You first.
What article or quote are you talking about? This nerve INNERVATES the larynx.
I will repeat the quote here, which I have already posted above:
The well-known textbook Gray’s Anatomy states:
“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off 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 esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”6
Dawkins considers only its main destination, the larynx. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route.
Well… FIRSTLY … I DO encourage monastic forms of devotion.
Secondly, anyone who does not slavishly interpret the Biblical texts literally, doesn’t have a problem with the “give all your money to The Poor” texts - - they can treat it just the way Evangelicals treat those texts (by ignoring it).
George
Nothing wrong with giving your money to the poor, or sharing with others. I do not object to communal living, etc. But clearly scripture does not demand it; even Peter indicated to Annanias and Sapphira that they did not have to give everything to the church community but could have kept some. Their sin was lying about it.
Christians do not ignore this text. They realize that everything they have belongs to God, and that even their tithing is only returning a small portion of God’s gifts to them. And that the rest must also be used in a way of honor and obedience to God. And that sometimes divesting oneself of all material goods is a specific calling for some people.
Interesting how the topic of the flagella motor and its complexity cannot be dealt with in isolation. Perhaps the diversion of “literality” highlights the unwillingness of evolutionists to confront the actual scientific details and facts of the difficulties of the evolution of such a motor without specific direction and planning and purpose by a divine creator. Speculation in generalities abounds, but where is the math and statistical analysis for the evolution of such a motor in the context of non-selection?
John, it seems to me that you are writing the Bible into your own thing.
You are offering a rationalization … the Catholic Church does a much better job of accepting that text that virtually any Evangelical denomination that I know about.
George
It seems like every time a topic was “dealt with in isolation” it was you who withdrew from the conversation without putting up the references to back up your so called “scientific” analysis of the data - see for example here and here. So why should anyone go through the trouble of digging up the references and going over things only to find that it leads nowhere because you don’t follow the analyses to their logical conclusion?
The specific two examples I mentioned though, did come to a stop at a point that is not how you were recollecting it.
On the Lazarus bacteria, we had agreed (or so it seemed) that it cannot be used to date anything, and thus the claim #2 at creation.com was incorrect because they were using the “age” of the bacteria to make claims about the age of the salt. Now it seems like there’s a new point that “bacteria could not live that long” but I suspect that a reference supporting that is not immediately forthcoming.
On the mysterious presence of C14 in old samples (and sure, we can say 100,000 years to be far from the limits of the method), my point was that the instrument should be measuring a value of zero (no C14) and that thus any type of noise or interference would make it seem like a non-zero value and yield the “surprise” of “finding” C14 where there should be none. My request was for a publication showing that C14 was found in such old samples even after making sure that it was a statistically significant measurement (i.e., using technical replicates and appropriate models for background noise and interference).
At the risk of being diverted once again, since this has nothing to do with flagella, I will give a brief response. It would be impossible I think to create an experiment that could verify the potential survival of halophilitic bacteria in a salt inclusion for thousands, much less millions of years. The argument made for survival of organisms is made by inference. The research seems to indicate survival of halophilic bacteria in salt water which is saturated, but of course a salt inclusion is not the same thing as a saturated salt solution.
So the survival of bacteria in salt is similar to the survival of dna or collagen or keratin for 60 or 250 million years, taking into account the expected deterioration and degradation of organic material into simple carbon compounds and mineral elements. If an experiment could demonstrate growth and multiplication of these bacteria in salt inclusions, in absence of air, light, and water, then that might demonstrate the potential for bacterial strains to survive in these locations, not by just surviving in a dormant state, but by maintaining a growth rate. But the assumption for survival of a dormant state for that long, is not really testable, and would be deemed not credible.
As far as C14 is concerned, methods have changed, and the old methods could not detect levels which would place them at 100,000 yrs, while new methods can. The argument for background levels apparently does not take into consideration that the equipment registers zero C14 when there is a blank sample… which would be the control against which other samples are measured. So the argument for background levels in everything measured is a circular argument. It is not enough to say that there is a back ground level higher than blank samples; the cause of this so-called background level must be verified. So it is you who must provide the evidence for this. You say that the instrument should be showing zero, but this is based on your assumptions. I agree it should be showing zero under your assumptions, but the issue is whether your assumptions are correct, since the equipment does not show a zero level for these compounds and materials which are thought to be millions of years old.
But using a discussion of C14 and salt inclusions as an excuse for diverting from the topic of flagella (which I am just as guilty of), is no excuse. The question is still:
George, to understand any single text, it must be put in context of its chapter, and must fall into an overall context that deals with similar or opposing texts. This is not rationalization, but contextualization, and understanding scripture in the context of scripture. To let scripture interpret scripture. To discover the balance or direction or implication that is substantiated throughout scripture. Not to fixate on one text or passage while ignoring others that speak to the same issue.
Very poetic paragraph, my dear Sir.
But until I start hearing about an increased tendency of Evangelicals to join lay orders, and follow Jesus, I have to conclude that your paragraph is not responsive to the questions I have raised.
Give your money to the poor … and follow Jesus is not a recommendation you can readily ignore if you believe in the literal interpretation of scripture.
I salute the Catholic and Orthodox denominations … who have made lay orders a living part of human faith and devotion.
George
Did you copy this from a creationist web site? Do you have a year/edition number and page number?
Indeed, hints of important functions for the RLN nerve can be seen in the old authority, Gray’s Anatomy, which states regarding the normal human design:
As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off 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 esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.
So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx. Pro-ID biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, in his article “The Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe: Does it Prove Evolution?,” quotes a passage from a much more recent 1980 edition of Gray’s Anatomy stating much the same thing:
As the recurrent laryngeal 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 [Constrictor pharyngis inferior].
(Gray’s Anatomy, 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589)
Lönnig further states: “I have also checked several other detailed textbooks on human anatomy like Sobotta - Atlas der Anatomie des Menschen: they are all in agreement. Some also show clear figures on the topic. Pschyrembel - Germany’s most widely circulated and consulted medical dictionary (262 editions) - additionally mentions ‘Rr. … bronchiales’.”
So the RLN’s sole purpose, or as ID-critic Kelly Smith put it, its “intended function,” is not simply to innervate the larynx, as it provides innervations for the heart and even for the esophagus. And for those organs it takes a direct, or as Coyne might put it, “rational” route from the brain.
All of this this would seem to satisfy what Kelly Smith called evidence of a “global” function, which Smith admits makes “an instance of local imperfection” (i.e. the circuitous route of the RLN) more acceptable in an argument for design (See Smith’s article in the volume “Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critcis,” p. 725). So what is Smith complaining about? The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Does Not Refute Intelligent Design
But why are we diverting from a discussion of the flagella? Why do evolutionists constantly do this instead of sticking to the topic? Quit diverting and leading astray. Explain the math and statistics behind the evolutionary development of the flagellum motor of the bacteria, and how this can fit in the evolutionary timeline, under purely evolutionary paradigm, with no outside interference or guidance or purpose.
Your article is by Casey Luskin. lol!
1 Like
JohnZ, the flagella discussion is something that God believers discuss with ATHEISTS… not with BioLogos people per se. It is no surprise that there are flagella if God is involved…
George
FOLLOW-UP TO JOHN’s POST BELOW: Not going to waste a post on the answer you gave. God’s ASSISTANCE with the flagella goes exactly where you THINK it should go… as long as you accept an OLD EARTH scenario.
George, nothing is a surprise if God is involved. That is not the point. The question is: how does the development of a flagella motor fit into evolutionary timeline from the evolutionary perspective.
In other words, I am not arguing with the biolog precept that God is involved. That is not the question. The question is, what method did God use? If he used an evolutionary approach, does the development of the flagella motor fit into this approach from a strictly handsoff naturalistic evolutionary timeline perspective.
1 Like
You know, I have no idea who Casey Luskin is, and it doesn’t matter to me. The point is what Gray’s Anatomy says about the laryngeal nerve. The BS about useless organs, vestigial parts, and circuitous useless nerve routes is exactly that. Every time these things are brought up, doesn’t matter by whom, we eventually discover that what they are saying is BS, including in this case the laryngeal nerve, which serves several other functions besides innervating the larynx.
Well, the catholic church does have a very small proportion of its people living the monastic life, and, like many pastors, priests, nuns, dedicating entire life to God. But as a whole, the Hutterian Brethren do this more completely, since every member, not just a few monks, give everything to the Lord, owning nothing individually, but only utilizing their resources communally.
Very interesting @johnZ… I haven’t heard of the Hutterian Brethren!
Why don’t the baptists follow such a model ???
Here’s a link …
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.