A dysteleological response...creative evolution, etc. [post-reply]
blog·@hrissm·
0.000 HBDA dysteleological response...creative evolution, etc. [post-reply]
___  <sub>_Random sculpture. Stage of completion and creator unknown._</sub> ___ _The following is my regurgitated response to [tkappa’s](Steemit.com/@tkappa) post: [The Dysteleological Argument: Some Things About The Human Body Make No Sense Whatsoever (Part I)](https://steemit.com/biology/@tkappa/the-dysteleological-argument-some-things-about-the-human-body-make-no-sense-whatsoever-part-i)._ ___ ___ ## Λοιπόν [_so..._] <sup>_(love this word)_</sup> This [post](https://steemit.com/biology/@tkappa/the-dysteleological-argument-some-things-about-the-human-body-make-no-sense-whatsoever-part-i) is great. Full of information. And interesting to say the least. But, of course there is always one of those... <sub>_(*Only one “t” so if you want a pun it’s up to you.)_</sub> # the dysteleological *but* Depending on one’s beliefs this “argument of _dysteleology_” might in fact be necessary and useful. It’s a lovely word, dysteleology. But I needed to look it up to fully grasp what it was created* for:  <sub>_(*Another punny bit of irony here. Creating a word for an argument against: [perfect, end-goal] creation of the human — vs. evolution.)_</sub> ___ So now we need to look up _telos_ (for all those who don’t have a background in Greek language). According to Wikipedia:  ___ # conclusion on “dysteleology” We only need this if the reader* doesn’t believe in evolution. <sub>*the reader of this: [The Dysteleological Argument...](https://steemit.com/biology/@tkappa/the-dysteleological-argument-some-things-about-the-human-body-make-no-sense-whatsoever-part-i)</sub> ___ ___ # “Design flaws” These items that you [@tkappa] mention [_“above”_](https://steemit.com/biology/@tkappa/the-dysteleological-argument-some-things-about-the-human-body-make-no-sense-whatsoever-part-i) (including but not limited to things like: _too many bones in the feet, the appendix, the prostate, etc._) are parts of the human anatomy that either seem unnecessary or to have been poorly designed. ##### evolution But let’s say for arguments sake, that we are organisms that are inherently experiential learners as opposed to now [and relatively newly] sentient and _active learners_ (learning akin to evolution). The flaws in “design” are due to the rapid change in necessity of functioning, over the course of the learning process (evolution), as you (@tkappa) explained [_“above”_](https://steemit.com/biology/@tkappa/the-dysteleological-argument-some-things-about-the-human-body-make-no-sense-whatsoever-part-i). Quoting an example of this from you: >“This is a consequence of our quick evolutionary leap from quadrupeds to bipeds, resulting in our narrow pelvis.” And to quickly touch upon the “_seemingly useless_” parts of human anatomy. How do we know for sure that there is no real use or function being provided by those parts? Science is largely based on _proven theory_. Proven vs disproven; and, theory being theoretical... which leads us to “falsifiability,” please see below, thanks to wiki. ___  ___   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ___ ___ # baldness This here may be a touchy subject. I don’t think it needs to be. Why is baldness bad? It is a[n unwanted yet] relatively common occurrence in human males. So it is a societal stigma. It is more related to vainness - at least in modern human evolution. In the sense that perhaps when we humans were still trying to find mates _mainly_ by who was the most visually or physically appealing, then baldness could have been an issue. But since it didn’t Darwin itself out of the human genepool, then maybe it shouldn’t be viewed as such a bad thing. (_“I’m also speaking from a non-experiential standpoint, being a fairly and generally hairy human.”_) ___ ___ # “A.D.H*.D” (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) What is this _actually_? I haven’t looked into it enough but I feel like it might fall under the “falsifiable scientific theory” category (_see above_). If it (ADHD) is in fact _a real thing_ and in response to the following excerpt from your (@tkapp) post: >“The most interesting part is that of all living creatures only humans are capable of developing such a disorder.” -Have studies / reasearch been performed on _all_ other species to test or “prove” that it _doesn't_ exist? ___ # final logos Apologies in advance for the long winded reaction and response. I’m no scientist and didn’t research any of this beyond the 22.613* mins it took me compose this. So this is all essentially my opinion, thoughts and my want for further understanding. _*(Plus the time it took me to make a separate post out of this. Thanks again for accepting my request and in advance for your eagerly anticipated reply.)_ ___ ___ ps. _This was a potential series of _post-reply_ inspired posts. Where an in depth comment I’ve left on another STEEMians post becomes a separate post._ _**Stay tuned and thanks for reading!**_