You’re asking for empirical/observational evidence from a darwinist to support their claim. That’s just not fair.

Gil also brings up a very good point- there’s no way to truly test the quality of the design without a surgeon to reroute that nerve in the giraffe according to what it “should” look like and see what happens. For all we know, something catastrophic could happen, as the overall structure and systems in a giraffe happen to maintain somewhat of a delicate balance.

“What I’m asking for is the evidence that the RLN is suboptimal, and that a shorter path would be better.”

Well, Paul Burnett may feel that sounding like Mickey Mouse is optimal…after all, Mickey always seems to be so happy, so it’d be better to be like him!

What is the evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can account for the transformation from fish to terrestrial animal?

Or do you just believe that it happened?

“So when Darwinists make claims about bad or suboptimal design in biology I tend to be skeptical. It is only with a complete and detailed understanding of how a complex, functionally integrated system works that such claims can be made with assurance. I’d be willing to bet that if the RLN were redesigned according to Darwinist specifications, some really bad things would happen and it would become apparent why it is the way it is.”

So one could imply from this that ID is really not a science stopper, but advancer. Rather than assume that a particular anomaly is an error, we can advance that it is not necessarily, but may have been designed that particular way for a purpose. When we do this, we don’t go down a false road of either ignoring the particular functional purpose, or attempting to determine a Darwinian flaw. What is now considered vestigial can then be determined (or at least allowed) to have a function even if we don’t currently know exactly what that function is.

I think you misunderstood my question.

The passages you quoted give an evolutionary scenario for the length and position of the RLN (a scenario with which I’m familiar). Coyne, however, claims that the RLN is a “poor design,” because an intelligent designer should have routed the nerve directly from the brain to the larynx. Coyne says the RLN is thus “much longer than it needs to be” — and his evolutionary scenario is then offered to explain the putative suboptimality of the nerve.

What I’m asking for is the evidence that the RLN is suboptimal, and that a shorter path would be better.

Not an evolutionary scenario. The observational evidence for suboptimality.

How about this example?
http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....ision.html

Upon further study and reflection I discover that there is a not-immediately-obvious or even counterintuitive reason why the original approach was the only one that would work.

So when Darwinists make claims about bad or suboptimal design in biology I tend to be skeptical. It is only with a complete and detailed understanding of how a complex, functionally integrated system works that such claims can be made with assurance. I’d be willing to bet that if the RLN were redesigned according to Darwinist specifications, some really bad things would happen and it would become apparent why it is the way it is.

Bob, like Ron (and Michael Ruse) was also a mensch: a person of humanity who valued friendly opposition for the insights it gave. Without civility, there can be no reasoned disagreement; without reasoned disagreement, no painful struggling towards knowledge.

I think so too, but Ruse is peeved at you for allowing him to be ambushed on Expelled. I wonder if you think it was worth that, Paul. Michael is light years from Dawkins. I don’t think they should be treated equally.