The Perfect Human Body?

[sfs]

True Evo's know that diversity is critical to evolution, so anyone
who claims they can improve on the human body is not actually
an evolutionist, but instead a subscriber to the theory without
reading it.

Speaking as a card-carrying(*) authority on natural selection and human evolution. . . I have to say that the above is scientific nonsense.

(*) Metaphorically speaking.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I'll pass on the velociraptor feet since I don't have to chase my dinner thankfully. I'm quite happy without a marsupial pouch as well.

They obviously didn't take aesthetics into account when designing their "perfect body". With features as described, I doubt this species of creature would ever reproduce.

 

[Ophiolite]

Isn't most everything online spam ?

Based on your contributions I can see why you would think so.

 

[tas8831]

So odd that Anguspure never replies in the threads he/she starts...

 

[HitchSlap]

So odd that Anguspure never replies in the threads he/she starts...

Just a bot.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They obviously didn't take aesthetics into account when designing their "perfect body". With features as described, I doubt this species of creature would ever reproduce.

-_- most of the improvements I would make if designing the human body would be internal, not external, such as making the esophagus and the trachea 100% separate with no merging.

Also, pretty sure that we could have fewer bones in our feet without significantly changing the shape of our feet, given that the normal shape of human feet isn't the problem, but rather that the excess number of bones in them makes them prone to getting distorted with use.

Also, plenty of crap we find supremely unattractive manages to get mates just find, like gulper eels. Why, if given the opportunity to design an organism, would I make it such that it found its own species unattractive?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

-_- most of the improvements I would make if designing the human body would be internal, not external, such as making the esophagus and the trachea 100% separate with no merging.

Also, pretty sure that we could have fewer bones in our feet without significantly changing the shape of our feet, given that the normal shape of human feet isn't the problem, but rather that the excess number of bones in them makes them prone to getting distorted with use.

These evolutionists are all talk, no action. If they really could produce a more perfect creature, then do it, instead of boasting about what they might do. I'm sure if ever they were successful in creating something, the wisdom of God would be demonstrated in their creature's every flaw.

 

[Ophiolite]

These evolutionists are all talk, no action. If they really could produce a more perfect creature, then do it, instead of boasting about what they might do. I'm sure if ever they were successful in creating something, the wisdom of God would be demonstrated in their creature's every flaw.

The program critiqued by Jonathon Wells was made by the BBC. The goal of the BBC, laid out by Lord Reith almost a century ago, is encapsulated in the phrase "inform, educate and entertain". It is in that light this program must be viewed.

The notion that evolutionists are seriously contemplating producing such a "perfect" creature is ludicrous. The purpose of the program was to review some of the limitations of our present bodies, thereby illustrating the contingent nature of evolution, and by examining how it might be improved provide a lighthearted exploration of human anatomy.

You have two honourable choices you can make: ignore evolution on the basis that your faith tells you it is false; attack the substance of the evolutionary argument with original research that directly supports special creation, or intelligent design. Any other choice lacks integrity.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The program critiqued by Jonathon Wells was made by the BBC. The goal of the BBC, laid out by Lord Reith almost a century ago, is encapsulated in the phrase "inform, educate and entertain". It is in that light this program must be viewed.

The notion that evolutionists are seriously contemplating producing such a "perfect" creature is ludicrous. The purpose of the program was to review some of the limitations of our present bodies, thereby illustrating the contingent nature of evolution, and by examining how it might be improved provide a lighthearted exploration of human anatomy.

You have two honourable choices you can make: ignore evolution on the basis that your faith tells you it is false; attack the substance of the evolutionary argument with original research that directly supports special creation, or intelligent design. Any other choice lacks integrity.

I personally think it lacks integrity critiquing a machine that one is unable to duplicate, much less improve on.

 

[Ophiolite]

I personally think it lacks integrity critiquing a machine that one is unable to duplicate, much less improve on.

It is certainly a view you are entitled to hold. Of course a commitment to ignorance is, from my perspective, close to the ultimate form of abandoning ones integrity.

When I give my grandson grapes, which he is fond of, I cut the grapes in half. I thereby significantly reduce the risk that he will choke to death on a grape. Critiques of the human "machine" are what enabled this proactive safety step. But, as I say, you are free to condemn such analyses and the benefits that flow therefrom. Remember the first two thirds of Lord Reith's vision: inform and educate. Do you think Lord Reith lacked integrity?

 

[PsychoSarah]

These evolutionists are all talk, no action. If they really could produce a more perfect creature, then do it, instead of boasting about what they might do.

-_- I guess you don't think genetically modified plants and animals exist. Seriously, plants modified to produce larger yields and even to excrete pesticides are nothing new. Various animals have also been genetically modified, such as goats that produce human insulin in their milk, but that doesn't benefit their survival so much as our own.

-_- we don't do it with humans because of people being rather sensitive about it.

I'm sure if ever they were successful in creating something, the wisdom of God would be demonstrated in their creature's every flaw.

-_- I've never claimed that we could make the human body perfect, only that we could improve it. I don't view perfection as an actual quality something can have because the idea of perfection is so subjective. For example, someone might view ability to fly as being a necessary addition to make humans "perfect", but I wouldn't.

 

[Ophiolite]

For example, someone might view ability to fly as being a necessary addition to make humans "perfect", but I wouldn't.

My great aunt used to say that if God had intended man to fly we would all have been born with boarding passes.

 

[tas8831]

Anguspure sure seems to be a heck of a spam-troll - not as bad as Tolkien, but pretty close.

Pity that he ran off to start 8 more threads based on nonsense churned out by Dominionist religious fanatics without discussing Jon Wells' amazing ID science....

Here is some of Wells' misguided and simplistic thought:


Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force?
Wells, J.
Abstract
A microtubule-dependent polar ejection force that pushes chromosomes away from spindle poles during prometaphase is observed in animal cells but not in the cells of higher plants. Elongating microtubules and kinesin-like motor molecules have been proposed as possible causes, but neither accounts for all the data. In the hypothesis proposed here a polar ejection force is generated by centrioles, which are found in animals but not in higher plants. Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines. Orthogonally oriented centriolar turbines could generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be a microtubule-mediated ejection force tending to move chromosomes away from the spindle axis and the poles. A rise in intracellular calcium at the onset of anaphase could regulate the polar ejection force by shutting down the centriolar turbines, but defective regulation could result in an excessive force that contributes to the chromosomal instability characteristic of most cancer cells.


That is, they look like turbines, therefore they ARE turbines, therefore Jesus.

He never tested his hypothesis. This is because there is no polar ejection force - not the naive kind that Wells' pretends. The polar ejection force is, as we have known for some time, produced by the shortening of microtubules:

"Motion analysis also allowed us to measure the magnitude of the polar ejection force exerted on chromosome arms during metaphase by individual microtubules."

Not by the spinning like a turbine of the centrioles. Wells should have paid more attention to his instructors at Berkeley than to Father Moon.

 

[mindlight]

In this article Jonathan Wells exposes some of the misguided and simplistic thinking of Evolutionists:

We all know that the human body can suffer from flaws. For most people, that doesn’t mean our bodies are accidental by-products of unguided evolution. Instead, they are designed — despite the fact that they sometimes start out flawed or become flawed as they grow older.

For English anatomist Alice Roberts, however, the human body is a “hodge-podge” of parts assembled in an “untidy” fashion “with no foresight” by evolution. So, like many evolutionary biologists before her, she set out with some colleagues to “design and build the Perfect Body.”...

.....Why do people enamored of evolution ignore the evidence and presume they can create the Perfect Human Body? Is this the way science is supposed to work?

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/the-perfect-human-body/

I do not believe what we have now for a body is perfect. Indeed as a result of fall, flood and angelic fiddling we are biologically broken and living in a broken ecosystem.

The evidence for this lies in our mortality , vulnerability to disease and the ways in which we are no longer in harmony with our environment.

Science that seeks to identify the brokeness and fix it or rather restore Gods design is handicapped by the lack of a perfect human genome to model itself on. But since we do not really understand how God built us in the first place and nor can even the best scientists of our time duplicate that process we may have to wait on God for that restoration.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They obviously didn't take aesthetics into account when designing their "perfect body". With features as described, I doubt this species of creature would ever reproduce.

If humans would look like that, then our image of what constitutes "beauty" in a human would be based on humans looking like that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

These evolutionists are all talk, no action. If they really could produce a more perfect creature, then do it, instead of boasting about what they might do.

Humans actually already altered plenty of organisms to something more suitable for their needs throughout human history, by manipulating the evolutionary path of said organisms through aritifical selection...

This is how our ancestors took a single wild gabbage species, started cultivating it and through artificial seleciton, turned it into broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc etc etc

That's also how we domesticated creatures like cows, dogs, cats, etc etc. To the point that they wouldn't survive in the wild any more. In some cases even to the point that they are no longer able to naturally reproduce.

Ever seen a wild banana? That's how ALL banana's looked before humans changed them into the delicious chiquita you can buy in the store today.

And these days, we don't even need to bother that much with the cultivating and artificial selection anymore. Nope, these days, we can actually dive right into the genome and literally manipulate its genes to make it do what we want it to do. And we're becoming increasingly better at it. Because, unlike what creationists would have you believe, we actually do understand how DNA works and how we can manipulate it.

I'm sure if ever they were successful in creating something, the wisdom of God would be demonstrated in their creature's every flaw.

lol...

Meanwhile, in the real world:

 

[DogmaHunter]

I personally think it lacks integrity critiquing a machine that one is unable to duplicate, much less improve on.

Ever heared of "designer babies"?

It's when geneticists go into the DNA and remove or alter genes.
In doing so, they can for example make sure to delete certain genes known to cause cancers and stuff.

I'ld call that "improvement".
But perhaps you are one of those types like "Mother" Theresa, who thinks that suffering is "holy" and that curing people of terrible deseases, or preventing they get them in the first place, is a bad thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not believe what we have now for a body is perfect. Indeed as a result of fall, flood and angelic fiddling we are biologically broken and living in a broken ecosystem.

The evidence for this lies in our mortality , vulnerability to disease and the ways in which we are no longer in harmony with our environment.

Science that seeks to identify the brokeness and fix it or rather restore Gods design is handicapped by the lack of a perfect human genome to model itself on. But since we do not really understand how God built us in the first place and nor can even the best scientists of our time duplicate that process we may have to wait on God for that restoration.

You are just preaching your religion here.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

These evolutionists are all talk, no action. If they really could produce a more perfect creature, then do it, instead of boasting about what they might do. I'm sure if ever they were successful in creating something, the wisdom of God would be demonstrated in their creature's every flaw.

Ah, the morality of this creationist is on a par with his understanding of science.