I would like to make a few comments on the video at the top of this forum topic. The question is: Why would God use evolution if it results in flawed beings?. While I donât know why God used evolution to make humans, if we take as a starting point that he did, I would like to offer a few points of view on some of the matters raised in the video even though I am not an expert on human anatomy or human evolution.
Firstly, I think that it is easy to make generalizations on what parts of the body seem to be flawed without an in-depth analysis of whether these things are actually flawed in the overall context of the human body and its evolution. It seems to me that the term flawed is being used in relation to a hypothetical ideal that might not be able to be realized in the context of how God made things. Also, to look at a âflawâ in isolation from the rest of the body and from what is possible through the evolutionary process is to my mind inappropriate, especially if a âdesignâ to replace the âflawedâ organ is not presented that is shown to be possible evolutionarily and to be more beneficial in the context of the whole body.
The octopus eye is not an outgrowth of the brain as is the vertebrate eye, but rather an invagination of the body surface. It seems to me that the vertebrate eye is a brilliant organ for what it can do. Could the octopus-type eye have developed in an efficient manner in humans (and other vertebrates), considering the origin of the vertebrate eye, the rigid nature of the head, the need for the eye to sit outside the bony skull yet still be protected to a certain extent by it without compressing the retinal nerves, etc.? I donât know the answer, but if it couldnât, why say that the eye is flawed? Senescence and death are âprogrammedâ into human cells, so there will be changes in the eye with age, as in other organs of the body. The same thing can be said of the human sinuses. Where would they be situated otherwise whilst retaining their necessary functions (as mentioned in the video) and efficiency of function (being near the nose), considering the advantages of a flat face for vision, the need for space for a relatively large brain, the efficiency of a relatively compact head for support reasons, etc.?
Regarding the epiglottis, I think that is an excellent solution for human speech, taste, breathing, etc. These use both the mouth and nasal cavity. For example, taste (when including flavours) requires both, owing to the innervation by the two cranial nerves involved. Humans have chewing teeth and hands to cut or break food, and so donât need to swallow large items of food. Some birds and reptiles that swallow relatively large food items whole (not having teeth or chewing teeth) will need to have a means of breathing while they feed or else they would die, and such a feeding system would be selected against by natural selection. Birds and reptiles donât have speech like humans, and speech is incredibly important for humans. I donât think that the design of the human throat is flawed after all.
Regarding the anterior cruciate ligament, I would think that the vast majority of people in the world have not torn or ruptured theirs, and so the ACL doesnât require a good blood supply to it. The ligament needs to be tough for the stability of the knee, and the ligament does a good job under ânormalâ circumstances (e.g. walking, running). Sure, overstressing knee joints in high impact or extreme sports can lead to rupture or tearing of the ACL, but that is not the context in which the human knee developed. Similarly for the Achilles tendon. It plays a very significant role in the efficiency of human locomotion (walking, running, jumping) and provides for both elasticity and shock-absorbance in the foot. Itâs really an amazing part of the human body, and to my mind is not flawed at all. What more efficient mechanism would replace it?
If natural selection has so operated that humans have lost the ability to synthesize certain essential macronutrients, shouldnât there have been some advantage to that loss, or at least shouldnât the loss be neutral in evolutionary terms? Otherwise, one would have expected that if the loss would have been disadvantageous, the individuals carrying the genetic defects would have been selected against. So it would seem to me that the loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C etc. was not disadvantageous. But might there evolutionary advantages for human nutrition and the human body to have to obtain certain macronutrients from the diet? Has research been done to answer this question? If not, can we really say that this loss of the ability to synthesize various compounds is a flaw? (Theologically, we think of the enjoyment of food (including food such as vegetables and fruit) as a gift of God).
Similar arguments can be made for the other parts of the body mentioned in the video. I am inclined to be unwilling to call something in the human body a flaw unless the term flaw is clearly defined and the context in which the term is used is clearly stated.
Albeit we are coming at this from different starting points. If so, I wonder how we can build on this common ground to increase are mutual understanding?