Poor Design

[Jet Black]

I'm not sure how we can look at the human body and call it a poor design...take anything man (ID) designed and see how it compares to the human body. If we say that the human body is poorly designed, and we cannot come close to even replicating it...what does that say about us?

It says that we are newbie designers, and we are. No shame in admitting that.

Put it this way, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a mess of glorious proportions. the nerve that controls the larynx goes from the brain, under the aorta and then back up to the larynx. It does this in humans, it does it in chimps, it does it in mice, and it even does it in giraffes, where the brain heart neck detour adds several feet to the nerve. It would be like say having a phone wire that goes from the socket in the living room, out the door, under the stairs, round the electricity box, back into the living room and into the phone on the desk which is just inches from the phone socket. can you find me a house like that? The vas deferens is not much better, looping from the testicles over the bladder round the back and into the prostate, instead of taking the quick direct line route. If our back problems are the result of abuse, then I can only suggest that we crawl round on all fours, since that is the only way to avoid them - our backs have not been designed for bipedal life.

 

[JohnR7]

Oh yes, God made the world perfect

Then ruined it purposefully

And now he's rying to fix it

Yes, He is going to fix it. But He did not "ruin" it. He is not going to take the blame for the mess that man and the devil made out of this world.

 

[Jet Black]

Yes, He is going to fix it. But He did not "ruin" it. He is not going to take the blame for the mess that man and the devil made out of this world.

so who designed the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve then?

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Jet, who would you say designed it?

 

[Jet Black]

Jet, who would you say designed it?

not who, but what: Evolution.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction to say that evolution designed it? You say that an example of prro design is a sign of evolution, then wouldn't an example of excellent design be an example against evolution?

 

[Humboldt]

Yep, I'm fully giving myself away as a newbie here. JohnR7 said

Quote: *
Originally Posted by: Humboldt


I can't believe that anyone would have designed it that badly, therefore it's evolution.


Congratulations, you just single handedly falsified the theory of evolution and you did it your first time out.

My statement "I can't believe that anyone would have designed it that badly, therefore it's evolution."
was not an expression of my own personal belief, but a statement of what I take to be a flawed argument. What I can't believe is that I wrote it that unclearly. My message, in fact provided no argument either for or against evolution. If JohnR7 thinks that my message proved anything about evolution- in either direction- then he has a very different standard of proof than I do.

 

[Humboldt]

Let's try this again.
Bad argument from some people supporting ID:
This system is to complex to have been produced by evolution. Therefore it must be design. Some go on to add therefore the God of the Bible

Bad argument from some people supporting evolution:
It's a bad design, therefore it must not have arisen by design... therefore evolution.

Much better argument from some people supporting evolution:
It's a bad design, but the structure makes sense if it arose out of natural selection working on an existing structure. Offers some support for the notion of contingency.

 

[Jet Black]

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction to say that evolution designed it? You say that an example of prro design is a sign of evolution, then wouldn't an example of excellent design be an example against evolution?

are you claiming that the vas deferens is a good design? The point is here, that evolution follows ancestry and hence is limited in the designs that it can produce from a particular ancestor. Ther reason the recurrent laryngeal nerve takes the path that is does is a result if the way the nerves are wired up in our fishy ancestors. we can see this development occuring embryologically and through the fossil record, and so the path of this nerve makes sense in an evolutionary sense. Evolution has no foresight, and so cannot come up with better solutions. A designer on the other hand could do just that, and avoid the whole silly design problem. Evolution produces bad designs, because the only way it can travel along the fitness curves is in an upwards line. The problem is, that from a particular starting position, the steepest slope might not lead to the highest peak. Each consecutive design that it produces is the best that is selected from each generation, but there is no overall aim in mind.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

That's not a whole lot better than...its an incredible design, a complete system. In order for it to develope, it needed a reason to be there, other system to be in place to use it and is now fatal to the system if it is removed. The structure makes sense if it was created as a complete system.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

I'm not saying its a good design, because I don't really know much about it. But I do know that it works. Maybe if we started...just for fun...looking at their function from a created standpoint (remember, just for fun), rather than trying to tie them back to our fish relatives we might find out something new about them. Some of the views (mine included) come from our pre-concieved conclusions about the origin. To look at something from the opposite side of the window might give people a different view of the poor design.

 

[Jet Black]

I'm not saying its a good design, because I don't really know much about it. But I do know that it works.

I described it in a previous post. stretching a telephone cable from your living room, out the front door of your house, around the electricity junction and back into the house would "work"

Maybe if we started...just for fun...looking at their function from a created standpoint (remember, just for fun), rather than trying to tie them back to our fish relatives we might find out something new about them.

yes, that it is a stupid and impractical design if someone did it intentionally.

Some of the views (mine included) come from our pre-concieved conclusions about the origin. To look at something from the opposite side of the window might give people a different view of the poor design.

it is a poor design.

 

[JohnR7]

so who designed the vas deferens and the recurrent laryngeal nerve then?

God designed us the way we are and He ususally has a reason why He does things the way He does. Some things are a result of the fall. They say there were no weeds in Eden before Adam fell into sin. One pastor teaches that there were no bathrooms in Eden, but I think that is a bit of a stretch.

 

[h2whoa]

God designed us the way we are and He ususally has a reason why He does things the way He does. Some things are a result of the fall. They say there were no weeds in Eden before Adam fell into sin. One pastor teaches that there were no bathrooms in Eden, but I think that is a bit of a stretch.

To imply that (I hate even writing this phrase) The Fall (™ and ©) is responsible for our physiology is to imply that we are not as created by God. In which case God didn't create everything. Which sort of poses a theological problem. And I totally agree with you John that the idea that there was no defecation or urination before The Fall is ridiculous.

h2

 

[Split Rock]

God designed us the way we are and He ususally has a reason why He does things the way He does. Some things are a result of the fall. They say there were no weeds in Eden before Adam fell into sin. One pastor teaches that there were no bathrooms in Eden, but I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Are you seriously suggesting that God rewired our nervous system and altered our pluming after the Fall? For what purpose? Just because of the apple?

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

So because you decide that a couple of parts are poorly designed. And seing as how you went to great lengths to look at the problem on the other side just to say...ahh, stupid (science with an open mind). So, in order for evolution to be true,(by your poor design therefore statement) shouldn't the entire body and world seem poorly designed?

 

[william jay schroeder]

How about leviticus 12:1-3 were it explains circumcision. Do it on the eight day. Why the eight? Thats when our K vitamin spikes which helps in clotting. How did they now this? I think its the k vitamin?

 

[h2whoa]

How about leviticus 12:1-3 were it explains circumcision. Do it on the eight day. Why the eight? Thats when our K vitamin spikes which helps in clotting. How did they now this? I think its the k vitamin?

I've seen this argument before. However it does not allow for the power of observation.

Imagine I have 10 cups. They are all filled with a clear liquid. I stand by and watch lots of people come up and drink from them. Most of those people walk away screaming. But there are some who don't. I observe this over a certain length of time. Every day the cups are taken away and replaced with fresh cups. However, I notice that everybody who drinks from the 6th cup along, left to right, walks away fine. Everyone else walks away in pain to some degree. I write a notice saying "don't drink from any cup except for the 6th one along, left to right". Some people ignore this, others go with it but soon everybody realises that if they heed the sign they are fine, ignore it and they are in trouble. Later on the cups are taken away for chemical analysis of te contents. Turns out that all the cups had a nasty little odourless colourless acid in them. Except cup 6 which had water. Now was it God that told me to write the instruction to drink from cup 6, or was it merely an observation?

My point is that the 8-day instruction about circumcision (and I haven't looked into the actual biology of it, but I'll take you at your word for sake of argument) is likely to come from the combined observations of people who had been carrying out the procedure that babies circumcised at 8 days bled less. Same as the cups.

h2

 

[william jay schroeder]

I've seen this argument before. However it does not allow for the power of observation.

Imagine I have 10 cups. They are all filled with a clear liquid. I stand by and watch lots of people come up and drink from them. Most of those people walk away screaming. But there are some who don't. I observe this over a certain length of time. Every day the cups are taken away and replaced with fresh cups. However, I notice that everybody who drinks from the 6th cup along, left to right, walks away fine. Everyone else walks away in pain to some degree. I write a notice saying "don't drink from any cup except for the 6th one along, left to right". Some people ignore this, others go with it but soon everybody realises that if they heed the sign they are fine, ignore it and they are in trouble. Later on the cups are taken away for chemical analysis of te contents. Turns out that all the cups had a nasty little odourless colourless acid in them. Except cup 6 which had water. Now was it God that told me to write the instruction to drink from cup 6, or was it merely an observation?

My point is that the 8-day instruction about circumcision (and I haven't looked into the actual biology of it, but I'll take you at your word for sake of argument) is likely to come from the combined observations of people who had been carrying out the procedure that babies circumcised at 8 days bled less. Same as the cups.

h2

problem being the isrealites were the only one doing it and it started at the moment it was commanded. It was a command to do it it was not something they just thought of to do. they didnt just trial and error it. this is sick to do with babies only eight days old. would they not bleed to death or very near it. i believe they would have stoped it before finding the right day. Your arguement is pointless. They had no other reason to do it but by command.

 

[h2whoa]

problem being the isrealites were the only one doing it and it started at the moment it was commanded.

Well done. You're wrong.

Please read this: THE HISTORY OF CIRCUMCISION.

As you can see, the practice is much older than the Biblical account.

h2