Examples of bad "design" in humans

[phantomb]

Senescence.

 

[Blue Mountain]

• The punchline to an old joke: Who would run a septic line through a recreational zone?

Terminating a waste disposal line in a major recreational area.

Just curious ... did you even read the OP?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I've mentioned this several times before, but it begins to seem clear that humans weren't designed when you take a close look at the DNA and see what cumbersome means were used to achieve the end result -- our working bodies. It is strangely reminiscent of unmanageable spaghetti code, in which one small change to fix a problem breaks five other, seemingly unrelated things.

 

[tyr_13]

The trade off for being able to outrun anything, as well as many other benefits, favors the upright stance. Most healthy people never have back problems.

I didn't think that the ability to outrun anything came from the spinal column. Being upright did that, but that doesn't mean the spine has to be 'designed' to work better horizontal. You see, I know why the spine works better horizontal, because we used to walk on all fours, but if we were designed to walk and run upright, it could have been a better one. Hence, evidence against intelligent design.

So our benefits from an upright stance says nothing about why the spine works better laying down.

 

[TjW]

• The punchline to an old joke: Who would run a septic line through a recreational zone?

Terminating a waste disposal line in a major recreational area.

Just curious ... did you even read the OP?

Apparently all but one critical line.

 

[Delvo]

Crappy mammalian eyes that pale compared to many birds' or reptiles' eyes.

That's only true if you pick out only the ways that theirs are better and ignore the ways that mammals' are. We can't see long distances like many birds can, but we can see up close better than them (which is more useful to use anyway) and still see pretty far compared to a lot of other critters. And we can't pick up quite as much color information as them, but we can come close (three "cone" types instead of four), which is really still plenty, and we're much better at adapting to very dim light (they have no "rods").

I didn't think that the ability to outrun anything came from the spinal column.

I don't believe it exists. Most animals out there have no trouble outrunning us, even if they have shorter legs than us. If we're "designed" for anything when it comes to locomotion, it's stability: the ability to stand still using very little energy, walk at an efficient pace for long long times for little energy expense, and carry loads with us. Running/jumping would have called for instability and sacrificed those things.

I know why the spine works better horizontal, because we used to walk on all fours, but if we were designed to walk and run upright, it could have been a better one.

I'm curious how. A solid single-piece backbone wouldn't have the joint problems, but it also wouldn't let us flex like we do, so we wouldn't be able to get some important jobs done. And with any generally linear object (much longer in one dimension than in the others), I don't know how else to divide it up so it flexes, other than into pieces oriented as ours are (planes perpendicular to long axis). Would you suggest that the vertical support function be split between several elements extending up from the pelvis instead of just one central one? Or that we keep the same basic principle of a column divided by horizontal planes but use fewer and longer pieces?

* * *

My first suggestion would be the strange ways some of our skeletal muscles wrap around the joints and each other. Why not just one for each type of movement, located and oriented where its force goes most efficiently into that movement and no others?

 

[SezMe]

I've mentioned this several times before, but it begins to seem clear that humans weren't designed when you take a close look at the DNA and see what cumbersome means were used to achieve the end result -- our working bodies. It is strangely reminiscent of unmanageable spaghetti code, in which one small change to fix a problem breaks five other, seemingly unrelated things.

This raises an interesting point. Most of the comments (including mine) so far focus on macro-level designs such as the eyes, the spinal column, etc. But how many crappy designs exist at the cellular and chemical levels that nobody would know about unless they were a specialist in a relevant discipline?

 

[six7s]

A birth canal that is so small/inflexible that our (big skulled) young are born prematurely (cf many (most?) other (terrestrial) mammals that can walk within minutes of their first breath)

This is due to our large brains, which are not fully formed at birth. The long period from birth to walking allows greater brain development. It is a trade off.

I know what you mean, but I think you've got it a bit skewed... the growth of the infant is what facilitates greater brain devlopment... whether or not this happens ante or post natally is, I think, irrelvant... although I guess there is more stimulus as is

Anyhoo, from a survival perspective, I still think that we're born prematurely insofar as a defencless, immobile toddler is greater a handicap to a mother than one that's still in the womb

Elephants: big brains, and relatively large neo-nates but with a gestation period of 22 months - long enough to facilitate (almost) full limb development

Henry Mancini's Baby Elephant Walk

​

 

[CFLarsen]

Isn't it easier to give examples of good design?






.....I'll get back when I can think of something...

 

[six7s]

In this context, I'm not a big fan of the word 'design'

However, we do have some rather nifty bits that allow us to live in a variety of habitats... e.g opposable thumbs: great for hitchhiking

 

[SezMe]

... e.g opposable thumbs: great for hitchhiking

Hands ideally designed to rev Harley motorcycles....

 

[a_unique_person]

Not human design, but I was interested to hear about the giant squid that was recently carved up. It's digestive tract goes right through the middle of it's brain, which wraps around like a donut.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Examples of bad "design" in humans

Edible.

 

[Hokulele]

The bit that I hate about this question (and related questions) is that the word design implies a purpose. Anything from a microwave oven to a bower bird's display area shows purpose, either in the design itself or in its use. If people are designed, what the heck is the purpose? If the purpose is to poop and procreate, I can think of many better designs. If the purpose is to glorify some sort of deity, once again, I could do better.

 

[asmodean]

I know this isn't the intent of the topic, but I love a challenge.

The trade off for being able to outrun anything, as well as many other benefits, favors the upright stance. Most healthy people never have back problems.

Key point being it's a trade-off and "wroks well enough most of the time", but hardly indicative of a supreme intelligence that can scramble up lifeforms from scratch though.

The same design is used in most animals, so it is the best there is. Besides, some people consider it all recreation zone.

Best there is is? For an omni-everything intelligent designer?

That is what other people are for. We are social animals, so we don't need eyes everywhere. Ears are often enough to know what is going on behind you as well.

Once again, reliance on other mechanisms to get a "works for enough people, enough of the time". Whats the intelligence in this whenyou can do something that works damn well, for most people almost all of the time?

You should breath through the nose, and eat with your mouth.

Still a silly, overly complicated and error-prone design. And what hwen you have a cold? Not easy breathing through the nose when its clogged is it? Not very intelligent design it seems.

The brain needs cooling, it can't be buried deep inside the body.

And go.. the intelligent designer can't design a cooling system? So that one of the key components in its creation can be properly protected? Like building a panzer and put the engine on stilts on top in order to allow it to cool properly.

See these pages for extensive commentary
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton_vs_squid.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/6/2098.full

Which seems to support the contention that human eye "design" = "just about good enough", squid eye "design" = superior.

Some nerve tissue does regenerate.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/asfb-bch052708.php

Why some and not all? We've an intelligen designer here poofing things into existance, right? So why just "some"?

If blood pressure did not increase, you would die right away. Elevated blood pressure maintains brain function so you have a chance at survival. Stopping bleeding isn't that hard, but you have to be awake long enough to do it.

Next?

And once again, it's not about wether these jury rigged systems work, they obviously do (or NS would've weeeded them out) but WHY they are so ineffecient, clumsy and poorly thought out when apparently this is supposed to be made by a very superior intelligence that have designed everything from physical constants to every little living thing scurrying around on this planet.

 

[six7s]

Hands ideally designed to rev Harley motorcycles....

Or crank start Ladas

Déja woo!

Unlike teh intetubes, there are innumerable rules that apply to most roads, which are - nevertheless - open to speedsters, drunk drivers, Harleys and Ladas... if you can't avoid them, take a hike

 

[six7s]

If people are designed, what the heck is the purpose? If the purpose is to poop and procreate, I can think of many better designs. If the purpose is to glorify some sort of deity, once again, I could do better.

Assuming (based on the evidence ) that we're not designed, I think that our bodies are pretty damn cool, and some of them are pretty damn hot, too!

YMMV

 

[leon_heller]

Humans are much more likely to choke than other animals. I was reminded of this the other day by someone choking to death whilst participating in a cake eating contest.

Leon

 

[six7s]

Humans are much more likely to choke than other animals

Perhaps because, compared to all other species, we swallow way too much crap

 

[Gravy]

Fatal anaphylactic shock from allergens that should be harmless. Thanks, God!