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
OldArmy at 11: "Somebody help me understand." OldArmy you are making the HUGE mistake of thinking for yourself. You see, to be a REALLY good Darwinist you must become a mindless meat robot who mindlessly repeats, and never questions, whatever cock and bull 'just-so story' you have been told by your Darwinian betters.
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” - Jerry Coyne – - Michael Egnor Shows You're Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2) https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20
bornagain77
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
seversky:
It is revealing that Intelligent Design proponents are careful to avoid being specific about the capabilities of their putative Designer.
Clueless. We know the capabilities by what the designers left behind. 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.
For example, we find sensible double redundancy in the form of two lungs or two kidneys but it raises the obvious question of why not two livers or two pancreases or two spleens?
Not required.ET
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
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.OldArmy94
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Sandy @6
Hate against a human being is a sin that destroy the house of your soul. The only hate allowed by God is against devil.
you are right. I apologize.martin_r
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
I can envision a time when Seversky will have to answer these questions. It will go something like this: Brace yourself like a man. I shall question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?... I would not want to be him then.AnimatedDust
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
it only makes the shortcomings of the design even more puzzling.
How do you know the design has shortcomings? Maybe the perfect design requires trade offs? Certainly a functioning ecology does. If one element of an eco system dominated, then eventually it would destroy the eco system and itself. Maybe a functioning world requires trade offs? Is so, these trade offs would give the appearance of sub optimal design while actually being perfect design. It would be a world of perfect imperfects. Also is the designer of this system meant to be obscure? Would a too obvious design prevent the purpose of the design from being implemented? So also would the too obvious presence of the designer actually frustrate the objective? But we have enough clues and enough doubt that the designer and design is highly likely but not certain. Is doubt a necessity? Would there be a meaningful world if there were no doubt?jerry
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Belfast at 2:,,, "Now we have Seversky the Wise pointing out design flaws in the human body.,,," Belfast, that post was almost Shakespearean,,, :) Of semi related note is this just released video from John 10:10. The last part of the video is pretty cool.
SKELETON KEYS Sir Isaac Newton once wrote that “in the absence of any other proof, my thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.” Newton’s observation takes on even greater relevance when applied to the 206 bones that make up the human skeleton. In this engaging video, you’ll marvel at the integrated components that form the basis of the highly flexible scaffolding that supports and protects our bodies. It is a framework that clearly illustrates the creative power of God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmQsEXDKjhM
bornagain77
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Seversky the Wise pointing out design flaws in the human body.
:) Consider Seversky as a 3 years old child. He/she acts like one . After you imagine him as a child then his messages don't sound so bad...for a 3 years old.
It would be better, if Darwinian clowns FINALLY explain WHY SPECIES SLEEP … WHAT EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE IS IT TO GET KILLED WHILE WE SLEEP (HOURS!!!! OF SLEEP )
@Martin_r : Who would destroy his house trying to build the house of a stranger? Hate against a human being is a sin that destroy the house of your soul. The only hate allowed by God is against devil.Sandy
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
the author of the article, this Matthew Rosza, above wrote:
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.
what is this clown trying to say? Is he saying that we don't breath while we sleep ? It would be better, if Darwinian clowns FINALLY explain WHY SPECIES SLEEP ... WHAT EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE IS IT TO GET KILLED WHILE WE SLEEP (HOURS!!!! OF SLEEP )martin_r
October 21, 2021
October
10
Oct
21
21
2021
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
Seversky,
For example, we find sensible double redundancy in the form of two lungs or two kidneys but it raises the obvious question of why not two livers or two pancreases or two spleens?
let me add the following: how do you know, that having 2 lungs or 2 kidneys is an example of redundancy ? Who told you? Darwinian biologists? Darwinian biologists who are changing their minds (reviewing current concept, rethinking common view) with every new paper published ? Yes, you can live with only 1 lung / kidney, but how do you know that some processes in your body don't suffer by this ? Are 2 hands also an example of redundancy ? Because you can live with 1 hand ... or 1 leg... or 1 eye... or 1 ear ... You have 1 head (i assume), is it an example of bad design ? Considering your logic, would you expect to have 2 heads? So it is ID-redundant ? Your thinking is so childish ...martin_r
October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Seversky wrote:
For example, we find sensible double redundancy in the form of two lungs or two kidneys but it raises the obvious question of why not two livers or two pancreases or two spleens?
Seversky, i have asked your like 1000 times ... WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ? HOW ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO TALK ABOUT DESIGN, ANY DESIGN and to put this kind of questions ? YOU DARWINISTS ARE CLUELESS ... after 150 of years, you can't re-create the simplest parts of the simplest cell, let alone a lung or a spleen ... or human blood ... Darwinists, you clueless funny clowns... you are attacking Creator's masterpiece everyday, but you can't re-create a single thing of what he made .... Don't forget to answer the question - WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION ????martin_r
October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
“Had I been present at the creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe.” (Attributed to Alphonso the Wise.) Now we have Seversky the Wise pointing out design flaws in the human body. By necessary implication if Seversky the Wise had designed the body there would have been two stomachs, two penises, etc. as these fit the notion of “sensible” redundancy as two kidneys do - readily available if either loses function; in males anyway. The Wise One graciously concedes the sense there. Seversky the Wise gives a useful safety tip; if he had designed the body, he would have put in place a distant early warning system, to combat cancer for example; and is puzzled that since a mortal like himself could think of such a handy and effective feature, God couldn’t. It must be a riot of laughter at the Atheist’s Afternoon Kaffeeklatsch as ideas spill out about mistakes in design cover up the red-faced embarrassment at the Junk DNA fiasco, and the ‘mistake’ in the design of the eye.Belfast
October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
It is revealing that Intelligent Design proponents are careful to avoid being specific about the capabilities of their putative Designer. If it is envisaged as being less capable than the Christian God then the various flaws in the human "design" are explicable on the grounds of incompetence. The drawback with such a concept is that such a being cannot be appealed to as some sort of infallible, supreme moral authority. It would simply be a highly-advanced alien intelligence, not inconceivable but not the God needed by Christians. That is the cost of non-theistic ID. And while ID proponents can point to some features of the human body which appear to be wonderfully "engineered" it only makes the shortcomings of the design even more puzzling. For example, we find sensible double redundancy in the form of two lungs or two kidneys but it raises the obvious question of why not two livers or two pancreases or two spleens? And in a design so prone to a functional disorder like cancer, why isn't there at least a sensor system which can warn of the onset of tumors at a very early stage when they can be dealt with more easily. As it stands, the symptoms often don't become apparent until the disorder has really taken hold and even metastasized. If there is a God then these are questions that could and should be asked of Him. If not, why not?Seversky
October 20, 2021
October
10
Oct
20
20
2021
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply