of design, that would not change the fact that it is in fact a very common position. Many atheists agree with Dawkins on this. My use of the word "many" should of course not be construed to mean "most". That was not my argument. Nor should it be construed to mean that I believe their position is that these things are designed. That should be clear from the quotation from Dawkins. Despite the fact that on this occasion I was careless with my wording, I do not, in general, use the word "many" to mean "most". I mean that it is not a position held by only a handful of individuals on the fringe. In speaking with many atheists, I conclude that it is in fact quite a common conception. Incidentally, whilst it is very much a minority opinion (here I do mean only a handful of credentialled individuals), there are atheists who do believe that many complex biological systems were intelligently designed. And I am not referring to people who believe life on earth was designed by extraterrestrials (in the little green men sense), which I feel is usually (maybe even always) not a scientific position. What is more common is academics such as myself who accept that evolution happens, but who also believe in a designer. And again, I do not mean to imply that this is any kind of majority opinion or concensus. I mean that relative to fringe technical opinions, belief in a designer is common. But I shouldn't need to qualify every single word I use, should I. So, getting back to the article, although I did not articulate it well, my point is that the article not only simplifies the science, but it grossly oversimplifies the diversity of opinion that exists not only amongst atheists and people who believe in intelligent design of some kind, but of scientists in general. To my taste, and this is nothing more than a personal opinion, I found the article to be greatly oversimplified. Moreover, as I pointed out in a post above, the argument it makes is not a new one, but a recycled one from at least ten years ago. As such, I felt that it very directly conflicted with the injunction on the HN faq to not introduce classic flamewar topics unless there is something genuinely new to say. Certainly it should be expected that there are going to be dissenting opinions when an article of this nature is presented. Again, this is only my personal opinion, but I felt that the article stuck out like a sore thumb on HN, not because it was about the design issue per se, but because of the way it attempted to deal with this controversial issue. I feel that a scientific approach to the issue would encourage a careful examination of the data and of various hypotheses on their merits. The thing that initially bothered me is that the article did not even attempt to examine why this gross inefficiency was preserved by evolution. To me this is always a clue that there is something further to be understood, and more science to be done. I am not a biologist, but I am a professional academic with a science degree. I expect more from articles such as this and am prepared to say so, and defend my opinion.

I wonder what would happens if the larynx nerve cell were actually redesigned properly.

by kiba 15y ago

I wonder what would happens if the larynx nerve cell were actually redesigned properly.

burgerbrain 15y ago

You could probably surgically test that. My money is on "not much" though. ;)

majmun 15y ago

Signals from brain to some part would go faster few microseconds i guess, and vice versa. And maybe few other hard to reproduce consequences. But why assume that this is bad designed in first place? We can't only by it's look conclude that it is bad design. Most of internal organs don't look nice anyway but they do the job. (they are in fact intended to look bad so average person would get upset if it see it)

dhughes 15y ago

You would have an overwhelming desire to become an Auctioneer.

BoppreH 15y ago

It seems this nerve also controls breathing, so maybe we would be less susceptible to fractures and cuts rupturing it? Could be a tiny, but measurable increase in survival chance. Edit Apparently it's also a concern during invasive surgeries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#Clinical_significance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#Clini...

wbhart 15y ago

This is an excellent point. The article is pretty badly written, and oversimplified, I think. If the argument is somehow that this is evidence of evolution (an argument that is never made in the article, but only ever implied), and therefore evidence that there is no design to life (a pretty specious argument in the first place in my opinion), then the article should at least describe how this should have been plumbed, what the consequences of that would be and why it would be better. The article does not even try to establish that there is no functional reason that it is plumbed this way in mammals. Actually, it doesn't even explain what the function of the nerve is. It is left to the reader to guess. Most importantly, the article does not try to explain why there is an evolutionary obstacle to looping the nerve around the other side of the aorta. It argues that it is "monumentally inefficient" to do it this way, something that evolution should abhor, but does not even try to explain why evolution is so constrained. It seems to me to be a science of the gaps argument. Despite the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, which is not disputed even by many atheists, they seem to be trying to argue for {insert favourite naturalistic theory of origins here} based upon personal ignorance of how a perfect designer would go about doing this. I'm not clear why this even made it to the front page of HN. It seems to have been written solely to stir up debate with people who believe in intelligent design. I think I'd prefer to stick to coding, science and technology.

stretchwithme 15y ago
"Despite the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, which is not disputed even by many atheists" This IS disputing that there is overwhelming appearance of design. That many atheists don't dispute it may just mean they are busy. But "many" is not all or even necessarily more than one percent. But the word is frequently used when trying to give the impression of preponderance where none may actually exist. Saying that there is no attempt to find a functional reason for the indirect path of this nerve is not the same as offering proof that there is a reason for it. If there is a reason, offer it. Can't find it? Didn't try?
- wbhart 15y ago
  Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1} He even uses the word "overwhelming": “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.} Your attempt to get me to do your research for you is noted. The fact that I got voted down for expressing my (perfectly valid) opinion is also noted. This is why I do not like atheist/religious debates on HN. It's not the right forum for it. If I wanted my religious views attacked I'd be subscribed to talk.origins. This is a tech aggregator, not a forum for atheists and Christians to battle it out.
  - stretchwithme 15y ago
    Thanks for sharing the opinion of one person. But opinions aren't proof of anything. Stating something is not an argument. Sorry that you feel your beliefs are under attack. I was addressing the way you were describing the beliefs of others.
    - wbhart 15y ago
      It was clumsily worded, for which I apologise. What I meant to be saying is that many atheists do not dispute the appearance of design, and even some scientists who are atheists do not dispute it. I once sat with a large group of scientists at a certain institution and I heard the following words, "and no matter how much it appears things have been designed, we must resist the temptation to see design in complex systems" (statement was in the context of a discussion of complex biological systems). This became the topic of conversation, and there was broad agreement with this statement. Even if you, and many like you, do not personally believe that there is an appearance of design, that would not change the fact that it is in fact a very common position. Many atheists agree with Dawkins on this. My use of the word "many" should of course not be construed to mean "most". That was not my argument. Nor should it be construed to mean that I believe their position is that these things are designed. That should be clear from the quotation from Dawkins. Despite the fact that on this occasion I was careless with my wording, I do not, in general, use the word "many" to mean "most". I mean that it is not a position held by only a handful of individuals on the fringe. In speaking with many atheists, I conclude that it is in fact quite a common conception. Incidentally, whilst it is very much a minority opinion (here I do mean only a handful of credentialled individuals), there are atheists who do believe that many complex biological systems were intelligently designed. And I am not referring to people who believe life on earth was designed by extraterrestrials (in the little green men sense), which I feel is usually (maybe even always) not a scientific position. What is more common is academics such as myself who accept that evolution happens, but who also believe in a designer. And again, I do not mean to imply that this is any kind of majority opinion or concensus. I mean that relative to fringe technical opinions, belief in a designer is common. But I shouldn't need to qualify every single word I use, should I. So, getting back to the article, although I did not articulate it well, my point is that the article not only simplifies the science, but it grossly oversimplifies the diversity of opinion that exists not only amongst atheists and people who believe in intelligent design of some kind, but of scientists in general. To my taste, and this is nothing more than a personal opinion, I found the article to be greatly oversimplified. Moreover, as I pointed out in a post above, the argument it makes is not a new one, but a recycled one from at least ten years ago. As such, I felt that it very directly conflicted with the injunction on the HN faq to not introduce classic flamewar topics unless there is something genuinely new to say. Certainly it should be expected that there are going to be dissenting opinions when an article of this nature is presented. Again, this is only my personal opinion, but I felt that the article stuck out like a sore thumb on HN, not because it was about the design issue per se, but because of the way it attempted to deal with this controversial issue. I feel that a scientific approach to the issue would encourage a careful examination of the data and of various hypotheses on their merits. The thing that initially bothered me is that the article did not even attempt to examine why this gross inefficiency was preserved by evolution. To me this is always a clue that there is something further to be understood, and more science to be done. I am not a biologist, but I am a professional academic with a science degree. I expect more from articles such as this and am prepared to say so, and defend my opinion.