Diving 3d giraffes / 18+ ft C Powers / BITCH (2013) has been added as a related post - related requested by blackfox42 on that post.

Giraffes At The POOL! has been added as a related post - related requested by blackfox42.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Zawash.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Giraffes-At-The-POOL

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Cheers for the quick promote. You're one step closer to being a giraffe to me (mostly for the high puns, though).

You mean like these comments, right?

http://videosift.com/video/Streetfighter-Red-Tape-Chun-Li#comment-1743938
http://videosift.com/video/18-Month-Old-Healthy-Giraffe-Publicly-Killed-and-Dismembered#comment-1733042
http://videosift.com/talk/Friendsonloc-A-video-and-photo-sharing-platform-for-friends#comment-1719996
http://videosift.com/video/The-daguerreotype-process-is-beautiful#comment-1628859

I personally think they're fine!

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Grimm.

"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.

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!

Maybe the designer programmed the language of life in more simpler means than "perfect engineering". Does fucking Dawkins know how to create all of the necessary tools for evolution of a giraffe? I think not. He assumes a lot and he knows nothing. Theoretically, if we are living in some sort of programmed Universe that is somewhat randomized then the actual programming might be for self-replication and change in the simplest means in evolution over time... why would the program pull it all back for a re-drafting to make a current iteration, perfect? It doesn't appear to me that the "magic" of life is into re-drafting for perfection. That is something we have to figure out ourselves... I guess that's the whole trans-humanist sort of thing.

Science is science. No need to try and prove God or whatever does not exist, or is not an "intelligent designer" or "engineer"... focus on the Science! I really do not like Dawkins and I rarely say that about anyone.

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. In humans the course of the left recurrent nerve is a minor curiosity but when you make the vertebra that much taller and add another 6 feet of nerves going back up the neck then it supports the idea that giraffes and ourselves are from a common mammalian or even more distant species. Clearly the existence of the recurrent laryngeal nerve doesn't seem to cause a discernible weakness that's susceptible to being selected against, however it is ODD because if there are any arguments for supporting the course of the nerve for structural reasons then you would have to ask why are none of the other important structure of the neck supplied recurrently.

As someone who has done plenty of human dissection. I've seen enormous variation in structure. The anatomy books are a general map but by no means applicable to individuals. The coronary arteries of the heart and the cerebral arterial flow of the circle of willis are examples of anatomy that's well illustrated in idealised form but seldom matches up to the textbook on an angiogram.

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.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by xxovercastxx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Demonstrates-Laryngeal-Nerve-of-the-Giraffe