Intelligent design not so intelligent... why?

[nobspeople]

Intelligent design doesn't mean, literally, perfect design. But that idea flies out the window (and lands in a steaming pile) when one says the ID was done by a being that's all knowing and all capable (even though the bible may not use those terms, specifically, the idea is there based on the words used).

One would expect said ID to then be flawless, if this was the being's intent.
But any ID we see around us, isn't perfect. Some would say that's 'man's fault' due to original sin. That's an excuse, in all honestly: how can imperfect being thwart (damage, harm, etc) a perfect being's plan?!? It's not possible.

Unless... the perfect being wanted it to be able to be thwarted by these imperfect beings.

Examples of ID not so 'I':
The human eye - plenty of eyes on the planet are better than human eyes: from raptors to squid to shrimp
The human throat - what 'I' creator would make the throat to contain the air AND food passage so close together that can cause choking? Not so 'I' it seems
Testicles - one theory says that animals that jump a lot have external testicles to protect those cells from abdominal pressure, while animals that don't need this protection have internal testicles - why not have all internal testicles? Same question when it comes to 'heat tolerance'.
The fact that evolution has come up with a method to have a body good enough to not cause death before reproduction, too much of the time, versus being created by an infallible creator (aka God).

Some are changing the INTELLIGENT Design to UNDESIRABLE Design, but still shows the makings of ID, which is yet another excuse to justify a POV.

Why do you think ID isn't very 'I'?
Or, why do you think ID is very 'I'?

[Miles]

...
So, a smart move in making the two operations share a single opening? Hardly. In fact, it's pretty stupid.

It would be interesting to know how exactly would you make the system.

How about the trachea leading from only the nose directly to the lungs (the vocal cords would lie within), and the esophagus leading directly to the stomach? We would be strictly nose breathers and talkers, and strictly mouth eaters. Whales have such an arrangement.

"While whales are known to breathe through their blowholes they are unable to breathe through their mouth because the trachea is not connected to the whales throat.
This separation is important for a number of reasons.
First having a separate hole for breathing and eating allows whales to minimize the likelihood of blocking their air passage due to food trapped in their throat.
More importantly having a separate air passage and food passage means that whales are able to swallow their food underwater without worrying about taking water into their lungs as most mammals risk opening the air passage to their lungs when they eat."
source

.

[Tcg]

...
So, a smart move in making the two operations share a single opening? Hardly. In fact, it's pretty stupid.

It would be interesting to know how exactly would you make the system.

How about the trachea leading from only the nose directly to the lungs (the vocal cords would lie within), and the esophagus leading directly to the stomach? We would be strictly nose breathers and talkers, and strictly mouth eaters. Whales have such an arrangement.

"While whales are known to breathe through their blowholes they are unable to breathe through their mouth because the trachea is not connected to the whales throat.
This separation is important for a number of reasons.
First having a separate hole for breathing and eating allows whales to minimize the likelihood of blocking their air passage due to food trapped in their throat.
More importantly having a separate air passage and food passage means that whales are able to swallow their food underwater without worrying about taking water into their lungs as most mammals risk opening the air passage to their lungs when they eat."
source

.

Only breathing through the nose would be problematic when one has a serious cold and both nasal passages are stopped up. Speaking through the nose would be very limiting. Our detailed speech is the result of both the vocal chords and the tongue.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

I find it interesting how closely some objections to evolution parallel some objections to creation. In this case, the arguments are almost identical: No, that can't be, because apparent design flaws.
...

I encourage folks to look into cetacean laryngeal / esophageal anatomy here. They've come up with a very interesting, though not foolproof method of being able to breath and eat at the same time.

On humans, I highly recommend Roger Lewin's 'Human Evolution: An illustrated Introduction'.
duckduckgo link

In chapter 32, starting on page 222, he sets at the evolution of human language, and more specifically the anatomy of it...

...
The human vocal tract is unique in the animal world. In mammals, the position of the larynx in the neck assumes one of two basic patterns (see figure 32.2). One location is high up, which allows the animal simultaneously to swallow (food or liquid) and breathe. The second pattern places the larynx low in the neck, requiring temporary closing of the air passage during swallowing; otherwise solids or liquids will block it and cause choking. Adult humans have the second pattern, while all other mammals, and infant humans, possess the first. The low position of the larynx greatly enlarges the space above it, which allows the sounds emitted from it to be modified to a great degree. Nonhuman mammals are limited to modifying laryngeal sounds by altering the shape of the oral cavity and the lips. Human newborns maintain the basic mammalian pattern until about 1.5 to 2 years; the larynx then begins to migrate lower in the neck, achieving the adult configuration at approximately age 14 years.
Laitman and his colleagues discovered that the position of the larynx is reflected in the shape of the bottom of the skull, the basicranium. In adult humans, this structure is arched; in other mammals, and in human infants, it is much flatter.

I don't present that as a statement of fact, but think it offers us something to ponder.

I note how in human babies, and up into age, the 'safer' design prevails, and only after a time does the design change. It leads me to believe it's an elegant solution to the problem of how can we eat, breathe, and have spoken language all from one location.

[1213]

...How about the trachea leading from only the nose directly to the lungs (the vocal cords would lie within), and the esophagus leading directly to the stomach? We would be strictly nose breathers and talkers, and strictly mouth eaters. Whales have such an arrangement....

I think that would not be as good, for example because if one has for example cold, he could possibly suffocate, because no alternative route to lungs. Also, the only opening would be more vulnerable than current system where air gets first to mouth and doesn’t directly go to the lungs. If for example something unwanted would go to nose in your system, it could be stuck, or possibly go to lungs and cause damage, while in current system, there is great possibility that the unwanted matter goes more likely to stomach rather than in lungs.

[Purple Knight]

Please explain why an intelligently designed alternative with separate avenues for food and air would be more vulnerable.

Twice the surface area on which you now need a mucus membrane to protect your body from invaders.

Plus, while food may never make it into the air hole, air is still going to get into the food hole. If there's no overlap you're going to need some more specialised system to get rid of that excess air. Otherwise, do you really want to burp and fart ten times as much as you do now?

Plus, evolutionarily, here's what is going to happen: Some animal is going to figure out that it can multipurpose its air hole, maybe keeping something in it in the space of one breath. Maybe it becomes a temporary hand. This is not out of the question since elephants pretty much do this exact thing. And if that organism gains an advantage by doing that, it will increase, because even though choking to death is now an option, it usually doesn't happen. Millions of years later its descendants have a multipurpose hole again and they're cursing either Nature or God because sometimes they choke to death.

[Miles]

Only breathing through the nose would be problematic when one has a serious cold and both nasal passages are stopped up. Speaking through the nose would be very limiting. Our detailed speech is the result of both the vocal chords and the tongue.

Remember this isn't an adaptation to our present physical configuration, but a whole new setup. Perhaps chronic rhinitis and post-nasal drip would never arise, and maybe our speech would be entirely different; whistles, squeaks, and snorts perhaps?

I think that would not be as good, for example because if one has for example cold, he could possibly suffocate, because no alternative route to lungs. Also, the only opening would be more vulnerable than current system where air gets first to mouth and doesn’t directly go to the lungs. If for example something unwanted would go to nose in your system, it could be stuck, or possibly go to lungs and cause damage, while in current system, there is great possibility that the unwanted matter goes more likely to stomach rather than in lungs.

And perhaps there would be a "lint-and-other-crap trap" at the entrance of the nose.

.

[brunumb]

Remember this isn't an adaptation to our present physical configuration, but a whole new setup.

Precisely. We are talking about an intelligently designed alternative.

[AgnosticBoy]

There are some negatives and positives to having two openings for air to enter the lungs. A positive is that nasal congestion or obstruction can make it hard to breathe through the nasal passages so the mouth can be used as an alternative to get air in. In medicine this is also utilized where a patient can either receive oxygen through their nasal airway or oral airway depending on the condition.

The negatives are aspiration. Normally the epiglottis closes (blocks the opening to the trachea or lungs) when swallowing occurs. However, that does not always occur and when that fails food can go down into the lungs.

Im not sure how you would attribute that to intelligent Design when it has both negatives and positives to it . Do you determine that by weighing the risk and rewards?

[Ionian_Tradition]

Intelligent design doesn't mean, literally, perfect design. But that idea flies out the window (and lands in a steaming pile) when one says the ID was done by a being that's all knowing and all capable (even though the bible may not use those terms, specifically, the idea is there based on the words used).

One would expect said ID to then be flawless, if this was the being's intent.
But any ID we see around us, isn't perfect. Some would say that's 'man's fault' due to original sin. That's an excuse, in all honestly: how can imperfect being thwart (damage, harm, etc) a perfect being's plan?!? It's not possible.

Unless... the perfect being wanted it to be able to be thwarted by these imperfect beings.

Examples of ID not so 'I':
The human eye - plenty of eyes on the planet are better than human eyes: from raptors to squid to shrimp
The human throat - what 'I' creator would make the throat to contain the air AND food passage so close together that can cause choking? Not so 'I' it seems
Testicles - one theory says that animals that jump a lot have external testicles to protect those cells from abdominal pressure, while animals that don't need this protection have internal testicles - why not have all internal testicles? Same question when it comes to 'heat tolerance'.
The fact that evolution has come up with a method to have a body good enough to not cause death before reproduction, too much of the time, versus being created by an infallible creator (aka God).

Some are changing the INTELLIGENT Design to UNDESIRABLE Design, but still shows the makings of ID, which is yet another excuse to justify a POV.

Why do you think ID isn't very 'I'?
Or, why do you think ID is very 'I'?

I would very much like to hear your defense of the supposition that "perfect" intelligence rationally entails "perfect" or even optimal design? As near as I can tell, having the potential or capacity to produce a "perfect" object by no means compels an intelligent agent to actually produce a work of perfection, particularly if said agent possesses reasons for willingly producing certain objects in a "sub-perfect" manner. For example:

Most students of the arts would recognize the sculpture "David" to be a work of artistic genius which we ascribe to the renaissance artist Michelangelo. By observing David, we recognize that Michelangelo had within himself the capacity/potential to produce masterful works of artistic craftsmanship. Never the less, if Michelangelo was also responsible for constructing the scaffolding used to reach the upper portions of the aforementioned sculpture, we would not be rationally justified in supposing that Michelangelo's latent potential to produce masterful crafts therefore necessitates that the scaffolding surrounding David likewise be a veritable masterpiece. Instead, we recognize that though Michelangelo had the potential to produce stunning works of craftsmanship, the scaffolding need not be one of them. If the purpose of the scaffolding is to serve a utilitarian function in service to a higher aim (i.e. the creation of the masterpiece David), it is perfectly acceptable for the scaffolding to be constructed in a sub-perfect (or sub-optimal) manner.

As it is with Michelangelo so too it could very well be with a "perfect" intelligent designer. After all, even Christians acknowledge that the cosmos (as it exists presently) is not the new heaven and new earth promised in the scripture (i.e. The Christian God's master work). Never the less, it is at the very least possible that the cosmos (in all its apparent "imperfection") is the scaffolding by which the intelligent designer may produce a still greater work yet to be revealed.

As near as I can tell, logic in no way precludes this as being one possible explanation for the putative "imperfections" we observe in nature.

[William]

[Replying to Ionian_Tradition in post #40]

Even so, the scaffolding has to be perfect for the job intended, otherwise the sculpture might never have been completed...so in that the universe is "perfect for the job" as it contains subjects within the object...they are not so free as to commit their madness upon the rest of the universe without first bucking their ideas up. [Becoming sane].

It does appear that the universe is multi-functional and that it would still be useful even if the Christians got put into another container-universe...