Atheism Discussion Thread

[Alvecia]

True, but because the two holes are connected, it is possible to block the breathing hole with food causing people to choke. If instead the two where entirely not connected (ie it was impossible to choke on food) that would be a much more sensible design. The two connected pipes with the flap that blocks the food from going down the breathing hole is good enough, it isn't a good design.

You’re joking right? If the oesophagus was split into two pipes you’d need two mouths and two noses. If the tube to the lung just connected to the nose, then we would be unable to speak, because it is the action of the tongue and teeth which allow control of speech. Likewise if the tube to the stomach connected just to the mouth, we’d be unable to taste because the nose is pertinent in our ability to taste. If the tube just connected to the nose if it became blocked say during a cold, you’d suffocate. The problem of two tubes does not stop an allergic reactions because the type 1 sensitivity would cause the oesophagus regardless of connection the mouth to inflame. So two oesophagus would not solve this problem.

There are no issues with the system we have, the reason people choke is because they abuse that system: not chewing before swallowing, eating too quickly. Yet most humans swallow millions maybe billions of times across a life time, yet how many times do we choke in our life? For the sheer volume of humans, the sheer volume going through the throat and the sheer use of the system there are very few failures of that system, it has a lower rate of failure than than the most carefully constructed human system.

There are several issues with the system we have, and it could be much, much better.
We definitely wouldn't look anything like we do now, and we probably wouldn't have developed the same language as a result, but it would be an improvement nonetheless.

[Lower Nubia]

True, but because the two holes are connected, it is possible to block the breathing hole with food causing people to choke. If instead the two where entirely not connected (ie it was impossible to choke on food) that would be a much more sensible design. The two connected pipes with the flap that blocks the food from going down the breathing hole is good enough, it isn't a good design.

That's nothing. Our DNA repair mechanisms are very prone to introducing errors, which can lead to cell malfunction and cancer. For example, in the case of a "double strand break", the DNA repair mechanism basically takes a wild guess as to what base pairs are missing, and just throws anything in there to seal the gap. That kind of shit is very dangerous, and can drastically change the behaviour of the cell and lead to cancer.

Also, before DNA transcription can take place, there is an added step required to remove introns, so called "junk DNA" that do not code for proteins. Again, the mechanisms to do that can also fail, and lead to behavioural changes in the cell, and possibly cancer.

I cannot believe that a God would be so damn clueless to make those two easily avoidable mistakes, creating basic cellular mechanisms that are prone to failure. If he intentionally put those flaws in on purpose, then God is a monster that is totally undeserving of our worship.

This is even worse than the oesophagus one! Very prone to error? You taking the urine? The rate of error in DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase is 1 in 10 billion. In other words, the copy paste on your computer has a greater chance of producing an error than DNA polymerase does. Remember there are roughly 37 trillion cells in your body and each one is producing hundreds of proteins a day, replicating every day requiring both DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase, the sheer volume is extraordinary yet the failure rate is exceedingly, exceedingly low. The system is so efficient that we want to change the way computers work to conform to DNA techniques because they’re so much less prone to error and so much better at storing that information, while being able to reluctant themselves.

The reason cancer becomes prominent is because of the sheer amount being processed is going to fail, it’s not a matter of design, the very law of physics demand it fail at some point. Yet most humans go through their lives without the fear of cancer. I could do the math, but I think the above illustrates your clueless ness of the subject.

Even introns arn’t junk DNA they’re useful in DNA expression, because a single line of DNA for does not produce one protein/enzyme, one line of DNA produces potentially 4 proteins/enzymes each needing different promoter regions, often contained in introns to illustrate to RNA polymerase where to begin production of a enzyme. The utilisation of Junk DNA in current scientific discourse is becoming less and less as we discover more about these promoter regions, one day, maybe they’ll be none.

Please, present your pseudoscience elsewhere.

Edit: confused number of cells with number of base pairs in DNA, 37 trillion cells not 3 billion.

[Albrenia]

True, but because the two holes are connected, it is possible to block the breathing hole with food causing people to choke. If instead the two where entirely not connected (ie it was impossible to choke on food) that would be a much more sensible design. The two connected pipes with the flap that blocks the food from going down the breathing hole is good enough, it isn't a good design.

You’re joking right? If the oesophagus was split into two pipes you’d need two mouths and two noses. If the tube to the lung just connected to the nose, then we would be unable to speak, because it is the action of the tongue and teeth which allow control of speech. Likewise if the tube to the stomach connected just to the mouth, we’d be unable to taste because the nose is pertinent in our ability to taste. If the tube just connected to the nose if it became blocked say during a cold, you’d suffocate. The problem of two tubes does not stop an allergic reactions because the type 1 sensitivity would cause the oesophagus regardless of connection the mouth to inflame. So two oesophagus would not solve this problem.

There are no issues with the system we have, the reason people choke is because they abuse that system: not chewing before swallowing, eating too quickly. Yet most humans swallow millions maybe billions of times across a life time, yet how many times do we choke in our life? For the sheer volume of humans, the sheer volume going through the throat and the sheer use of the system there are very few failures of that system, it has a lower rate of failure than than the most carefully constructed human system.

No issues? That's just plain silly.

Not having a glottis or similar alternate way to breathe when we choke is only one of the problems. There's our hips which are great for walking upright but put the mother and child in increased danger during birth, also making it much more painful. Our knees use the wrong sort of joint system (apparently a ball-socket hinge would be way better), making them way more vulnerable to serious damage. Lastly from this random list, our goddamn eyes (or at least the retina) are backward.

That's not all of the ones we widely know about either.

[Alvecia]

You’re joking right? If the oesophagus was split into two pipes you’d need two mouths and two noses. If the tube to the lung just connected to the nose, then we would be unable to speak, because it is the action of the tongue and teeth which allow control of speech. Likewise if the tube to the stomach connected just to the mouth, we’d be unable to taste because the nose is pertinent in our ability to taste. If the tube just connected to the nose if it became blocked say during a cold, you’d suffocate. The problem of two tubes does not stop an allergic reactions because the type 1 sensitivity would cause the oesophagus regardless of connection the mouth to inflame. So two oesophagus would not solve this problem.

There are no issues with the system we have, the reason people choke is because they abuse that system: not chewing before swallowing, eating too quickly. Yet most humans swallow millions maybe billions of times across a life time, yet how many times do we choke in our life? For the sheer volume of humans, the sheer volume going through the throat and the sheer use of the system there are very few failures of that system, it has a lower rate of failure than than the most carefully constructed human system.

No issues? That's just plain silly.

Not having a glottis or similar alternate way to breathe when we choke is only one of the problems. There's our hips which are great for walking upright but put the mother and child in increased danger during birth, also making it much more painful. Our knees use the wrong sort of joint system (apparently a ball-socket hinge would be way better), making them way more vulnerable to serious damage. Lastly from this random list, our goddamn eyes (or at least the retina) are backward.

That's not all of the ones we widely know about either.

Ignoring stuff that's an issue, there's also all of the vestigal stuff we have.

[Albrenia]

No issues? That's just plain silly.

Not having a glottis or similar alternate way to breathe when we choke is only one of the problems. There's our hips which are great for walking upright but put the mother and child in increased danger during birth, also making it much more painful. Our knees use the wrong sort of joint system (apparently a ball-socket hinge would be way better), making them way more vulnerable to serious damage. Lastly from this random list, our goddamn eyes (or at least the retina) are backward.

That's not all of the ones we widely know about either.

Ignoring stuff that's an issue, there's also all of the vestigal stuff we have.

God must just really love putting tiny tailbones on people.

[Alvecia]

Ignoring stuff that's an issue, there's also all of the vestigal stuff we have.

God must just really love putting tiny tailbones on people.

"Here, have a little dead end tube in your waste disposal system. That won't ever get infected at all. No siree"

[Albrenia]

God must just really love putting tiny tailbones on people.

"Here, have a little dead end tube in your waste disposal system. That won't ever get infected at all. No siree"

"That appendix really ties the room together, I think I'll leave it in even though it will kill a bunch of you"

[Lower Nubia]

You’re joking right? If the oesophagus was split into two pipes you’d need two mouths and two noses. If the tube to the lung just connected to the nose, then we would be unable to speak, because it is the action of the tongue and teeth which allow control of speech. Likewise if the tube to the stomach connected just to the mouth, we’d be unable to taste because the nose is pertinent in our ability to taste. If the tube just connected to the nose if it became blocked say during a cold, you’d suffocate. The problem of two tubes does not stop an allergic reactions because the type 1 sensitivity would cause the oesophagus regardless of connection the mouth to inflame. So two oesophagus would not solve this problem.

There are no issues with the system we have, the reason people choke is because they abuse that system: not chewing before swallowing, eating too quickly. Yet most humans swallow millions maybe billions of times across a life time, yet how many times do we choke in our life? For the sheer volume of humans, the sheer volume going through the throat and the sheer use of the system there are very few failures of that system, it has a lower rate of failure than than the most carefully constructed human system.

No issues? That's just plain silly.

Not having a glottis or similar alternate way to breathe when we choke is only one of the problems. There's our hips which are great for walking upright but put the mother and child in increased danger during birth, also making it much more painful. Our knees use the wrong sort of joint system (apparently a ball-socket hinge would be way better), making them way more vulnerable to serious damage. Lastly from this random list, our goddamn eyes (or at least the retina) are backward.

That's not all of the ones we widely know about either.

No, no, no. The glottis is essential in speech the fact it spasms when something touches it comes back to the abuse of the swallowing system. It only fails when you force too much down it, but saying an abuse of a design is a bad one is about as stupid as saying when an elephant sits on a car and the suspension collapses that car suspension was a bad design.

I mean from a Christian perspective the hip thing would make sense, yet even your criticism fails, if the hips are perfect for walking but not as brilliant for giving birth then what trade off can we give? Thers’s no way you’re getting an effective trade off which makes both perfect, walking and giving birth are two entirely different things, yet the hip enables both effectively. The hips provide the necessary support for the pregnancy by maintaining support, anchoring the organs, what better alternative do you suggest?

A ball and socket design would be awful. What makes the legs effective is the ability for the knee to lock into position such as when we’re standing, a ball and socket cannot lock, not without some additional mechanism which would be just the knee we have now, and so we would be a chair bound species because standing would be awful, which then would kill us because standing does not have adverse health affects, while sitting does.

[Philjia]

You’re joking right? If the oesophagus was split into two pipes you’d need two mouths and two noses. If the tube to the lung just connected to the nose, then we would be unable to speak, because it is the action of the tongue and teeth which allow control of speech. Likewise if the tube to the stomach connected just to the mouth, we’d be unable to taste because the nose is pertinent in our ability to taste. If the tube just connected to the nose if it became blocked say during a cold, you’d suffocate. The problem of two tubes does not stop an allergic reactions because the type 1 sensitivity would cause the oesophagus regardless of connection the mouth to inflame. So two oesophagus would not solve this problem.

There are no issues with the system we have, the reason people choke is because they abuse that system: not chewing before swallowing, eating too quickly. Yet most humans swallow millions maybe billions of times across a life time, yet how many times do we choke in our life? For the sheer volume of humans, the sheer volume going through the throat and the sheer use of the system there are very few failures of that system, it has a lower rate of failure than than the most carefully constructed human system.

No issues? That's just plain silly.

Not having a glottis or similar alternate way to breathe when we choke is only one of the problems. There's our hips which are great for walking upright but put the mother and child in increased danger during birth, also making it much more painful. Our knees use the wrong sort of joint system (apparently a ball-socket hinge would be way better), making them way more vulnerable to serious damage. Lastly from this random list, our goddamn eyes (or at least the retina) are backward.

That's not all of the ones we widely know about either.

We're also evolving. Women in the developed world are getting narrower pelvises than they used to. The modern cesarean section has removed the penalty for trying to give birth without a large gap for the baby to go through, so they're no longer being bred out.

[Albrenia]

No issues? That's just plain silly.

Not having a glottis or similar alternate way to breathe when we choke is only one of the problems. There's our hips which are great for walking upright but put the mother and child in increased danger during birth, also making it much more painful. Our knees use the wrong sort of joint system (apparently a ball-socket hinge would be way better), making them way more vulnerable to serious damage. Lastly from this random list, our goddamn eyes (or at least the retina) are backward.

That's not all of the ones we widely know about either.

No, no, no. The glottis is essential in speech the fact it spasms when something touches it comes back to the abuse of the swallowing system. It only fails when you force too much down it, but saying an abuse of a design is a bad one is about as stupid as saying when an elephant sits on a car and the suspension collapses that car suspension was a bad design.

I mean from a Christian perspective the hip thing would make sense, yet even your criticism fails, if the hips are perfect for walking but not as brilliant for giving birth then what trade off can we give? Thers’s no way you’re getting an effective trade off which makes both perfect, walking and giving birth are two entirely different things, yet the hip enables both effectively. The hips provide the necessary support for the pregnancy by maintaining support, anchoring the organs, what better alternative do you suggest?

A ball and socket design would be awful. What makes the legs effective is the ability for the knee to lock into position such as when we’re standing, a ball and socket cannot lock, not without some additional mechanism which would be just the knee we have now, and so we would be a chair bound species because standing would be awful, which then would kill us because standing does not have adverse health affects, while sitting does.

Well, a car's suspension isn't designed to be an elephant's seat, but our throat is designed for eating. So I think pointing out the flaws in that use of the system is still legit. People can choke without stuffing their faces, as well.

As for the hip, I'm sure a deity can design a hip which allows both walking and childbirth without any problems for the two. Apparently even a slight stretching of the design would do a lot of good without unbalancing us in any way.

The ball and socket stuff is a good point, although we do have that sort of joint in our shoulders and we can still 'lock' them enough to do lifting and the like.

[Lower Nubia]

No, no, no. The glottis is essential in speech the fact it spasms when something touches it comes back to the abuse of the swallowing system. It only fails when you force too much down it, but saying an abuse of a design is a bad one is about as stupid as saying when an elephant sits on a car and the suspension collapses that car suspension was a bad design.

I mean from a Christian perspective the hip thing would make sense, yet even your criticism fails, if the hips are perfect for walking but not as brilliant for giving birth then what trade off can we give? Thers’s no way you’re getting an effective trade off which makes both perfect, walking and giving birth are two entirely different things, yet the hip enables both effectively. The hips provide the necessary support for the pregnancy by maintaining support, anchoring the organs, what better alternative do you suggest?

A ball and socket design would be awful. What makes the legs effective is the ability for the knee to lock into position such as when we’re standing, a ball and socket cannot lock, not without some additional mechanism which would be just the knee we have now, and so we would be a chair bound species because standing would be awful, which then would kill us because standing does not have adverse health affects, while sitting does.

Well, a car's suspension isn't designed to be an elephant's seat, but our throat is designed for eating. So I think pointing out the flaws in that use of the system is still legit. People can choke without stuffing their faces, as well.

As for the hip, I'm sure a deity can design a hip which allows both walking and childbirth without any problems for the two. Apparently even a slight stretching of the design would do a lot of good without unbalancing us in any way.

The ball and socket stuff is a good point, although we do have that sort of joint in our shoulders and we can still 'lock' them enough to do lifting and the like.

Yes humans do, by not paying attention, a person who pays attention, eats properly will not choke. One who is not inebriated and we don’t look at choking caused by Alzheimer’s or dementia (this is failure of the mind, not that system) I’ll even give the math seeing as you think it’s error prone.

We swallow roughly 1,000 times a day, 365,000 across a year. Multiple this across 7 billion people and that is 2.55 x 10^15 total swallows for every human across a year. Around 218 people choked to death in the UK, including for inavlid reasons presented above, using that for the world average gives: 0.00034% of total world deaths. Presuming that one swallow yields one choke which yields one death. There are 2,380,000 choking deaths worldwide across a year, or 2,380,000 chokes which is an failure rate of 0.0000001%. The body has a system to remove choking debris but is really not necessary seeing as the reasons you choke are for abuses we do, most of those failures are from abuses, so your point is utterly mute. It works just fine.

I’m sure? Don’t present random assertions, if you think a better solution exists than imagine it, present its logical biological underpinnings and provide the better design. Simply saying “I’m sure there are better designs” does not demonstrate that there are. Our ignorance is not an argument, the point of a criticism is that it is useful, so critiquing a design while not providing a better alternative is worthless criticism.

The shoulder joint does not lock into a specific shape, which is why your arms are affected by gravity. It stops you from bending your arms around to your back, probably to limit damage to surrounding tissues undergoing stretching, yet even with the shoulder joint in place of the knees we’d be unable to stand for prolonged periods of time, we’d need to use all our core muscles to provide stability.

[Alvecia]

Well, a car's suspension isn't designed to be an elephant's seat, but our throat is designed for eating. So I think pointing out the flaws in that use of the system is still legit. People can choke without stuffing their faces, as well.

As for the hip, I'm sure a deity can design a hip which allows both walking and childbirth without any problems for the two. Apparently even a slight stretching of the design would do a lot of good without unbalancing us in any way.

The ball and socket stuff is a good point, although we do have that sort of joint in our shoulders and we can still 'lock' them enough to do lifting and the like.

Yes humans do, by not paying attention, a person who pays attention, eats properly will not choke. One who is not inebriated and we don’t look at choking caused by Alzheimer’s or dementia (this is failure of the mind, not that system) I’ll even give the math seeing as you think it’s error prone.

We swallow roughly 1,000 times a day, 365,000 across a year. Multiple this across 7 billion people and that is 2.55 x 10^15 total swallows for every human across a year. Around 218 people choked to death in the UK, including for inavlid reasons presented above, using that for the world average gives: 0.00034% of total world deaths. Presuming that one swallow yields one choke which yields one death. There are 2,380,000 choking deaths worldwide across a year, or 2,380,000 chokes which is an failure rate of 0.0000001%. The body has a system to remove choking debris but is really not necessary seeing as the reasons you choke are for abuses we do, most of those failures are from abuses, so your point is utterly mute. It works just fine.

I’m sure? Don’t present random assertions, if you think a better solution exists than imagine it, present its logical biological underpinnings and provide the better design. Simply saying “I’m sure there are better designs” does not demonstrate that there are. Our ignorance is not an argument, the point of a criticism is that it is useful, so critiquing a design while not providing a better alternative is worthless criticism.

The shoulder joint does not lock into a specific shape, which is why your arms are affected by gravity. It stops you from bending your arms around to your back, probably to limit damage to surrounding tissues undergoing stretching, yet even with the shoulder joint in place of the knees we’d be unable to stand for prolonged periods of time, we’d need to use all our core muscles to provide stability.

Problem is you're looking at this wrong. The argument is not evolution vs human design, it's evolution vs God's design.
God, a supposed all powerful, all knowing being, would be able to create a human without any of the mentioned issues without having to compromise on some functionality.

[Lower Nubia]

Yes humans do, by not paying attention, a person who pays attention, eats properly will not choke. One who is not inebriated and we don’t look at choking caused by Alzheimer’s or dementia (this is failure of the mind, not that system) I’ll even give the math seeing as you think it’s error prone.

We swallow roughly 1,000 times a day, 365,000 across a year. Multiple this across 7 billion people and that is 2.55 x 10^15 total swallows for every human across a year. Around 218 people choked to death in the UK, including for inavlid reasons presented above, using that for the world average gives: 0.00034% of total world deaths. Presuming that one swallow yields one choke which yields one death. There are 2,380,000 choking deaths worldwide across a year, or 2,380,000 chokes which is an failure rate of 0.0000001%. The body has a system to remove choking debris but is really not necessary seeing as the reasons you choke are for abuses we do, most of those failures are from abuses, so your point is utterly mute. It works just fine.

I’m sure? Don’t present random assertions, if you think a better solution exists than imagine it, present its logical biological underpinnings and provide the better design. Simply saying “I’m sure there are better designs” does not demonstrate that there are. Our ignorance is not an argument, the point of a criticism is that it is useful, so critiquing a design while not providing a better alternative is worthless criticism.

The shoulder joint does not lock into a specific shape, which is why your arms are affected by gravity. It stops you from bending your arms around to your back, probably to limit damage to surrounding tissues undergoing stretching, yet even with the shoulder joint in place of the knees we’d be unable to stand for prolonged periods of time, we’d need to use all our core muscles to provide stability.

Problem is you're looking at this wrong. The argument is not evolution vs human design, it's evolution vs God's design.
God, a supposed all powerful, all knowing being, would be able to create a human without any of the mentioned issues without having to compromise on some functionality.

You think I missed that? Does 2+2 to God = 4 or something else? Just because God is thrown in the mix does not mean that systems we can observe, understand and develop cannot be done by humans or created by us. God’s omnipotence doesn’t stop material constraints unless He’d maintain them (which is a whole different discussion) so God’s design would be limited by the very universe we occupy, and seeing as we occupy that universe our understanding is therefore only limited by the most distant extent of that universe. Seeing as both the limitations of the design and our limits of understanding overlap, this point is mute.

[Albrenia]

Problem is you're looking at this wrong. The argument is not evolution vs human design, it's evolution vs God's design.
God, a supposed all powerful, all knowing being, would be able to create a human without any of the mentioned issues without having to compromise on some functionality.

You think I missed that? Does 2+2 to God = 4 or something else? Just because God is thrown in the mix does not mean that systems we can observe, understand and develop cannot be done by humans or created by us. God’s omnipotence doesn’t stop material constraints unless He’d maintain them (which is a whole different discussion) so God’s design would be limited by the very universe we occupy, and seeing as we occupy that universe our understanding is therefore only limited by the most distant extent of that universe. Seeing as both the limitations of the design and our limits of understanding overlap, this point is mute.

The point is that God would be able to design a living creature in a universe of his own making without error. That we have any design flaws whatsoever speaks against creation by a perfect creator... or at least one who intentionally inflicts flaws on his creations.

Evolution is a way better explanation of the various quirks of our makeup. God is a much poorer one.

[Alvecia]

Problem is you're looking at this wrong. The argument is not evolution vs human design, it's evolution vs God's design.
God, a supposed all powerful, all knowing being, would be able to create a human without any of the mentioned issues without having to compromise on some functionality.

You think I missed that? Does 2+2 to God = 4 or something else? Just because God is thrown in the mix does not mean that systems we can observe, understand and develop cannot be done by humans or created by us. God’s omnipotence doesn’t stop material constraints unless He’d maintain them (which is a whole different discussion) so God’s design would be limited by the very universe we occupy, and seeing as we occupy that universe our understanding is therefore only limited by the most distant extent of that universe. Seeing as both the limitations of the design and our limits of understanding overlap, this point is mute.

Actually it kinda does. By nature of being omnipotent he can create things that are quite literally impossible for us.
Any limitations on an omnipotent being or it's creations are necessarily intentional, as by definition an omnipotent being has no limitations.

[Lower Nubia]

You think I missed that? Does 2+2 to God = 4 or something else? Just because God is thrown in the mix does not mean that systems we can observe, understand and develop cannot be done by humans or created by us. God’s omnipotence doesn’t stop material constraints unless He’d maintain them (which is a whole different discussion) so God’s design would be limited by the very universe we occupy, and seeing as we occupy that universe our understanding is therefore only limited by the most distant extent of that universe. Seeing as both the limitations of the design and our limits of understanding overlap, this point is mute.

Actually it kinda does. By nature of being omnipotent he can create things that are quite literally impossible for us.
Any limitations on an omnipotent being or it's creations are necessarily intentional, as by definition an omnipotent being has no limitations.

Limitations in the created is to be expected, only if the created is not sustained (again a different discussion) in eternity and would then make your Argument make sense, and it does, but only assuming that sustaining element. Humans were sustained, they are now not, which means all the limitations (tensile strength of bone, elasticity of elastitin) come into play which limit the design, I’ve expanded on this below.

I’ve presented Albrenia’s issue here too:

The point is that God would be able to design a living creature in a universe of his own making without error. That we have any design flaws whatsoever speaks against creation by a perfect creator... or at least one who intentionally inflicts flaws on his creations.

Evolution is a way better explanation of the various quirks of our makeup. God is a much poorer one.

No that is not possible, the very laws of physics ( the things that stop the universe from sinking into oblivion) ultimately limit the extent by which a system works. Want to know why DNA fails to do its job every now and then? Because (but not limited to) of the laws of friction eventually erode the mechanism. The laws of entropy slowly begin to accumulate mutation in the genome. You can’t have a perfect system in a material universe because the nature of the material is to evaporate (proton decay, heat death of the universe). Only with outside intervention is the system wholly sustainable, this was arguably the position the universe had before man sinned (which is an entirely different conversation).

That we have a failure rate (not design flaws) speaks of the limitations of our world, man must eat to gain energy, but it isn’t possible to absorb 100% of food, meaning some must be excreted as waste, therefore the design must occupy a gastric and waste system. Where do you put those systems? Gravity maintains the existense of a surface to live on, but it would weigh down the gastric and digestive system, it needs support: bones, but where do you put bones? Eventually with each universal constraint a system is required to maintain it or against it. But that organism cannot occupy too much space because that introduces new problems like a circulatory system, so the human body must be limited in size, but with all these systems and that limitations you run into limitations.

Your argument is why we have a failure rate in our organs and body, but it does not demonstrate that they are badly designed. Just logically limited to what is possible and allowable.

[MURICA-]

No that is not possible, the very laws of physics ( the things that stop the universe from sinking into oblivion) ultimately limit the extent by which a system works. Want to know why DNA fails to do its job every now and then? Because (but not limited to) of the laws of friction eventually erode the mechanism. The laws of entropy slowly begin to accumulate mutation in the genome. You can’t have a perfect system in a material universe because the nature of the material is to evaporate (proton decay, heat death of the universe). Only with outside intervention is the system wholly sustainable, this was arguably the position the universe had before man sinned (which is an entirely different conversation).

That we have a failure rate (not design flaws) speaks of the limitations of our world, man must eat to gain energy, but it isn’t possible to absorb 100% of food, meaning some must be excreted as waste, therefore the design must occupy a gastric and waste system. Where do you put those systems? Gravity maintains the existense of a surface to live on, but it would weigh down the gastric and digestive system, it needs support: bones, but where do you put bones? Eventually with each universal constraint a system is required to maintain it or against it. But that organism cannot occupy too much space because that introduces new problems like a circulatory system, so the human body must be limited in size, but with all these systems and that limitations you run into limitations.

Your argument is why we have a failure rate in our organs and body, but it does not demonstrate that they are badly designed. Just logically limited to what is possible and allowable.

He's... god? I thought gods had unlimited power and could tell the laws of Physics to go screw themselves?

[Lower Nubia]

No that is not possible, the very laws of physics ( the things that stop the universe from sinking into oblivion) ultimately limit the extent by which a system works. Want to know why DNA fails to do its job every now and then? Because (but not limited to) of the laws of friction eventually erode the mechanism. The laws of entropy slowly begin to accumulate mutation in the genome. You can’t have a perfect system in a material universe because the nature of the material is to evaporate (proton decay, heat death of the universe). Only with outside intervention is the system wholly sustainable, this was arguably the position the universe had before man sinned (which is an entirely different conversation).

That we have a failure rate (not design flaws) speaks of the limitations of our world, man must eat to gain energy, but it isn’t possible to absorb 100% of food, meaning some must be excreted as waste, therefore the design must occupy a gastric and waste system. Where do you put those systems? Gravity maintains the existense of a surface to live on, but it would weigh down the gastric and digestive system, it needs support: bones, but where do you put bones? Eventually with each universal constraint a system is required to maintain it or against it. But that organism cannot occupy too much space because that introduces new problems like a circulatory system, so the human body must be limited in size, but with all these systems and that limitations you run into limitations.

Your argument is why we have a failure rate in our organs and body, but it does not demonstrate that they are badly designed. Just logically limited to what is possible and allowable.

He's... god? I thought gods had unlimited power and could tell the laws of Physics to go screw themselves?

Now we’re all dead.

[MURICA-]

He's... god? I thought gods had unlimited power and could tell the laws of Physics to go screw themselves?

Now we’re all dead.

Nope, I am not 10 feet under, still alive.

Unless, of course, Earth is hell and we've all been damned here by an angry god.

[Valrifell]

Now we’re all dead.

Nope, I am not 10 feet under, still alive.

Unless, of course, Earth is hell and we've all been damned here by an angry god.

I think you just accidentally summarized gnosticism.

[Alvecia]

Actually it kinda does. By nature of being omnipotent he can create things that are quite literally impossible for us.
Any limitations on an omnipotent being or it's creations are necessarily intentional, as by definition an omnipotent being has no limitations.

Limitations in the created is to be expected, only if the created is not sustained (again a different discussion) in eternity and would then make your Argument make sense, and it does, but only assuming that sustaining element. Humans were sustained, they are now not, which means all the limitations (tensile strength of bone, elasticity of elastitin) come into play which limit the design, I’ve expanded on this below.

I’ve presented Albrenia’s issue here too:

The point is that God would be able to design a living creature in a universe of his own making without error. That we have any design flaws whatsoever speaks against creation by a perfect creator... or at least one who intentionally inflicts flaws on his creations.

Evolution is a way better explanation of the various quirks of our makeup. God is a much poorer one.

No that is not possible, the very laws of physics ( the things that stop the universe from sinking into oblivion) ultimately limit the extent by which a system works. Want to know why DNA fails to do its job every now and then? Because (but not limited to) of the laws of friction eventually erode the mechanism. The laws of entropy slowly begin to accumulate mutation in the genome. You can’t have a perfect system in a material universe because the nature of the material is to evaporate (proton decay, heat death of the universe). Only with outside intervention is the system wholly sustainable, this was arguably the position the universe had before man sinned (which is an entirely different conversation).

That we have a failure rate (not design flaws) speaks of the limitations of our world, man must eat to gain energy, but it isn’t possible to absorb 100% of food, meaning some must be excreted as waste, therefore the design must occupy a gastric and waste system. Where do you put those systems? Gravity maintains the existense of a surface to live on, but it would weigh down the gastric and digestive system, it needs support: bones, but where do you put bones? Eventually with each universal constraint a system is required to maintain it or against it. But that organism cannot occupy too much space because that introduces new problems like a circulatory system, so the human body must be limited in size, but with all these systems and that limitations you run into limitations.

Your argument is why we have a failure rate in our organs and body, but it does not demonstrate that they are badly designed. Just logically limited to what is possible and allowable.

I still think you're going about this wrong by trying to apply logic to an inherently illogical construct.
It doesn't matter what the laws of the universe are, or what should logically be expected to happen, if an omnipotent being wanted to create something that ignored all laws of physics while still following them, then it would be able to. That's part of the omnipotence, the ability to exist in a paradoxical scenario.

[Godular]

He's... god? I thought gods had unlimited power and could tell the laws of Physics to go screw themselves?

Now we’re all dead.

Missed me.

[Albrenia]

*sigh*

We have multiple design flaws, we are not perfectly created for this universe or the laws of physics. People who study biology as a living know this and some have even written books on the subject.

From our immune system killing us itself under certain circumstances, our wonky pain systems, the various quirks of our nerves and arteries, the vestigial parts of us, the weaknesses in our minds, our retina being backwards, the issues already mentioned and on and on. All are imperfect, as one would expect from evolution, which just goes with what works best at the time for having the next generation.

What makes it particularly odd is some other animals don't have these problems, going to show the 'human way' of doing some things is not the best.

[The New California Republic]

That's nothing. Our DNA repair mechanisms are very prone to introducing errors, which can lead to cell malfunction and cancer. For example, in the case of a "double strand break", the DNA repair mechanism basically takes a wild guess as to what base pairs are missing, and just throws anything in there to seal the gap. That kind of shit is very dangerous, and can drastically change the behaviour of the cell and lead to cancer.

Also, before DNA transcription can take place, there is an added step required to remove introns, so called "junk DNA" that do not code for proteins. Again, the mechanisms to do that can also fail, and lead to behavioural changes in the cell, and possibly cancer.

I cannot believe that a God would be so damn clueless to make those two easily avoidable mistakes, creating basic cellular mechanisms that are prone to failure. If he intentionally put those flaws in on purpose, then God is a monster that is totally undeserving of our worship.

This is even worse than the oesophagus one! Very prone to error? You taking the urine? The rate of error in DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase is 1 in 10 billion. In other words, the copy paste on your computer has a greater chance of producing an error than DNA polymerase does. Remember there are roughly 37 trillion cells in your body and each one is producing hundreds of proteins a day, replicating every day requiring both DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase, the sheer volume is extraordinary yet the failure rate is exceedingly, exceedingly low. The system is so efficient that we want to change the way computers work to conform to DNA techniques because they’re so much less prone to error and so much better at storing that information, while being able to reluctant themselves.

The reason cancer becomes prominent is because of the sheer amount being processed is going to fail, it’s not a matter of design, the very law of physics demand it fail at some point. Yet most humans go through their lives without the fear of cancer. I could do the math, but I think the above illustrates your clueless ness of the subject.

Even introns arn’t junk DNA they’re useful in DNA expression, because a single line of DNA for does not produce one protein/enzyme, one line of DNA produces potentially 4 proteins/enzymes each needing different promoter regions, often contained in introns to illustrate to RNA polymerase where to begin production of a enzyme. The utilisation of Junk DNA in current scientific discourse is becoming less and less as we discover more about these promoter regions, one day, maybe they’ll be none.

Please, present your pseudoscience elsewhere.

Edit: confused number of cells with number of base pairs in DNA, 37 trillion cells not 3 billion.

Seriously, can that bad attitude. It really isn't needed.

You ignored the point I was making. I was talking about Double Strand Breaks, and how error-prone the repair of them is.

Also, I never said that introns were completely useless, I know what function they serve in gene expression regulation et al.

If you can't talk to me in a civilized manner, then don't talk to me at all. I have had this problem with you before, it needs to stop.

[Lower Nubia]

This is even worse than the oesophagus one! Very prone to error? You taking the urine? The rate of error in DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase is 1 in 10 billion. In other words, the copy paste on your computer has a greater chance of producing an error than DNA polymerase does. Remember there are roughly 37 trillion cells in your body and each one is producing hundreds of proteins a day, replicating every day requiring both DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase, the sheer volume is extraordinary yet the failure rate is exceedingly, exceedingly low. The system is so efficient that we want to change the way computers work to conform to DNA techniques because they’re so much less prone to error and so much better at storing that information, while being able to reluctant themselves.

The reason cancer becomes prominent is because of the sheer amount being processed is going to fail, it’s not a matter of design, the very law of physics demand it fail at some point. Yet most humans go through their lives without the fear of cancer. I could do the math, but I think the above illustrates your clueless ness of the subject.

Even introns arn’t junk DNA they’re useful in DNA expression, because a single line of DNA for does not produce one protein/enzyme, one line of DNA produces potentially 4 proteins/enzymes each needing different promoter regions, often contained in introns to illustrate to RNA polymerase where to begin production of a enzyme. The utilisation of Junk DNA in current scientific discourse is becoming less and less as we discover more about these promoter regions, one day, maybe they’ll be none.

Please, present your pseudoscience elsewhere.

Edit: confused number of cells with number of base pairs in DNA, 37 trillion cells not 3 billion.

Seriously, can that bad attitude. It really isn't needed.

You ignored the point I was making. I was talking about Double Strand Breaks, and how error-prone the repair of them is.

Also, I never said that introns were completely useless, I know what function they serve in gene expression regulation et al.

If you can't talk to me in a civilized manner, then don't talk to me at all. I have had this problem with you before, it needs to stop.

Thank you for demonstrating further that cluelessness by not engaging with my original statements which demonstrate that our DNA replication methods are exceedingly advanced and instead present the most difficult method strand of DNA repair possible, yet then refuting yourself because the DNA manages to make the best of an impossible situation.

The error prone situation exists because essentially the body is given this wonderful little doosy: X + Y = Z. Find X, if both strands of DNA are destroyed what method can be used for repair, "without the use of extensive homology" essentially both blueprints have been destroyed and the body cannot leave the hole behind, so attempts a repair. Even your paper states:

"Although NHEJ is usually regarded as error-prone, its actual propensity towards inaccurate repair may be overestimated"

However presenting the most difficult break in stranded DNA and then suggesting that the repair mechanisms are poor is a serious accusation and disingenuous, how else is the body supposed to fix something when it has no idea what its supposed to be fixing? Both copies have been destroyed it has no reference, yet it manages to fix decently. The paper states:

"However, studies from budding yeast have shown that HR can be up to 1000-fold more mutagenic than normal DNA"

Though that sounds like a lot, yet the already remarkably low error rate in DNA repair mechanisms means that this number is still less prone to failure than all of our current technological achievements.

You originally said:

"Also, before DNA transcription can take place, there is an added step required to remove introns, so called "junk DNA" that do not code for proteins. Again, the mechanisms to do that can also fail, and lead to behavioural changes in the cell, and possibly cancer."

So called "Junk DNA", you present this information as if they are worthless though, that body has to remove such worthless regions and then gets itself stuck in the attempt, mulling over in the old: "How could God create such a travesty?" It's a travesty of your own making.

Overall the problem with your statement was the sweeping generalisation that because DNA has increased error in an exceedingly difficult scenario to repair, that somehow DNA repair mechanisms were poorly designed! How ridiculous is that?! Combined with this statement:

"I cannot believe that a God would be so damn clueless to make those two easily avoidable mistakes, creating basic cellular mechanisms that are prone to failure. If he intentionally put those flaws in on purpose, then God is a monster that is totally undeserving of our worship."

Easily. Avoidable... right, sure, you get back to me when you present an easy alternative, also, Basic. Cellular. Mechanisms. Are you ... I mean... what? There so ridiculously complicated, beyond anything that man, and the very limit at which nature can operate! Basic. Cellular... That's how I know you know nothing, because someone who knows, does not call Cellular machinery: "Basic". Yeah, it's basic... gosh I wonder why its taken us 50 years to just scratch the surface of this "Basic" thing. Ughhh.

Again, how about you reply to the advanced lack of errors in the DNA which I presented in the original response before claiming: "It's bad." Because those error statistics include this example too.