Comment

Saleh@feddit.org ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

From the point of intelligent design:

We see that there is different sensory focuses. For instance many animals can smell and hear much better than humans do. Some animals have exceptionally better eyes than humans, but overall humans are very focused on vision.

Now when we look at modern inner city environments and the like. Would you think it to be actually better if our senses, particularly our eyes were that much better and delivering even more input to our brains? We already see many people that are overwhelmed in terms of their sensory input and frankly the ones that aren’t still suffer slowly from living in cities. In terms of where we are now, i don’t think it is too bad that we don’t have hawk eyes.

source

Sort:hotnew top

chronotron@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
and so… the “intelligent designer” is, for some reason, restricted from being able to make human brains capable of withstanding the stress from having improved senses

source
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I live with, work with, and am myself part of, the autistic population. So I gotta agree - sometimes, higher sensitivity is a real detriment.

It’s not fun being light-sensitive. I’ve had days where I’ve worn sunglasses indoors, with the lights off and curtains closed. The vast majority of my days aren’t that bad, thankfully, but it truly sucks when light causes physical eye pain and headaches. I’ve got a great eye for detail (and have been called “eagle eye” throughout my life), which benefits me in a number of ways, but unfortunately it also means I get distracted by things others don’t notice. I can’t just “ignore” a lot of things, and when those distractions impact me disproportionately, I’m left in the frustrating situation of guiding others to see (or hear, or feel) the things that are super obvious to me - it feels like leading a child by the hand.

I’m also sensitive to touch (I can’t stand light touch, but I can detect ticks on my skin before they bite) and have the ability to hear novel speech sounds that modern science claims I should’ve lost the ability to detect decades ago (which, okay, is a cool feature to have. But it contributes to being easily-distracted.) All in all, I’ve never known any other way of experiencing the world, but I do know that most people have difficulty understanding my atypical point of view. Which leads to me preferring the company of fellow spectrumites, and others who understand and accept my sensory differences.

source
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
So this intelligent designer decided to fuck our eyes up some weird convoluted way instead of just… making us see less?

source
- Saleh@feddit.org ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  The eyes of mammals are designed in a way that they “see less” than for instance certain birds or reptiles.
  
  You call this “fuck up some weird convulted way”, when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Thereby it is consistent with the way the visual nerve cells are designed and work together with the rest of physics and chemistry. The design is intelligent as it factors in all aspects as part of a coherent complete design. A design far too complex for any human mind to grasp in full.
  
  Basically your question is like asking, why there is no “magic solution” that directly breaks the observable laws of physics. The genius of the design is in not requiring to break the observable laws of physics to achieve the desired outcome.
  
  You say this is “unscientific garbage” when your only alternative explanation is “everything just happened randomly and here we are.” Neither approach, “intelligent design” nor “extremely long chain of random occurrences” can be empirically observed and only argued logically. I find it unscientific to denounce a hypothesis as “unscientific garbage” when it cannot be falsified, while the counter hypothesis cannot be proven.
  
  source
  - Typhoon@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    your only alternative explanation is “everything just happened randomly and here we are.”
    
    Evolution is definitely not random. The mutations that show up are random, but the selection for them is very directed. If the traits give an organism the attributes to survive, it does and will pass those traits on. If not, it doesn’t. Your argument that it’s all random is typical creationist nonsense.
    
    Neither approach, “intelligent design” nor “extremely long chain of random occurrences” can be empirically observed
    
    We’ve observed evolution many many times. From the peppered moth to COVID and the flu, we observe evolution all the time. It’s the underlying science for all biology and none of it makes sense with out it.
    
    Evolution is a theory that has been proven to be true over and over again. Intelligent design is unscientific garbage pulled from a book of fairy tales.
    
    source