leebowman
Member Profile
Member Since: August 19, 2014
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1 Get More Power Points Now!
Comments to leebowman
- 1
Member Since: August 19, 2014
Last Power Points used: never
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1 Get More Power Points Now!
10 Comments
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 8 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 7 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 6 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 5 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
siftbotHappy anniversary! Today marks year number 1 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!
worthwordsIf 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.
If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion. This way, the slack (and bundling) adds protection to individual nerves. And again, it works just fine, in ALL mammals.
Let's coin a new term. How about 'stress relief'?
Another point. The heart is functional before it descends into an expanding chest cavity, taking ancillary nerves along for the ride.
And lastly, the evidence points to incremental phenotypic alterations along with some jumps here and there. The first is indicative of environmental adaptations, with possible genetic manipulations [ID] on occasion.
In fact, we ourselves are on the cusp of being able to alter phenotypic outcomes, by PCR, electrophoresis, and subsequent spicing to alter structures and codes. For our progress at this point, search 'genetic engineering'.
While not proof of prior gene altering to alter phenotypes, it is at least evidence that it can be done, while at this juncture, no substantiating evidence exists for random mutations, HGT, and genetic drift to radically alter body plans. Just for minor quantitative adaptive alterations [pigmentation, bone density, fur and hair content, metabolism rates, and yes, cephalic index, essentially brain size increases].
IOW, the evidence clearly points to both microevolution, a likely 'designed-in' function to aid in survival, as well as ID for radical re-designs, possibly by multiple intelligentsia over vast time. Google MDT for more on that possibility.
lucky760Hi leebowman- As I just commented, you weren't being censored, nor will you ever be on VideoSift.
We have tons of automated measures in place to combat our never-ending influx of spam, and unfortunately you got caught in our net. (That's also why, as you noticed, your first comment's URL was automatically redacted.)
Please don't feel as if you aren't allowed to have a dissenting voice here. One of VideoSift's most treasured assets is its quality debates between intelligent people.
Welcome to VideoSift!
Send leebowman a Comment...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.