Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A genuinely designed system would not systematically preserve the historical accidents and phylogenetic baggage that organisms demonstrably carry.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Constraints are features of good design: working within material/developmental limits often produces elegant solutions unavailable to unconstrained optimization.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Evolutionary 'baggage' often serves multiple functions; removing it would break integrated systems. A designer might preserve it for the same reason.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We lack access to the designer's actual goals or constraints; apparent inefficiency might reflect prioritizing robustness, evolvability, or other values over elegance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Optimal engineering minimizes inefficiency: a rational designer would eliminate vestigial structures like human wisdom teeth and appendices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Natural selection preserves functional compromises from ancestry; design would optimize each system independently without historical constraints.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Human vulnerability to back pain reflects vertebrate tetrapod spine ancestry, not what an engineer would choose for bipedal upright posture.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.