Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ThinkDifferent
Yeah, I'm particularly impressed with our appendixes and backwards-wired eyes. But we can't expect God to be perfect, can we?

Come on, you're smarter than that. Are you suggesting that today we know EVERYTHING about the human body? Is the appendix the only part of the human body that was said to serve no purpose? What happened to all the others? OOPS!

39 posted on 01/31/2006 12:19:24 AM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: GLDNGUN; ThinkDifferent
[Yeah, I'm particularly impressed with our appendixes and backwards-wired eyes. But we can't expect God to be perfect, can we?]

Come on, you're smarter than that.

If you want to give him even more credit, go right ahead.

Are you suggesting that today we know EVERYTHING about the human body?

No, he isn't, nor are his observations based on any such requirement. Work on your reading comprehension.

Is the appendix the only part of the human body that was said to serve no purpose?

No, it isn't, but in any case, why are you changing the subject? He's speaking of suboptimal design, not vestigial features. And we've dealt with your misconceptions about the appendix previously.

What happened to all the others?

They're still there. Quick, why do you get goosebumps when you're cold or scared? Hint: It was functional back when our distant ancesters had fur. It's useless now that we have sparse fuzz on most of our skin. Bigger hint: For an animal with fur, the tiny muscular reactions at the base of hair follicles which we call "goosebumps" raises the fur, fluffing it up for warmth (when cold) and to make the animal look bigger and more imposing when faced with a threat it might have to fight (when feeling fear). But it's freaking useless for humans. Now, did "The Designer" give us goosebump reflexes (and the mechanism which makes it work mechanically) because a) he thought we were furry, or b) he was a lousy designer and gave us stuff we couldn't use, or c) because the designer was evolution, and we inherited our "goosebump" mechanism from ancestors with fur and it's a vestigial and now useless feature now that we're not covered in fur?

A similar thing happened to shorthaired dachshunds. The other day my wiener dog was barking at another dog, and the "fur" on her back stood up. Of course, she has fur about 1/8 of an inch long, so it did nothing whatsoever to make her look bigger and more imposing (nor would it keep her any warmer), it just made a stripe up the middle of her back turn a darker shade of reddish brown. Ooh, scary! She, like us, inherited her "fur raising" feature from an ancestor in which it was a lot more useful (in her case, the wolves which are the ancestors of domestic dogs, which have long enough fur that the fur-raising mechanism actually performs a useful function).

OOPS!

Indeed. You must be used to saying that by now

43 posted on 01/31/2006 12:45:16 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson