• From a science and engineering perspective, 'faith', or a desire that something be true [oversight], does not enter the picture. Only the data, and my interpretations, subject to revision.

• Magic man in the sky? Get serious ... ;~)

• My current view of 'design' is in regard to biological evolution only, not Cosmic formations, and not from a Biblical perspective. Nor do I consider the 'atom level up' to be explanatory. Yes, the Cosmos has progressed, likely on its own, but I view intelligence to be the instrumental cause of biologic progressions, however lengthy. And not just 'one' inteligentsia, but likely many.

"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.

I know, a cheap argumentative shot. I seldom cite others to prove a point, unless I first state facts, then give a link for collaboration.

I also apologize for jumping from an argument is support of the RLN to arguments in support of ID (par. 3 - 7), two related, but separate issues.

Regarding Kirk Cameron's banana fervor, I somewhat agree. I see design inferences where most others don't, including various synergistic relationships which are generally attributed to convergent evolution, but which I sometimes attribute to design, or in the case of change over time, re-design.

Most speciation events are simply naturally occurring adaptive alterations, to adapt to a changing environment. But more radical body-plan revisions, land mammal to aquatic cetacean for example, show signs of designer input, much of which could have been 'cut-and-try', rather than 'poof' style modifications. Thus, the uncovering of intermediates, and the lengthy time periods involved.

The redactions were by admin in one fell swoop.

My comments regarding ID are available online, but not on certain websites. If you're curious as to my views, simply search my name and any key word regarding ID or evolution.

Cheers ...

If censorship is the best you can come up with, then Discuss is plainly a misnomer. Bye bye ...

MDT, or 'multi-designer theory'

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.

[video url redacted]. OK, just Google 'giraffes fighting' to see good design in action!

They apparently didn't know that that nerve innervates the heart and other chest organs. From Gray's Anatomy:

"As the RL nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor."

And as the lady is separating the nerve from the chest area, she is actually cutting those nerve innervations. Oh, and one more thing. The long nerve does NOTHING to weaken the neck, or the animal itself, as is seen in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HCIGFdBt8