Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Only at Salon: The human neck is an evolution mistake

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We are informed that sleep apnea is a consequence of “too many adaptations stuffed into our neck.”

Critics of evolution often argue that life, rather than gradually changing over the years through natural selection, was actually created by a so-called “intelligent designer.” Their position is that the biological machinery which makes up living bodies is so complex, and so perfectly calibrated to support our numerous needs, that it had to have been planned out by a deliberate and thoughtful force of some kind.

Yet if God actually did design human bodies according to a plan, they forgot to make sure that we can breathe while we sleep — a remarkably crucial detail to overlook. While not everyone suffers from the aforementioned anatomical glitch, known to doctors as obstructive sleep apnea, it affects 22 million Americans — and has become an even more hazardous condition amid the spread of a deadly virus that attacks the lungs.

Matthew Rozsa, “The human neck is a mistake of evolution” at Salon (October 12, 2021)

It is, on the whole, a mistake to get human evolution news from a glitzmag. Engineer Walter Myers III offers some alternative thoughts:

The headline itself admits that sleep apnea afflicts 1 out of 15 Americans, so that means 14 out of 15 Americans (93 percent) breathe freely at night with no issues. Thus, the problem doesn’t appear to be with the design itself, but with potential problems that can occur after the fact, such as an obstruction in the throat muscles or improper signals sent to the throat muscles that control breathing.

Rosza does examine the possible causes of sleep apnea, which weaken his argument, as in each case the cause is because something has gone wrong, not that the original design is somehow flawed. He discusses sleep apnea caused by obesity, which is likely due to the actions of that person or to a metabolic abnormality, neither of which indicates a fault in the design itself. Any design can be adversely impacted if not properly maintained, or if it becomes defective through injury or disease. He cites aging as a cause, but we all know aging is a natural process that will eventually lead to the death of any organism. No organisms are designed to live forever. Even the best designed human artifacts eventually fail (and again, intelligent design makes no judgments about why a designer might intend mortality in organisms). Finally, he discusses genetic or anatomical issues that, again, cause the structures to not operate as they should according to the original design.

Walter Myers III, “Is the Human Neck a “Mistake of Evolution”?” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 20, 2021)

Now that Dr. Myers mentions it, humans were not designed to live forever in a world where everything else is transient. Something always gives.

But someone should tell Nathan Lents, author Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes, about this one.

You may also wish to read: Nathan Lents is still wrong about human sinuses but still writing about them.

Comments
JVL, So would I be correct in saying that you believe ID (or possibly the people of UD) are unaware of or haven’t had the chance to go through shubin’s work. Where would you recommend someone start, is the book up to date with the latest research? or has there been amendments to statements made or data received that has maybe changed some of the conclusions drawn by Dr shubin? In your opinion of course.Seekers
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Seekers: In your opinion then, is shubin’s work overlooked? Does it hold key information the rest of the scientific community are unaware of? Oh gosh no. Not in the scientific community. Dr Shubin wrote a book for the general reader elucidating some of the work done in the last 150 years which throws light on how, exactly, the evolutionary process creates new biological structures and body plans. He was merely trying to synthesise and summarise a lot of research that might be difficult for the general public to grasp.JVL
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
JVL, In your opinion then, is shubin’s work overlooked? Does it hold key information the rest of the scientific community are unaware of?Seekers
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Jerry: The reviewers said the book revealed nothing new. So why spend the time and money? I'm sure that's true for those working in the field who keep up with the research. But I found it informative and interesting as it helped give an overview of lots of different work done by lots of different researchers over a broad period of time. Did you read it? It seems you haven’t since you haven’t discussed any specifics. I did read it. It takes a lot of time and effort to lay out whole chapters of discussions and arguments on a site like this so I thought I would just mention it, give a summary in the form of a review and let the other participants decide for themselves if they wanted to find out more. You seem more interested in winning an argument with me than reading the book and finding out what it says regarding your own viewpoint. Oh well.JVL
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
ET: Yup. But I didn’t say anything about millions of years. In the end, you don't end up really committing to much of anything do you? That is how we do it now. It’s called maintenance. How can maintenance be done on the programming in cells? All you are doing is proving that you are a clueless infant. If you explained your views a bit more clearly then I wouldn't have to ask so many questions.JVL
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
OldArmy94/11
I’m confused. I thought that Almighty Darwinism, the power that was capable of independently evolving radar echolocation, compound eyes–MULTIPLE TIMES–had such an easy thing as the human neck in the bag. Yet, you’re telling me that Darwin Almighty screwed the pooch on such a simple detail? Somebody help me understand.
Evolution is not a God nor is it a designer nor is it some sort of purposeful intelligence. It is a collection of natural processes which sometimes throw up changes in animals which give them a slight advantage over their competitors, enough to give them a better chance of survival. It doesn't produce perfect solutions. That's for designers. The problems with the human neck are not a problem for evolution. The problems are not so bad that humanity might go extinct because people can't breathe properly in their sleep. If that had been the case we would not be here to discuss it. The problem is for the proponents of ID. If we can see the issues with the design of the neck, why couldn't the original designer? After all, when human designers design a plane or a car, they do it the best way they know how. Even so, unanticipated problems can show up and then the designers and engineers find ways to fix them. So why didn't this Intelligent Designer, who must have been far more knowledgeable and capable than current human designers, just fix the problems with the neck and all the other issues with the human body? The problems we see are much more consistent with our being the outcome of a natural process like evolution than they are with being the product of some super-intelligent alien intelligence.Seversky
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
JVL:
You have proposed a scenario where life forms are ‘programmed’ to evolve.
Yup. But I didn't say anything about millions of years.
You have commented that the initial ‘design’ did not need to be perfect nor could it be expected to not degrade.
Right. As a RESPONSE to seversky.
You have said that some of the degradation could be correct by ‘intervention’.
That is how we do it now. It's called maintenance. All you are doing is proving that you are a clueless infant.ET
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Undoubtably you won’t actually read to book to find out. Oh well
The reviewers said the book revealed nothing new. So why spend the time and money? Did you read it? It seems you haven’t since you haven’t discussed any specifics.jerry
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
ET: Except I never proposed that. Obviously you have issues. You have proposed a scenario where life forms are 'programmed' to evolve. You have commented that the initial 'design' did not need to be perfect nor could it be expected to not degrade. You have said that some of the degradation could be correct by 'intervention'. I'm just asking questions about your statements and trying to understand their implications and get you to clarify them. Since you don't want to clarify them it seems I'll just drop the whole thing.JVL
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
Jerry: I assume all unless they apply to micro evolution. Undoubtably you won't actually read to book to find out. Oh well.JVL
October 23, 2021
October
10
Oct
23
23
2021
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
JVL:
And why is that? Are you too afraid to offer your model?
This is why you get suspended. I was responding to a comment. Then you jumped in like an infant.
So, what was the designed life? You keep dancing around actually giving an answer. Why is that?
I have told you many times. No one knows and that is what science is for. But it can't with a bunch of infant losers at the reigns. People like you are the main problem.
Fine. Clear it all up then. What do you think is the correct model?
No idea. I can only eliminate models based on the current understanding of biology.
How is it that over millions and millions of years the central goal of your programmed evolutionary process was able to stay true. You keep avoiding answering that question. About something you proposed.
Except I never proposed that. Obviously you have issues.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Can you point to a particular result cited by Dr Shubin in his book that you think is incorrect or falsely interpreted?
I assume all unless they apply to micro evolution. Can you point one that doesn’t. That would win the Nobel prize.jerry
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Jerry: All the authors on evolution and it seems Shubin is no different commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. They assume a naturalistic mechanism exists/existed and then find narratives/speculations to fit this unknown mechanism. Okay. Can you point to a particular result cited by Dr Shubin in his book that you think is incorrect or falsely interpreted?JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
ET: I didn’t propose anything. I was responding to seversky’s nonsense. I had posted: And why is that? Are you too afraid to offer your model? And AGAIN, extant life is NOT the intelligently designed life, duh. No one said the design was perfect. No one said the design had to remain perfect for eternity. So, what was the designed life? You keep dancing around actually giving an answer. Why is that? And you ran to another field and started posting about front loading. Fine. Clear it all up then. What do you think is the correct model? Affecting something is not the same as determining it. And gene duplications have everything to do with my programmed to evolve idea. Gene duplication followed by integration and then functional change is out of the reach of blind and mindless processes. Fine. Just spell it out. Be specific. How is it that over millions and millions of years the central goal of your programmed evolutionary process was able to stay true. You keep avoiding answering that question. About something you proposed.JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
All the authors on evolution and it seems Shubin is no different commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. They assume a naturalistic mechanism exists/existed and then find narratives/speculations to fit this unknown mechanism. What their efforts should be about is verifying the assumed mechanism can do what they speculate. That would win a Nobel prize.jerry
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
I didn't propose anything. I was responding to seversky's nonsense. I had posted: And AGAIN, extant life is NOT the intelligently designed life, duh. No one said the design was perfect. No one said the design had to remain perfect for eternity. And you ran to another field and started posting about front loading. Affecting something is not the same as determining it. And gene duplications have everything to do with my programmed to evolve idea. Gene duplication followed by integration and then functional change is out of the reach of blind and mindless processes.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
ET: YOU brought up front-loading. I thought that was the scenario you were proposing. What are you proposing then? And gene duplication in a blind and mindless scenario is nothing more than magic. Clearly you are just ignorant of science and biology. And your ignorance has you in desperation mode. In Dr Shubin's book he explains how that can affect the development of new body configurations. But you know that since you read it. But that has nothing to do with your programmed to evolve idea. I'm not desperate at all. I'm trying to figure out why you are actually saying.JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
YOU brought up front-loading. And gene duplication in a blind and mindless scenario is nothing more than magic. Clearly you are just ignorant of science and biology. And your ignorance has you in desperation mode. Good luck with that.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
ET: Intervention. So, it's not completely a front-loaded scenario. Does that mean that every single duplication event is overseen to make sure the core goal protection part of the programming is protected or are corrective measures taken every so often to put things back on the right path? But if it's not completely front-loaded then . . . I'm still wondering what was the point of millions and millions of years of long dead species was? Surely way before the dinosaurs arrived the earth was fairly suitable for humans? it had oxygen, the climate was okay. Unless the interventions only happen at far flung intervals . . . I guess. What do you think?JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
JVL:
How can you guarantee that that particular part of the programming would not get degraded if the other parts could get degraded?
Intervention. But that is moot as there isn't any known mechanism capable of producing a human from a non-human.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
ET: In a front-loaded scenario there would be programming to take care of all you are concerned with. How can you guarantee that that particular part of the programming would not get degraded if the other parts could get degraded?JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Wow. Humans don't know how to design life. And your strawman just proves that you are clueless and unable to think. In a front-loaded scenario there would be programming to take care of all you are concerned with.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
ET: Nice strawman. Well, why don't you try and explain how a designed life form was introduced, designed to evolve but the coding was allowed to degrade and get modified and yet it's ultimate goal was maintained undegraded after millions and millions of years? In a universe designed for scientific discovery I doubt that dinosaurs were the goal. They weren’t very good at scientific discovery. Again, in a front-loaded scenario how would the pre-determined goal last millions and millions of years of copying and errors?JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
JVL:
Maybe, but if the original ‘designed’ life form was introduced before the dinosaurs then how could the designer know that the dinosaurs would die out one way or another?
Nice strawman. In a universe designed for scientific discovery I doubt that dinosaurs were the goal. They weren't very good at scientific discovery.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
ET: The fossil evidence says the dinosaurs were dead before the asteroid hit. Maybe, but if the original 'designed' life form was introduced before the dinosaurs then how could the designer know that the dinosaurs would die out one way or another? In fact, since the dinosaurs were very successful (in that they were around a very long time) maybe they were the goal? I don't see how a single, very, very, very old designed creature or creatures could be programmed to 'evolve' to a particular goal given unforeseen degradation, natural disasters, diseases, etc. Besides, what would be the point of hundreds of millions of years of having species come into existence only to die out? Can you explain how your scenario could have been brought about given all the uncertainty?JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
JVL:
Why do you care so much? And why do you keep asking knowing Seversky won’t respond?
Because seversky seems to argue from authority. Yet he doesn't have any except for being an authority of dishonesty.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
JVL:
I’ve been thinking about this . . . that does imply that human beings were not necessarily the point doesn’t it?
Nope. Keep grasping. It's as if you are unable to think.
I mean if we’re the result of millions and millions of years of the original design having ‘degraded’ there would be no way for the designer to know what was going to happen in the future?
We wouldn't be here in that scenario. Maybe you should stop erecting strawmen.
Heck the dinosaurs were around longer than they’ve been gone; we very well might still have a dinosaur world now if it wasn’t for that damned comet . . .
The fossil evidence says the dinosaurs were dead before the asteroid hit.ET
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Martin_r: Seversky, i have asked your like 1000 times … WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ? I was just wondering . . . Why do you care so much? And why do you keep asking knowing Seversky won't respond?JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
ET: And AGAIN, extant life is NOT the intelligently designed life, duh. No one said the design was perfect. No one said the design had to remain perfect for eternity. I've been thinking about this . . . that does imply that human beings were not necessarily the point doesn't it? I mean if we're the result of millions and millions of years of the original design having 'degraded' there would be no way for the designer to know what was going to happen in the future? Heck the dinosaurs were around longer than they've been gone; we very well might still have a dinosaur world now if it wasn't for that damned comet . . .JVL
October 22, 2021
October
10
Oct
22
22
2021
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
OldArmy94 @11
I’m confused. I thought that Almighty Darwinism...
the same with 'junk' DNA ... Almighty Darwinism, and for all those allegedly millions of years, was unable to get rid of 98% of allegedly useless genome ...martin_r
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply