Unintelligent Design

[Bombila]

Inequal wear of irreplaceable parts in most mammals is evidence of poor design. A lot of mammals' teeth wear out before the rest of their bodies; some may even starve to death because of it. But some mammals have teeth that continue to grow with wear.

 

[MarcusHill]

A whole bunch of nerves in the human body go via bizarre routes that are either unnecessarily long or that expose them to damage that a reroute to the other side of a bone or other structure would avoid. These are hangovers from our quadrupedal (or earlier) forebears, for whom the placement made sense. Similarly, our exposed abdomen makes us bipeds much more vulnerable to evisceration than qudrupeds.

 

[Paconious]

We modify those things by ourselves by removal. What should be added?

The appendix, which serves no other purpose than to kill a few hundred people a year and leave a nasty scar on the remainder. I think your not understanding the argument here. Intelligent design implies irreducible complexity. We humans are great at intelligent designing things. We make toasters which have irreducible complex parts. If you remove a transistor from a toaster it ceases to function, there is one less component moderating the electricity flow. That is irreducible complexity. The human body in contrast has a truckload of parts which can be removed and in certain circumstances, its more beneficial if you have them removed. This is not intelligent design. So the question remains: how does a omniscient, all powerful design a human body with so many flaws?

 

[Bombila]

The Fall, Paconious, you keep forgetting the fall: causes bad teeth, pointless organs, and male pattern baldness, also death in childbirth and spina bifida, etc.

Can't be argued with, far as I can see....

 

[edrogati]

The appendix, which serves no other purpose than to kill a few hundred people a year and leave a nasty scar on the remainder. I think your not understanding the argument here. Intelligent design implies irreducible complexity. We humans are great at intelligent designing things. We make toasters which have irreducible complex parts. If you remove a transistor from a toaster it ceases to function, there is one less component moderating the electricity flow. That is irreducible complexity. The human body in contrast has a truckload of parts which can be removed and in certain circumstances, its more beneficial if you have them removed. This is not intelligent design. So the question remains: how does a omniscient, all powerful design a human body with so many flaws?

I do not know. Perhaps, and this is conjecture, there are reasons for those apparently flawed parts that we just don't know, but that the omniscient designer does. There are many things that human beings have designed that can cause major problems when not used properly or when used without understanding. When they are used as designed, they work as intended. Maybe the problem is not the design, but operator error. I may have my cranium inserted in a receptacle not designed for it, but when you're talking about omniscient, all powerful beings, I'm guessing that the aforementioned being or beings would have more of a clue than we do. That said, if that being or beings can't be proven to exist to the skeptical, then my whole conjecture doesn't get very far.

 

[Paconious]

I do not know. Perhaps, and this is conjecture, there are reasons for those apparently flawed parts that we just don't know, but that the omniscient designer does. There are many things that human beings have designed that can cause major problems when not used properly or when used without understanding.

At any point, these parts can be removed and in some instances have to be removed. Its not a matter of them being improperly used, its the fact that they exist and in doing so they create a whole lot of problems for the "user." It has been found that small colonies of white blood cells live on the appendix and can be beneficial and some instances. However, the fact remains that the appendix can easily become infected and cause peritonitis, something you just dont bounce back from. Unless the source of the problem, the appendix, is removed completely. This far outweighs any benefice from small colonies of white blood cells which evidently do not offer any pragmatic use.

When they are used as designed, they work as intended. Maybe the problem is not the design, but operator error. I may have my cranium inserted in a receptacle not designed for it, but when you're talking about omniscient, all powerful beings, I'm guessing that the aforementioned being or beings would have more of a clue than we do. That said, if that being or beings can't be proven to exist to the skeptical, then my whole conjecture doesn't get very far.

The conjecture does not get very far because being all knowing excludes you from making errors. The human body is filled with flaws which challenge any claim of intelligent design.

 

[tcampen]

I do not know. Perhaps, and this is conjecture, there are reasons for those apparently flawed parts that we just don't know, but that the omniscient designer does. There are many things that human beings have designed that can cause major problems when not used properly or when used without understanding. When they are used as designed, they work as intended. Maybe the problem is not the design, but operator error. I may have my cranium inserted in a receptacle not designed for it, but when you're talking about omniscient, all powerful beings, I'm guessing that the aforementioned being or beings would have more of a clue than we do. That said, if that being or beings can't be proven to exist to the skeptical, then my whole conjecture doesn't get very far.

Having one pipe for both eating and breathing is a major design flaw. It is irrelevent whether I have the raw materials and ability to actually make something better, I do have the brain to recognize a poor design when I see it. Any creator capable of popping the universe into existence by will alone, and designing everything in it, would necessarily have the ability to desgin all these better.

That there might be a reason for poor design is such painful speculation in light of the overwhelming evidense of a lack of intellegent design. Decent with modification by impersonal forces provides a far more resonable explanation for both the amazing functions and the poorly "designed" functions in biological systems. That is not to take God out of the picture, but simple to put nature in the proper perspective.

 

[edrogati]

At any point, these parts can be removed and in some instances have to be removed. Its not a matter of them being improperly used, its the fact that they exist and in doing so they create a whole lot of problems for the "user." It has been found that small colonies of white blood cells live on the appendix and can be beneficial and some instances. However, the fact remains that the appendix can easily become infected and cause peritonitis, something you just dont bounce back from. Unless the source of the problem, the appendix, is removed completely. This far outweighs any benefice from small colonies of white blood cells which evidently do not offer any pragmatic use.



The conjecture does not get very far because being all knowing excludes you from making errors. The human body is filled with flaws which challenge any claim of intelligent design.

It's hard not to feel that I'm coming across as really ignorant on this, but my persistence in challenging this concept is pretty hard to shake. I have a belief in a god who does not make mistakes. Therefore, it's in my best interest to try to understand why things that are apparently flawed design are possibly something else. I know that we could go around and around on this ad infinitum, so I will state my point and leave it at that; lack of understanding of the purpose of something doesn't mean that it has none and perception of something as being useless or harmful all of the time because harm results some of the time doesn't make it so. There are many things we don't understand about our bodies, the earth, the solar system or the universe. To make authoritative conclusions based on lack of understanding is problematic, if not erroneous.

 

[gaara4158]

It's hard not to feel that I'm coming across as really ignorant on this, but my persistence in challenging this concept is pretty hard to shake. I have a belief in a god who does not make mistakes. Therefore, it's in my best interest to try to understand why things that are apparently flawed design are possibly something else. I know that we could go around and around on this ad infinitum, so I will state my point and leave it at that; lack of understanding of the purpose of something doesn't mean that it has none and perception of something as being useless or harmful all of the time because harm results some of the time doesn't make it so. There are many things we don't understand about our bodies, the earth, the solar system or the universe. To make authoritative conclusions based on lack of understanding is problematic, if not erroneous.

I completely understand your persistence in finding a way to reconcile the raw evidence before us with your belief in God, and I admire your acknowledgment at least that the evidence does exist. I did exactly the same thing when I was a creationist. However, you probably also realize that assuming these vestigial/harmful organs serve an unknown but vital purpose is completely faith-based and unscientific. It's basically just a trump card that'll get you out of any situation.

 

[edrogati]

I completely understand your persistence in finding a way to reconcile the raw evidence before us with your belief in God, and I admire your acknowledgment at least that the evidence does exist. I did exactly the same thing when I was a creationist. However, you probably also realize that assuming these vestigial/harmful organs serve an unknown but vital purpose is completely faith-based and unscientific. It's basically just a trump card that'll get you out of any situation.

I don't want to use it as any kind of trump card or anything like that. I'm just stating that I have a belief that incomprehensible things exist for a reason. Would it be faith-based and unscientific to try to find out that reason? Or because those vestigial/harmful organs apparently do more harm than good, we don't bother researching them, remove them when they act up and otherwise hope that they'll eventually go away?

 

[Skaloop]

It's hard not to feel that I'm coming across as really ignorant on this, but my persistence in challenging this concept is pretty hard to shake. I have a belief in a god who does not make mistakes. Therefore, it's in my best interest to try to understand why things that are apparently flawed design are possibly something else. I know that we could go around and around on this ad infinitum, so I will state my point and leave it at that; lack of understanding of the purpose of something doesn't mean that it has none and perception of something as being useless or harmful all of the time because harm results some of the time doesn't make it so. There are many things we don't understand about our bodies, the earth, the solar system or the universe. To make authoritative conclusions based on lack of understanding is problematic, if not erroneous.

It's not just that there are some things for which we currently observe no purpose. There are also things that are functional, with a clear purpose, yet they show sub-optimal design. Take the retina for example. The photoreceptors point backwards, meaning light must pass through the cells before getting to the receptors. This is like smearing vaseline on the lens of a camera; it reduces the image quality. In the eye of the octopus, however, the photoreceptors face forward, so there is no interference from the cells. Why give the octopus a better designed eye than humans (and all other vertebrates)?

Humans also face a much greater risk of choking than other animals, due to the placement of the trachea and esophagus in relation to the larynx. While this is likely an important aspect of our ability to speak, it could be improved upon to greatly reduce the risk of choking.

 

[Paconious]

It's hard not to feel that I'm coming across as really ignorant on this, but my persistence in challenging this concept is pretty hard to shake. I have a belief in a god who does not make mistakes. Therefore, it's in my best interest to try to understand why things that are apparently flawed design are possibly something else.

Even in light of the evidence? Now that's a question you have to come in terms with and offer no explanation to anyone but yourself.

I know that we could go around and around on this ad infinitum, so I will state my point and leave it at that; lack of understanding of the purpose of something doesn't mean that it has none and perception of something as being useless or harmful all of the time because harm results some of the time doesn't make it so. There are many things we don't understand about our bodies, the earth, the solar system or the universe. To make authoritative conclusions based on lack of understanding is problematic, if not erroneous.

Purpose is a hard thing to tackle. You can find your own purpose to anything in the world. It is not something you just tag on any object and claim it to be so. The conclusions which we arrive at are hardly authoritative, they are rational. We have empirical data which backs our claims. If the claim were " The body is unintelligently designed because i said so" then i and many others would red flag that as a authoritative claim and dismiss it.

and for the record i do not find your claims to be ignorant or incoherent. I think you are wrong for reasons mentioned above but you are actually one of the few people here which can disagree in a rational and coherent manner. Yes, it seems we're going to disagree in many things. However, it seems that for now we can converse those disagreements in a civil manner.

 

[edrogati]

It's not just that there are some things for which we currently observe no purpose. There are also things that are functional, with a clear purpose, yet they show sub-optimal design. Take the retina for example. The photoreceptors point backwards, meaning light must pass through the cells before getting to the receptors. This is like smearing vaseline on the lens of a camera; it reduces the image quality. In the eye of the octopus, however, the photoreceptors face forward, so there is no interference from the cells. Why give the octopus a better designed eye than humans (and all other vertebrates)?

Humans also face a much greater risk of choking than other animals, due to the placement of the trachea and esophagus in relation to the larynx. While this is likely an important aspect of our ability to speak, it could be improved upon to greatly reduce the risk of choking.

I don't know why the octopus got a better eye. Is it possible that the cells that are in front of the photoreceptors perform some protective purpose? Does light get as bright under the ocean's surface as above?

I thought language was one of the things that distinguished us from many other animals. Wouldn't this, in strictly natural terms, serve as an evolutionary advantage?

 

[edrogati]

Even in light of the evidence? Now that's a question you have to come in terms with and offer no explanation to anyone but yourself.

Purpose is a hard thing to tackle. You can find your own purpose to anything in the world. It is not something you just tag on any object and claim it to be so. The conclusions which we arrive at are hardly authoritative, they are rational. We have empirical data which backs our claims. If the claim were " The body is unintelligently designed because i said so" then i and many others would red flag that as a authoritative claim and dismiss it.

and for the record i do not find your claims to be ignorant or incoherent. I think you are wrong for reasons mentioned above but you are actually one of the few people here which can disagree in a rational and coherent manner. Yes, it seems we're going to disagree in many things. However, it seems that for now we can converse those disagreements in a civil manner.

The evidence is difficult to address and dismissing it on my part does not address it.

For me, a lot of the arguments against design seem to come across, originally intended or not, as "the body is unintelligently designed because I said so". It assumes omniscience without actually having it. We have no idea what purpose some things serve. I don't understand how that automatically makes them useless or vestigial.

Thanks for the compliments. I'm really trying here and I appreciate that acknowledgment. The evidence of evolution that we discuss every day is real and I recognize that. The lack of tangible evidence that I have to present is frustrating to me. Everything that I would call proof that God exists can fairly be called personal impressions or emotional experiences. Anecdotal evidence doesn't work, regardless of how real it is to me and what it proves to me. I'm not whining here, but how exactly would I prove a god that is intangible in its very nature? So, I apologize if some of this stuff comes across as clinging to nothing. It's hard to "un-know" something that you know to be true.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't know why the octopus got a better eye. Is it possible that the cells that are in front of the photoreceptors perform some protective purpose? Does light get as bright under the ocean's surface as above?

But why only the octopus? What about nocturnal vertebrates? They are in an environment of lower light.

I thought language was one of the things that distinguished us from many other animals. Wouldn't this, in strictly natural terms, serve as an evolutionary advantage?

Evolutionary, yes. Exactly. But we're talking about being created by a designer. And a good designer (not even a great one) could do a better job that blind natural processes.

 

[edrogati]

But why only the octopus? What about nocturnal vertebrates? They are in an environment of lower light.



Evolutionary, yes. Exactly. But we're talking about being created by a designer. And a good designer (not even a great one) could do a better job that blind natural processes.

I'm not sure. Just putting forth an idea. As for nocturnal vertebrates, I thought that a large number of them had better vision in lower light environments than humans. Cats, for example.

I'm trying to see (no pun intended) what you're getting at, but it's hard to yield my point. Since I believe in a designer, perhaps a better job *was* done than blind natural processes left alone. Sheer speculation again. Drat.

 

[Skaloop]

I'm not sure. Just putting forth an idea. As for nocturnal vertebrates, I thought that a large number of them had better vision in lower light environments than humans. Cats, for example.

Yes, they do. Through larger eyes or better focussing mechanisms or through a greater number of photoreceptors. I guess my issue is that why the variety of designs for "seeing better in darker conditions"? The usual answer is that the creator used various methods, which I would buy if not for the fact that the differences fall along evolutionary pathways. It's similar with the bones of the ear. All mammals have three inner-ear bones for hearing, regardless of their auditory requirements. No non-mammalian creature has a three-bone structure, regardless of its auditory requirements.

Now, that is certainly something that is possible for a creator to do. But this sort of nested hierarchy is not expected from a creator, nor is it necessary. For evolution, though, it is both.

I'm trying to see (no pun intended) what you're getting at, but it's hard to yield my point. Since I believe in a designer, perhaps a better job *was* done than blind natural processes left alone. Sheer speculation again. Drat.

Don't yield your point unless you are actually convinced. And I don't expect to convince you, merely ask some questions. And our discussion is much better than some of the other fanatical ones that take place around here.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't want to use it as any kind of trump card or anything like that. I'm just stating that I have a belief that incomprehensible things exist for a reason. Would it be faith-based and unscientific to try to find out that reason? Or because those vestigial/harmful organs apparently do more harm than good, we don't bother researching them, remove them when they act up and otherwise hope that they'll eventually go away?

On the contrary; I invite you to investigate these organs and see if you can find any redeeming value in them. What's unscientific about your position is that you believe that organs which have been found to be useless actually serve some purpose, despite all the evidence. It's faith-based and unscientific to assume there's a reason, but it's perfectly fine to examine for yourself whether or not there's a reason. I assume that even if you don't find anything, you'll still believe it's there, correct?

 

[edrogati]

Yes, they do. Through larger eyes or better focussing mechanisms or through a greater number of photoreceptors. I guess my issue is that why the variety of designs for "seeing better in darker conditions"? The usual answer is that the creator used various methods, which I would buy if not for the fact that the differences fall along evolutionary pathways. It's similar with the bones of the ear. All mammals have three inner-ear bones for hearing, regardless of their auditory requirements. No non-mammalian creature has a three-bone structure, regardless of its auditory requirements.

Now, that is certainly something that is possible for a creator to do. But this sort of nested hierarchy is not expected from a creator, nor is it necessary. For evolution, though, it is both.

Don't yield your point unless you are actually convinced. And I don't expect to convince you, merely ask some questions. And our discussion is much better than some of the other fanatical ones that take place around here.

If something is unexpected or unnecessary, but still happens, does it rule out a creator? I understand that it might make better sense for a designer to use only one design, not a variety, but does evidence of variety eliminate the idea of good design or design at all?

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Bombila]

I'm not sure. Just putting forth an idea. As for nocturnal vertebrates, I thought that a large number of them had better vision in lower light environments than humans. Cats, for example.

I'm trying to see (no pun intended) what you're getting at, but it's hard to yield my point. Since I believe in a designer, perhaps a better job *was* done than blind natural processes left alone. Sheer speculation again. Drat.

Going back to what another poster mentioned, the size of a human baby's head versus the pelvic opening of the average human female argues vehemently against design. There is a big evolutionary advantage to having a big brain, and that was selected for in humans. Also selected for were changes in the pelvic anatomy of human females, but those changes are barely enough to allow birth to take place, and very often are not enough. Natural selection, of course, isn't intelligent, so as long as enough infants and mothers survive, i.e., are not selected out by not reproducing, the job is done - for now.

Now, since I know somewhere in the back of your mind that exeunt Garden of Eden speech about women bearing children with pain is reciting itself: the pain of childbirth is primarily caused by the strong muscular contractions of the uterus, not directly by reason of pelvic size, and a woman having a wide pelvis and preemie baby can experience more pain than a woman with the opposite conditions. It is a lousy design, and there is nothing beneficial about its limitations for mother or infant.