Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve is Poor Design Debunked



So, I got into an argument with a serious evolutionist who believed that the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in giraffes and humans is unnecessarily long and is poorly designed and so no creator would have designed it in such a way.


And I just wanted to say that a lot of these false notions about the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve being evidence for poor design and therefore evidence for evolution, are the result of a lack of actual understanding of how the SLN and RLN function and its intended purpose in humans and giraffes which doesn't show evolution being a factor whatsoever in reality. The RLN doesn't just innervate the Larynx and go in a weird direction to there from the vessels of the heart. It also innervates the Esophagus and Trachea of the giraffe and so to reach its Larynx from all of these extensions at the same time, the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve needs to be, indeed, very long in the giraffe to begin with [1]. 


And it is indeed a necessity for its extra length in humans as the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve functions very similarly for pretty much the same reason. As it goes around the Subclavian Artery it innervates 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 that extra length is needed as it isn't just innervating one thing and going in obscured directions around the heart vessels and to the Larynx. The RLN nerve is wired in the most necessary and direct path possible given all that it innervates in both humans and giraffes.


Some evolutionists will criticize and opine that the left-RLN is asymmetrical with the right side and therefore is evolution somehow, although this is entirely opinionated and subjective. But with close examination both the right and left function completely together just fine. One or the other is not functionless or half functioning. If that was the case then the evolutionist may have a point with it being 'vestigial' and therefore was an evolutionary carryover that is no longer functioning well or at all. But this is just not so and therefore, you cannot make a faulty design claim out of it in that sense alone.


So, I don’t see the problem here. The left-RLN loops around the Aortic Arch and the right loops around the right Subclavian Artery, great. It has already been theorized for a long time now that this asymmetrical difference has to do with variations of the developmental stages of organs, and more specifically the thoracic cavity and the heart artery moving downward and expanding during embryogenesis [2]. It’s therefore more than likely the result of the way everything gets aligned naturally during the embryological process and not evolution. Again, I want to stress that criticism of the way something looks doesn’t mean a thing in science and is entirely subjective. It’s like criticizing every asymmetrical difference with someone’s anatomy internally and externally and claiming it’s evolution although it’s well known that it has everything to do with the developmental stages at birth. 


Now, of course a direct innervation exists from the brain to the Larynx and this is called the Superior Laryngeal Nerve which affects speech, swallowing and voice. It branches off the very top of the Vagus Nerve which goes right to the brain. Yeah, without it you sure as hell can't function. Both the RLN and SLN form dual innervation at the Larynx from the top and bottom and both perform distinct functions that are necessary to live. 


If you told a laryngologist that you could have wired the Laryngeal Nerves better than they already are I'm sure he/she would think you are full of yourself and laugh to no end. I see a necessary complex design here and not the infinitesimally small probability of evolution doing this at all.


Read a textbook on human anatomy to get a better picture of this instead of championing evolutionary beliefs because of some flawed perception of what someone considers "good design." Just because it may look unusual doesn't mean "poor design." But if you study how the RLN and the SLN function and are set up, you might just begin to realize its necessary design in actuality. There's no need to pretend to understand how it is somehow correlated with some evolutionary result as it is clearly not. Instead, it shows coherent design and is hardly an argument for poor design.



UPDATE



And so with regards to the giraffe again, yes, some viewers will point to that old Youtube video of Dawkins and an anatomist dissecting a giraffe and completely disregarding the RLN innervation of the Trachea and Esophagus on a National Geographic episode or on the Nature's Giants TV show but this video has already been debunked by biologists who have examined the video such as Dr. Wolf Ekkehard Lonnig. And I will leave a PDF file of his analysis of that Dawkins video which highly corroborates my statements in the second paragraph of this post.


I would also like to say that we've learned a lot about the giraffe since. The more we study and understand how the RLN nerve works in the giraffe the more I think it's plausible that an intelligent designer was behind it all in the end.



Sources



1. http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf


2. Blechschmidt, E. 2004. The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth. B. Freeman, transl. New York: North Atlantic Books, pp. 188






Popular posts from this blog

Debunked: Rebekah Was 3 Years Old When She Married Isaac

Muslims will try very hard to argue for any immoral cases in the Bible to make it look equally as unappealing as their Qur’an so it doesn’t fall to an inferior status. Much like a dysfunctional relationship where you’re the one who’s had enough and wants to let the other go but refuses to let go of you thinking it will still work out. That is the Qur’an to the Bible. The Qur’an wants to share the same status and appreciation as the Bible, but is still unable to rival it to that point. Unfortunately, this is yet another one of those cases where the Qur’an will fall very short of making the Bible look equally unappealing insofar that the Qur’an will look much worse in comparison. It’s the infamous claim about Rebekah’s age of marriage to Isaac which muslims will say was 3. How inaccurate and unsupported by the scriptural evidence this statement is! Here’s why… the Bible does not explicitly say the age of Rebekah when Isaac married her. I will steelman this for the muslims. Muslim arg...
Read more

Sorry, Monkeys Are Not Counting Numbers Like Humans

Image
I love how science likes to glorify the ability of animals and intentionally misleads people into thinking that certain animals such as monkeys can do things like count and do math exactly the way humans do it. This is yet another one of science’s fantasies that wishes it were true and even goes as far as saying it in the titles of some articles related to that specific topic. I’m about to put this false claim to rest for good though as I believe this needs to be addressed. Of course, humans created arithmetic and numbers to keep track of things and to measure things like space and time but these things come from our own human brains and perception of the natural world. Monkeys, obviously, did not create numbers nor any other animals for that matter. When scientists conduct these experimental tests for the mathematical capabilities of these certain animals they are teaching them based on our already perceived understanding of numbers and arithmetic. And a lot of the time, the scien...
Read more