Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   design evidence #320,098,754: the crossover food and air tubes in humans
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 34 (31404)
02-05-2003 9:44 AM


OK, we really have you this time!
The crossover design of the human air and food tubes is obvious evidence for Design by a loving Creator!
I mean, who but a loving Creator could have thought that making the tube that we breathe through and the tube by that we ingest food CROSS, with a common opening that is only separated by a flap in the backs of our throats?! Sure, this flap gets into the wrong place fairly frequently, and sure, humans get food and water into our lungs pretty often, but the beauty and perfection of the Design resides in how often it DOESN'T happen!
Only a few thousand people each year end up choking to death, and that is also part of the Creator's divine plan.
Anybody who denies the obvious INTELLIGENT Design of this structure is just blind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Arachnid, posted 02-06-2003 4:16 PM nator has replied
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 02-06-2003 7:27 PM nator has not replied
 Message 5 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 12:10 AM nator has not replied
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 02-07-2003 2:46 AM nator has not replied
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2003 5:23 PM nator has not replied

  
Arachnid
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 34 (31557)
02-06-2003 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-05-2003 9:44 AM


For someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure are hateful towards Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 9:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 02-06-2003 11:38 PM Arachnid has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 34 (31574)
02-06-2003 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-05-2003 9:44 AM


Schraf,
Could I add, mammals giving birth through the pelvis, down a canal that splits & bleeds, from a system that allows humans to not be in the correct "birthing position" after 9 months (unbelievable I know)... That can result in the death of both parties, & was, & still is, globally speaking, the primary cause of death in young women. Speaking as a bloke, I'd be pretty pissed at God, the allegedly omnibenevolent git that allowed such a thing to occur to my partner & child.
Fantastic. Thank God for "intelligent" design. Allelujah!
I'm sure there's some untestable & therefore irrelevant just-so story creationists counter this sort of hideous suffering that God created?
Of course, that ol' moany bag next door suffered a 36 hour labour, so it's not all bad.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 9:44 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 34 (31607)
02-06-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Arachnid
02-06-2003 4:16 PM


My beef isn't with God, it's with the moronic arguments of the Intelligent Design crowd.
I take it that this ad hominem attack indicates that you have no substantive counter to this obvious lack of intelligent design in humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Arachnid, posted 02-06-2003 4:16 PM Arachnid has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 34 (31613)
02-07-2003 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-05-2003 9:44 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 9:44 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by David unfamous, posted 02-07-2003 5:27 AM DanskerMan has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 34 (31638)
02-07-2003 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-05-2003 9:44 AM


Nope - you're wrong schraf. The absolute, most perfect, bestest proof of the great Interior Designer of All Life is Rheodytes leukops, the Australian river turtle. Here we have a critter whose cloaca (its butt, for all you comparative-physiology-challenged people out there) not ONLY provides a tube for egg laying, feces and urine elimination, but ALSO, being lined with papillae (like lungs), and fitted with a slight adaptation of the normal "push" musculature, allows the critter to obtain 69% (mean 45%) of its oxygen by pumping water in and out of its anus. What better, more efficient design could you possibly imagine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 9:44 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 6:20 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 34 (31646)
02-07-2003 4:06 AM


Sea cucumbers also practice anal respiration; they have similar sets of pouches coming out from their hindguts into their bodies.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 02-07-2003]

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 34 (31648)
02-07-2003 4:23 AM


Actually, a simple way to construct a choke-resistant respiratory tract is as follows:
Have the trachea be behind the esophagus instead of in front of it, with the bronchi encircling the esophagus. The trachea can then open into the top rear of the mouth, conveniently away from the food path.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 5:40 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 34 (31649)
02-07-2003 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 12:10 AM


sonnike,
I was waiting for that piffle to be trawled up by you. The fallacy of such an argument is that the 'design' is being altered independantly of the complete system. Ferrari don't take Lada's and shoe-horn a new engine in, they design a new car from the base up.
So, if I were a supreme being with infinite wisdom and power, I would create humans that don't need to eat or breath. But how is that possible you ask? Well I created physics, chemistry, the laws of the universe etc., so in my re-designed reality I can do what I want.
I'd also prevent hair-loss if I decide to put hair on any part of my new humans. And I'd separate sexual organs from urinary tracts. In fact, waste products are nasty, so I'll scratch that concept for a start.
Blood and guts? Nah, not in my human. Too messy. All they need is the air they breathe.
Of course, my nu-mans will still have emotions, all the senses, and still look the same (just so you don't think they'll look ugly). But because we don't need food, we don't need land, so we don't need wealth or have to do hard work. We socialise, and philosophise and love and make love in a clean, yet absolutely satisfying way.
Man, this designing is easy when you're absolutely all-powerful. God sure did mess up big time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 12:10 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 3:09 PM David unfamous has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 34 (31673)
02-07-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by David unfamous
02-07-2003 5:27 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by David unfamous, posted 02-07-2003 5:27 AM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chavalon, posted 02-07-2003 4:09 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 02-12-2003 4:59 AM DanskerMan has replied

  
Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 34 (31679)
02-07-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 3:09 PM


Sonnike, in case you would like to offer a substantive defense of the argument you cut-n-pasted, it’s worth pointing out that Schraf’s opening post refers specifically to humans - in fact to humans older than 6 months. Non human animals () and babies have their larynx high in their throats, so that food does not slide over it during swallowing. Thus, they never choke on food.
The larynx moves down the throat between the ages of 3 and 6 months, leaving a small resonating chamber above it. This is used to make the noises of speech. An intelligent designer need only have given us a separate resonating chamber through which food does not pass (a trivial energetic cost compared with the benefit of speech), and adult humans wouldn’t choke, either.
In fact this is a very good example of the way in which animals are constructed - with ad hoc changes to existing organs, rather than the introduction of wholly novel but more perfected structures. That’s how we can tell that ID is wrong.
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 02-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 3:09 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 34 (31685)
02-07-2003 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-05-2003 9:44 AM


I'll bet it was apple poisoning in the Garden of Eden that made that windpipe slide around......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 9:44 AM nator has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 13 of 34 (31689)
02-07-2003 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
02-07-2003 2:46 AM


There is a famous German expression for your observation: In der Beschrankung zeigt sich der Meister.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 02-07-2003 2:46 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by derwood, posted 02-18-2003 3:26 PM peter borger has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 34 (31722)
02-08-2003 2:37 AM


???
And non-intersecting respiratory and digestive pathways are not an absolute impossibility; cetaceans have them. So if a dolphin can swallow and breathe at the same time, why can't we?

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 34 (32017)
02-12-2003 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by DanskerMan
02-07-2003 3:09 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DanskerMan, posted 02-07-2003 3:09 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 12:20 AM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024