6 ms·

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

by 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.
wbhart 15y ago
The recurrent laryngeal nerve actually gives off several filaments to part of the cardiac plexus. On its way up it gives off fibres to the mucous membrane and muscular coating of the esophagus and similarly for the trachea, and then some pharyngeal filaments before reaching most of the laryngeal muscles (See Gray's Anatomy 1980). During development the nerve elongates as the heart is forced down from the neck region into the thoracic cavity due to formation of structures in between. The RLN is surrounded by an unusual amount of connective tissue and actually supports the ductus arteriosis during development (the arterial duct that bypasses the baby's lungs during fetal development). It has also been argued that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is actually less prone to damage by following the "groove" that it follows. What is known is that the two sets of laryngeal nerves are responsible for innervating different vocal characteristics. In effect, the proposed route of the design critics already exists. But the RLN exists anyway, providing, in the case of the larynx, a somewhat "redundant" backup, after performing other more obvious functions. As is well-known, the body is full of "redundant" backups, e.g. if a given artery is cut, blood can often still reach the intended destination through secondary backup routes. Stimulation of the vagus nerve, off which the RLN branches, is known to lower heart rate and blood pressure. This can occur as a result of emotional stress. At this time, not enough is known about either the innervation of the larynx or the sympathetic interplay between the organs that the RLN innervates to be certain of any conclusions. Multiple possibilities remain: (i) there is a function (possibly sympathetic) which is not yet understood, (ii) developmental considerations impose restrictions on possible trajectories, (iii) the nerve follows a very different route to that of the superior laryngeal nerve to provide additional protection not available in a more direct and developmentally viable route, (iv) it's bad design, (v) it's merely an artifact of unguided evolution, (vi) something we didn't think of. What I was complaining about is that the article basically ignored all of this and presented a highly simplified argument. Even the first diagram gives the impression that the nerve comes down from the brain in a single sealed bundle like a pipe, loops around the aorta, then heads straight for the larynx without interruption. This is misleading at best. It is coincidentally the case that there is a great deal of variation in the course of the nerve from individual to individual. There are some hard constraints, and other things that are not constrained at all. As with any complex interacting system, understanding the precise constraints in this particular biological feature is a challenging scientific problem. To simply assume "evolution did it" without careful investigation is moribund science. The original argument of the article was made in published literature at least as early as 2001 (Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, Kelly C. Smith) and has been recycled very often since then. It is not the only example of supposed poor design in the body of mammals, some of which are now understood to have very important functions, which may be either viewed as evidence of good design or of elements that have been preserved by evolution for a reason.

by wbhart 15y ago

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.

wbhart 15y ago

The recurrent laryngeal nerve actually gives off several filaments to part of the cardiac plexus. On its way up it gives off fibres to the mucous membrane and muscular coating of the esophagus and similarly for the trachea, and then some pharyngeal filaments before reaching most of the laryngeal muscles (See Gray's Anatomy 1980). During development the nerve elongates as the heart is forced down from the neck region into the thoracic cavity due to formation of structures in between. The RLN is surrounded by an unusual amount of connective tissue and actually supports the ductus arteriosis during development (the arterial duct that bypasses the baby's lungs during fetal development). It has also been argued that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is actually less prone to damage by following the "groove" that it follows. What is known is that the two sets of laryngeal nerves are responsible for innervating different vocal characteristics. In effect, the proposed route of the design critics already exists. But the RLN exists anyway, providing, in the case of the larynx, a somewhat "redundant" backup, after performing other more obvious functions. As is well-known, the body is full of "redundant" backups, e.g. if a given artery is cut, blood can often still reach the intended destination through secondary backup routes. Stimulation of the vagus nerve, off which the RLN branches, is known to lower heart rate and blood pressure. This can occur as a result of emotional stress. At this time, not enough is known about either the innervation of the larynx or the sympathetic interplay between the organs that the RLN innervates to be certain of any conclusions. Multiple possibilities remain: (i) there is a function (possibly sympathetic) which is not yet understood, (ii) developmental considerations impose restrictions on possible trajectories, (iii) the nerve follows a very different route to that of the superior laryngeal nerve to provide additional protection not available in a more direct and developmentally viable route, (iv) it's bad design, (v) it's merely an artifact of unguided evolution, (vi) something we didn't think of. What I was complaining about is that the article basically ignored all of this and presented a highly simplified argument. Even the first diagram gives the impression that the nerve comes down from the brain in a single sealed bundle like a pipe, loops around the aorta, then heads straight for the larynx without interruption. This is misleading at best. It is coincidentally the case that there is a great deal of variation in the course of the nerve from individual to individual. There are some hard constraints, and other things that are not constrained at all. As with any complex interacting system, understanding the precise constraints in this particular biological feature is a challenging scientific problem. To simply assume "evolution did it" without careful investigation is moribund science. The original argument of the article was made in published literature at least as early as 2001 (Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, Kelly C. Smith) and has been recycled very often since then. It is not the only example of supposed poor design in the body of mammals, some of which are now understood to have very important functions, which may be either viewed as evidence of good design or of elements that have been preserved by evolution for a reason.