"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.

No arguments there on the good at math idea not being funny... I never suggested such an option. What would have been good funny alternative bits for Colbert to have done could be a separate conversation I think (good satire punches up, etc).
I appreciate your personal note. It indeed jives with what one of my Asian American friends told me- they don't find particularly offensive either. This friend also mentioned that their experience is not equal to every Asian American experience though. For others, it seems that it stings quite significantly. So I don't think this is case closed.

The question I posed with my analogy still stands -- while this is not true for yourself or my friend, for some people of Asian descent, "the Ching Ching ding dong foundation for cultural sensitivity" might be offensive on a level similar to how it would have been for Blacks if he had used "The cotton-picking nigger foundation for cultural sensitivity". How many? Maybe that number is at 10%. Maybe that number is at .1%. Maybe that number is at 50%. I have no idea. How do we as a society figure whether that is the case? I think we do it by having a big old dialog where a lot of people of Asian descent are involved.

Instead what I see is a whole lot of posturing, sabre-rattling, and band wagon jumping from people that are not of Asian decent and therefore have no personal experience with this particular form of racism to bring to bear on the matter. Those people should be primarily listening and asking questions, not posturing and sabre-rattling.

As a Canadian of Asian descent, I just want to back up Colbert, here. If satire is "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues," then I think he knocked this one out of the park. A lot of folks don't see "Redskins" as an offensive term because they grew up with it being everywhere; exaggerating and applying the same idea to the Asian population really highlights how ridiculous the name of this foundation is, but only because Western culture has only just recently started to agree that phrases like "Ching chong ding dong", "orientals" (unless you're Rob Ford), "gook", "slant", "chink", etc, are actually really offensive. If a pro sports team came up with the name "Vancouver Chinamen" or "Detroit Negroes" today (coupled with stereotypical logos) there would be a massive and immediate outrage. The only reason the Redskins have gotten away with their name is that the team was named long enough ago that the racial slur was widely acceptable to the non-First Nations public.

And really, this parallels racial awareness in North America; although racism is still very much a thing for people of all races, the First Nations population is still being outstandingly and horribly marginalized with very little support or attention being paid to them or their (still appallingly denied) rights. Here in Canada (in which we boast great racial and cultural diversity, the "cultural mixed salad" vs the US "melting pot"), we still haven't done anything to amend the fact that when we got here we took brutal advantage of a trusting and helpful culture, booted them out to the worst parts of the country and stranded them there.

Yes...because if we don't agree with the angry anti-Obama right wing BS we MUST by definition be brain dead leftists wishing we had an American Che' to take us into socialism.
I am so sick of that insanity, born from 'if you're not with us you're against us' mentality fostered by the right and clearly stated repeatedly by their leaders. Because many free thinkers see the right spouting BS and vitriol constantly and call it out does not make them leftists as you would like to claim.
That's a simple minded ploy to allow one to ignore any descent from a narrow minded argument that can't stand up to real scrutiny. At least, that's how it looks from here.

I'm in the back seat with no air circulation, and I'll get sick almost immediately. Front seat in the same situation, and it takes several minutes. Driving, and I can go for an hour or so.

Open a window and things change. I can probably read a book in the back seat for 30 min, but if I need to change focus to horizon-book-horizon, I'll get sick faster. Same with interior-exterior-interior.. I've only ever been sick from video games once when I first played Descent, and with the invention of "Mask poor action scene with wobbly camera", I have felt a few small familiar headaches.

Yeah, the speed of descent looked way too fast (didn't see any visuals for time compression), but I'm sure that unless he's going to do a Star Trek-ish "tech" explanation for the ships characteristics, they'll get a polish at some point to be slightly more realistic.

The planet/atmosphere etc look and feel though were f#cking fantastic. I've wanted a game where you could fly out of space and get out on the ground seamlessly for years, and this looks like it's brining it a whole lot closer. =D

Whether you accept it as an explanation or not, it's an undeniable fact that a common design indicates a common designer. When you see something like this in nature you don't make the inference because of your belief in evolution from universal common descent, but it is a valid inference to make. You explain it with convergent evolution, but it can also indicate a common designer.

Dude, don't forget Kali.net. Others and I played Descent, C&C, etc. with it.

+1. Descent is awesome. Been working through it with my friends.

Big fan of Descent. Unfortunately, most of my friends are into sissy "everybody wins" shit like Cards Against Humanity. If nobody is left sobbing at the end, it's not a real game!

You want a workout? Have them play Amnesia: Dark Descent.

Take away that gun, they won't need it. Alone. In the dark.

That was pretty amazing.

@tomspeed Hawaii is a lot like that as well. It's especially valuable there since something like 90% of hawaiian inhabitants aren't of hawaiian descent (a mix of American, Asian and South-Pacific Islanders), but their culture is kept alive by tradition and respect for their history.
I love culture. I have to go research this now because I don't know anything about it, but I should would have appreciated it if it were part of my youth.

Um, they did NOT catch her. But it looks like they slowed her descent enough to prevent fatal injury.

YouTube description:

According to the pilot-in-command (PIC), he was performing autorotations at the lower part of the main rotor rpm green arc in part due to weight considerations. Upon entering the accident autorotation, he maintained an airspeed between 85-90 knots in the hope that extra speed would allow a more aggressive deceleration flare prior to touchdown, which should in turn further slow the rate of descent and forward speed. The helicopter's rate of descent was high, and as the PIC turned the helicopter onto the runway heading it was apparent to him that the rate of descent was excessive and that he was too low to execute either a proper deceleration flare or perform a power recovery. He attempted to level the helicopter as much as possible prior to impact to minimize the damage to the helicopter and prevent injury. The helicopter landed hard with the left skid contacting the runway first. The left skid collapsed, damaging the outboard landing gear damper attachment structure. The helicopter slid about 100 yards before coming to a stop. According to the manufacturer, the main rotor rpm range is 90 percent to 106.4 percent. At the helicopter's weight and the density altitude on the day of the accident, the main rotor rpm during the autorotation should have been above the 106.4 percent limit (red line), requiring the pilot to increase collective pitch to maintain the rotor rpm within limits. Performing autorotations at the lower part of the green arc provides less availability of rotor energy to perform an autorotation landing. The pilot should have recognized that he was not achieving the required main rotor rpm for the autorotations and terminated the maneuvers. The helicopter was within weight and balance limits.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's failure to maintain adequate main rotor rpm during an autorotation, which resulted in a hard landing.

Happy birthday, Jason! It's the big one!

May all your birthday wishes come true as your start your descent down the other side of the hill!