• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Examples of bad "design" in humans

This logic goes both ways:

Dump a human runner in the middle of Interstae traffic with a Kangaroo and let's see who reaches the shoulder first.

Dump a Spider Monkey and a human gymnast in a pole vault contest and lets see who can make the vault without falling.

Dump a antelope and a human sprinter into a Marathon and let's see who gets to the finish line first.

Drop a human into the ocean with a dolphin, turn a Killer whale lose, and let's see who gets away.

Put a top MMA fighter into a Silver Back's territory and let's see who comes out top.

See?

You know, this whole 'best' thing is silly. So what that we can't be then animals at their game. That's why we don't try. You don't try to out 'gymnast' a spider monkey, you out run it, or beat it to death. You don't run a marathon against an antelope, you sneak up on it. We don't even live in the damn ocean, so that's silly. And you don't melee battle with a Silver Back. Humans have a wide range of skills so that we don't have to be the 'best' at any one. Being 'best' at one thing makes you suck at another.

Oh, and don't drop anyone in the middle of the interstate. But if you had to, I'd hope that the drivers would work harder avoiding the human.
 
Well, ignorant is one word. Being a dick is three more.
lol

Touche?

I know that there's a religious attachment to the concept that humans are a good design, but frankly, we're not. We're just good enough that we can survive long enough to reproduce.

See this is where we disagree. I would instead have said "We're so good that we have completely transcended biological evolution."

I mean, don't get me wrong -- I am an animal lover and a naturalist and I have great respect for everything mother nature has created. But what I respect most of all is the ability self-conscious entities have to "bootstrap" themselves -- something that so far only humans have been able to do. Assuming we don't cause our own extinction, we are on track to be the first life form from our planet that can ensure its own species survival indefinitely, and everything else that evolution has produced simply pales in comparison to that.

At least, in my opinion!
 
You know, this whole 'best' thing is silly. So what that we can't be then animals at their game. That's why we don't try. You don't try to out 'gymnast' a spider monkey, you out run it, or beat it to death. You don't run a marathon against an antelope, you sneak up on it. We don't even live in the damn ocean, so that's silly.
I agree completely. Just let me insist please, because it is simply true, that a trained runner by far outpaces any antelope over a marathon distance.
 
I agree completely. Just let me insist please, because it is simply true, that a trained runner by far outpaces any antelope over a marathon distance.

I was actually aware of that, humans being very good distance runners when needed to do so (note I didn't say 'best' or 'all humans'). However, I didn't want to say that because it is pretty clear some people won't accept that.

And I'm pretty interested in the teeth thing too. I had to wear a retainer for years in my youth, but then I had two sets of wisdom teeth come in completely straight. Freaks my dentist out, so I'm guessing it must be pretty weird.
 
I've read (sometimes skimmed) through all the pages as I am particularly interested at the moment in the things that go wrong with eyes.

However, may I ask a question which is slightly off topic? It's about short (and long) sight. I can understand why both would be evolutionarily advantageous as soon as the human species started to diverge from our common ape ancestor. But how far back in the ape evolutionary tree would it be a survival advantage for short sight not to disappear?
 
However, may I ask a question which is slightly off topic? It's about short (and long) sight. But how far back in the ape evolutionary tree would it be a survival advantage for short sight not to disappear?

My understanding is that during our early years, there is a feedback loop between sharpness of vision and growth of the eyeball. If, in a child, vision is fuzzy, the eyeball continues to grow in diameter. When vision is sharp, eyeball growth is halted, because then the "projection screen" (retina) is at the right distance from the lens to yield a clear image of the world. If, however, a child spends too much time indoors, in small rooms or caves, reading or looking at television or computer screens, this growth will stop at the wrong point and near-sightedness will develop.

A trait like this (growth directed by focus) will remain stable in a population if it yields a passable advantage over the absense of the trait before reproduction is complete. After reproduction, the whole organism can go to hell as far as the genes are concerned -- the genes have moved on to a fresh body. Eyes only have to be good enough, more often than not, to result in successful reproduction of the genes that directed their construction. Anything better is likely too wasteful of food/energy/etc. to stick around.
 
Last edited:
Assuming we don't cause our own extinction, we are on track to be the first life form from our planet that can ensure its own species survival indefinitely, and everything else that evolution has produced simply pales in comparison to that.

At least, in my opinion!
If 'indefinite survival' is based upon more than wishful thinking, please do explain why that is your opinion
 
We will soon be able to re-design the human being, as necessary or desirable. This could be part of the intelligent design/and/or evolution. It will be interesting how we use these new found abilities...the ability to alter our basic package. We may be stuck with how we are, but our great, great grandchildren may not be.
 
Just realized I better expand on that.

Halliwell and Gutteridge suggest that because gulonolactone produces hydrogen peroxide as a result of Vit C synthesis, getting C from the diet lowers oxidative stress. The success of primates that lost the ability to create their own C is a testament to the success of this change.

anyone mentioned the vitamin c thing yet?

No the conversation got sidetracked.

But that is a very good one.

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.

Interesting. I just read about the first operation to remove the appendix, through the mouth. No scars.

Hmm ... now I wonder how that topic would evolve ...
 
Of course this entire topic has evolved out of control. If there was any intelligence here, the topic would have turned out differently, instead of randomly going here and there, mutating into things other than the topic starter planned ....


hmm ... wait .... now there is another sort of permutation. What about the code? The source code for the design?
 
Nipples on men that are physiologically identical to those of women and capable of producing milk are certainly, if I may borrow a phrase from my youth, a "ghey" addition by God to the human form.

Is there any passage in the Bible where God says unto the men of the tribe "now that you have slain your enemies well, go forth and lactate well and rejoice, for surely I am a good and intelligent designer"?
 
Last edited:
Nipples on men that are physiologically identical to those of women and capable of producing milk are certainly, if I may borrow a phrase from my youth, a "ghey" addition by God to the human form.

Ha! Rather than point out that some male mammals can nurse young, I should point out that according to religious precepts, we are designed in God's image, which mean God has big old God sized man nipples.
 
Nipples on men that are physiologically identical to those of women and capable of producing milk are certainly, if I may borrow a phrase from my youth, a "ghey" addition by God to the human form.

Indeed! Our sloppy sexual dimorphism, both physiologically and behaviorally, betrays our profoundly unintelligent design.
 
If 'indefinite survival' is based upon more than wishful thinking, please do explain why that is your opinion

Well I think it is clear that we are already (technologically) able to overcome anything nature can throw at us locally, which includes things like climate change, disease, natural disasters, etc.

Most likely within 100 years we will have self-sustaining colonies on the moon and mars, and its only a matter of time before we colonize the solar system. So then we would be able to overcome the destruction of earth from something like a catastrophic collision with an asteroid, etc.

After that, even if we don't develop some technology that allows faster than light travel, we will most likely build gigantic ramscoops or "daedalus" nuclear pulse drive ships or any of the crazy ideas people have come up with for sub-light speed interstellar travel. This would allow us to overcome the death of Sol (whether by nova or supernova or whatever) by moving to other stars.

Going even further, by the time the universe ends (from either heat death or collapse) I am confident we will have found a way to survive through that.

Really, it all hinges on whether we can make it through the next 100 years or so without destroying ourselves and/or the planet we depend on. For this reason, I genuinely think this may turn out to be one of the most exciting times to be alive for the history of humanity!
 
See this is where we disagree. I would instead have said "We're so good that we have completely transcended biological evolution."

I mean, don't get me wrong -- I am an animal lover and a naturalist and I have great respect for everything mother nature has created. But what I respect most of all is the ability self-conscious entities have to "bootstrap" themselves -- something that so far only humans have been able to do. Assuming we don't cause our own extinction, we are on track to be the first life form from our planet that can ensure its own species survival indefinitely, and everything else that evolution has produced simply pales in comparison to that.

At least, in my opinion!

I'd tend to agree. Of course I'm a pretty dedicated transhumanist, so you don't really have to work hard to sell me that - I'm pretty well sold.

Of course the first step, IMHO, is to recognize all the weaknesses we now have, and that we've passed the point where we have to sit around waiting for a reasonably slow, reasonably hard to control process, and start changing those things that are poor directly.


If 'indefinite survival' is based upon more than wishful thinking, please do explain why that is your opinion

Nonsense. Human beings have grown in number, populated every continent, and have no remaining natural predators that are any threat to us at all. There are no lifeforms that better fulfill our niche - we have created our own niche, and it is suited to us - and only us. Our genetic structure is sufficiently diverse and our populations is both large and geographically dispersed, so a single disease is unlikely to threaten our survival.

That removes all common causes of extinction. In fact, we are so far beyond the boundries of extinction that even before the discovery of crude oil as a fuel source, we could not be eliminated by those causes. If we were ever reduced to 17th century technology, we'd STILL be unable to become extinct.

Now we're down to uncommon causes:

Nuclear War - I doubt it would wipe everyone out. 5.5 Billion? Possibly. Maybe more. We'd recover in a few thousand years.

Asteroid Strike - highly unlikely. Also, we're developing technology to monitor and intercept them.

Doomsday plague - Once again, many populations have been nailed by extraordinarily nasty plagues. Genetic and geographical diversity has always, historically, been enough to ensure the species survival. If we're talking a gengineered doomsday plague, then, well, err... hollywood much?

Sun's core fills with iron, expands into a red giant - okay, this one is a problem. We can't really do much about it, with our current technology, nor can we really avoid it. Four billion years down the line, this is going to become an issue.

Heat Death of the Universe - Yup, this one looks pretty sure. I doubt we're getting out of that.


If you have a claim that something can cause our extinction, I'd say it's time for you to sit down and provide it. Because we've eliminated our expanded past any and all natural causes of extinction in the evolutionary process. Short the sun going red giant (and the heat death) there is little that threatens our species.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. Human beings have grown in number, populated every continent, and have no remaining natural predators that are any threat to us at all. There are no lifeforms that better fulfill our niche - we have created our own niche, and it is suited to us - and only us.

Hmmm...
www.biota.org Douglas Adams' speech at Digital Biota 2
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.

Look at what's supposed to be going to happen on the 1st of January 2000 - let's not pretend that we didn't have a warning that the century was going to end! I think that we need to take a larger perspective on who we are and what we are doing here if we are going to survive in the long term.<snip/>
 
Douglas Adams got it wrong. We are not the puddle sitting in a lovely hole that just fits us. We dug our own hole. I live in a climate where for three months a year, if I was left naked and alone in the woods, I would die within hours.

And yet I'm perfectly comfortable all year round. We made our hole.

We have to take a larger perspective of who we are and what we're doing here because we are going to survive in the long term.
 
You know, this whole 'best' thing is silly. So what that we can't be then animals at their game. That's why we don't try. You don't try to out 'gymnast' a spider monkey, you out run it, or beat it to death. You don't run a marathon against an antelope, you sneak up on it. We don't even live in the damn ocean, so that's silly. And you don't melee battle with a Silver Back. Humans have a wide range of skills so that we don't have to be the 'best' at any one. Being 'best' at one thing makes you suck at another


I agree.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom