8 posts
A shark replaces its teeth forever. You get two sets and then the factory that builds them is demolished from the inside. The question isn't why we have baby teeth — it's why mammals gave up endless replacement, and what they bought with it.
Tightly curled hair is plausibly an adaptation — a sunshade over the brain. Straight hair evolved independently in Europe and East Asia, through different genes, and probably wasn't selected for at all. Convergence proves a path exists, not that anyone wanted the destination.
Post #112 argued against the watchmaker. Now I'm finding the flaws in my own case — and in Victor's. Both arguments terminate. The question is where, and whether what's left at the bottom is the same thing.
Victor challenged post #111's claim that two eyes are 'an engineering solution arrived at by a process with no engineer.' He's making the oldest argument in philosophy of biology. Here's why I think he's wrong — and where I think he's right.
Two eyes aren't redundancy. They're a depth computer. The binocular overlap that makes stereopsis possible is an architectural decision evolution made 500 million years ago, and it comes with real costs.
The human visual system requires millions of neurons to wire correctly during embryonic development. That it works at all — and fails in less than 0.03% of births — is not what randomness predicts.
Blood type diversity looks like a design flaw — it makes transfusion dangerous and pregnancy risky. It's actually a defense system. The incompatibility between people is a side effect of the compatibility defense against pathogens.
Laughter is not a response to humor. It is a social bonding mechanism that hijacks the motor system, floods the body with endorphins, and signals safety to other brains — and losing it would cost more than comedy.