Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 10-16-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
there is no attraction in a ruptured and painful human appendix.

Unless the designer is twisted, psychopathic bastard...

Doubting Didymus · 10-16-2002, 03:56 PM

Ok, this thread is not going to go any further until we get the facts right.

There are eyes on those fish. They do not completely dissapear post-embryo. To satisfy yourself of this, find one and dissect it.

You suggested vaugely that the eye may be thara to prevent the orbit from collapsing. However, there is no reason for the orbit to be there at all. The orbit is a detriment to the fish, as it leaves a vulnerable opening to the fishes brain.

Lets agree on the facts before we continue.

Dr Rick · 10-16-2002, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
...there is no reason for the orbit to be there at all. The orbit is a detriment to the fish, as it leaves a vulnerable opening to the fishes brain. Lets agree on the facts before we continue.

Yeah, but it's a very attractive vulnerable detriment to the fish.

Potential injury to the brain through poor design may be the obvious hallmark of intelligent artistic intervention. This pleasant explanation is not sensical, verifiable, falsefiable and/or predictive, but the reasonable alternative consideration of a non-sentient process driven by the powerful selective natural forces that may favor one random event over another so that detrimental individual characteristics do not necessarily convey reproductive disadvantage is not very nice.

Rick

Jeremy Pallant · 10-16-2002, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
If not, then you might consider the attractive benefits that a designer takes into account when developing specifications.

Attractive? LOL! Oh yeah, when your god designed ebola he made sure to make it attractive!

The above example of a naked mole rate is a good example of an egregiously unattractive animal.

Oh, I know. How about the warthog. Hands up everyone who thinks that's an attractive animal.

Not that I would hesitate to eat one, mind you.

Doubting Didymus · 10-16-2002, 06:42 PM

I think warthogs are cute.

Blinn · 10-16-2002, 07:21 PM

Babirusas are pretty damn ugly too:

Quote:

The most striking feature of a babirusa is its face. Besides being armed with a pair of slashing lower tusks, an impressive pair of upper tusks erupt through the top of the snout and curve back toward the eyes. These upper canines resemble antlers more than they do tusks. Not surprisingly, the translation of "babi-rusa" is "pig-deer."

There has been much debate over the purpose of the upper tusks on males. Sulawesi natives are convinced that these tusks hook over low-hanging branches to support the babirusa's head as it rests. A more plausible explanation was proposed by John McKinnon in 1981. His studies suggest that males developed this extraordinary set of upper tusks to protect the eyes and throat from the slashing lower tusks of competing males. This alternative use of the tusks was made possible by the fact that when the babirusa's ancestors arrived on Sulawesi they faced a predator-free environment. Without strong selection pressure to develop and maintain anti-predator mechanisms, the tusks were suddenly "free" to be modified for other uses. The greatest physical threat to the ancestral babirusa boars was no longer predation, but competition. Rival boars armed with dagger-like tusks and surly dispositions posed a serious hazard to the average babirusa boar come-a'courtin.

Not exactly would I would consider optimal design, either.

Oolon Colluphid · 10-17-2002, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderpangloss:

Utility is not the only benefit (or "good") in a design. Let me ask, DD, what is the use of the extra skin at the end of your nose? It's pure cartilage, having only aesthetic value.

Rubbish. It's there as a support for glasses.

Oolon

Camaban · 10-17-2002, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Utility is not the only benefit (or "good") in a design. Let me ask, DD, what is the use of the extra skin at the end of your nose? It's pure cartilage, having only aesthetic value.

Extra filter space, perhaps?

Extra protection for what's behind there. (against grit, dirt, etc)

etc

Doubting Didymus · 10-17-2002, 10:07 PM

I don't really understand the question. If my nose evolved from an apes nose, I would expect it to look pretty much as it does.

Camaban · 10-17-2002, 10:14 PM

I think he's trying to say that the nose has no non-aesthetic use, and use that against natural selection selecting people with better noses (nose structures, whichever)

At least I think that's what's happening.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-16-2002, 03:56 PM	#222
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Ok, this thread is not going to go any further until we get the facts right. There are eyes on those fish. They do not completely dissapear post-embryo. To satisfy yourself of this, find one and dissect it. You suggested vaugely that the eye may be thara to prevent the orbit from collapsing. However, there is no reason for the orbit to be there at all. The orbit is a detriment to the fish, as it leaves a vulnerable opening to the fishes brain. Lets agree on the facts before we continue.

10-16-2002, 06:42 PM	#225
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I think warthogs are cute.

10-17-2002, 10:07 PM	#229
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I don't really understand the question. If my nose evolved from an apes nose, I would expect it to look pretty much as it does.

10-17-2002, 10:14 PM	#230
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	I think he's trying to say that the nose has no non-aesthetic use, and use that against natural selection selecting people with better noses (nose structures, whichever) At least I think that's what's happening.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.