Posted on 04/07/2014 1:11:34 PM PDT by fishtank
Vas deferens—refuting ‘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 ...
>>I have tried correcting this fundamental misstatement of the theory of evolution so often it’s 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.
“they’d 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.”
Graphene testicles?
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.
I see you saw the movie ‘You only live twice’ ...
Me: Why design women to be weaker?
You: .....
Me: Why design women to be weaker?
bravo !
“For nearly all of the (fill in number of years since the appearance of humans here) resources were scarce, for nearly everyone, nearly everywhere. “
Another design flaw.
Look it up.
“Look it up.”
I did. That is how I got the name of the movie!
Every species expands to fill the niche available to it — they all face scarce resources. Always have, always will. If it were any other way, that would be a “design” flaw.
Wherein both of you seem to understand the idea that evolutionary theory does not hold aesthetic perfection or perfection in functional design as the goal, Jim, you’re spouting gibberish.
And both you, while presenting accurate reflection of theory — with freedumb being the more coherent, are arguing past these theological debaters.
Neither side represents the scientific view, as makes sense in a non-scientific debate
>>Neither side represents the scientific view, as makes sense in a non-scientific debate<<
I am not quite sure of your point. Yes, TToE vs Creationism (vs. ID) is a purely philosophical discussion since science is only represented in the first “side.”
I just want lurkers to know many Conservatives do understand science and that YECers are (loud) outliers.
“Every species expands to fill the niche available to it — they all face scarce resources. Always have, always will. If it were any other way, that would be a “design” flaw.”
A good design would not have ‘niches’ to expand into.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.