Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'the evolutionary scapegoat'
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 39 (13353)
07-11-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by nator
07-11-2002 9:52 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[b]I'll also throw out the poor, weak construction of our backs and knees. They are far from ideal for upright locomotion, which is why so many millions suffer with back pain and herniated disks, and why even a light blow to the side of the knee can produce big injuries.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Yep.... because our backs and knees are still mostly built for walking on all fours like decent mammals.
Our upright stance also makes us prone to hernia as standing stretches those tummy muscles and forces them to cover more area makng them weaker-- more prone to injury.
Standing upright also forces a remodel of the pelvis-- center of gravity, balance that sort of thing. In females, this remodel results in the birth canal being only just big enough-- no room for error-- making childbirth painful and dangerous relative to other mammals.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 07-11-2002 9:52 AM nator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 39 (13627)
07-16-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jonathan
07-16-2002 12:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
You interprit these "design flaws" as evidence of an imperfect design. I see them as misuse of their original intended purpose. God did not design us to sit at a computer all day and eat doughnuts. Therefore we have weak muscles which lead to unnecessary injuries.
First, sitting at a desk is not the reason we have weak abdominal muscles. Those muscles are weak because they are stretched to twice the length they are in other mammals. This is do to our standing upright.
Granted, sloth and donuts don't help.
Secondly, God didn't have the forsight to design our bodies for sitting at a desk.
Third, this seems to imply that we should still be nomadic herders.
quote:
If God were to make an infallible human then he would never choke, never get angry, make a mistake, trip, fall or bump our head. Is it Gods fault that I stubbed my toe? Was it because of his poor design that I miss calculated my foot step?
But this is not a design issue. It isn't Ford's fault if people drive poorly. It is Ford's fault if the brakes are substandard.
quote:
This is where I have a BIG problem with the TOE and natural selection. Traits like the spinal ridges, eye brows, mens nipples all have little to no effect in increasing the possibility of reproduction yet every single human has them.
Schraf just explained the spinal ridges to you. How exactly is it that you know that eyebrows serve no purpose? Actually they do. Look it up on Google.
Male and female embryos are the same, the female develops functional breasts the male doesn't but still has the features that developed before the sexes diverge.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jonathan, posted 07-16-2002 12:40 AM Jonathan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jonathan, posted 07-16-2002 11:50 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 39 (13642)
07-16-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jonathan
07-16-2002 11:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
These traits have virtually no effect in increasing the probability of reproduction. I know they serve an important purpose but they dont increase the probability of reproduction so how can they increase reproductive success?
Sorry, but they do effect reproduction. Anything that gives you a survival edge gives you a reproductive edge as well.
quote:
I think if you were to apply the body to a "garden of Eden" lifestyle it may me more than sufficient.
So if we were to live naked in a forest with no worries, no need to hunt or farm, and with plenty of food just hanging off of the trees we'd be ok? Oh, and no predators, or bad weather, or disease?
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jonathan, posted 07-16-2002 11:50 AM Jonathan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jonathan, posted 07-16-2002 4:41 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 39 (13650)
07-16-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jonathan
07-16-2002 4:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
Right.
Wow.... that's quite a theory!
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jonathan, posted 07-16-2002 4:41 PM Jonathan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 39 (14321)
07-28-2002 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
07-28-2002 5:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
If natural selection works as well as you theorize then why do we have genetic predispositions towards obesity, poor eyesight, poor hearing even baldness? These traits have a much greater impact on their survival/reproductive success then say spinal ridges, eye lashes, eyebrows or any other trait with low "survival influence."
On the other hand, if the human body was "perfectly designed by God", why do we have these problems in the first place?

Cause God is near-sighted.... obviously.... geez...
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 07-28-2002 5:55 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 07-28-2002 7:05 PM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024