Starting on page 81, Coyne challenges the idea of a 'designer' creating the organisms we see today by pointing out a whole bunch of imperfections in the design of animals.
One imperfection or flaw that Coyne goes into much detail with is the movement of the eyes of the flounder, and how the flounder came to be the ground-skimming fish it is today. An intelligent designer, Coyne says, would have designed the flounder with both eyes on the top side of the fish in the first place, instead of having the eyes on opposite sides and having to move around the skull , which also deforms the body of the fish.
Using the book or an outside resource, describe an example of bad design, how it came to be, and what could have been a better option or design.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One example of unintelligent design can be found in the human reproductive system. Human birth is perhaps one of the most dangerous and inefficient in the world; “Fewer than one-third of conceptions culminate in live births" (Holt, 2005, p. 1). Also, the uterus is located between the rectum and the urinary bladder (Campbell, 2008, p. 1,004). Therefore, when the uterus contains a fetus, the urethra and anus become compressed, making excretion much more difficult. A better design would be to place the uterus on the ventral side of the urethra, as there the uterus can expand more outward (away from the body) rather than squeeze the excretory system against the body walls.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of evolution states that adaptations are ultimately the result of chance mutation, and “random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals” (Holt, 2005, p. 1). Therefore, this unintelligent design arose simply because it was the result of the chance mutations that occured.
Yiding’s example is noted of how the human reproductive system is flawed. But personally I’m more intrigued about the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. “Rather than taking the direct route from the brain to the larynx, a distance of about a foot in humans, the nerve runs down into our chest , loops around the aorta and a ligament derived from an artery, and then travels back up (“recurs”) to connect to the larynx” (82). The extra distance traveled may actually be detrimental to the organism’s health as the organism becomes more prone to injury. If injury were to be sustained at the recurrent laryngeal nerve, difficulty in breathing would occur. This becomes evidence of unintelligent design. So if there is a supernatural creator, he messed up a lot in the process of developing viable organisms.
ReplyDeleteThis evidence for the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals would more closely be proven by the process of natural selection. Natural selection isn’t perfect but strives to reach perfection of the organism without sacrificing viability. Initially the nerve’s path in fish took a direct path. But as evolution occurred, the nerve would have to alter along with the organism because if it were to be temporary severed, the organism would suffer from reduced fitness and die. “In fish, this path is a direct route. What is interesting is that this nerve follows the same route in all species that have the homologous nerve. This means that in an animal like the giraffe, this nerve must make a ridiculous detour down the neck from the brain and then back up the neck to the larynx area” (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/AnatomicalHomologies.htm)
I agree with Yiding in that the human reproduction system is absolutely bizarre in the setup. In addition to the awkward positioning of the uterus, there is also the menstrual cycle, which has females losing important bodily fluids (blood) that could be recycled/reabsorbed similarly to many other female mammals, who undergo the estrous cycle (Campbell Ch. 46). Though this may be a personal view on such topics, I’m sure many other women would agree that the menstrual cycle is an example of bad design.
ReplyDeleteAndrew’s example may be connected to macroevolution and vestigial organs. Vestigial organs, it can be argued, are in themselves bad design, regardless of what they are. In the relation between structure and function, these organs no longer seem to serve a particular function that may benefit the organism in a significant way. Some examples of vestigial organs that seem to serve no purpose include the vestigial tail and the appendix of humans, the tiny vestigial wings of certain birds, such as the kiwi, dogs’ “dewclaws,” and ungulates’ (hoofed animals) vestigial toes.
The vestigial tail of humans remains several caudal vertebrae fused together (p. 63). There does not seem to be any purpose to the vestigial bones, indeed, sometimes these bones can cause considerable pain if broken or bumped. If there really was intelligent design, I find it hard to believe that we’d still have this vestigial tail structure, especially since we don’t use it.
The tiny wings of the kiwi, which have shrunk so that one can barely see them just observing them, is like taking four perfectly good limbs and reducing them to only one pair, for walking about. Dogs’ dewclaws serve no apparent purpose, nor do horses’ vestigial toes (as they walk about on hooves). If there really was intelligent design, then the Creator might instead completely get rid of vestigial features, as opposed to keeping them small and useless.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=524