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'?

[brunumb]

If air would be delivered in some other way, I think it would cause more problems than benefits and it would be stupid system for human.

Could you please elaborate on what you see as those problems and precisely why the system would be stupid for humans. Keep in mind that the alternative should be intelligently designed.

Current system is quite well protected. If you swallow something, it most probably goes to stomach, not to lungs. If there would be direct inlet, it would be more vulnerable.

You keep making unsupported claims as if you are just plucking excuse out of the air.

Please tell, what part in my claim you don’t think is true?

Nice diversionary tactic. How about you actually supply an answer first.

You said "Current system is quite well protected. If you swallow something, it most probably goes to stomach, not to lungs." Except that people do choke on a regular basis.

You also said "If there would be direct inlet, it would be more vulnerable". You have not explained how or why.

So, could you please elaborate on what you see as those problems and precisely why the system would be stupid for humans. Keep in mind that the alternative should be intelligently designed.

[1213]

...
You said "Current system is quite well protected. If you swallow something, it most probably goes to stomach, not to lungs." Except that people do choke on a regular basis. ...

Interesting, in my experience it is quite rare. But, I think it is not because of the design, but because of how it is used.

How do you think breathing and eating should be arranged, what would be more intelligent way?

[Miles]

If air would be delivered in some other way, I think it would cause more problems than benefits and it would be stupid system for human.

Could you please elaborate on what you see as those problems and precisely why the system would be stupid for humans. Keep in mind that the alternative should be intelligently designed.

Current system is quite well protected. If you swallow something, it most probably goes to stomach, not to lungs. If there would be direct inlet, it would be more vulnerable.

Well it is vulnerable, and in some people, principally the elderly, it's quite vulnerable (see link). But obviously you've never heard of aspiration from dysphagia.

"Aspiration is when something enters your airway or lungs by accident. It may be food, liquid, or some other material. This can cause serious health problems, such as pneumonia. Aspiration can happen when you have trouble swallowing normally. Trouble swallowing is called dysphagia.


What causes aspiration from dysphagia?

When you swallow food, it passes from your mouth down into your throat (pharynx). From there, the food moves down through a long tube (the esophagus) and into your stomach. This journey is made possible by a series of actions from the muscles in these areas. Dysphagia happens when there is a disruption in the swallowing process as food and liquids pass through your mouth, throat, and esophagus.

The pharynx is also part of the system that brings air into your lungs. When you breathe, air enters your mouth and moves into the pharynx. The air then goes down into your main airway (trachea) and into your lungs. A flap of tissue called the epiglottis sits over the top of the trachea. This flap blocks food and drink from going down into the trachea when you swallow. But in some cases, food or drink can enter the trachea causing aspiration. It may go down as you swallow. Or it may come back up from the stomach. A person with dysphagia is much more likely to aspirate."
source

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


.

[brunumb]

...
You said "Current system is quite well protected. If you swallow something, it most probably goes to stomach, not to lungs." Except that people do choke on a regular basis. ...

Interesting, in my experience it is quite rare. But, I think it is not because of the design, but because of how it is used.

How do you think breathing and eating should be arranged, what would be more intelligent way?

You were the one who suggested that alternatives would not be better. Please justify your claim.

[Tcg]

...
You said "Current system is quite well protected. If you swallow something, it most probably goes to stomach, not to lungs." Except that people do choke on a regular basis. ...

Interesting, in my experience it is quite rare.

In the U.S. choking is the fourth leading cause of unintentional death.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499941/

It is unwise to draw conclusion based in one's limited experience. Stroke for instance is one of the leading killers worldwide, but I've never seen any one die due to stroke. It would be a fallacy for me to then conclude that such events are rare.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

...
Or, why do you think ID is very 'I'?

Because I think everything that God created is good for the purpose.

I think this is a decent argument, and it would be as well-suited to defence of evolution. Basically, we, as a species at least, have what we need. You would need a reason to provide more than what is needed.

And for mammals, we have very good eyes indeed.

But no doubt, testicles are quite unsightly. I've wished they were internal on many occasions, such as when my male cat pushes his butt in my face. Though if you think about it, internal uteri might be worse than external testicles. It'd be lovely if female mammals could simply evert a little sac and give birth, rather than having to squeeze a watermelon out of a hose.

[1213]

...
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.

[Purple Knight]

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.

It's a slightly better argument against creation, but ultimately it still fails. Breathing and eating tubes never fully separated because not enough organisms choked to death to give a reason for those tubes to separate. It would be just the same if some being was designing the tubes. Perhaps it decided that two openings, and twice the chance of foreign organisms invading the body, along with the energy investment of needing twice the mucus to protect those two openings, wasn't worth nobody ever choking to death. It's the same question whether it's creation or evolution: Which way do more people die? Maybe the ability to open one well-protected mouth and put in either air or food is the best system.

[brunumb]

...
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.

It would be even more interesting if you actually justified the claims you make. You said:

Current system is quite well protected. If you swallow something, it most probably goes to stomach, not to lungs. If there would be direct inlet, it would be more vulnerable.

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

[JoeyKnothead]

As Neil Degrasse Tyson said, who in their right mind'd build em an amusement park right next to a sewer.