
Originally Posted by
Rhyfelwyr
Eh, that video reminded me of creationist textbooks where they focus on one isolated anatomical feature to try to prove/disprove entire theories of life that cover multiple disciplines.
Such details are, by themselves, useless in disproving much broader theories for the obvious reasons that:
a. They only address a tiny part of the wider theory
b. These fine points are themselves not fully understood, at least not with certainty
Humans are so different from our supposed ocean-based ancestors that there may well be some secondary function which the recurrent laryngeal nerve provides that we do not know of.
Although my argument above would not be sufficient against a comprehensive case which made a systematic attack on creationism; I would say it is enough to dismiss a lone point given in isolation.
The creation and evolution debate by nature covers a tonne of different disciplines - to claim victory on the grounds of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is clearly ridiculous. Worthwhile arguments must look at the bigger picture if they are to make a serious challenge to the foundations of creationist or evolutionist theory.
As I said in a thread not long ago, how do evolutionists reconcile a model which grants hundreds of thousands of years to human development from our more ape-like ancestors to our present selves; with the fact that agriculture, settlement and civilization appears uniformly across the world (in hugely different and isolated environments) within - according to their dating - around a 10,000 year timeframe?
Why did completely cut-off peoples living in totally different environments all become so smart in what would be - in evolutionary terms - not even a blink of the eye?
Bookmarks