Stab yourself in the arm to prove evolution.

[alexb123]

Ok take a pin and stick it in your top facing lower arm, now twist your arm around and stab yourself on the other side.

Ok, the top of the arm will hurt very little as the skin is thick but on the other side of the arm you will experiance much greater pain.

It's clear that the reason for this thicker skin is to protect the outer facing arm from damage. As the outer side of the arm is much more susceptible to injury, we have evolved a thicker skin to protect us.

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?

 

[Cottontop3000]

Surely he would have.

 

[Athelwulf]

Well said, Alex.

 

[spidergoat]

It's the top, or outside of your arm that is more likely damaged, why would a creator make us grow useless extra skin cells? It's a weak argument, I think.

 

[Poincare's Stepchild]

The "flaws" in the "design" of many creatures are evident if one only looks for them. Why do we humans experience back ache? Why do giraffes have such stiff necks? Why do whales have vestigial legs, for heaven's sake?

Unintelligent design, perhaps?

 

[Hapsburg]

It's the top, or outside of your arm that is more likely damaged, why would a creator make us grow useless extra skin cells? It's a weak argument, I think.

Because an intelligent designer would have forseen possible injuries on the underside of the arm. However, it didn't, because an intelligent designer does not exist.

 

[scorpius]

theres a whole pile of useless designs in life forms dont have a time to find the link, look for a site called "gods greatest mistakes"

 

[Mystech]

Now take a look at a persian cat. Just 50 years ago that cat had a snout, now it's face dips inward. Where is your God now?

 

[cole grey]

Why not protect the underarm with thick skin too, instead of having them do such a nasty thing as sweat? Because it works to our advantage to help regulate body temperature, etc.
Terrible argument.
That having been said, the same argument has been used from the other side, when people thought the tonsils were useless and couldn't have developed evolutionarily, yet as we learn more, some people start to find possible purposes for these things, and junk dna, and other things we haven't necessarily explained once and for all, and people realize the argument isn't worth much.

Evolution is not a subject that has much bearing on the existence of God anyway. Words like "created" and "day" are probably being misunderstood by religious and non-religious alike, so I don't really care.

edit- this might be confusing if you don't understand that I mean armpit when I say underarm, not the underside of your whole arm.

 

[cole grey]

Because an intelligent designer would have forseen possible injuries on the underside of the arm.

The designer would have also forseen people being struck by lightning, but didn't add a grounding device to our bodies, because it doesn't happen much.

Anyway, people weren't "designed" with thick skin to prevent injuries, they were "designed" with brains to make gloves and shirts and so forth.

 

[alexb123]

The designer would have also forseen people being struck by lightning, but didn't add a grounding device to our bodies, because it doesn't happen much.

Anyway, people weren't "designed" with thick skin to prevent injuries, they were "designed" with brains to make gloves and shirts and so forth.

I disagree. Just look at the ribcage as an example of a good working protective design.

And if you claim that thicker skin is not there as a protection, why not look at your own feet for the more extreme example?

 

[RoyLennigan]

but flaws in design can be seen as being there for a purpose. there are 'flaws' in the 'design' of everything; nothing works perfectly. but these flaws create individuality and a tendancy to do things a certain way. without flaws, we would not be unique. in an evolutionary process, there are no flaws. what we call flaws are merely unique characteristics of a certain gene order/combination. the trait might be a flaw in one environment or an advantage in another. or it might be useless altogether.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

I love the argument that goes:

1. Evolution
2. Therefore, NO God!

First, evolution doesn't have to be contradictory to creation. They can work symbiotically. Evolution could just be the choice of creation by a creator.

That should end discussion on that point, but it won't so...

Second, you are taking a very time-specific argument to prove a time-independent occurence. The argument goes that because we have these supposed "flaws" now, that means that there cannot be an intelligent design that could care less what state our being is at this very moment, right now (or at any moment in time).

It is logically weak.

Max

 

[spidergoat]

You could reason that since evolution discounts the traditional role of the creator, what else have they been wrong about? It calls the whole thing into question, like when someone in a trial lies.

 

[water]

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?

So, basically, your argument is this:


Because humans are not omnipotent,
they have not been made by an intelligent designer.

Yes?

 

[MadMaxReborn]

You could reason that since evolution discounts the traditional role of the creator, what else have they been wrong about? It calls the whole thing into question, like when someone in a trial lies.

I don't see evolution as discounting any role of a creator. Evolution discounts one interpretation for the creation found in Genesis. That's it. There are many other interpretations of those same passages that evolution doesn't even touch.

Max

 

[alexb123]

So, basically, your argument is this:


Because humans are not omnipotent,
they have not been made by an intelligent designer.

Yes?

Omnipotent is a strong word to use and I wouldn't go that far.

I just wonder why a fucking idiot such as myself can sit here and see a very basic design flaw, thats all.

 

[cole grey]

I disagree. Just look at the ribcage as an example of a good working protective design.

And if you claim that thicker skin is not there as a protection, why not look at your own feet for the more extreme example?

Sorry, but your thick skin on the foot isn't going to keep a piece of glass from cutting it, and your shoes will.
The point you made was that the thinness of skin in less exposed areas is a bad thing because you can get stabbed by a pin there, and a designer would have been able to make a better design.
I say the design is ok, even if it is an adaptation and not a design.

There are protective designs, or adaptations - which word is appropriate to use depends on what your definition of the designer is, from physical seven day creator, to some type of "the force" or way, to none at all.

EDIT- your idea that it only takes an idiot to see that people should have thick skin all over their body is a good one, because only an uneducated person would think that we should have thick skin all over our body, instead of having different types of skin in different places.

How would the reproductive systems function so well if the penis had thick skin to protect it from injury?

 

[spidergoat]

I don't see evolution as discounting any role of a creator. Evolution discounts one interpretation for the creation found in Genesis. That's it. There are many other interpretations of those same passages that evolution doesn't even touch.

Max

Yes, but these are not traditional interpretations. One must wonder how God could have let all those Christians maintain incorrect beliefs for so long. Their defense of Christianity is usually about how it is firm and unchanging, how the gospels are perfect and the bishops and popes are the inheritors of an unerrant teaching going all the way back back to the disciples. If anyone can reinterpret them, where does it end?

 

[Poincare's Stepchild]

I don't see evolution as discounting any role of a creator. Evolution discounts one interpretation for the creation found in Genesis. That's it. There are many other interpretations of those same passages that evolution doesn't even touch.

Max

I agree with your statement, even though I personally do not believe in a creator. The theory of evolution is not about "how it all started." The theory's concern is about how species change over time.