What about testicles outside the body? Every man has a painful story why it’s not a good idea..
Yeah, it makes more sense to put all the fragile body parts in one place. For instance, the face.
Quirks of Human Anatomy
31–40 of 109 posts
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#32Part of this reads like a shortlist of things that doctors and scientists don’t know enough about yet. If you’re looking for a PhD topic, here are some ideas.
It also reads like a collection of evidence against intelligent design.
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#33> f. Nipples are useless in human males (cf. Ch. 5). When I was a kid, I got my tonsils removed "because they were useless and a source of illness". I've recently heard that tonsil removal is now more disputed: it may collect filth, sure, but it may also prevent it from going deeper into the body, which may cause more serious illnesses. Given its vast complexity, and the timeline of its creation/evolution, I remain s…
>Given its vast complexity, and the timeline of its creation/evolution
I will just say, the human body in particular has only been around for a vanishingly short period of time in evolutionary terms. A lot of the quirks and arguable flaws identified in this piece (painful childbirth through the pelvis, back pain) and others (varicoceles in the left internal spermatic vein, hernias, other pelvic floor disorders) can be attributed to our very recent move to full bipedalism.
If we’re talking about features we share with other mammals or even other primates, sure, they’ve probably stood the test of time for a reason. But for features that have only really been in existence for a couple million years, those I don’t think we should treat with the same kind of reverence.
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#34>The common crowding of human teeth—especially "wisdom" teeth, which erupt last
>is traceable to the evolutionary shortening of our jaw.
Complete baloney.
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(As long as a pattern isn't fully contained within the blind spot regions of course) There are dedicated optical illusion/explainers that give you the experience of the brain patching over the space with neutral background, even if there's something there, like a symbol or a star. So if it's something featureless or continuous, like a wall of your room that's a solid color, or a sheet of college ruled paper, the pat…
What’s interesting about that is that brain doesn’t actually give you much access to the sensor information directly, but gives an interpretation instead. There is a thing called Saccadic Suppression that blocks visual data processing for 50ms when eyes are moving, and the brain just backfills that missing data from the “next frame”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking
Thanks, I had not heard of that one. As a recovering philosophy bro I love cataloging all of these peculiar artifacts of our visual experience. They turn out to matter quite a bit in some of the endless mind versus brain and mind versus matter debates. Off the top of my head:
- Blind spot where the optic nerve exits the eye
- Saccadic Suppression (new to me!)
- Panum's fusional area (how close the overlapping images of your eyes have to be to each other to get merged into a unified image)
- The wagon wheel effect
- trichromatic vision (obvious but important because it easily could have been different)
- The foveial field, the central part of vision that's extremely precise, while things increasingly further away from it are blurry
- specialization in peripheral vision, (eg better sensitivity to starlight, as well as better sensitivity to flickers and motion)
Add those all up and you get a bunch of specific but contingent properties of visual experience. Some people of a certain philosophical frame of mind like to imagine that we inhabit a kind of pure mental experience detached from the physical world, but even if you think you're making no assumptions about the empirical world, all of these contingent facts show up, which make a lot more sense as being the products of biological structure.
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#36Part of this reads like a shortlist of things that doctors and scientists don’t know enough about yet. If you’re looking for a PhD topic, here are some ideas.
It also reads like a collection of evidence against intelligent design.
Akshully…
These flaws were left in so there would be no proof of a creator. Because with proof, there is no faith. And faith is a requirement of winning.
Imagine how hard it must have been to design “flaws” like these but still allow humans to survive. I can’t. Therefore, you can’t. Only an omnipotent god could do it.
Checkmate atheists!
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#37> f. Nipples are useless in human males (cf. Ch. 5). When I was a kid, I got my tonsils removed "because they were useless and a source of illness". I've recently heard that tonsil removal is now more disputed: it may collect filth, sure, but it may also prevent it from going deeper into the body, which may cause more serious illnesses. Given its vast complexity, and the timeline of its creation/evolution, I remain s…
> I've recently heard that tonsil removal is now more disputed: it may collect filth, sure, but it may also prevent it from going deeper into the body, which may cause more serious illnesses.
Hasn't it been settled for a while that they're part of the immune system? Wiki is clear [0] on the subject; they're there to repel bacteria. They're quite important and removing them, unless there is no other choice, seems like a terrible idea.
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#38>The common crowding of human teeth—especially "wisdom" teeth, which erupt last >is traceable to the evolutionary shortening of our jaw. Complete baloney.
Teeth are easily lost, so wisdom teeth are nature's backup plan, or so I heard.
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#39> f. Nipples are useless in human males (cf. Ch. 5). When I was a kid, I got my tonsils removed "because they were useless and a source of illness". I've recently heard that tonsil removal is now more disputed: it may collect filth, sure, but it may also prevent it from going deeper into the body, which may cause more serious illnesses. Given its vast complexity, and the timeline of its creation/evolution, I remain s…
>Given its vast complexity, and the timeline of its creation/evolution I will just say, the human body in particular has only been around for a vanishingly short period of time in evolutionary terms. A lot of the quirks and arguable flaws identified in this piece (painful childbirth through the pelvis, back pain) and others (varicoceles in the left internal spermatic vein, hernias, other pelvic floor disorders) can b…
> human body [...] has only been around for a vanishingly short period of time in evolutionary terms.
"as far as we know." Every few years, I see in the headlines stuff like "oldest 'human' ever found in X." The theory of evolution itself has morphed since Darwin [0], and is probably far from being in its definitive form.
The timeline remains astronomical w.r.t. a human life, and the perception of a single human. A few centuries ago, we may have burnt people for proposing something like the theory of evolution.
> [...] can be attributed to our very recent move to full bipedalism
Admittedly. But it's still not contradictory with this still having unknown roles. Actually, multi-causality feels like a good way to ensure the stability and solidity of a design: "don't put all your eggs in the same baskets", portfolio diversification, etc.
Thinking about painful pregnancies and birth, [1] hints at the "need" for pain/discomfort. If it's indeed some sort of a necessity, then it may be more of a feature than a bug for us to experience pain directly, through the womb, etc.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_though...
Re: Quirks of Human Anatomy
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read this does have a functional reason: Sperm cells have to be kept at slightly lower temperature than the body temperature, so if the testicles were inside the body, the sperm wouldn't survive. Of course you could ask why sperm is so temperature sensitive in the first place...
If elephants did it, I’m sure we can too.
We did do it! It's called testicles!