As a has-been linguist, I enjoy some of Patrick’s subtle turns-of-phrases. It reminds me of similar double-meanings in the Bible. (Obviously, Patrick is asking about sales of the book—but it also creates a mental image of various human errors—e.g., superfluous accessory muscles, narrow pelvises, etc.—being sold to willing buyers.)
Yes, it’s corny but routine use of double meanings in language is far more common than a lot of people stop to notice. Comedians thrives on exploiting it. Bible scholars must not only be aware of such phenomena in the scriptures, the best ones learn to expect them and be vigilant in watching for them.
[Sorry for the tangent, but its a one-shot that doesn’t need its own thread. I just get a kick out of some of Patrick’s little twists of expression—though I don’t always recognize which ones are intentional and which are spontaneously accidental. And that’s part of the fun of this kind of forum where intelligent people are conversing.]
Why would a redundant muscle, which is “useless” to you now, given the very different lifestyle you lead than that of your ancestors some two to three generations back, at most, and those of your more primitive forebears, be considered evidence of “poor design?”
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, once a niche changes significantly, function can also be, similarly, in the mind of the beholder.
In any case, I hope to read your book, because I actually do love the presence of “Rube Goldbergism” in the history of things; successes are often short-lived, and ingenuity can easily result in clutter.
Even then, you’re still left to account for why you deem it clutter… Hindsight often results in clarity, but not always. You might simply find yourself contemplating someone elses’ rear end, accidentally.
Love the topic!
And if we could convince the general public that extracted wisdom teeth make lovely jewelry after bronzing and bring the wearer good luck, we could start a lucrative new fad.
Mostly NT. (A mediocre one at that.)
Your question probably wasn’t directed to me but I’ll just mention that the accessory muscles I mentioned (which are routinely removed by surgeons) were mostly likely never useful to anyone at any time. I don’t claim to know what combinations of mutations and/or genetic-lotteries produced each type but they are apparently evolutionary “tries” [Yes, I know that that is a trite and inadequate characterization.] which never led to “productive” anatomy. Indeed, mine was like most: drawing on the bodies resources but contributing nothing to survival—and actually creating eventual problems which interfered with survival.
Definitely. Of course, when I raise these issues with some ID advocates—the one’s who say that nothing is left to chance and the Creator specifically chose every biological feature and function—the next round of discussion usually includes “What we might consider poor design may actually have purposes we don’t understand or be simply good-enough design, because engineers always make compromises weighing various competing factors.”
Obviously, I don’t consider accessory muscles “poor design” per se. Philosophically and theologically I simply believe that God designed chemistry and physics and so all of the processes we observe (including evolutionary ones) are a part of the overall “very good” of creation as declared in Genesis.
So, in that way, I consider the overall operation of the universe a “good design”. Obviously, it is not testable so it is not science.
What if such muscles were meant, in the future, to attach to the bolts mysteriously growing out of my neck? Frankly, I may go back to sipping from my beer stein, I’m finding just the teensiest bit of this hard to swallow!
: )
Hey, @AllenWitmerMiller , have you read Douglas Adam’s “Prostitute in the Family Tree,” yet?
BTW, our current universe IS testable against the vast array of other hypothetical universes, so you might try that.
No, I’m not familiar with that book. I looked it up on Amazon and read some of it to get a flavor.
At least when I knew him in the years before his retirement, the NT scholar, J. Paul Sampley, loved to make wisecracks about Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho (i.e. the prostitute in a very famous family tree in the Bible, obviously.) He used to ask, “Was Rahab saved by her faith or her works?” He would smile big and make a crack or two further.
This memory contributes nothing to this thread but old guys like me do like to reminisce—and I haven’t thought about Dr. Sampley in years.
I truly tried my best to do so but my foundation grant for funding that study was not successful. They claimed I wanted far too much money. (Even hypothetical universe have their associated costs and my university was demanding the usual 40% in "overhead costs and miscellaneous services.)
Yes. Just as in this universe (according to some), we can’t know anything about its operation and especially in its past because (1) “Were you there?” and (2) all of the rates could have been different in the past. Including the billing rates.
The investigation of hypothetical universes’ accounting and billing rates might be called “the RATE Project”, but I heard that that name was already taken.
(Perhaps the Multiverse RATE Project would be better.)
I really do need to be clearer about when I’m being sarcastic, ironic, or just pig-headed! I’m sure some may see that as a false trichotomy, on my part. That project of yours deserves a better rating… Thanks for good discussion.
Yes, sales of Human Errors can be taken two ways. Whether my twists of expressions are intentional or spontaneously accidental is a mystery even to me. The answer lies somewhere between the Quantum Entanglement of my left and right gloves and the transubstantiation of gluten containing wafers.
Nathan Lents (@NLENTS ) is the author of the book Human Flaws: A Panorama of our Glitches
He has stated that he did not write the book as a challenge to intelligent design or as examples of the argument from bad design. I take his word for that because he is in a far better position than I to know what he was thinking while contemplating writing the book.
So the purpose of this post is not to challenge him but rather to merely suggest to him why people might reasonably have interpreted the book that way.
There are a number of references in the book to:
design defect
design flaw
engineer
imperfections
inefficient design
poor design
rationally designed
If the point is that evolution is a really, really bad designer, I think he has succeeded in making that point. Of course others might reasonably infer something else. Perhaps that the idea of an intelligent designer or engineer would never do it that way. Just one example, so as to not belabor the point:
We have examples of superbly designed joints in our bodies; the shoulder and hip joints come to mind. Not the wrist, though. No sane engineer would design a joint with so many individual moving parts. It clutters up the space and restricts the range of motion. If the wrist were rationally designed, it would allow the hand a full range of motion so that the fingers could bend backward and lie along the top of the arm. But of course it can’t do that.
To me that is a “bad design” argument. But really this post is just to encourage better attempts at understanding, and that perhaps that needs to go both ways.
@NLENTS, would you consider yourself to be a “Darwinian”? For example, you write the following:
Each and every flaw discussed in this book tells a story about our species’ evolutionary history. Every cell, every protein, and every letter in our DNA code has been subjected to the harshness of natural selection over the fullness of evolutionary time. All of that time and all of that selection has resulted in a body form that is fantastically robust, strong, resilient, clever, and mostly successful in the great rat race of life. But it is not perfect.
Lents, Nathan H… Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes . Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.
@swamidass, is this an example of the “Darwinism” that you say no longer exists in science?
It’s not a bad design argument, because it’s not an argument at all. I wasn’t really taking aim at the design position. I was assuming, incorrectly it turned out, that the only people that would read my book were already in agreement with modern evolutionary theory. I was seeking to entertain them by presenting fun and interesting quirks. Had I any idea that so many ID folks would read and take aim at it (or not read and still take aim at it, which I suspect is more common), I would have worded things a lot differently, including the text you present here. Oh well. I don’t know any project that I wouldn’t do differently with the benefit of hindsight. The book has been a success in the ways that matter to me, and it brought me to all of you!
5 Likes
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
40
