Examples of bad "design" in humans

[Cactus Wren]

The knee.

 

[gumboot]

I think the spinal column is an excellent example, particularly if you take into account that the reason human's started walking upright was because our environment changed from forest to open grassland, and standing upright allowed us greater height and therefore greater visibility.

The entire bipedal design itself is seriously flawed because it is inherently unstable - almost certainly one of the key reasons humans take so long to become mobile. A much better design would to be a quadruped with a tall neck, or if God needed us to have free limbs so we could carve statues to his glory, six limbs.

To illustrate the point, the only bipedal land animals are flightless birds and four types of mammals. Putting aside birds for a moment (because all flightless birds have ineffective wings, causing further issues for the "design" crowd) the only other bipedal animals are macropods, the kangaroo mouse, the spring hare, and humans.

Macropods, kangaroo mice, and springhares are all notable for standing on very long flat feet, and having very sturdy tails which they rest on. Thus they're in fact tripods, and their two major supporting limbs are designed for maximum stability. They also all have a very low center of gravity.

The human is distinctly different - it has incredibly small supporting surfaces, no tail, and stands upright with a high centre of gravity.

A human is about as close as you could get to an animal that was designed to fall over. Thus, the human being, if designed, is the most unstable and thus stupidest design in the entire animal kingdom (because if you're inherently unstable, you're inherently screwed).

As a companion to the OP, if humans are intelligently designed, it stands to reason that all life is intelligently designed. Design flaws in other animals (or plants) would be interesting to consider also.

 

[robinson]

Why don't you agree with some of the others? You've provided insight into why some of these things evolved to be the way they are, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still examples of bad "design", as most of them are serious detriments to Humans today.

Well, the phrase "bad design" is just a made up idea, that nature "designs" anything, like there is some supernatural force at work. Explaining why we are the way we are is more fun to me, than imagining somebody designed us, and did a bad idea. Unless you count the humor of groin shots, in which case it can be fun to imagine a bearded old guy laughing his arse off upstairs at our misfortune.

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 development... whether or not this happens ante or post natally is, I think, irrelevant... although I guess there is more stimulus as is ....

If running was the main survival skill for humans, I'm sure we would be born able to run. But looking at other primates that have extended development times, it is clear massive brain development is more important than physical skills.

We can't finish the brain growth in the womb, because a woman would be disadvantaged by the requirement for the birth canal. And, our brain development needs visual stimulation, which is impossible in Utero.

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

Tell it to the monkeys man, tell it to the monkeys. They have to run around in the TREES with a baby hanging on for dear life. What is up with that?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

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

Also, by some breathtakingly bad piece of 'design', we are one of the very few species to sleep on our back, making choking extra easy in your sleep.

 

[robinson]

I say to all the complainers out there, if you can design a better model, please let us know.

Nature does not suffer fools. OK, maybe the platypus, but hey, Nature rewards those who survive. Those that don't, well, we call them fossils.

 

[leon_heller]

My cat sometimes sleeps on his back, with his paws in the air, looking rather silly.

Leon

 

[six7s]

Tell it to the monkeys man, tell it to the monkeys. They have to run around in the TREES with a baby hanging on for dear life. What is up with that?

Notable difference: monkey baby hanging on for dear life, monkey mother has four limbs free cf human mother clinging to her baby with at least one of her two most dexterous limbs

Anyhoo... I ain't arguing... other than to say that, as we ain't designed, there's no pint in bemoaning our short-comings... simply cos there's no-one in the design dept to listen

 

[gumboot]

I say to all the complainers out there, if you can design a better model, please let us know.

Nature does not suffer fools. OK, maybe the platypus, but hey, Nature rewards those who survive. Those that don't, well, we call them fossils.

This is rather debatable... evolution only "rewards" or "punishes" attributes that have a direct impact on an organism's ability to successfully reproduce better than all the other organisms in its ecosystem with which it is in competition. A lot of redundant, ineffective, or stupid aspects of various animal's make up havn't been bred out simply because they didn't have a significant negative impact on the animal's ability to breed better than the animals it is competing with.

"Competing with" is the key thing here. If animals aren't in direct competition, and both come up with different solutions to solving a problem, both solutions will survive even if one is obviously better to the other. It's only when animals are directly competing that the best solution comes into play.

The point is, if organisms were consciously designed none of the above would be present - animals would only feature what was necessary for their own niche, and every animal would have the best solution to every problem.

Evolution is all about "good enough", mixed with a little bit of luck. Design, particularly if God's involved, is about "best".

 

[robinson]

Uh, you are kidding, right?

 

[gumboot]

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

Aren't toddlers defined by their mobility?

 

[gumboot]

Uh, you are kidding, right?

No

 

[six7s]

Aren't toddlers defined by their mobility?

Yep... thing is, we are toddlers until around 18 ~ 24 months and incapable of truly independent feeding/sheltering for ourselves until what? around 10 or 12 or so? (is this coincidentally when we mature sexually?)

Anyhoo, from a survival perspective, it seems to me (a non scientist) that 10 years out of 75 or so seems rather a lot of down time

Cf capuchin monkeys: quite bright: weaned at 12 months, sexually mature at 2 ~ 3, live until they're 25...

Oh... both 10/75 and 3/25 are roughly 1/8 ... hmmm... never mind me

 

[robinson]

Design, particularly if God's involved, is about "best".

I find that statement utterly strange. First, what is "best"? Longest life? A life free of pain? Lots of hot monkey sex action? Lots of kids? A good mind? Physical strength? Best is such a nebulous term it could be meaningless if regards to a discussion of design, in regards to humans.

Second, design in reality is not about "best", it is often about "cheapest", "fastest" or "most profit". Even things like bridges and tunnels, in which you might think design is really really important, sometimes design is terrible.

Not to mention bicycles you have to assemble on Christmas eve while the kids are sleeping. Who came up with that crap? Design in that case should mean "easy to assemble late at night while you are dead tired and slightly sloshed, in a very short amount of time". Or something.

Of course the whole exercise in sophistry here is fun, imagining how we could design if we had the power. Or even better, looking at something really strange, like Elephants, that have four knees. Why? Of all the mammals, why four knees? Is it a better design? How did that happen? Obviously it works for the elephant. But why?

Observing the duckbilled platypus, one gets the feeling there might be a God, and he is having some fun at our expense. But in all things, at some point, usually after a rousing damn fine romp in the sack with a cuddly (but badly designed) partner, one can't help but try to catch ones breath, and give a small bit of thanks, for however this all came about, and softly express, that it is damn good. Damn good.























And then you bang your elbow and, despite your well thought out disbelief in any sort of deity, you hear coming out of your mouth, GOD DAMMIT!









Which is only funny to somebody else.

 

[e-sabbath]

What's that vitamin we can't create? Is it A? It's something animals can create, but humans can't.

 

[robinson]

Vitamin C is the most common. But there are others.

The reason for losing the ability to synthesize Vitamin C has been discovered to have evolutionary advantages.

 

[volatile]

The entire bipedal design itself is seriously flawed because it is inherently unstable - almost certainly one of the key reasons humans take so long to become mobile. A much better design would to be a quadruped with a tall neck, or if God needed us to have free limbs so we could carve statues to his glory, six limbs.

How come there are no mammals with more than 4 limbs? It seems like an extra hand would confer massive evolutionary advantage...

 

[robinson]

Some monkeys use their tail as an extra hand, so there is that.

 

[volatile]

Some monkeys use their tail as an extra hand, so there is that.

Oh, I know that. I was just wondering aloud why other classes of animals have multiple limbs but mammals seem stricken with four - the monkey tail is, after all, still a tail and not "fully-evolved" (a nonsense term, of course) into a hand or foot.

 

[robinson]

Well, insects that have six legs, you know them? The front two are just for show, they don't even use them.

 

[volatile]

Well, insects that have six legs, you know them? The front two are just for show, they don't even use them.

Really? That's interesting.

I was talking about mammals, though. Seems to me that if I was going to design a mammal, it'd have at least 6 limbs. Are there any practical reasons why human evolution lead to the loss of the prehensile-ish ape tail and not into an extra limb?