Examples of bad "design" in humans

[Freethinker]

Back to original post,

I am surprised no one else has yet mentioned either of the following two organs: tonsils and appendix. both are completely useless in humans (they can be removed without impacting the functionality of the whole).
Furthermore the reason we know this is that they they commonly get infected and need to be removed to prevent further dissease.
Why would an 'intelligently designed' human have parts that serve no purpose other than to pose a threat to other parts.

Tonsils are a functioning part of the immune system. It appears that they aren't terribly effective in a high population density society where humans are exposed to enormous amounts of pathogens, but they are not useless. It seems that they contribute to antiviral and antibacterial activity in the nose and throat. Some studies correlate higher incidences of some diseases with prior removal of the tonsils.

 

[gumboot]

Back to original post,

I am surprised no one else has yet mentioned either of the following two organs: tonsils and appendix. both are completely useless in humans (they can be removed without impacting the functionality of the whole).
Furthermore the reason we know this is that they they commonly get infected and need to be removed to prevent further dissease.
Why would an 'intelligently designed' human have parts that serve no purpose other than to pose a threat to other parts.

Yes excellent. Vestigial structures are the best examples of "bad design". Other examples in humans are ear muscles, wisdom teeth, the tail bone, androgenic hair, goose bumps, and the semilunar fold in the eye.

 

[Herzblut]

Thus we can conclude, based on the current evidence that Intelligent Design is false.

Didn't you say, science wasn't about right or wrong? But about supported or unsupported? So, what now?

The only theory that can incorporate Intelligent Design and the available evidence is that this creator person intentionally put evidence of evolution into the earth to test our faith, fool us, entertain us, encourage us to develop our brains (I've seen all of these arguments offered).

This is nonsense. I can make up thousands of scenarios compliant with given evidence. I like this one: the whole world, everything, including our false memories and fake historical data, was created 20 minutes ago by a God called Potzliputzli.

At this point our friend Occam's Razor comes into the mix. Both theories fit the available evidence. One theory relies a ridiculous level of assumption and speculation. One does not. The simple theory wins.

But simplicity is not truth indicative. It's more convenient, and therefore preferable, with or without any kind of razor.

Now maybe one day in the future someone will uncover an incriminating photo of God burying a fossil in the ground, but until someone does the Intelligent Design theory must be rejected as unsupported. That's how science works.

Well, maybe one day in the future someone will come up with some evidence to support string theory, but until someone does, string theory is .. not rejected as unsupported. Strange. What's how science works?

 

[technoextreme]

I would argue that many of the other very rare examples of mammalian bipeds are in fact tripeds because of how they use their tail (Kangaroos for example). For why we all have four limbs (excluding tail) see the earlier discussion on the matter.

If that was the explanation as to the energy costs I'm not buying it. If that were the case all birds would be flightless.

Well, maybe one day in the future someone will come up with some evidence to support string theory, but until someone does, string theory is .. not rejected as unsupported. Strange. What's how science works?

Actually, String Theory is testable which means it does fall under a science. Can we test for it right now? Not yet but the giant black hole generating machine known as CERN can help prove whether or not String Theory is legitimate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

All things considered you are ignoring the fact that Cheetahs only have two legs on the ground when they are running. In fact I would guess most animals that you have brought up only have two legs on the ground when they are running.
.

Actualy most animals when running have periods when no legs are on the ground.

 

[Herzblut]

Actualy most animals when running have periods when no legs are on the ground.

I would think this defines running.

 

[technoextreme]

You should at least look into the possibility that your paradigm is wrong.

The basic idea that humans are physical misconstructions, except their monster brain, and physically far inferior to most animals, and somehow survived in the wilderness by incredible luck - this used to be popular. I know. I clinged to this nonsense as well. For many, many years.

But it is grossly wrong. Would you please have a calm thought about it before you keep posting this crap?

Thanks alot

Not going to happen. I just realized that they want humans to race against an animal that for all intents and purposes has undergone a form of intelligent design (By man). With that stupid logic we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's true. If you take the best gymnasts and what have you, they're showing a level of stability that's beaten by monkeys and other relatively acrobatic animals. Yet while these gymnasts account for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of humans, you'll find that your average monkey is superior.

This is the problem that people run into when they compare humans and animals on physical performance. They identify the very best human out of 6 billion specimens (and indeed they'll often find the best across time as well which increases the field of specimens substantially) and then they compare it to a run of the mill generic example of a species of animal.

Even then, usually at best humans compare with the animal, and are not better in any seriously measurable way.

And worse yet, as demonstrated often people won't even compare the best animal at that particular feat, thus further weighting things in favour of humans. Look at the horse-man marathon example. (I appreciate that the example was given in response to a specific comment about a race horse). Horses certainly aren't the best at endurance in the animal kingdom (excluding humans).

What you are failing to see is that what animals could do well at say gymnastics, swiming, and track and feild events? Not do one of them better than humans, but do all of them as well as humans.

Humans are generalists, and having the ability to adapt tools and behaviors has made us the best generalists on the planet.

Sure you can cite animals that beat humans and individual events, but how many could beat humans at more than one type of event?

 

[technoextreme]

What you are failing to see is that what animals could do well at say gymnastics, swiming, and track and feild events? Not do one of them better than humans, but do all of them as well as humans.

Humans are generalists, and having the ability to adapt tools and behaviors has made us the best generalists on the planet.

Sure you can cite animals that beat humans and individual events, but how many could beat humans at more than one type of event?

I brought that up on the second page. Gumboot said that we are horrible at anything that doesn't involve flat land.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You should at least look into the possibility that your paradigm is wrong.

The basic idea that humans are physical misconstructions, except their monster brain, and physically far inferior to most animals, and somehow survived in the wilderness by incredible luck - this used to be popular. I know. I clinged to this nonsense as well. For many, many years.

But it is grossly wrong. Would you please have a calm thought about it before you keep posting this crap?

Thanks alot

So me an animal that can beat people at both the uneven bars and a marathon.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This meaningless logic goes both ways:

Dump a human runner in the middle of the Australian outback with a Kangaroo and let's see who reaches water first.

Dump a human gymnast in a South American rainforest with some Spider Monkeys and lets see who can travel through the trees without falling.

Dump a human sprinter into a herd of antelope on the African Savannah and let's see who gets away from the lions attacking them.

Drop a human into the ocean with a dolphin, turn a shark loose, and let's see who gets away.

Put a champion human wrestler or weightlifter into a Silver Back's territory and let's see who comes out top.

See?

Ah but what it we

Drop a spider monkey in the middle of the austailian outback with a human and see who gets to water first.

Drop an human in the amazon rain forrest with a dolphin and see who can go throught the trees fasters.

Drop a human in the ocean with a kangaroo and see who escapes the shark.

Ect.

 

[technoextreme]

You know what I just realized lets do the analogy the right way:
Bear Vs Human-Who will win?
Tiger Vs Human-Who will win?
Gorilla Vs Human-Who will win?
We didn't evolve to run really fast. We evolved to survive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Science is built on the entire notion that nothing is certain. Science provides the best explanation for things based on known evidence. People make the mistake (and scientists do it too) of thinking that science is about right and wrong. It's not. It's about supported and unsupported.

Now let's be clear here that Intelligent Design is not just a claim that some sort of creator or designer was involved at some point in the development of the world/universe.

Intelligent Design is specifically the claim that a creator or designer made all life precisely in the current form that it now appears.

No, that would make ID much closer to a scientific theory than it is. That is one part of ID, but ID also says that only some specific parts of cells where designed.

This is why it is not science, that you can not get any actual testable predictions. No proponents of ID will ever say "If X is shown of have originated through natural processes then ID is wrong"

So ID defines such simple things as concrete definitions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Didn't you say, science wasn't about right or wrong? But about supported or unsupported? So, what now?

It is not that simple, there is also haveing evidence supporting contradicting theories.

So the theory that heavier object fall faster in the absense of air is not a scientific theory becuase the theory that all objects fall the same speed is well supported.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would think this defines running.

No. The biomechanical definition seems to be a bouncing gate, so elephants do run when they are moving 15 mph.

Elephants can move as fast as human sprinters, and yet never take all their feet off the ground.

 

[Mashuna]

Actualy most animals when running have periods when no legs are on the ground.

I would think this defines running.

And led to cinema.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Back to original post,

I am surprised no one else has yet mentioned either of the following two organs: tonsils and appendix. both are completely useless in humans (they can be removed without impacting the functionality of the whole).
Furthermore the reason we know this is that they they commonly get infected and need to be removed to prevent further dissease.
Why would an 'intelligently designed' human have parts that serve no purpose other than to pose a threat to other parts.

Hi cwalner, and welcome to the forum!

Tonsils have already been addressed. Recent research has indicated the appendix, too, may have a function.

When humans get an infection in the gastrointestinal tract, the part of the body's response is to flush the whole thing out (diarrhea). That action also gets rid of the microbes that aid in digestion. Over time they'll come back. A recent paper (sorry, I'm typing this in haste, no time to Google for it) suggests that the appendix contains a supply of these microbes. Because it's unaffected by the flushing due to its location, once the infection has passed, this reserve supply kickstarts the repopulation of the microbes.

 

[cwalner]

When humans get an infection in the gastrointestinal tract, the part of the body's response is to flush the whole thing out (diarrhea). That action also gets rid of the microbes that aid in digestion. Over time they'll come back. A recent paper (sorry, I'm typing this in haste, no time to Google for it) suggests that the appendix contains a supply of these microbes. Because it's unaffected by the flushing due to its location, once the infection has passed, this reserve supply kickstarts the repopulation of the microbes.

Thanks for the info, I gues useless was not the correct word. However based on this and on Freethinker's reply regarding tonsils, I am still not convinced that either organ is 'useful' in that the function it provides is critical and/or outweighs some of its disadvantage.

I am also curious if there is any medical research showing that the common practice of removing these organs has had deletirous long term effects on the patients receiving the specific -ectomy. Specifically, based on the above quote, one would expect apendectomy patients to have longer recovery times from such GI maladies than the rest of the population. Has there been any research into the matter?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You know what I just realized lets do the analogy the right way:
Bear Vs Human-Who will win?
Tiger Vs Human-Who will win?
Gorilla Vs Human-Who will win?
We didn't evolve to run really fast. We evolved to survive.

Given that humans hunt all those things regularly I will bet on the humans.

 

[quarky]

Ryan O'Dine, I agree about the climax forest, except its comprised of thousands of species.

Back to the tail:

I had an old english sheep dog, with a bobbed tail (removed) and we literally had to wipe this dog's butt! A real tail helps to "pinch the loaf".