Oral Cavity’s Supposedly “Lousy” Design Is a Key to Human Speech

[Anguspure]

It’s a staple for Darwinists who compile lists of human anatomical features supposedly demonstrating “unintelligent” or “botched” design. We’re constantly told that the design of the human larynx, trachea, and oral cavity is poor because it allows for choking on food.

The point is made by the snarky Centre for Unintelligent Design, which lists “The ease with which we can choke” as an example of “unintelligent design,” and by Wikipedia. On the “Argument for poor design“ page they include this under “Fatal flaws” in human anatomy:

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking...

...That having been said, the design of the human oral cavity looks more like a trade-off than a botch. As Evolution News has put it, “Trade-offs are compromises made to optimize the highest design goal.” They are not errors but necessary features of design in a material world.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/oral-cavitys-supposedly-lousy-design-is-a-key-to-human-speech/

 

[Brightmoon]

This silly article misrepresents evolution of the neck in humans as a mistake. Of course it’s s trade off - so is a peacock’s tail.

 

[Sanoy]

I understand that this "UNintelligence" approach is aimed disjunctivley at ID, but it's really not a convincing argument for an ID proponent. On the one hand we can't claim what we don't know, so an "unintelligent" case is always provisional and could suddenly reverse. But that isn't it's biggest issue, the biggest issue is the narrow scope of this type of approach. It is formulated under the concept that every particular must have an immediate identifiable advantage. But there is no reason to assume that from a designer. A designer may choose a less immediately optimal design because he thinks it beautiful. Or he may chose a particular design for subjective cognitive effects that we would likely never know due to our blackboxed intuitions.

 

[Brightmoon]

“Intelligent” Design is/was a ploy to shoehorn religion back into the public school system of the USA. It’s is NOT science and doesn’t follow the methods of science. If you read the trial transcripts you can see why the judge ruled against ID . The judge himself also was very specific as to why he ruled against ID. The transcripts are long as that trial lasted for days. The Dover trial transcripts are online at talkorigins

 

[SkyWriting]

I understand that this "UNintelligence" approach is aimed disjunctivley at ID, but it's really not a convincing argument for an ID proponent. On the one hand we can't claim what we don't know, so an "unintelligent" case is always provisional and could suddenly reverse. But that isn't it's biggest issue, the biggest issue is the narrow scope of this type of approach. It is formulated under the concept that every particular must have an immediate identifiable advantage. But there is no reason to assume that from a designer. A designer may choose a less immediately optimal design because he thinks it beautiful. Or he may chose a particular design for subjective cognitive effects that we would likely never know due to our blackboxed intuitions.

Very good point. The highest design priority may not be obvious.
Like why so many teeth?

 

[PsychoSarah]

This silly article misrepresents evolution of the neck in humans as a mistake. Of course it’s s trade off - so is a peacock’s tail.

No kidding. As if an omniscient, omnipotent designer couldn't have made us able to talk AND not choke to death. Also makes you wonder why the majority of non-verbal organisms also have the potential to choke just like we do, if this actually was a trade off between being able to speak and reducing choking risk.

-_- I also find it amusing that creationists would consider our ability to verbally communicate to be so important that the capacity to choke to death is worth it, despite the fact that humans can effectively communicate through hand gestures and writing.

 

[Nithavela]

It’s a staple for Darwinists who compile lists of human anatomical features supposedly demonstrating “unintelligent” or “botched” design. We’re constantly told that the design of the human larynx, trachea, and oral cavity is poor because it allows for choking on food.

Never heard that one before, actually.

 

[Ophiolite]

This silly article misrepresents evolution of the neck in humans as a mistake. Of course it’s s trade off - so is a peacock’s tail.

Indeed. All of evolution is, arguably, a trade-off and the market place that decides the value is the environment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand that this "UNintelligence" approach is aimed disjunctivley at ID, but it's really not a convincing argument for an ID proponent. On the one hand we can't claim what we don't know, so an "unintelligent" case is always provisional and could suddenly reverse. But that isn't it's biggest issue, the biggest issue is the narrow scope of this type of approach. It is formulated under the concept that every particular must have an immediate identifiable advantage. But there is no reason to assume that from a designer. A designer may choose a less immediately optimal design because he thinks it beautiful. Or he may chose a particular design for subjective cognitive effects that we would likely never know due to our blackboxed intuitions.

Cool.

But that raises the question.... if all that is the case, then how could you ever distinguish design from non-design without directly observing the designer designing the thing?

 

[Sanoy]

Cool.

But that raises the question.... if all that is the case, then how could you ever distinguish design from non-design without directly observing the designer designing the thing?

I think our "design detector" is a blackbox intuition. There are parts we can see in that blackbox, in that the intuition of design seems to be related to improbability, but many of them we cannot. That may make it unfalsifiable, sure, but the belief that all truths must be falsifiable has gone out a long time ago. It could also be provisionally unfalsifiable, and we need more time to look at the subroutines under our hoods.

When things appear improbable, our minds direct our thoughts to the sketch of an agent that gets more filled out based on the processing of information in our brain. At base the human being has the intuition that seemingly all things are designed. This is called intuitive theism. If God exists, this is an intuition He put in our heads to point our thoughts toward Him. How we inform those intuitions can be wrong but their basic trigger may be right, in that all things are designed, even stochastic operation. So the fact that it may be unfalsifiable could be due to the lack of contrast.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think our "design detector" is a blackbox intuition.

And a faulty one at that.....
When it comes to answering questions about reality, "intuition" rarely leads to the right answer.

But having said that... your "method" of recognizing design, thus amounts to nothing more or less then a "gut feeling"? Really?

There are parts we can see in that blackbox, in that the intuition of design seems to be related to improbability

How so?
How is "improbability" related to design?

That may make it unfalsifiable, sure, but the belief that all truths must be falsifiable has gone out a long time ago.

Really? When was that?
It seems to me that falsifiability is an important part of establishing truth (small "t").
Because if something is unfalsifiable, it like literally means that you have no way of knowing that it is incorrect, if it is in fact incorrect.

When things appear improbable, our minds direct our thoughts to the sketch of an agent that gets more filled out based on the processing of information in our brain.

Sure. It's called human bias and false positives.
Also, what exactly are you calling "improbable" here? Evolution?

Because as I understand it, evolution is not only probably, it is actually inevitable, given how life works.

At base the human being has the intuition that seemingly all things are designed.

Humans also had the "intuition" that time was a constant, no matter the speed of the object and observers of any kind. Along came relativity.

Humans also had the "intuition" that objects couldn't be in 2 places at once. Along came particle physics, where you measure a particle "here", while observing it "there".

Humans also had the "intuition" that a sea storm meant that the God that rules the sea tides was angry at them.

Human "intuition" rarely leads to correct answers.

This is called intuitive theism.

I just call it the faults of human psychology, bias, false positives, an inherent need to invoke agency for the unexplained / unknown. A psychological need to identify patterns and "reasons", even where there aren't any.

If God exists this is an intuition He put in our heads to point our thoughts toward Him.

Or maybe, that's just you trying to rationalize your faith-based unfalsifiable beliefs?

How we inform those intuitions can be wrong but their basic trigger may be right, in that all things are designed, even stochastic operation. So the fact that it may be unfalsifiable could be due to the lack of contrast.

It could be. But how would you know, with it being unfalsifiable? ;-)

I can come up with a potentially infinite pool of unfalsifiable ideas. All of wich could be true - and for none of which you would be able to find out, since they all would be unfalsifiable.

Here are a couple, just to make the point:

- undetectable extra-dimensional aliens created the entire universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, just 5 seconds ago.

- we are all brains in vats, living in a simulated world

- we all live in the Matrix

- an undetectable cookie monster is following you everywhere you go

See? It's not even hard.

 

[Sanoy]

And a faulty one at that.....
When it comes to answering questions about reality, "intuition" rarely leads to the right answer.

But having said that... your "method" of recognizing design, thus amounts to nothing more or less then a "gut feeling"? Really?



How so?
How is "improbability" related to design?




Really? When was that?
It seems to me that falsifiability is an important part of establishing truth (small "t").
Because if something is unfalsifiable, it like literally means that you have no way of knowing that it is incorrect, if it is in fact incorrect.



Sure. It's called human bias and false positives.
Also, what exactly are you calling "improbable" here? Evolution?

Because as I understand it, evolution is not only probably, it is actually inevitable, given how life works.




Humans also had the "intuition" that time was a constant, no matter the speed of the object and observers of any kind. Along came relativity.

Humans also had the "intuition" that objects couldn't be in 2 places at once. Along came particle physics, where you measure a particle "here", while observing it "there".

Humans also had the "intuition" that a sea storm meant that the God that rules the sea tides was angry at them.

Human "intuition" rarely leads to correct answers.



I just call it the faults of human psychology, bias, false positives, an inherent need to invoke agency for the unexplained / unknown. A psychological need to identify patterns and "reasons", even where there aren't any.




Or maybe, that's just you trying to rationalize your faith-based unfalsifiable beliefs?



It could be. But how would you know, with it being unfalsifiable? ;-)

I can come up with a potentially infinite pool of unfalsifiable ideas. All of wich could be true - and for none of which you would be able to find out, since they all would be unfalsifiable.

Here are a couple, just to make the point:

- undetectable extra-dimensional aliens created the entire universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, just 5 seconds ago.

- we are all brains in vats, living in a simulated world

- we all live in the Matrix

- an undetectable cookie monster is following you everywhere you go

See? It's not even hard.

Everything you call knowledge, has as a foundation, blackboxed intuitions. We cannot discard one because it is I'll informed. Intuitions are basic structures, they are only as good as the information they have available. Moral beliefs come from moral intuitions. Most of us believe they are objective but many times their structure is I'll informed. That is why Moral beliefs have progressed over time to greater degrees of rightness.

We don't often hypothesise agents for events and states of affairs that are highly probable. We hypothesise agents for improbable events because agents with free will and the power to cause that will to come about are natural probability overcomers in a deterministic system. There may be a deeper more accurate semantic statement that can be made, but that appears to be the best description we have at the moment.

I would say falsifiability began to go out when promisory materialsim began to lose credit. But really started to fall out around the same time as scientism which was back in the 50's iirc. It's no longer viewed to be a reasonable expectation for all things. Take for example the multiverse, is that falsifiable? It's not.

I don't think this statement is very useful. "If something is unfalsifiable, it like literally means that you have no way of knowing that it is incorrect, if it is in fact incorrect." There are many things we believe are correct that are not falsifiable. Most things in fact, when truly looked at, are not falsifiable. Even your statement, which you believe is correct, is likely not falsifiable. With most things we believe things with degrees of certainty.

I am speaking of the immediate appearance of design. I have seen many estimations of the probability of the natual occurance of life as we know it, none of which were given a high probability. Being inevitable does not negate improbability as inevitable is relative to time. Additionally, the inevitability is empirically equivalent to theistic evolution.

Intuitions are thought structures. You cannot doubt the structure simply based on the output. Take for example the following.
"Since only man [human] is rational,and no woman is a man [male],Therefore, no woman is rational." The structure is fine, it's the information that causes it to fail. We rely on these structures daily, but they qre only as good as what is put into them. "Garbage in garbage out" which I'm sure you recall.

We can say that the conclusions made from cases of intuitive Theism are false, but we can't say with any degree of certainty that the instinct is false. A child might say "Trees have bark so that bears can scratch their backs" which we can say is wrong, but we can't say with any honesty that Trees have bark for no reason at all. That is a world view that has not been substantiated a part from presupposing the conclusion.

I'm not rationalizing ad hoc. Romans 1 tells us that we all have a General Revelation of God. Thanks to science, we have discovered part of the foundation of what Paul describes. It's pretty cool that God is always that close to us.

You can add the apparent world to your list of unfalifiable hypothesise right beside brain in a vat since that is exactly what that thought experience is meant to convey.

 

[tas8831]

It’s a staple for Darwinists who compile lists of human anatomical features supposedly demonstrating “unintelligent” or “botched” design. We’re constantly told that the design of the human larynx, trachea, and oral cavity is poor because it allows for choking on food.

The point is made by the snarky Centre for Unintelligent Design, which lists “The ease with which we can choke” as an example of “unintelligent design,” and by Wikipedia. On the “Argument for poor design“ page they include this under “Fatal flaws” in human anatomy:

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking...

...That having been said, the design of the human oral cavity looks more like a trade-off than a botch. As Evolution News has put it, “Trade-offs are compromises made to optimize the highest design goal.” They are not errors but necessary features of design in a material world.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/oral-cavitys-supposedly-lousy-design-is-a-key-to-human-speech/

Spam-troll. Ignore.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

It’s a staple for Darwinists who compile lists of human anatomical features supposedly demonstrating “unintelligent” or “botched” design. We’re constantly told that the design of the human larynx, trachea, and oral cavity is poor because it allows for choking on food.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/oral-cavitys-supposedly-lousy-design-is-a-key-to-human-speech/

What more would you expect from folk who think they're related to monkeys?

 

[AV1611VET]

As if an omniscient, omnipotent designer couldn't have made us able to talk AND not choke to death.

And can you imagine we being designed with fingers!?

How many people die while texting and driving at the same time?

 

[AV1611VET]

What more would you expect from folk who think they're related to monkeys?

Aren't you being hypocritical, Doc?

Didn't you ever play on the monkey bars growing up?

Or have you ever used a monkey wrench?

 

[PsychoSarah]

And can you imagine we being designed with fingers!?

How many people die while texting and driving at the same time?

-_- people choose to perform that risky behavior, but there are many contexts in which people choke through no fault of their own. For example, as we get older, the epiglottis (a flap of tissue that seals off the breathing pathway when you swallow) wears out. As a result, it is not uncommon for the elderly to inhale small bits of food even when they chew very well. While few people swiftly choke from this, it does cause many an old person to have chronic lung problems that eventually lead to death.

 

[tas8831]

What more would you expect from folk who think they're related to monkeys?

And from the people that consider themselves breathed-on dirt....

 

[tas8831]

It’s a staple for Darwinists who compile lists of human anatomical features supposedly demonstrating “unintelligent” or “botched” design. We’re constantly told that the design of the human larynx, trachea, and oral cavity is poor because it allows for choking on food.

The point is made by the snarky Centre for Unintelligent Design, which lists “The ease with which we can choke” as an example of “unintelligent design,” and by Wikipedia. On the “Argument for poor design“ page they include this under “Fatal flaws” in human anatomy:

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking...

...That having been said, the design of the human oral cavity looks more like a trade-off than a botch. As Evolution News has put it, “Trade-offs are compromises made to optimize the highest design goal.” They are not errors but necessary features of design in a material world.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/oral-cavitys-supposedly-lousy-design-is-a-key-to-human-speech/

More spam trolling.

Reported.