Skip to comments.Vas deferens—refuting ‘bad design’ arguments
Posted on 04/07/2014 1:11:34 PM PDT by fishtank
Vas deferensrefuting bad design arguments E. van Niekerk
The vas deferens is an important part of the male reproductive system. However, some anti-creationists have recently criticized its route for being too indirect, thus something which no engineer would design. However, anatomists have already given good reasons for this structure, including the increased flexibility of the testes to move toward and way from the body to regulate temperature. Critics have also overlooked engineering considerations, providing enough length to build up power and to mix the essential ingredients of semen, and to avoid ovalling (kinking in a soft pipe when bending).
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Yet another example of complete misunderstanding of stochastic processes.
TToE does not say that every process leads to the “best” result — it just has to effective.
But never get in the way of a good straw man.
Dude, I’d rather vacation in the far flung
Isles of Langerhans!
Viva la deferens?
Three freshman engineering students were sitting around talking between classes, when one brought up the question of who designed the human body.
One of the students insisted that the human body must have been designed by an electrical engineer because of the perfection of the nerves and synapses.
Another disagreed, and exclaimed that it had to have been a mechanical engineer who designed the human body. The system of levers and pulleys is ingenious.
“No,” the third student said “you’re both wrong. The human body was designed by an architect. Who else but an architect would have put a toxic waste line through a recreation area?”
What deferens does it make?.....................
Where did TToE come from?
Breaking news? Really?
Must be a slow news day. When we are reduced to commenting on the Vas deferens; it just must be a slow news day.
Short vacations to the Pineal are good ... but retirement to the amygdala is best.
That wasn’t my decision.... once it posts, I don’t know how it gets routed.
Really, they are going to criticize my Creator for THAT too?
Perhaps some eyewash on this thread would kill the imagery.
“flexibility of the testes to move toward and way from the body to regulate temperature. “
For my two cents worth, it was bad engineering to require the testes to be exposed. Why not design to accommodate a more protected area.
I’ve always wanted to go, I hear they are nice
this time of year and the rates are good.
>>Where did TToE come from?<<
200+ years of science.
The way I heard it, the third student names a civil engineer as the culprit.
It’s actually a learned response, Sumo wrestlers
If we’re gonna start talking bad design let’s go to sinuses, knees, and spines. And remember poorly functioning parts actually backs evolution, which is an iterative process and presupposes that most of the body could be better.
There. You put it in a nutshell.
You are not taking into account meta design requirements. Specifically, easy female access to an instantly debilitating vulnerability in a significantly physically stronger partner.
I read a discussion once about a woman choosing a 22 for self-defense because of it's size, lack of recoil, etc. In response to critics deriding her for not having a "real" gun, she said she regularly silenced them by simply pointing out that in a survival situation, she intended to shoot for the balls.
Don’t be so testy.
It takes balls to write an article like this!
Name one person who wants to be shot with a .22.
The only self-defense downside of the .22 is it takes too long for the target to bleed out.
Bad design. A man with 10 million sperm is infertile. Why design a system that has 10 million sperm and can’t get one to the egg!
And if I had ever experienced it to not work properly, I might see his point.
Why? To encourage hard work and commitment.
In my case, stuff gotta move real far before coming out.
Because women won’t get close to you?
Well you don't use the same strategy for a 22 as for a larger caliber. And that was my point - women don't use the same fighting strategy as men, and that's why, IMHO, things hang outside of a guy. God didn't make a mistake - He leveled the playing field.
Actually, the longer I know women, the more I think He made men the underdogs.
No such thing as an anti-creationist. 99% of the people you are talking about ignore your issue completely.
Get in my lock box!!!
That’s how I heard it too — but, I only remembered the punch line, so I looked it up. I posted the first version I found on-line.
Why mix waste with reproduction? Why not two separate delivery systems?
Just my casual impression that in the past every story about graphene was a story about IBM research. Then out of the blue ( to me ) Samsung starts prototype production of a product.
Yep. Creation “science” never tires of destroying straw men.
“So Jones himself displays ignorance of Darwinian evolutions non-goal-directedness/purposelessness.”
I have tried correcting this fundamental misstatement of the theory of evolution so often it’s become tiresome. There is nothing random about mutations passed on to descendents. The changes are either neutral and thus carried on by chance or they benefit the creatures ability to survive. The second instance is the central mechanism of evolution. Best is normative and has nothing to do it. Survival of the “best” got us eugenics and all sorts of nightmares but is fundamentally unscientific.
Why do you give credence to peri-scientific disputes about theology?
This is a theological debate wherein limited understandings of science are used as a vehicle between those who oppose belief in a creator and those who believe in a creator.
Biologically speaking, there is a vas deferens between a man and a woman.
>>I have tried correcting this fundamental misstatement of the theory of evolution so often its become tiresome. <<
As I stated in my opening post — it is called “stochastic” and is wholly ignored when Creationists define their version of TToE.
This entire article ignores that fundamental principle in TToE.
That picture is enough to make the whole package shrink right up into my ribcage ...
Two other maddening straw men often used in creationist argument are “transitional fossils” and “micro vs macro evolution”. I could win lots of arguments if permitted to make both sides.
Most woman won’t get within ten feet of me. My wife included!
they’d have to be in the lungs in order for the proper airflow to be achieved otherwise.
“theyd have to be in the lungs in order for the proper airflow to be achieved otherwise.”
A good design would not need airflow!
“You are not taking into account meta design requirements. Specifically, easy female access to an instantly debilitating vulnerability in a significantly physically stronger partner.”
Why design the women to be weaker. Another design flaw.
“Just my casual impression that in the past every story about graphene was a story about IBM research. Then out of the blue ( to me ) Samsung starts prototype production of a product.”
Sexual dimorphism is no design/evolutionary flaw — it’s actually a feature, which maximizes efficient use of resources. Men are the “disposable sex”. They need to be big enough for hunting, and for fighting other men.Nearly all men can die, and the population will snap back — provided that the women have been protected. Women just need to be big enough for reproduction, and other light work. For nearly all of the (fill in number of years since the appearance of humans here) resources were scarce, for nearly everyone, nearly everywhere. It makes perfect design sense (or evolutionary sense) to make each sex just big enough to do what they were designed/evolved to do. Sexual dimorphism appears in every species utilizing sexual reproduction.