Topic; Richard Dawkins and the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
After receiving a few messages from members asking my input concerning the video listed below, I figured I might share some of my research and opinion on the subject. This is not meant to offend or portray my opinion as fact, but mere observation and input from the other side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cH2b...#91;Transcript
In this video, Richard Dawkins and a small team of anatomists dissect a young giraffe that died at the zoo. The purpose of this video is to impart Dawkins views of evolution to the students watching by revealing the length and in his opinion, unintelligent design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN). The video is quite interesting, to see the neck and upper chest cavity of a giraffe cut open anteriorly as to view the vessels and anatomy of the neck.
Dawkins continues to narrate as the anatomist dissects the vagus nerve (RLN innervates away from the vagus as it circulates around the aortic arch) apart from the muscles and fascia in the neck. He makes a very simple and visual point; how could this be the product of intelligent design?
From an outsider looking in, it is obvious to the naked eye that the actual laryngeal nerve would only need to be about 4 to 8 inches, enough to span its origination at the base of the brain and extend to its destination, the larynx. So Dawkins takes off with this, and in all knowing manner, states that this is irrefutable evidence for an unintelligent design.
Furthermore, Dawkins begins to state how this proves, through the anatomy of this nerve, that we evolved from fish (goodness) and reveals pretty little pictures of fish turning into man. In the book, Ernst Haeckel; Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit, one can read about Haeckel’s discredited embryonic recapitulation theory of which Dawkins agrees with, stating that it makes better sense if we evolved from fish but there is a small problem with that….
As I was sharing with a fellow member a little while back, evolutionists such as he, believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. That was shortly lived, for in 1938, a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered and it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish like, not transitional (Denton, 1997, p. 157).
One of the books I am reading, Teaching about Evolution, reveals on page 39 that the earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega, is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians, hmm, interesting, oh well, who cares about facts.
Veering off track, let’s get back on topic.
Concerning the RLN (Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve), Hawkins writes;
“It is a branch of one of the cranial nerves, those nerves that lead directly from the brain rather than from the spinal cord. One of the cranial nerves, the vagus (the name means ‘wandering’ and is apt), has various branches, two of which go to the heart, and two on each side to the larynx (voice box in mammals). On each side of the neck, one of the branches of the laryngeal nerve goes straight to the larynx, following a direct route such as a designer might have chosen. The other one goes to the larynx via an astonishing detour. It dives right down into the chest, loops around one of the main arteries leaving the heart (a different artery on the left and right sides, but the principle is the same), and then heads back up the neck to its destination.
“If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace. Helmholtz would have had even more cause to send it back than the eye. But, like the eye, it makes perfect sense the moment you forget design and think history instead.” (Dawkins, 2009, p. 356)
Just in case it is not known here, in 1837, Richard Owen had also dissected a giraffe making note to the length of the vagus/laryngeal nerve. The only difference is, Owen didn’t reject the idea of a designer. With the help of world renowned textbook, Grays Anatomy, it was a wise choice for Owen to withhold jumping to conclusions such as Dawkins does. Well of course there is a reason for the length of RLN;
"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" (Gray, 1918).
It is obvious the RLN which branches off the Vagus nerve as it sweeps under the Aortic Arch, innervates the heart, esophagus, and the trachea. It looks to me that Dawkins didn’t research to well, instead he made an assumption to fit his theory. How can he make such an assertion?
“This is proof of unintelligent design”
Excuse me? Let’s see you do it. It looks to me as if the Designer was able to be very efficient with one of the largest nerves in our body.
If one knows Dawkins well, he refers to the history of our body as related to evolution. But this is not hard to understand that during the embryonic stage of our life, that as our chest cavity grows further away from our brain, then the nerves will need to accommodate this growth, just makes me want to take a step back and say “What a beautiful and genius creation” and furthermore what an awesome Architect who could design our bodies to adapt to growth.
Dawkins at one time impressed me, I enjoyed his style and delivery, but as I began reading more of his literature, and some issues concerning his interview tactics while attacking Christianity, it became apparent that he was not all that I had him to be. He has been approached by many profound and well known Creationist. One of whom, I mention below.
Bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Great about Christianity, wrote an open letter to Dawkins addressing Dawkins eagerness to lure non scientist Christians on his television shows and book interviews. In D’Souza’s letter, he wrote;
“To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away….
“If you are so confident that your position is right, and that belief in God is an obvious delusion, surely you should be willing to vindicate that position not only against Bible-toting pastors but also against a fellow scholar and informed critic like me!
“If not, you are nothing but a showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him." (D’Souza, 2008).
Again, If you were able to read through all this and keep a sane mind, then great. I just want to throw this out there that not everything one reads is always backed by sound evidence, everything must be tested, and I mean that on both sides of the fence; Evolution and Creationism.
I am Christian, and I have no doubt in my mind of the glorious powers my Creator has, nor am I ignorant of His great love for us. But in my research, I try to stay true and fair, because in the end, if my belief in Christ as my Creator, Lord, and Savior are accurate, then I have nothing to fear in my studies of what I believe and what comes forth, no need to be biased (unfortunately we are human, so a little bias is always present).
His Grace
References;
Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest show on earth; the evidence for evolution. New York, NY: Bantam Press.
D’Souza, D. (2008). The route of new atheists, Vox Popoli, 21 July 2008.
Gray, Henry (1918). Anatomy of the human body. 5j. the Vagus Nerve. See online at (IX. Neurology. 5j. The Vagus Nerve. Gray, Henry. 1918. Anatomy of the Human Body.).
M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 157,; see also W. Roush, ‘Living Fossil’ Is Dethroned, Science 277(5331):1436, 5 September 1997, and No Stinking Fish in My Tail, Discover, March 1985, p. 40.
After receiving a few messages from members asking my input concerning the video listed below, I figured I might share some of my research and opinion on the subject. This is not meant to offend or portray my opinion as fact, but mere observation and input from the other side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cH2b...#91;Transcript
In this video, Richard Dawkins and a small team of anatomists dissect a young giraffe that died at the zoo. The purpose of this video is to impart Dawkins views of evolution to the students watching by revealing the length and in his opinion, unintelligent design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN). The video is quite interesting, to see the neck and upper chest cavity of a giraffe cut open anteriorly as to view the vessels and anatomy of the neck.
Dawkins continues to narrate as the anatomist dissects the vagus nerve (RLN innervates away from the vagus as it circulates around the aortic arch) apart from the muscles and fascia in the neck. He makes a very simple and visual point; how could this be the product of intelligent design?
From an outsider looking in, it is obvious to the naked eye that the actual laryngeal nerve would only need to be about 4 to 8 inches, enough to span its origination at the base of the brain and extend to its destination, the larynx. So Dawkins takes off with this, and in all knowing manner, states that this is irrefutable evidence for an unintelligent design.
Furthermore, Dawkins begins to state how this proves, through the anatomy of this nerve, that we evolved from fish (goodness) and reveals pretty little pictures of fish turning into man. In the book, Ernst Haeckel; Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit, one can read about Haeckel’s discredited embryonic recapitulation theory of which Dawkins agrees with, stating that it makes better sense if we evolved from fish but there is a small problem with that….
As I was sharing with a fellow member a little while back, evolutionists such as he, believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. That was shortly lived, for in 1938, a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered and it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish like, not transitional (Denton, 1997, p. 157).
One of the books I am reading, Teaching about Evolution, reveals on page 39 that the earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega, is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians, hmm, interesting, oh well, who cares about facts.
Veering off track, let’s get back on topic.
Concerning the RLN (Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve), Hawkins writes;
“It is a branch of one of the cranial nerves, those nerves that lead directly from the brain rather than from the spinal cord. One of the cranial nerves, the vagus (the name means ‘wandering’ and is apt), has various branches, two of which go to the heart, and two on each side to the larynx (voice box in mammals). On each side of the neck, one of the branches of the laryngeal nerve goes straight to the larynx, following a direct route such as a designer might have chosen. The other one goes to the larynx via an astonishing detour. It dives right down into the chest, loops around one of the main arteries leaving the heart (a different artery on the left and right sides, but the principle is the same), and then heads back up the neck to its destination.
“If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace. Helmholtz would have had even more cause to send it back than the eye. But, like the eye, it makes perfect sense the moment you forget design and think history instead.” (Dawkins, 2009, p. 356)
Just in case it is not known here, in 1837, Richard Owen had also dissected a giraffe making note to the length of the vagus/laryngeal nerve. The only difference is, Owen didn’t reject the idea of a designer. With the help of world renowned textbook, Grays Anatomy, it was a wise choice for Owen to withhold jumping to conclusions such as Dawkins does. Well of course there is a reason for the length of RLN;
"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" (Gray, 1918).
It is obvious the RLN which branches off the Vagus nerve as it sweeps under the Aortic Arch, innervates the heart, esophagus, and the trachea. It looks to me that Dawkins didn’t research to well, instead he made an assumption to fit his theory. How can he make such an assertion?
“This is proof of unintelligent design”
Excuse me? Let’s see you do it. It looks to me as if the Designer was able to be very efficient with one of the largest nerves in our body.
If one knows Dawkins well, he refers to the history of our body as related to evolution. But this is not hard to understand that during the embryonic stage of our life, that as our chest cavity grows further away from our brain, then the nerves will need to accommodate this growth, just makes me want to take a step back and say “What a beautiful and genius creation” and furthermore what an awesome Architect who could design our bodies to adapt to growth.
Dawkins at one time impressed me, I enjoyed his style and delivery, but as I began reading more of his literature, and some issues concerning his interview tactics while attacking Christianity, it became apparent that he was not all that I had him to be. He has been approached by many profound and well known Creationist. One of whom, I mention below.
Bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Great about Christianity, wrote an open letter to Dawkins addressing Dawkins eagerness to lure non scientist Christians on his television shows and book interviews. In D’Souza’s letter, he wrote;
“To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away….
“If you are so confident that your position is right, and that belief in God is an obvious delusion, surely you should be willing to vindicate that position not only against Bible-toting pastors but also against a fellow scholar and informed critic like me!
“If not, you are nothing but a showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him." (D’Souza, 2008).
Again, If you were able to read through all this and keep a sane mind, then great. I just want to throw this out there that not everything one reads is always backed by sound evidence, everything must be tested, and I mean that on both sides of the fence; Evolution and Creationism.
I am Christian, and I have no doubt in my mind of the glorious powers my Creator has, nor am I ignorant of His great love for us. But in my research, I try to stay true and fair, because in the end, if my belief in Christ as my Creator, Lord, and Savior are accurate, then I have nothing to fear in my studies of what I believe and what comes forth, no need to be biased (unfortunately we are human, so a little bias is always present).
His Grace
References;
Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest show on earth; the evidence for evolution. New York, NY: Bantam Press.
D’Souza, D. (2008). The route of new atheists, Vox Popoli, 21 July 2008.
Gray, Henry (1918). Anatomy of the human body. 5j. the Vagus Nerve. See online at (IX. Neurology. 5j. The Vagus Nerve. Gray, Henry. 1918. Anatomy of the Human Body.).
M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 157,; see also W. Roush, ‘Living Fossil’ Is Dethroned, Science 277(5331):1436, 5 September 1997, and No Stinking Fish in My Tail, Discover, March 1985, p. 40.
Last edited:
