Talk:Unintelligent design

Problems

While I appreciate the efforts made to fix this page, it doesn't really fix the central problem. First is that the term is rarely used - this term crops up more frequently, but google scholar still shows less than 600 hits, a pretty paltry number (especially considering that some are doubtless "false positives"). More salient, however, is that the term is merely a mish-mash of disjointed and often unrelated situations in which evolution yields sub-optimal outcome, shoehorning such diverse topics as phylogentic inertia, developmental constraints, tradeoffs, and vestiges into one term that, consequently, is uninformative.

Given the new name, I'm inclined to view it as merely a counter-argument to the IDiots, thus should be more appropriately merged into argument from poor design. HCA (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it rather be called "argument for poor design" and not "arguments from poor design"? Dradamh (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choking hazard

The article claims that "most animals in the world" do not have a connected esophagus and trachea. As far as I'm aware, that's not true for any birds or mammals. Maybe specify which animals that is true for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooberpatrol66 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all tetrapods outside of mammals, the trachea opens into the oral cavity (including in birds). HCA (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes

It sounds like the rumor about vertebrate eyes being set up badly is pretty much debunked.

Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly.

Phys.org July 2014 http://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html 70.105.228.187 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, and the authors of the paper state nothing of the sort; that's merely the (poor) interpretation of a single blog post. These results are far more consistent with compensation for the defect than that the defect is "design". The lack of real comparative data (just two eutherian mammals) limits the evolutionary conclusions that can be drawn. HCA (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve this page by providing more accurate scientific information about the human eye but apparently HCA prefers the current inaccurate description of the human eye and would prefer to erase edits rather than provide constructive additions. If the term unintelligent design is not in current use, this page is actually unimportant however. Dradamh (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were totally unreferenced, and primarily consisted of "special pleading", trying to circumvent the clear "design" flaws in these examples to prevent them from undermining creationist viewpoints. For example, your edits on the eye demonstrate a total failure of understanding - the ability to "edit out" the blind spot is a clumsy fix (would you argue a car with a missing windscreen isn't flawed because the driver can wear goggles?), not a disproof of the flawed anatomy. Your statement on the RPE displays a total lack of understanding of comparative anatomy - cephalopod photoreceptors get all the same functions (innervation, vascularization, bathed in fluid, etc.) without having them obstructing the incoming light.

The same is true for your other edits - even a cursory knowledge of biology beyond humans is all that is necessary to conclusively refute your unreferenced, unsupported speculations. HCA (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth

"When human beings first started developing larger brains, they had to evolve larger skulls to be able to store the larger brain. Evolution caused the skull cavity to become larger by adding bone from the jaw."

This is a horrible description of the process of evolution. The skull cavity did not absorb bone from the jaw as it evolved. A heavier brain with a heavier skull would increase weight on the neck without a compensatory mechanism. Decreasing the size of the jaw helped to lighten the head.

Was there a point in time that humans were not developing larger brains? I tried to rephrase this to make it more accurate but my edits were reverted. I do not want to get into an editing war.

Dradamh (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted because of your unsupported and flimsy speculations about neck fatigue, along with the rest of your poor-quality edits. HCA (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]