worthwords

Member Profile


Member Since: October 9, 2012
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to worthwords

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 5 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on I would not want to be the neighbor but how cool is this has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Unexpected End of Fight Between Octopus and Crab has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Apple Ad Is Touching has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Westworld: Teaser Trailer (HBO) has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Sex Ed teacher gets around no condom demo law has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

siftbot says...

Happy belated anniversary! Due to a glitch in the Matrix, we forgot to mark year number 2 since you first became a Sifter. The community wouldn\'t be the same without you. Thanks for your contributions!


worthwords says...

For what it's worth I think Dawkin's statement 'no engineer would ever design that' is misguided as anyone who has hacked some software to meet a deadline will know or someone how has used duct tape to temporarily fix a leaky pipe so a building can open on time (but forget to fix it months later) will also know that compromises in design are the norm. there is never a perfect piece of engineering as we are human and don't live in a vacuum.

leebowman said:

"If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion"

"That doesn't make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide."

Correct. My point was only that a shorter route might not be beneficial, even though the right inferior laryngeal nerve goes directly to the larynx. After rethinking that statement, I retract [or redact] it. Either way would work.

Stress relief, however, is in place due to nerve bundling. I haven't done any dissections myself [yet], but from the video, it is apparent that the RLN in the giraffe's neck was well secured in its pathway to the larynx, requiring scalpel separation, rather than hanging loose, and thus well protected from damage due to shock.

I have read where descending aortal repairs in the upper section [arch] can cause damage to the RLN, resulting in subsequent hoarseness to the patient, and I can see why. This is just something that surgeons have to deal with.

But the argument that "no designer would ever make a mistake like that" makes an unfounded assumption, that IF there was a designer involved, that it could/would have been done differently. Dawkins' view of design implementation assumes a bottom up, de novo approach, which is not what ID proposes, at least from my perspective. I view ID as incremental gene tweaking to modify existent physiologies, at least subsequent to the Cambrian era.

"Imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me."

Complex integrated designs like mammalian anatomy will always be subject to imperfections, failures, and can be improved upon. As far as how designs were implemented, the evidence is that they were incremental, and may have varied as to the source, and the methodologies.

Earlier complex designs may have been 'de novo', compound eyes for example, but in later eras, modifications appear to be modifications of what's there. Thus, it's entirely possible that design implementations may have been from various sources, and using various techniques.

But back to the question of 'bad design' as a refutation of design, I do not see the RLN as an indication of that, just a progression from earlier mammalian forms, as well as a necessary result of the descent of a functional heart as the embryo develops. Same for the male vas deferens.

leebowman says...

"If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion"

"That doesn't make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide."

Correct. My point was only that a shorter route might not be beneficial, even though the right inferior laryngeal nerve goes directly to the larynx. After rethinking that statement, I retract [or redact] it. Either way would work.

Stress relief, however, is in place due to nerve bundling. I haven't done any dissections myself [yet], but from the video, it is apparent that the RLN in the giraffe's neck was well secured in its pathway to the larynx, requiring scalpel separation, rather than hanging loose, and thus well protected from damage due to shock.

I have read where descending aortal repairs in the upper section [arch] can cause damage to the RLN, resulting in subsequent hoarseness to the patient, and I can see why. This is just something that surgeons have to deal with.

But the argument that "no designer would ever make a mistake like that" makes an unfounded assumption, that IF there was a designer involved, that it could/would have been done differently. Dawkins' view of design implementation assumes a bottom up, de novo approach, which is not what ID proposes, at least from my perspective. I view ID as incremental gene tweaking to modify existent physiologies, at least subsequent to the Cambrian era.

"Imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me."

Complex integrated designs like mammalian anatomy will always be subject to imperfections, failures, and can be improved upon. As far as how designs were implemented, the evidence is that they were incremental, and may have varied as to the source, and the methodologies.

Earlier complex designs may have been 'de novo', compound eyes for example, but in later eras, modifications appear to be modifications of what's there. Thus, it's entirely possible that design implementations may have been from various sources, and using various techniques.

But back to the question of 'bad design' as a refutation of design, I do not see the RLN as an indication of that, just a progression from earlier mammalian forms, as well as a necessary result of the descent of a functional heart as the embryo develops. Same for the male vas deferens.

shinyblurry says...

Why would the acknowledgement of a designer be a depressing dismissal of the human spirit? Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived, like Johannes Kepler and Issac Newton, said their search for truth through the scientific method was enhanced by their faith in a Creator. Check out some of these quotes:

http://www.newlife.org/node/362

If you came to a beach and you found the message "Drink Coke" drawn out in the sand, would you assume that this was the product of wind, waves, and erosion? It would be obvious to you that it was the product not of natural processes, but a mind. The message in the sand doesn't contain information, it is information. It has a semiotic meaning, and the information in DNA is no different than that. You can derive information from natural processes but the information in DNA is organized for a purpose. It is a genetic language with features that far outstrip anything even our finest minds have developed.

I would also add that the truth does not care for our personal preference. We need to follow the evidence where ever it leads, and if it leads somewhere we don't like, we need to adjust our way of thinking. To do otherwise would only be to deceive yourself.

worthwords said:

If the best theory is a designer and we give up and go home then that's the most depressing dismissal of the human spirit ever.because it's simply not possible to consider that the diversity of life arose from an imperfect copying.
When the wind blows across a beach it leaves information about the direction and force in the rearrangement of billions of unrelated sand particles. Information is ubiquitous.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Top Comments