design evidence #320,098,754: the crossover food and air tubes in humans

Schraf, very good very good!! yet ANOTHER example of GOOD design....good? yes indeed! Let's have a look shall we:

quote:

---

Bad Design in the Human Esophagus?
In a recent article in Scientific American entitled "If Humans Were Built to Last,"1 evolutionists S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce Carnes, and Robert Butler argued that the human body reflects the mindless process of natural selection, and not intelligent design. The authors said that many of our physical shortcomings exist because natural selection causes us to survive "just long enough to reproduce." Once we've passed on our genes, they say, our bodies start to fall apart, since natural selection no longer operates.
One of the examples of "bad design" proposed by Olshansky et al. is the human esophagus. At the bottom of the throat, the trachea (the passage that leads to the lungs) enter the esophagus. When you swallow food or water, a structure called the epiglottis closes to cover your trachea so that these materials do not go into your lungs. The system does not work perfectly every time, as we have all experienced when choking on food or water that "goes down the wrong way." In some instances, this choking can be life threatening. Olshansky et al. suggest that a better design would be to have two separate tubes - one leading from the nose directly into the lungs and the second leading from the mouth directly to the stomach.
There are several problems with this "better" design. First, to have two tubes in the neck would require extra space and extra systems (with the associated additional energy costs) to maintain two structures. More importantly, it would be very difficult to breathe when you get a sinus infection. Congestion in the nose would be life threatening, since it would prevent or severely restrict breathing, since the nose would be the only way that air could enter the lungs. There would also be the problem of getting rid of liquid that accidentally enters the lungs. It would have to be pushed all the way up to the nose and expelled there (make sure you carry lots of tissue with you!). Under the current system, it need only go to the top of the trachea and the down the esophagus to the stomach. The two tube design would also restrict the amount of physical activity that humans could do. When we run, we take in air through our mouths, since the larger opening allows for a more rapid respiration rate. The only way to allow for a large respiration rate with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose. Not only would this look ugly, but the larger openings would present problems. Things could enter into such large openings and have direct access to your lungs (How would you like to inhale a fly into your lungs?). Larger nasal passages would also reduce the temperature of the air, since it could not be heated as effectively (important for cold climates). Another major problem would be speech and language. We need to use our mouths and tongue in order to produce speech. Air running over vocal cords, in the absence of a tongue, lips and teeth, would only be able to produce a very limited number of sounds (it might not affect Rambo, but the rest of us would have a difficult time communicating). Try it some time (hold your mouth open and don't move your tongue as you attempt to communicate). Of course the evolutionist might propose additional structures in the nose (like a tongue, lips and teeth-like structures).
So, here is what the evolutionists are proposing for a superior breathing apparatus. Our trachea would continue up to our nose, requiring our necks to be at least 1 inch wider. We would have huge noses with nose lips and a tongue protruding out. Of course, our faces would have to be much longer to accommodate the additional structures. Now, we would really be ugly! On second thought, it might be interesting trying to kiss with two sets of lips - nah, constantly expelling liquid out our nose would make it kind of gross. Aren't you glad you weren't designed by an evolutionist!
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

---

I didn't know you had converted.... ------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Man, this designing is easy when you're absolutely all-powerful. God sure did mess up big time.

---

Don't worry, you will have the opportunity to tell that to His face....------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

So are you saying that it is, in fact, a well designed feature
or that God cannot take criticism?

---

"Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, `Stop, you are doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, `How clumsy can you be!"
Isa 45:9You may critique God's design all you want, but just remember your "wisdom", compared with HIS, is even lower than folly.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

No offense, sonnike, but threatening people with fairy tales is kinda sad and makes for a profoundly unconvincing argument.

---

You mean like microbe to man fairytales?
Fish to philosopher fairytales?Regards,
S.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Given that many humans can present better design options
than are actually seen in nature (for some features at least)
isn't it better for believers to accept a theistic evolution
in which god placed the pieces and let them develop according to
his rules?

​

The alternative being to accept an imperfect god.

---

I have yet to see a human come up with a better design than God.
Perhaps, you would care to describe something that you feel is better, I am very curious how and what that would be.
Feel free to present an alternate design to our larynx, providing all the current functions whilst removing the choking hazard.The alternate is NOT an imperfect God, just imperfect man who persists in his/her folly.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

Did you read my post #5? Because it seems that you are proposing 2 separate tubes which, outlined above, has severe problems.Regards,
S

What it is with all you people and this whole "threat" thing?
I quoted a passage to show that we are like CLAY and God is the POTTER. If you take that as a threat, something must be convicting you.Regards,
S------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233

quote:

---

Actually, our techological systems often improve on many biological systems in various ways.

​

Compare a motorcycle to a horse. The motorcycle has these pluses:

​

It can travel much faster.
It never gets tired.
It never needs to sleep, even though it can.
It has very low basal metabolism (battery leakage).
It has more convenient excrement (exhaust).
It cannot panic or get startled.
It's easy to perform organ transplants on one.

​

Though the motorcycle has these minuses:

​

It cannot reproduce itself.
It cannot make itself travel on its own initiative.
It has very limited senses (fuel level, speed, etc.).
It's much more noisy.

---

And a motorcycle was designed by an intelligent designer.
Usually evo's frown upon me when I use inanimate designed objects as an analogy of evidence to God's design in this universe, but hey.Regards,
S------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233