Question for Medical Doctors who believe in Evolution

The human body has many chemical and physical mechanisms that enable it to prolong life.

My question is that although these mechanisms are sufficient to survive, are there better mechanisms that we have discovered that would allow us to survive even longer if evolution had implemented them instead?

I am no physiologist, but I bet that every chemical and physical mechanism implemented into our design is the most efficient and adequate for us to survive, a fact that cannot be explained by random chance/evolution.

The fact that we ended up with the best ones, proves we were intelligently designed by the creator.

Well, you mean besides all the genes that give people predisposition to diseases, aches pains, and various other things that many people all over the world suffer from? If that's the case then I guess that it is part of God's plan.

What about the fact that aging and death is caused by different chemicals and genes in your body? Is it effective to age and die or is that a mistake of evolution?

Why didn't god create us with the supposedly perfect genes we have to today right from the get-go? I'm sure that a lot of 4th Century people would have appreciated the longer life and resistance to disease. But if all the genes in our body are the most efficient then why have we gotten better?

My main problem with this post is your view of God however? Which makes more sense, for God to create perfect, super efficient human beings from clay, or to gradually evolve complex humanoids from what is basically stardust? I don't know what the answer is and neither do you because you cannot know God. But on the whole I find it hard to believe that God simply goes around creating efficient human beings out of nothing on a daily basis.

Why would we even need to procreate if God can just order up another human being with a snap of his fingers? Face it, evolution is just another tool of God, as is science. God created everything and obviously meant us to utilize it, otherwise we wouldn't have it.

But by all means, worship the God that creates subservient woman out of ribs and advocates the slaying of enemies. And pay special attention to the centuries old book that he wrote in his own words rather then simply giving us the information in our genes. Your religion makes no sense, sorry but its time to open your eyes.

Originally posted by Scalamander
Why didn't god create us with the supposedly perfect genes we have to today right from the get-go? I'm sure that a lot of 4th Century people would have appreciated the longer life and resistance to disease. But if all the genes in our body are the most efficient then why have we gotten better?

My only issue with your post is this. In the 4th Century, A.D. or B.C. (regardless of which), Human beings were identical to Human beings today. The DNA was just about the same, the features of the face, skin, hair, and body types were all present and dependent of what tribes and areas you were from.

We didnt have the technology we do now, and the medicines and proceedures, but no significant "evolutionary steps" have been taken by homo-sapiens in the past 2,500 years. I'm sure some very small modifications have taken place, but nothing too big that would create a whole new sub-race.

reply to post by runetang


obviously... but 2500 years isn't that long on the geological timescale

I don't see the implications that prove the existance of intelligent design in the original post. In fact, to the contrary I see a good supportive argument for the theories of natural selection and genetic diversity. That is, saying we have been given the best biological mechanisms to survive suggests that we have evolved through a system by which the most favorable phenotypes have continually been represented. Humans are really no different than any other currently living species on Earth in that each one has the distinct ability to lose certain unfavorable traits in favor of ones which represent the best advantage for the species as a whole. Take the example of bacterial antibiotic resistance as a case in point whereby greater genetic divergence occurs with each reproductive cycle, and thus creating better mutations during cellular division. Exposure to a certain antibiotic element will eliminate the the less genetic divergent members of the group, but those that are better equipped to survive (ie. those genetically furthest from the original organism) will continue to populate further and render the antibiotic useless.

I use this rather brief description of bacterial resistance to show that although it may appear an organism is best equipped to handle an environment, it is only because of environmental changes that the organism itself will change. The same can be said for any organism which can be affected by an environment that remains in a constantly changing state. Viruses, although not technically a living organism, also display a unique ability to survive by mutating the structure of their own viral envelope proteins, RNA, or DNA to avoid their detection by potential predators. Sometimes this works incredibly effective like in the case of HIV-1 where mutations do not alter it's genome in a negative way. Sometimes, however, it can affect the virus in the aforementioned negative way...such as with the Picornavirus and Coronavirus. Picornaviruses or Coronaviruses, such as which cause the common cold, have an inheritably weak transcription process so that mutations result in loss of important genetic material needed for replication. This reduces their survival rate to only a few weeks at best, whereas viruses with more efficient processes such as HIV, Hepatitis C, etc. can survive and adapt much more vigorously.

The same can be said for humans in that "random chance", or what I would call "natural adaptation" is largely based on environmental factors.