# Consensus should determine what's taught in science classes. Why?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/consensus-should-determine-whats-taught-in-science-classes-why/15208>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Education, Society\
**Created:** [July 3, 2022, 9:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/consensus-should-determine-whats-taught-in-science-classes-why/15208 "2022-07-03T21:31:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 247

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 2022, 5:41am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/consensus-should-determine-whats-taught-in-science-classes-why/15208/247 "2022-09-07T05:41:30Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I don’t accept your premise that these are sub-opitimal designs. They have been discovered to be optimal for the purpose God has in store.

This **absurd** claim has continued to irritate me, so I made an effort to track down where @Meerkat_SK5_purported_ to demonstrate this claim.

Tracking this claim down _within_ this topic lead me to this _even more absurd_ claim in the OP:

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Moreover, the number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal is so high that it strongly suggests that this being has no flaws or limitations in character or will [just ask for references]. This means that what looks like a flaw may actually be the result of practical limitations caused by tradeoffs between conflicting design objectives.

Does anybody accept for even a moment that @Meerkat_SK5 has access to _any_ sources that **conclusively** demonstrate that _even one_ alleged design flaw was optimal, _let alone_ a sufficiently large majority of these alleged design flaws to actually _substantiate_ their absurd claim.

Not wanting to leave myself hanging around waiting for @Meerkat_SK5 to provide _alleged sources_ that I know _won’t in fact_ substantiate their claims, I went hunting on older threads:

> [@Universal Common Designer theory \[UPDATED and REVISED\]](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/1):
>
> [8] [Optimal designs - Microsoft Word Online (live.com)](https://onedrive.live.com/edit.aspx?cid=cba8626b83475ff3&page=view&resid=CBA8626B83475FF3!1852&parId=CBA8626B83475FF3!103&app=Word&wacqt=mru)

The problem being that Onedrive informs me that this file no longer exists – so on top of whatever flaws it may have originally contained (and it was almost certainly not peer reviewed in any way), it’s mere evaporation makes it a **terrible source**.

> [@Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/40):
>
> Alright, I will just give you examples. We should find many more examples of …
> 
> Optimization to fit an environment from alleged suboptimal design flaws:
> 
> [Space-saving advantage of an inverted retina - ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698909003162)
> 
> [Evidence of a false thumb in a fossil carnivore clarifies the evolution of pandas - PubMed (nih.gov)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16387860/)
> 
> Trade-offs between conflicting design goals from allegedly bad designs:
> 
> [An optimal bronchial tree may be dangerous | Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02287)
> 
> [Glycolytic strategy as a tradeoff between energy yield and protein cost | PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/content/110/24/10039.short?rss=1)
> 
> Positive function for sinister designs:
> 
> [Nociceptive sensitization reduces predation risk - PubMed (nih.gov)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24814149/)
> 
> [Predator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics - PubMed (nih.gov)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20602626/)

_None_ of these sources purport that any given alleged flaw is conclusively optimal. At best, they suggest that optimality may be more complex, and thus difficult to ascertain.

The first source, amusingly, each give conclusions that outright **contradict** @Meerkat_SK5’s claim:

> Instead of asking why vertebrates possess apparently problematic inverted retinas, one may ask why such space-saving retinas are limited to vertebrates and a handful of invertebrates ([Duke-Elder, 1958](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698909003162#bib3)). The answer is the same for both questions: animals have their group-specific eye and retina types because of common decent within each phylogenetic group. Vertebrates have evolved into the group of animals which most heavily rely on vision with high spatial resolution. The inverted retina has most likely been an important factor since it allows for massive retinal processing of visual information without investment of precious space and weight.

The problem being that, even if you declare the inverted retina to be “optimal”, you then have to explain why ‘designs’ that lack an inverted retina are also optimal.

Also, I was unaware of anybody declaring that the physical dimensions of the human bronchial tree was a “flawed design”. The closest I could come up with on a quick search was [the claim](https://www.chegg.com/flashcards/respiratory-35cd251e-8f1c-4144-b3cf-24bc9afc2157/deck) that:

> In the pulmonary tree only branches larger than bronchi have cilia  
>   
> Bronchioles and alveolar ducts and alveoli are to small to have cilia  
>   
> This causes inflammation inflammation over time damages cells in the lungs, becomes easier for cancer to grow

… which is _unrelated_ to the optimisation that Mauroy, _et al_ were analysing.

I would also note that the conclusions of Flamholz, _et al_ are _extremely_ tentative and preliminary, and raises more questions than answers:

> However, although the genomic tendencies discussed are sta- tistically significant, they are only tendencies. It is not the case that all aerobes rely solely on the ED pathway in the way that nearly all anaerobes rely on the EMP (Fig. 6), which raises a number of fascinating questions. For example, what factors other than pro- tein cost determine the glycolytic pathway (1, 5)? If protein cost is a primary determinant of glycolytic strategy, is there an “exchange rate” between ATP production and protein investment (18)? Is this tradeoff constant, or does it vary greatly between organisms and conditions? More sharply, how does additional protein pro- duction affect cell growth (16, 33–35), and how does metabolism evolve to cope with high protein cost (17, 34)? Many researchers have begun to address these questions, but they are by no means resolved. We hope that future work will elucidate the degree to which such tradeoffs explain the structure and regulation of natural metabolic systems.

So, does _any_ of this support @Meerkat_SK5’s _absurdly inflated_ claims? **Of course not!**

These sub-optimal designs **have not** “been discovered to be optimal”.

“The number of alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal” would appear to be **ZERO!**

Also, I would note that **none** of these sources are remotely relevant to @T_aquaticus’ and my own questions on Bird/Mammal admixture. **What evidence** is there that separation of Bird and Mammal features is optimal, and that their admixture (e.g. giving bats feathers, or nocturnal birds sonar for that matter) would be sub-optimal?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/consensus-should-determine-whats-taught-in-science-classes-why/15208)._