Wrong again. Try Gray's Anatomy, 35th edition.
So why would you copy-paste and not attribute? That's dishonest.
I notice quite a few of those in Cofty’s threads dealing with evolution.
If you can find one please give me a link to it and I will correct it immediately.
Or you are just throwing around careless insults in lieu of actual answers.
Really, to use the working of the mitochondria of bacteria to prove the origin of our mitochondria, now that is funny.
Except I didn't do that. You asserted that cells are complex therefore must be designed. I was asking you what research you had done to discover the origins of eukaryotic cells. I shared a couple of facts about endosymbiosis to whet your appetite and asked I you would like me to suggest a book that explains a great deal more.
Follow the migration of the testes, then you will be able to work out the connections. See where the testes originate from. See where they go. The spermatic cord follows that path.
That doesn't even begin to answer the question.
The path of the vas deferens makes no sense other than in the light of an embryology that began with our fish ancestors. All you have done is describe the embryonic process. That isn't in dispute.
Every day babies are born with genetic defects. Describing the complex embryonic processes that led to those defects doesn't make them any less defective. You are avoiding the question.
See number 13 in the series for an almost identical example in the recurrent laryngeal nerve...
Describing the embryonic development of the larynx and aorta doesn't answer why an intelligent designer designed it that way. Describing the embryology of the Inguinal canal doesn't begin to explain why the vas deferens takes such a ridiculous route. The path was set in our evolutionary ancestors and embryology has no option but to follow the same route. An intelligent designer would not do it that way. Neither would he design us in such a way so that men suffer the problems caused by the prostate or Inguinal hernias. It is suboptimal design.