(December 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm)AAA Wrote:(December 23, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Beccs Wrote: Note the usage of the term "it likely serves a minor function". At this stage that's still uncertain. And, it's certainly not a vital organ even IF it serves such a function. Hence, vestigial until proven to still serve a function.
Why would we keep a function that we don't use or MAY use rarely?
Why do people defend a supposedly "all powerful, all knowing designer" when it's clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution that the "design" of the human animal is flawed at best? I think they do it just so they can appear smart to themselves or others with the same level of understanding.
Could humans design a better human? At this stage, with our limited knowledge, no. But there are breakthroughs in the fields of medical science, biology, and genetic engineering virtually every other week. Hell, I just got back from a conference that brought to our attention the latest breakthroughs in my professional field and some future developments that my professors would have said was science fiction only a few years back.
Watch this space.
However, the flaws in the "design" of the human animal fit perfectly with the evolutionary models we have.
Why is it vestigial until proven to have a function? It does have a function. I don't think that is really being debated by anyone but us. Yeah, we are getting to the point where we can alter the genomes of organisms, but they can only do so using what already exists as templates.
How do the flaws fit perfectly?
Why are we going round in circles on this discussion?
I've already given my answer above and think it's rather clear.
The flaws don't fit perfectly. If you think they do, ask all those who have nearly choked to death on various foods.
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
