GeoTheo

I know you guys (meaning evolutionists regardless of gender) think sub-optimal design is a slam dunk argument for evolution. In a way it is but I just thought I would point out how it is percieved by creationists. Most of you being atheists, on this particular forum, may not have been aware of this. You appear to be pissing and moaning at God about what a shoddy job he did. I guess you think it is humorous, because you don't believe in God. But, people are turned off by people who piss and moan all the time about things they have no control over.
Just think about how you think of people at work or school that piss and moan and complain all the time.
I understand the concept of historical constraint and how are systems and anatomy are based on the designs of organisms that came before us.
But I for one enjoy walking upright and I think my eyes work pretty darn good thank you. I know If I get fat and out of shape or lift using poor body mechanics I could get low back pain and that my optic nerve may be getting in the way without me realizing it. But My life for the most part is good. I also think my wife and many other female members of H.sapiens sapiens look pretty darn good. "Honey, do I look sub-optimal?"
See my point? This is kind of a light hearted post but I just thought I would give my perspective on it. I don't mean to take away from all the serious debate.
Take care
Theo
edited for spellin'

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>

Tom Sawyer

When people say that things are sub-optimal, they don't mean that they don't work well, they just mean that they don't work as well as they could if the design had been thought out beforehand.

I'm a computer programmer, so I'll give you an example from that: I need to build a web site so managers can look at their employees information. I can whip something like this off in a day and have it up and running and the managers will be able to do just that. On the other hand, I can take longer to do it and plan out in advance how the site will be set up and handle all the data and user interaction. That would give the site with more functionality and have it run faster and be more stable. Both work, but the second works better because it was planned out in advance.

There are many examples in the world where things work, but not as well as they could if they had been predesigned to do what they do, instead of evolving naturally, making use of whatever was available at the time. There are any number of threads concerning these. One example I'll use is that each cell in the body contains the full set of DNA. There is no need for this and each one of them only uses a small part of the genetic code in order to develop and function. A preplanned design of cells would be more efficient if it only gave each cell what it needed to operate rather than passing the whole genetic code into each one. Tracing our ancestry back to single-celled organisms that split in two to reproduce themselves, copying their whole makeup into the new organissm gives an explanation of why this occurs. It works very well this way, but it's not the most efficient way of doing things.

We're not pissing and moaning at God for designing us this way. We're saying that IF he designed us THEN he didn't do the best job that he could have. The fact that our design is suboptimal suggests that there was no designer, since he could have done a better job if the human race had been planned out in advance. Unless you're a Young Earther, you have to figure he had a little over 10 billion years to plan everything out before he started on biological life, which seems to me to be more than enough to revise his blueprints a few times and get everything working the best way possible. The fact that this was not done suggests that no forethought has gone into our makeup.

Vibr8gKiwi

It's not an argument that some god did a shoddy job--we don't believe in god. The shoddy design shows there was no intelligent design--that's the point. It also supports the notion of non-intelligent "design" via evolution.

RufusAtticus

Geotheo,

Look a little closer at when the sub-optimal card is used. It is presented after some creationist insists that life is perfect or so well designed that nature could not have done it. The evidence from the real world is that life is neither perfect nor well designed. Thus their arguments are total crap.

~~RvFvS~~

Vanderzyden

The real world is corrupted, not poorly designed.


John

lpetrich

Then a large fraction of this "corruption" is MUCH older than humanity.

Doubting Didymus

Wait a minute, does this mean you admit that some organisms could be better than they are? I though your position was that all species are optimal. If not, why are you so adamant about it? If you admit the possibility that some organisms have flaws, then what is the problem with acknowledging them?

Sorry, I'm just confused.

Wyz_sub10

Nonsense. We're talking about biology, not politics.

I have an appendix because we're corrupted?

And GeoTheo, it's not pissing and moaning. No one's complaining about the body - just noting that it's design demonstrates a lcak of proper planning.

RufusAtticus

Damn evolution, always corrupting one species into other ones.

TerryTryon

Pissing, moaning, and complaining is one of life's small pleasures. But like all petty vices, moderation is the key. I really didn't mind spending four thousand dollars for braces because my jaw is too short for all my teeth, as long as I don't have to blame some musty old sky god for the error.