D
the nerves in the extremities are pretty long in general...and these are also the body parts that are subjected to the most movement...so there is nothing to indicate that their length -isn't- advantageous... logically speaking you can't say with certainty that it isn't advantageous because by definition we have no examples of extremities with short nerves to compare...
nerves -can- be damaged by stretching...for example that is a common injury in the long thoracic nerve...so it -would- be advantageous for a nerve to be able to accommodate stretching...and the longer something is the more easily it accommodates stretching because the tension is spread out over the entire length...
nerves -can- be damaged by stretching...for example that is a common injury in the long thoracic nerve...so it -would- be advantageous for a nerve to be able to accommodate stretching...and the longer something is the more easily it accommodates stretching because the tension is spread out over the entire length...
Your nonsense about nerves stretching is self contadictory the long thoracic nerve is damaged due to its superficial length, that completely reverses your argument.
So the basic principles stand. The nerve does not need to be that length. The creator could create it long enough and could make it compact instead of looping it around the heart. The looping around the heart complies with evolutionary theory. Also your point raises a further question, why did the creator not make is so that the long thoracic nerve does not easily damage? Another poor design. So we have two very obvious poor designs.