28 Replies to “Human Skeletal Joints as Masterpieces of Engineering

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Human Skeletal Joints As Masterpieces Of Engineering

    Tell that to the uncounted millions who suffer from chronic back pain.

  2. 2
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 1,

    Typical. Typical, typical. I suggest you talk to some Olympic athletes.

  3. 3
    doubter says:

    Seversky,

    Please specify how you would correct for this generally age, injury and disease-related problem without adversely affecting any of the existing design requirements for the lumbar and thoracic vertebrae, the spinal cord and column, and all the other myrad interacting components, which combine into a very complex feat of engineeering incorporating a myrad of inherently necessary design tradeoffs.

    Your statement pointing out the existence of lower back pain implies a sublime almost religious faith that somehow (in the analogy of the ultimate simplification of the problem) a good enough designer could prevent the poking in of the balloon at one point, from causing the rest of of the balloon from poking out, with complicated and very difficult to foresee consequences.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    A plug for the video from ENV:

    Stuart Burgess Informs Evolutionist Nathan Lents on the Design Genius of the Ankle and Wrist – September 12, 2022
    Excerpt: When engineers educate evolutionists about where their theory falls short, the results can be enlightening and entertaining. Sometimes they are spectacular. That’s the case with distinguished mechanical engineer Stuart Burgess and his presentation at the recent Westminster Conference on Science and Faith. Burgess addresses some claims of forensic scientist Nathan Lents in the latter’s 2018 book, Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes. As Burgess says, “It should be called Lents’s Errors.”
    Professor Lents is a proponent of the “unintelligent design” hypothesis. He looks at engineering marvels like the human wrist and ankle and sees only “blunders,” “pointless bones,” “anatomical errors.” Burgess has studied those wonders of biology more closely than Lents has and explains in detail why they are, in fact, “ingenious” solutions to engineering problems that leave the genius of human engineers far behind. Burgess is simply on fire. You’ve got to watch this (video):
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/stuart-burgess-informs-evotlutionist-nathan-lents-about-the-design-genius-of-the-ankle-and-wrist/

    Why Human Skeletal Joints Are Masterpieces of Engineering
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmXjK4HiM4M

  5. 5
    AaronS1978 says:

    What about the uncounted billions that don’t

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    3. Backaches
    Predictably, the article argues that our skeleton was originally evolved for going around on all fours, and bipedalism, for all its other evolutionary advantages, means that our back is in an unnatural position. The S curve of our spine is in this view an imperfect jerrybuilt solution.
    But the S curve of the spine is actually ideal, and humans are actually able to lift a higher percentage of their bodyweight than gorillas, whose spines do not have the S curve. Evolutionist orthopedic surgeon Paul Williams even designed exercises to reduce the lordosis curve in the spine to help reduce backaches. But these were often unsuccessful, often causing people to resort to surgery. But physical therapist Robin McKenzie discovered that proper posture that restores the lordosis often reduces or even eliminates back pain. See the following related articles:
    http://creation.com/smithsonia.....nsequences
    Back problems: How Darwin misled
    Summary
    Darwinism misled researchers into developing a harmful set of treatment techniques for certain back conditions. These therapies were based on the idea that humans at one time walked on all fours and that back problems were produced primarily by complications resulting from humans’ newly evolved upright posture. Back problems supposedly exist today because humans now walk upright on vertebrae that originally had evolved to walk quadrupedally. This theory has led to a treatment protocol that now is recognized as often impeding healing, and has caused enormous pain and suffering. Treatment techniques used today are in many ways the opposite of the older, now disproven Darwinism-influenced techniques.
    https://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled
    Standing upright for creation
    Jonathan Sarfati chats with human spine expert Richard Porter about his science and faith.
    https://creation.com/standing-upright-for-creation-richard-porter-interview
    Curved spines and pregnant primates
    https://creation.com/curved-spines-and-pregnant-primates
    Lifting for the Lord
    Excerpt: I remember reading the interview with the spine expert [the late Richard Porter, formerly Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Aberdeen] in Creation magazine.6 He pointed out that the curvature in our spine is the opposite of that of the apes (our supposed evolutionary ancestors) because the arch of our spine is perfectly designed to give us strength in an upright position, while apes go about on all fours.’
    https://creation.com/lifting-for-the-lord

    Of related note:

    Energy Efficiency Doesn’t Explain Human Walking? Sept. 17, 2012
    Excerpt: Why hominids evolved upright walking is one of the biggest questions in human evolution. One school of thought suggests that bipedalism was the most energetically efficient way for our ancestors to travel as grasslands expanded and forests shrank across Africa some five million to seven million years ago. A new study in the Journal of Human Evolution challenges that claim, concluding that the efficiency of human walking and running is not so different from other mammals.
    Physiologists Lewis Halsey of the University of Roehampton in England and Craig White of the University of Queensland in Australia compared the efficiency of human locomotion to that of 80 species of mammals, including monkeys, rodents, horses, bears and elephants.,,,
    To evaluate whether energy efficiency played a role in the evolution of upright walking, Halsey and White note that hominids should be compared to their closest relatives. For example, if human walking is more efficient than chimpanzee walking than you would expect based on chance alone, then it lends support to the energy-efficiency explanation. But that’s not what the researchers found. In fact, the energetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are smaller than the differences between very closely related species that share the same type of locomotion, such as red deer versus reindeer or African dogs versus Arctic foxes. In some cases, even different species within the same genus, such as different types of chipmunks, have greater variation in their walking efficiencies than humans and chimps do.
    http://blogs.smithsonianmag.co.....n-walking/

    Another Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed – David Klinghoffer – February 21, 2013
    Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old.
    A team of researchers led by USC’s Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place (“Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y.”).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....69411.html

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    Lents, Dawkins and other biologists (natural science graduates)
    these Darwinian clowns …

    Can someone explain to me how are these people qualified to comment on mechanical systems (e.g. joints) ?

    (i won’t comment on Seversky, this guy is just confused, he just needs to take his pills and one day he will be alright, more or less.)

    But back to biologists who comment on mechanical engineering.

    These people never made anything …

    Unlike Lents/Dawkins or any other biologist, Prof. Burguess is a professor of engineering design at the University of Bristol (UK). Prof. Burguess worked for the European Space Agency, on a satellite. He designed a special gearbox for Envisat and Metop called a double-action worm gearset which has a world patent and received two national design awards.

    If this guy tells you, that human body is an engineering masterpiece, you can be 100% sure, that it is so.

    On the other hand, if a biologist like Dawkins or Lents tells you, that any part of human body is a bad design, you can be 100% sure, that these biologists are dead wrong. Because people like Lents or Dawkins never made anything. These people just telling stories. They have been telling stories their whole life. Especially Dawkins infested the world with extremely absurd /stupid/ non-sensical ideas which lay people love to repeat like parrots.

    In any case, biologists just don’t understand what they are looking at.

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    If God were a really excellent engineer, he would have given us self-lubricating, self-aligning titanium joints with high tensile ligaments, that were completely replaceable at home, without the necessity of spending your life savings on back or joint surgery, rehab, pain, degeneration, etc. He would have also thrown in self-replacing teeth like sharks and periodic new skin like snakes, and a million-year, bumper-to-bumper warranty along with life-time maintenance (however long that would turn out to be).

    These theistic “proof of God” arguments start to border on infantile. After all, God could have simply put Adam and Eve in Eden with no pre-conditions and none of this nonsense would have been necessary……..

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    I’m sorry Chuck God only gave us self repairing, carbon based, light weight, self lubricating, blood creating (can’t do that with titanium and it’s kinda important),self growing (titanium can’t do that either and it’s kinda important) no need for a bumper to bumper warranty it lasts longer then all cars (around 70-90 years in most cases)

    And if you want shark teeth I’m sure you understand that it’s gonna take a lot of resources from your body to continuously repair and make those.

    And we Constantly replace skin cells unlike snakes that require a long period of time to shed I’d rather have the assembly line of skin cells

    But hey the arguments presented against theistic design are almost always infantile, one dimensional, and have a “I want Brawndo in all the drinking fountains” mentality but never think about the consequences for getting what they want, in the case of Brawndo it’s cavities, dehydration, and dead plants

    There’s this group of transhumanist you can join them, they live in fantasy land too. Their leader looks like Dr Evil

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    CD,

    You’re wrong. You think humans should be physically perfect (a nebulous idea). There’s no reason humans should be physically perfect. You’re letting your anger cloud your thinking.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    AaronS1978 @9,
    Brilliant answer! The so-called “flaws” in our design are indicative of the arrogance and ignorance of the detractors than anything else.

    All engineering involves compromises and optimums. Not only that, but organisms that have super powers without counterbalances will destroy their ecosystems.

    -Q

  12. 12
    AnimatedDust says:

    Sev @1:

    You’re no longer allowed to only consider the Christian worldview paradigm in terms of the temporal nature of this current reality. That’s woefully incomplete. These ingenious designs are subject to decay and death in this temporal reality. Stated right up front. However, after death, and then when the new heavens and new earth are reunited, we will be immortal, imperishable and incorruptible. As in, no more back pain, disease, and death, in perfect physical bodies.

    How many years have you been on here?

    You act with every post as if you have no clue about the claims of Christianity. The only possibility is that it is willful.

    Get on board. Lose your pride and willful blindness, and join in the joy that you were designed for, but free to reject. Don’t be a fool. Gain wisdom.

    Your eternal life could be quite amazing. Part of gaining wisdom is for you to stop judging Christianity on what you think it is, and what you think you know about it.

    All your time here will serve as quite the court record for your willful rejection of the lover of your soul.

    It requires vulnerability to the possibility that you don’t know as much as you think you know about the universe.

    Wisdom is a really big deal. It’s why Scripture hammers on it again and again.

    You can do it.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    Optimal design is not perfect design.

    In fact it is far from it. Anyone suggesting lack of perfection is evidence of non design, fails to understand anything about life.

    For example, Evolution by natural selection would kill the species using this Darwinian process. It works for extremely minor changes as we see in genetics. But that’s it. The change must be minor which is what Darwinian processes guarantee. Any change actually makes further change less likely.

    Everyone should read Behe’s book, “Darwin Devolves” to understand what is happening. Especially chapters 6-9.

    Aside: ChuckDarwin likes to hurl what he believes are zingers at ID adherents. But he is so universally wrong that they are actually zingers against himself.

    As BA77 said, it’s one own goal after the other.

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    Chuck @8

    don’t matter what you people (Darwnists) think or claim, our Creator is an excellent engineer. Period. Unlike the theory of evolution, THIS IS A FACT.

    OUR CREATOR IS AN EXCELLENT ENGINEER.

    Dawkins/Coyne/Lents are clowns. THIS IS ALSO A FACT.
    When talking about design in biology, these guys should finally shut up. They are ridiculous. Clowns.
    They embarrass themselves.
    And if you will repeat what these clowns claim, you will embarrass yourself as well.

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    i have a silly question:

    speaking about joints,
    can some smart Darwinist in here point me to an article/paper on Dinosaurs skeleton/bones evolution ?

    Because i, as an engineer, i just can’t imagine how any joint can evolve. What i can even less imagine is how dinosaur’s joints may have evolved (without engineering), because these joints have to withstand enormous stress/weight of several tons (especially when moving/running).

    I can’t find any information on how dinosaurs bones/skeleton evolved. I would love to read about it … i would love to see some transitional fossils on how these bones/joints/skeleton gradually evolved. Anything … all what i can see are complete skeletons (already evolved).

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    Martin_r at 15,

    Not only were dinosaurs given the correct muscles and joints, they were given infused knowledge as to how to use them. They didn’t go to ‘dinosaur school.’

  17. 17
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Not only were dinosaurs given the correct muscles and joints, they were given infused knowledge as to how to use them. They didn’t go to ‘dinosaur school.’

    When you were born I suspect you weren’t very good at walking or using your muscles and joints. Where did you knowledge of such things come from?

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: I can’t find any information on how dinosaurs bones/skeleton evolved. I would love to read about it … i would love to see some transitional fossils on how these bones/joints/skeleton gradually evolved. Anything … all what i can see are complete skeletons

    I’m not surprised it’s a bit hard finding explanations of such things for the general public as things get rather technical quickly. But you might start with these two articles.

    https://fossil.fandom.com/wiki/Evolution_of_dinosaurs

    https://elifesciences.org/articles/16415

  19. 19
    AaronS1978 says:

    @17 Most animals instinctually know how to walk when born, horses and deer for example

    He’s being sarcastic about the process of natural selection, since it has to work on pre-existing things to develop attributes that never existed

  20. 20
    AaronS1978 says:

    Jvl did you actually read the fandom article you posted? The disclaimer and what is was about. And fandom of all things. It’s a pop culture wiki I frequently from marvel, DC, and Diablo.

    “This article or section needs references

    This article has been marked as a page which needs references. Feel free to add the correct citations where the information is gathered from. You can also take a look at the articles talk page to see if anything is mentioned there which can give some tips.

    For information about how to add references, see Fossil Wiki:Sourcing.”

    That’s not a good start, second of all the articles about the evolution of dinosaurs from its last common ancestor a type of prehistoric crocodile which already had a skeleton

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    AaronS1978: It’s a pop culture wiki I frequently from marvel, DC, and Diablo.

    It’s just a place to start. Nobody here wants to do any work themselves finding research papers and reference works and when someone does try and help out a bit we get made fun of.

    I’m not a palaeontologist nor do I know any so I can’t give you references to highly academic papers.

    If no one tries to help then we are told “see, no one can answer my question”. If we try and help we get chastised for not having specialist information.

    I’ll just quit trying to help.

  22. 22
    AaronS1978 says:

    “It’s just a place to start. Nobody here wants to do any work themselves finding research papers and reference works and when someone does try and help out a bit we get made fun of“

    Blatantly not true, BA77 and KF site severything. BA77 does it so much it becomes hard to read his posts due to length and what he is connecting.

    “I’m not a palaeontologist nor do I know any so I can’t give you references to highly academic papers.”

    Correct, Google scholar isn’t bad though

    “If no one tries to help then we are told “see, no one can answer my question”. If we try and help we get chastised for not having specialist information.

    I’ll just quit trying to help.“

    Depends on what you define as helpful

    “Chuckdarwin
    September 13, 2022 at 7:39 am
    If God were a really excellent engineer, he would have given us self-lubricating, self-aligning titanium joints with high tensile ligaments, that were completely replaceable at home, without the necessity of spending your life savings on back or joint surgery, rehab, pain, degeneration, etc. He would have also thrown in self-replacing teeth like sharks and periodic new skin like snakes, and a million-year, bumper-to-bumper warranty along with life-time maintenance (however long that would turn out to be).

    These theistic “proof of God” arguments start to border on infantile. After all, God could have simply put Adam and Eve in Eden with no pre-conditions and none of this nonsense would have been necessary……..“

    This is not helpful. This is often the type of response though.

  23. 23
    Querius says:

    What’s so ironic is hearing from Darwinists about the brilliance of the powers of evolutionary engineering random genetic drift plus natural selection and in the next breath, what a moron God must be for these same designs.

    As AaronS1978 stated, many ID proponents here, myself included, provide links to academic papers in support of their assertions. I rarely see such links from ID detractors and trollbots in support of their repetitive unsupported assertions.

    -Q

  24. 24
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ Q

    I have often taken Dawkin’s rantings and exchanged the word evolution with Jesus or God. He suddenly sounds like a British televangelist.

  25. 25
    Querius says:

    Haha, AaronS1978! That’s hilarious–you made my day! 😀

    -Q

  26. 26
    martin_r says:

    JVL,

    Thanks for the links.

    However, it wasnt helpful at all.

    Like AaronS noted,

    its last common ancestor a type of prehistoric crocodile which already had a skeleton

    I was looking for dino skeleton/joints evolution, not for a completely evolved skeleton.

  27. 27
    relatd says:

    Psalm 139:14

    “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”

  28. 28
    Ichabod says:

    How can you know if a thing is “badly designed” if you don’t know what its purpose was in the first place? As for deterioration or deformity, could it be a kind of “planned obsolescence”? This would make sense if the Fall is true; can you imagine the hell earth would be if humans could not die? We would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold” could easily fit in Genesis 3 (make it verse 25!).
    This whole debate is amusing; on one hand, we are asked to accept the “miraculous” time plus matter plus chance process we are the result of–no purpose, no “design,” no meaning, no blueprint, no reason. All these popped into existence with what can only be described as Goddess Evolution’s latest iteration on a theme…Well, no, not really; that language itself implies intent, and as we all know, there is none.
    On the other hand, we are offered a reason why everything appears to be designed, with purpose and meaning: A vast Intelligence behind it all. We can “do science” in the first place because we expect reasonable outcomes to repeated and identical events, do we not? We expect order because there is order. We expect logic and mathematics because they are there.
    What we cannot expect with the first option, however, is truth, for “…a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms,'” (Possible Worlds, p. 209.).

Leave a Reply