[Serious] Why defecation?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

On the digestive system alone, no defecation. In other words, the entire biosystem could have been designed to make waste products unnecessary.

Boru

Right; perhaps I am being terribly unspecific. The definition of efficiency already includes the minimization of waste. So when I ask what improvement you would make, I'm asking how you would change our digestive system to achieve that. Saying that something isn't efficient doesn't mean much if you don't know how it can be improved.

Gee, how would an omniscient being go about it?

[John 6IX Breezy]

*shrug* I’m neither a biologist nor a biological engineer, so I’m unable to provide you with specifics.

However, there doesn’t seem to be a bar to an omnipotent creator designing organisms able to make full use of the nutrients they ingest with no excretory process (there’s those pesky laws of thermodynamics, but remember - we’re talking about a Being able to whip up an entire universe any way it wants).

Boru

It wouldn't hurt to know something of biology and digestion before saying it isn't efficient. From where I stand, your issue appears to be that you simply don't like feces.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

*shrug* I’m neither a biologist nor a biological engineer, so I’m unable to provide you with specifics.

However, there doesn’t seem to be a bar to an omnipotent creator designing organisms able to make full use of the nutrients they ingest with no excretory process (there’s those pesky laws of thermodynamics, but remember - we’re talking about a Being able to whip up an entire universe any way it wants).

Boru

It wouldn't hurt to know something of biology and digestion before saying it isn't efficient. From where I stand, your issue appears to be that you simply don't like feces.

No, that’s not it at all. The fact that there’s a waste product at all is an indication that the process isn’t fully efficient (this is what ‘waste’ means). This applies to any system, not just biological ones, that consume fuel and produce waste. A locomotive that uses 100 pounds of coal per mile and belches ten pounds of carbon into the atmosphere is clearly less efficient than an equivalent one that uses 10 pounds per mile and emits one pound of carbon (or whatever the actual figures are - it doesn’t really matter). I can state this is true without knowing how locomotives work.  Similarly, if an animal consumes ten pounds of food and excretes one pound, that animal is not as efficient as it could be. Ideally, all ten pounds of food would go to producing energy. But some of that energy is used for excretion. 

I’m not claiming that digestive systems are NOT efficient. As far as they go, they appear to be sufficiently efficient. I’m pointing out that an omnipotent Creator could have made them perfectly efficient, and that it’s a legitimate question to ask, ‘Why not?’.

In all fairness, you have a point about me not liking feces. In my youth, I shoveled and wheelbarrowed enough of it to float a loan, so I’m not exactly wild about the stuff.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

Similarly, if an animal consumes ten pounds of food and excretes one pound, that animal is not as efficient as it could be. Ideally, all ten pounds of food would go to producing energy. But some of that energy is used for excretion. 

I’m not claiming that digestive systems are NOT efficient. As far as they go, they appear to be sufficiently efficient. I’m pointing out that an omnipotent Creator could have made them perfectly efficient, and that it’s a legitimate question to ask, ‘Why not?’.

It seems to me that what you are trying to argue for is not that animals shouldn't deficate, but that whatever percentage of energy consumed isn't lost in feces.

For example, there is no metabolic need for cellulose fiber. So if you eat a pound of food which contains 50% fiber, letting 50% of that food pass through seems to me a reasonable option. Redesigning the entire system so that fiber is now metabolically demanded and not wasted, not only adds one more thing we can't live without, but also increases the metabolic demand of everything else that's needed to run whatever organ now uses fiber.

So rather than saying animals shouldn't deficate, you should see what percentage of energy consumed gets missed by digestion, let's say 10% of the sugar in an apple gets lost in feces, and argue that this should be minimize.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Similarly, if an animal consumes ten pounds of food and excretes one pound, that animal is not as efficient as it could be. Ideally, all ten pounds of food would go to producing energy. But some of that energy is used for excretion. 

I’m not claiming that digestive systems are NOT efficient. As far as they go, they appear to be sufficiently efficient. I’m pointing out that an omnipotent Creator could have made them perfectly efficient, and that it’s a legitimate question to ask, ‘Why not?’.

It seems to me that what you are trying to argue for is not that animals shouldn't deficate, but that whatever percentage of energy consumed isn't lost in feces.

For example, there is no metabolic need for cellulose fiber. So if you eat a pound of food which contains 50% fiber, letting 50% of that food pass through seems to me a reasonable option. Redesigning the entire system so that fiber is now metabolically demanded and not wasted, not only adds one more thing we can't live without, but also increases the metabolic demand of everything else that's needed to run whatever organ now uses fiber.

So rather than saying animals shouldn't deficate, you should see what percentage of energy consumed gets missed by digestion, let's say 10% of the sugar in an apple gets lost in feces, and argue that this should be minimize.

None of that matters. Give me a good and sufficient reason why God would design wombats to excrete 50% of what they eat when he could just as easily have designed them to metabolize 100% of what they eat.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

John, please stop with the "rearrangements". Make your arguments, assume ours are what we're saying. Less tail chasing that way.

[John 6IX Breezy]

None of that matters. Give me a good and sufficient reason why God would design wombats to excrete 50% of what they eat when he could just as easily have designed them to metabolize 100% of what they eat.

Boru

This demand just seems very poorly formulated. You've narrowed down on a number without any understanding as to why it occurs; and treat 50% as wrong solely because it isn't 100%. I disagree with that.

Food is only needed to meet the metabolic needs of a given animal; and animals are free to eat whatever they want. The only issue I would have with a digestive system excreting 50% of food is if the metabolic needs of the organism are not being met with this number. In this scenario the animal is starving despite eating sufficient food.

---

Edit: I took a second to gather my thoughts; because I think there's just way too much that you're ignoring. But to give just one possible reason why choosing 50% is better than 100% is simply because 100% places extreme restrictions on an animals diet. Overconsumption and underconsumption becomes much more significant when you've given an animal absolutely no metabolic headroom.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

None of that matters. Give me a good and sufficient reason why God would design wombats to excrete 50% of what they eat when he could just as easily have designed them to metabolize 100% of what they eat.

Boru

This demand just seems very poorly formulated. You've narrowed down on a number without any understanding as to why it occurs; and treat 50% as wrong solely because it isn't 100%. I disagree with that.

Food is only needed to meet the metabolic needs of a given animal; and animals are free to eat whatever they want. The only issue I would have with a digestive system excreting 50% of food is if the metabolic needs of the organism are not being met with this number. In this scenario the animal is starving despite eating sufficient food.

I’m not saying it’s ‘wrong’, I’m saying it’s not maximally efficient. ‘Why would God create this system when he could have created something better?’ is a question you seem intent on dodging. Or maybe I’m putting it badly. I’ll try again.

Imagine a world where all organisms are able to meet their metabolic requirements without waste. Everything the wombat eats is turned into energy - protein, sugars, fibrous cellulose, etc.  Isn’t that more efficient (not ‘right’, not ‘wrong’) than the wombat having to consume twice as much and excrete half of it? Since the wombat is going to consume fibrous cellulose in any case, wouldn’t it make sense for the animal to have been so designed as to make use of it in some way?

Boru

_____

reply to your edit: I don’t think that would be the case at all. As I just described, a wombat with 100% digestive efficiency would have more metabolic headroom, not less.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think our differences revolve around the way things are framed. To me, it is very clear that food is there to meet the metabolic needs of the animal. The animal takes what it needs from what it eats and gets rid of the rest. In other words, the animal sets the criteria that food must meet.

From your perspective, the reverse seems to take precedent. The animal is there for the complete consumption of food. And food sets the threshold for what the animal needs.

From my perspective, there isn't a digestive issue, perhaps only an ingestive issue. If you want a wombat to not excrete cellulose fiber, then don't feed it celulous fiber.

From your perspective, if you don't want a wombat to excrete fiber, you want the wombat to now have a random metabolic need for fiber. You want to complicate the wombat for the sole purpose of not letting fiber pass through. And I don't see the point in that.

[possibletarian]

God created all the animals, right? So he created all their systems, right? So the best system for taking in energy and disposing of waste involves shit, right? Nothing better occurred to an omnipotent omniscient being?

And I know there will be a lot of "yeah, butt!" posts. Please prove your points.

You only have to look at the world to see that a good designer didn't design anything, your point is perhaps one of many.

Humanity is very vulnerable, the earth is very vulnerable, clearly only a lunatic would believe that a creature that claimed to be perfect made it.