(October 31, 2012 at 1:36 am)Undeceived Wrote: Now you're arguing for just partial uselessness. Where do you draw the line? Just how useful does God have to make every organ? "I think if an organism can live without it God wouldn't have made it." By that logic I don't need my pinkie finger, or hair on my arms, or a tongue that can discern sweetness.
You don't need a pinky finger or hair on your arms or taste buds receptive to sweetness. Thanks for adding to the list of God's feature bloat in human design.
Quote:Now I ask, why would evolution develop such refined healing systems? What could they have been before humans supposedly "evolved"? Speculators say the appendix is the remnant of the larger cecum. But if it is the case that the appendix is merely a degraded digestive system, why do 70% of all primate and rodent groups have the organ in the approximately same stage of degradation? Either they miraculously lost the same portions of the cecum DNA all at the same time or evolution has kept around a useless organ for tens of millions of years. And if the organ has been kept so consistently--70% of all these species--why can we find so few other vestigial organs? On an even deeper level, why does every 'vestigial' organ have a use (though you may not consider it significant)? Where are the vestigial organs with absolutely no use whatsoever?
Something not vital is something without intrinsic use. A spoiler on a car has a purpose, but you can drive just fine if yours lacks one. If you were to build a car paying attention to economy (which is, of course, the purpose of natural selection) you won't add a spoiler to your car. So, why did God add so many extraneous features to the human body, features which serve no vital purpose and yet cause pain (and sometimes death) if these features fail?
(October 29, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Ryantology Wrote: It's not useless, it does everything it needs to. What evidence do you have that the coccyx used to be a tailbone (other than looks)?
What does the coccyx need to do? What part of normal human function is impossible without it?
(October 29, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask, what would a male look like without pecs? Why would God make males and females look more different than they have to? Humans like familiarity. The mamillae also provide sexual stimulation, as they have nerves unlike any others in the body. In short, the uses are aesthetic. Which brings up the question: why might evolution randomly develop things 'beautiful' to our eyes?
You're asking these questions as if the answers are self-evident. Why do males and females differ in appearance? Why do humans like familiarity. Why do we perceive certain things as 'beautiful'? Since when were nipples a part of the pectoral muscle?
(October 31, 2012 at 2:03 am)Godschild Wrote: So tell us, what a superior design for man would be.
A better design would be a body not so hideously prone to partial or complete failure in so many ways. Self-automated blood cells would be superior to stationary blood cells pumped by a heart. Red blood cells could store and convey thousands of times as much oxygen as they do which would vastly reduce the dangers of asphyxiation. Cells could be made of materials much less fragile, which would reduce the dangers of everything from cuts to radiation burns. Bones could be made virtually unbreakable. Aging could not be a built-in function of cellular activity.
Science is working on attacking all of these problems because your all-powerful God is too lazy or stupid to have done it himself. Or, of course, he made us fragile on purpose, so maybe he's just wicked.
