31–40 of 99 posts
So, this is the so-called "intelligent design"? I think not.
It almost certainly is intelligent design, because it's intelligent given certain constraints (the existing gene pool in a given generation, and the fact that something working is better than something theoretically better but doesn't actually exist). God iterates using an Agile process.
Hey people under 30 or so, do you even know who MacGyver is? :)
MacGyver is referenced all the time, to the point where I imagine most people pick it up from context clues, even if they've never seen the original show
So, this is the so-called "intelligent design"? I think not.
Just to play devil's advocate... It almost certainly is intelligent design, because it's intelligent given certain constraints (the existing gene pool in a given generation, and the fact that something working is better than something theoretically better but doesn't actually exist). God iterates using an Agile process.
Epic - Improve test coverage
So, this is the so-called "intelligent design"? I think not.
Just to play devil's advocate... It almost certainly is intelligent design, because it's intelligent given certain constraints (the existing gene pool in a given generation, and the fact that something working is better than something theoretically better but doesn't actually exist). God iterates using an Agile process.
I would suggest the digestive system is much more of a hack. But, losing the ability to manufacture vitamin C is both unusual (Just some primates and guinea pigs?) and problematic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just nature making the best it can of a historical accident. If you were designing the eye from scratch, you'd have the nerves coming out the back like in squid. Then if you wanted something that concentrates the red and green wavelengths, you could put something else in front of the light sensing cells. You'd end up exactly where you are now, except you'd not have a huge blind spot, and wouldn't have to spend…
The blind spot is not huge. It's easily compensated for, and it appears the mammalian eye has other attributes that make it work well. We just don't have enough data to understand whether mammalian eyes embedded a major problem that had to be compensated for, or if this design has attributes that make it desirable.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/look-your-eyes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blind spot is not huge. It's easily compensated for, and it appears the mammalian eye has other attributes that make it work well. We just don't have enough data to understand whether mammalian eyes embedded a major problem that had to be compensated for, or if this design has attributes that make it desirable.
Maybe, but either vertebrates or cephalopods have to have sub optimal design. My money is on the backwards retina being the kludge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you really think about it, it's probably unavoidable. You have to reward an organism when it performs necessary functions. Which is why defecation and urination are pleasurable. You could move the piping, but you'd still have to reward the action. And if there's reward sensors there, clever animals will figure out how to trigger the reward without the action. In other words, you can move the sewer but they'd proba…
You could also make the "full tank condition" painfull, without making draining it pleasurable. Shouldn't lead to addiction, and would work as well.
I certainly wouldn't characterize urination as fun in the sense of "hm, how can I make this happen more often?"
http://threepanelsoul.com/2010/07/05/on-design-by-committee/