Examples of bad "design" in humans

[gumboot]

Nonsense.

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).

 

[gumboot]

Here's a question for the forumites.... Why are there no tripeds?

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.

 

[Delvo]

It is human instability that makes us so utterly ineffective at locomotion for over a year of life while other animals are walking confidently in a matter of hours. We have to learn how to walk. Other animals just do it. Why? Because our configuration is inherently unstable. Crap design.

Other animals don't learn to crawl first. They just stand. Straight away. We can't. Obviously we have the setback of having to further develop motor function so we can move ourselves, but if we were like other animals (accepting that we aren't as developed when we're born), we wouldn't crawl and then walk, we'd just go straight from immobile baby to toddler.

Stephen J. Gould compared the times at which major changes physiological changes happen in different species, as a fraction of the overall life span. For example, if a change happens at age 1 in a species that lives 10 years, the same change happens at age 2 in a species that lives 20 years. This works over all species within rather broad categories, such as "birds" or "placental mammals". You just have to start the clock at conception, not birth/hatching. Birth/hatching is one of those things that happens at a fairly consistent fractional age. And the list of different changes he used was long, including a bunch of things we don't see very well on the outside, such as finishing the conversion of skeletal cartilage into bones and changing from fetal growth rates to post-birth growth rates for different parts of the body. Those last two are examples of things that normally happen at about the same time as birth. But in humans, they don't happen until several months after birth.

His conclusion, though, was not that humans have delayed development. Those things, and also the ability to walk, happen right on schedule relative to the big picture of our lives. The one that's out of place is birth. It happens after an inordinately short gestation, and when some of the things most mammals do before birth aren't done yet. Essentially, Gould says we're all born at about half of a proper mammalian gestation, premature. In other words, even after birth, we're still fetuses, and we don't become real babies until some time later. So the things people point out as matters of delayed human development really aren't; they're just made to look that way by comparison with birth, which happens rather early compared to other mammals' schedules.

Ah I see what has happened... two similar discussions have merged due to their similarity. You were discussing the human ability to outrun things, and whether this came from the spine (roughly speaking) and I was discussing with someone else inherent human instability. They came back with a comment about humans being good endurance runners, thus merging the two arguments into one.

Of course it doesn't actually require any theoretical stuff about development to show humans are a less stable design. Stability is a physical trait and physics can use calculation to demonstrate our instability. We have a tall upright frame, with a high center of gravity (higher in males than females) supported on two very small close together surface areas (our feet). This is unstable. In contrast a snake, for example, has a low height with a very low center of gravity supported on a very broad base. This is stable.

It's not biology. It's physics.

People seem to be using two different meanings of the word "stable". What you've described is "hard to knock over". The last time I used it in this thread, I meant "requiring little energy to stay where it is or keep going the way it is". The former is more applicable to solid objects, and the latter (the "dynamic" kind of stability) is more applicable to animals (and jets). And compared to most other mammals, humans are more stable, which means more efficient when on the feet. It comes from the relatively straight alignment of our legs and the smaller number of joints between our hips and the ground (because our feet are on the ground); most other animals have their ankles up off of the ground and don't straighten out their ankles or knees, so it takes more muscular action for them to stand still. This kind of stability is neither a flaw nor anything outstanding or special. It's just a matter of favoring efficiency over agility (running speed or jumping height/distance), when many other mammals favor agility over efficiency.

 

[Herzblut]

That's because we manipulate our environment and make things to help us survive. Left to fend on their own humans would die in practically every climate on earth.

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

 

[Delvo]

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

That article has a few serious problems. First, none of the traits they are talking about are recent discoveries, and no reason is given to think they must be for running rather than for standing & walking bipedally as has been thought before, so it just doesn't make its case; there's neither new information nor a logical reason to reinterpret old information. Second, it fails to address the basic issue that makes the claim so counterintuitive as to even need to be said the first place (because nobody would ever have thought it otherwise): if we're meant for running, then why are we so bad at it? Other mammals and flightless birds, except those with the VERY shortest limbs, have no trouble at all outrunning us. Third, biologists have long noticed the differences between the running/jumping legs of running/jumping animals and the stability-emphasizing legs of animals that need stability but aren't runners or jumpers (such as elephants), and there's no disputing the fact that humans have the latter kind of leg, not the former, but the article fails to address that.

So the article not only fails to make its own case with new information or logic for reinterpreting old information, but also fails to do anything at all about the contradictory evidence OR the theory that already explains the contradictory evidence.

The whole thing just makes no sense. Clearly we are not runners but walkers, and reading an article claiming otherwise without a single solitary reason to think otherwise is like watching an astrologer flounder for an explanation of how their failure at any test of astrology is actually a success.

 

[GreyICE]

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

Come on. This is completely incorrect. No one in this thread, except you has suggested that the only feature humans have going for them is their brains.

You are the only one who is saying that.

 

[SezMe]

Moreover, your condescending attitude is not helpful.

 

[Herzblut]

Come on. This is completely incorrect. No one in this thread, except you has suggested that the only feature humans have going for them is their brains.

Would you show me where I made this exceptional suggestion?

 

[Herzblut]

Moreover, your condescending attitude is not helpful.

Yeah, I apologize.

 

[rocketdodger]

Take any athlete from Beijing. Any. Single. One.

ok

Now pit it against a racehorse. Doesn't even have to be a prizewinner. Who wins that? Oh yeah, not the human. Ditto for Kangaroo, any large cat, etc.

Done. Without something to force the animal in a straight line, they won't even race.

Weight Lifting? Please, show me one that can move more than a strong Gorilla, Horse, or Elephant.

Done. Without someone to physically direct the animal to the weights, they won't lift anything at all.

Gymnastics? Do you really think any of them can keep up with monkeys? They move through trees like they're highways.

Which apparently is the same thing as performing on the rings or parallel bars? What are you smoking?

Swimming? Okay. Have one outswim a Bottlenose dolphin. Waiting.

Dolphins could probably figure out how to race each other in a straight line, so I won't argue that one.

But besides manual dexterity, the animals have evolved for other things than we did, and that means even the pinnacles of our limited design are lower than the averages of their species.

Apparently you have seen cranes doing triple lutz's and monkeys doing twists while vaulting. I haven't seen that. Maybe I am just ignorant?

 

[gumboot]

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?

I've never claimed the idea you cite above, and indeed I agree that it's grossly wrong. Unlike you I've never held that idea. I don't know why you got the idea that I thought it was valid.

This thread is about the hypothetical premise that some sort of Giant Invisible Sky Friend designed humans. It seeks to explore bad design elements that undermine this premise (if our Sky Friend is perfect, as we're meant to assume, and if we're his special babies, we should have been designed perfectly).

As such it stands to reason that discussion in this thread will be about flaws in humans rather than good aspects.

 

[rocketdodger]

In Beijing the top 0.0001% of humans are doing things (as far as stability goes) that all other animals in the wild do on a daily basis. Not impressed.

Yes, there are many species of animals that race each other in straight lines, fence each other, lob balls back and forth at each other, balance on a 6 inch wide beam while doing somersaults, and swim with 4 distinctly different strokes, on a daily basis.

If I cared about sig lines, I would say you just game up with a gem of one.

 

[gumboot]

Done. Without something to force the animal in a straight line, they won't even race.

Done. Without someone to physically direct the animal to the weights, they won't lift anything at all.

Which apparently is the same thing as performing on the rings or parallel bars? What are you smoking?

Dolphins could probably figure out how to race each other in a straight line, so I won't argue that one.

Apparently you have seen cranes doing triple lutz's and monkeys doing twists while vaulting. I haven't seen that. Maybe I am just ignorant?

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?

 

[Herzblut]

I've never claimed the idea you cite above, and indeed I agree that it's grossly wrong. Unlike you I've never held that idea. I don't know why you got the idea that I thought it was valid.

Because, for instance, your post I was replying to transports this idea. Whereas none of my posts does. To be more precise, all of my posts reject this idea.

As such it stands to reason that discussion in this thread will be about flaws in humans rather than good aspects.

Where it is grossly wrong to call our locomotion a flaw, like you do. It is, in fact, one of our greatest strengths. With due respect, I'm tired repeating this statement of facts.

 

[soylent]

The ability to get physically dependent on dangerous drugs such as heroin.

Food cravings that are completely out of whack with todays world of abundance and our abillity to create new kinds of foods that have never existed(Deep fried mars bars, thin discs of bread covered in a full centimeter of cheese and meats, fizzy sugar water that has been carefully scraped clean of any trace of nutrients, hungry man breakfast(with the full RDI of fat, saturated fat, sodium and over twice the RDI of cholesterol)...). In a time of spurious access to food we might have eaten vegetables as a general rule, because they're pretty easy to get ahold of, and meat and other luxuries when we could get them; now we can, and far too many of us do, choose to eat whatever we like, as much as we like.

'Gutfeel' risk assessment based loosely on how many times an occurance has been encountered or discussed rather than rational judgement. This does not jive well with television; it ignores the enormous death toll due to coal particulates, smoking, cancer, heart attacks, crossing the street, traffic accidents, building fires etc. and emphasizes very improbable causes of death like terrorism and school shootings.

 

[VonNeumann]

I don't understand the unwritten requirement that design is something that, by someone's definition, should result in created objects that have no flaws.

All of my designs are flawed but if they do the job, I consider them to be a success. Also, if I could only design pieces that self assemble into many different interactive entities, and over time, adapt themselves to the pressures around them, I'd consider myself a pretty damn good designer. Isn't this thread really about how a perfect omniscient designer would not be expected to produce what would seem to us to be crumby designs? It is not a rebuttal of the idea of design then, is it? ... it rebuts only the idea of perfect design, seems to me.

The only designers I know for certain to exist, such as you and me, are not perfect designers -- but we ARE designers.

 

[rocketdodger]

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?

No, I don't see.

You are clearly departing from your "stability" metric in those examples. I was not.

It seems to be (at least to me) a valid argument to say that a human gymnast achieves greater stability than any animal, in some way, in order to accomplish some of their moves because there is simply no other animal that can do such moves. Obviously this is because we are so much more intelligent and not because of any physical attribute. But who says stability is limited to physical attributes? If you want to limit stability to physical attributes then your monkeys and kangaroos are also very unstable since they will fall over quite quickly if you knock them unconscious.

 

[six7s]

I don't understand the unwritten requirement that design is something that, by someone's definition, should result in created objects that have no flaws.

Quality control is a subjective activity with results that vary according to the depth and breadth of scrutiny

All of my designs are flawed but if they do the job, I consider them to be a success.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

 

[gumboot]

I don't understand the unwritten requirement that design is something that, by someone's definition, should result in created objects that have no flaws.

All of my designs are flawed but if they do the job, I consider them to be a success.

You're not God. You (probably) also don't design things that have serious functional flaws.

Also, if I could only design pieces that self assemble into many different interactive entities, and over time, adapt themselves to the pressures around them, I'd consider myself a pretty damn good designer.

Intelligent Design folks don't argue that God designed evolution. They argue that God designed every single animal to be exactly the way it is, and that every single animal has only ever been that way.

The "God designed evolution" theory is the only one I can think of that fits in well with science and evolution.

Isn't this thread really about how a perfect omniscient designer would not be expected to produce what would seem to us to be crumby designs? It is not a rebuttal of the idea of design then, is it? ... it rebuts only the idea of perfect design, seems to me.

The only designers I know for certain to exist, such as you and me, are not perfect designers -- but we ARE designers.

God is allegedly perfect. That's why he/she/it is supposed to be God.

 

[VonNeumann]

You're not God. You (probably) also don't design things that have serious functional flaws.




Intelligent Design folks don't argue that God designed evolution. They argue that God designed every single animal to be exactly the way it is, and that every single animal has only ever been that way.

The "God designed evolution" theory is the only one I can think of that fits in well with science and evolution.




God is allegedly perfect. That's why he/she/it is supposed to be God.

Oh... I didn't know this thread was about God. I thought it referenced Intelligent Design. I'll have to go back and read to see what it says.