The imperfections of the human race

Here goes my two cents...

All animals (including ourselves) are only as perfect as what they need to survive.

Whales can communicate up to 30 miles, to help them find food and be weary of predators.
Why do we need to hear 30 miles? We aren't in the middle of a dark ocean. we have our vision and can see a lighted candle up to a mile away.
All animals, plants, rocks are just as imperfect as ourselves.
If we were "perfect" creatures we would be unstoppable, we would have no enemies, the food chain would break down and all life as we know it would come to a halt. We are the way we are because it is essential to the circle of life.... except for maybe rocks... yep, rocks really are perfect.

Humans aren't perfect, I can agree with that, but to imply that we are "un-perfect" in comparison to other living things on the Earth is ridiculous... Whales were mentioned to be able to hear up to 80 miles away, thats great, but how useful is that for humans? If we can survive and reproduce without it, why would we need it? People question why we are above animals in the food chain, but are they actually thinking about it? Someone asked why we don't have claws or beaks or stuff like that; we don't need it. Why would we need them when we have guns?
To continue on the larger theme, perfect is a completely relative term. It changes from situation to situation. To say that a whale is perfect because it can hear for 80 miles does not make sense when a human can only hear for 100 feet, and still survive. People seem to be emphasizing only physical capabilities. Yes being strong lets you prosper, but so does being intelligent. If you look at sharks, you can see they have amazing jaws; much stronger than that of any human. But yet consider what sharks have done in their existence. Eat, reproduce, and evolve... Now consider what humans have done since we have been around.. Now you tell me, which seems more "perfect"..

Originally posted by AshleyD
According to evolution, mankind is still improving genetically through mutations and natural selections, as are all species. On the other end of the spectrum, The Bible alludes to our genes as being in a diminishing, degenerative state.

Mankind is not "improving genetically." Evolution has no goal and more complex organisms are not necessarily superior to more primitive forms. Also, where in the Bible does it say that or even mention genes?

Also, why do we have animals that seemingly have no real defense mechanism compared to those who do? Rabbits, mice, gerbils, etc. Why don't we all have some sort of almost indestructible defense mechanism through natural selection?

Rabbits, mice, and gerbils do have defense mechanisms- being very fast and living primarily underground. Gerbils as you know them have been selectively bred for captivity. Obviously no defense mechanism is indestructible because predators are constantly evolving to catch the prey.

Man has intellect as our strength but put us in the ring with a shark, lion, or bear with only physical strength and we're basically screwed. Why don't we all have quills, fangs, claws, wings, venom, etc.? Hopefully someone can answer this logically.

Each animal has evolved specifically to its niche, and not all defense mechanisms are compatible with every form/lifestyle organisms are adapted to. Furthermore, intellect is a far superior weapon to the things you mentioned.

reply to post by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H


perfection is a point-of-view, a perception, therefore to strive for it and ask why we are not is a illogical question

you cannot say a shark is perfect for killing in the water because for one you are not a shark and second you are not a killer (as far as i know)

and besides if they were perfect they would be the masters of the sea, and lions the masters of the land

also nulling th above argument how do you not know that we are not perfect already, fro exactly what we are supposed to be doing???

Originally posted by AshleyD
Why do we have animals that seemingly have no real defense mechanism compared to those who do? Rabbits, mice, gerbils, etc. Why don't we all have some sort of almost indestructible defense mechanism through natural selection?

Man has intellect as our strength but put us in the ring with a shark, lion, or bear with only physical strength and we're basically screwed. Why don't we all have quills, fangs, claws, wings, venom, etc.? Hopefully someone can answer this logically.

Hi, AshleyD. Congratulations on your appointment.

As SamuraiDrifter pointed out, evolution isn't directed towards continuous improvement. It just looks that way sometimes, and the reason it looks that way is that natural selection can turn evolution into an arms race - between predator and prey, parasite and host and even between males and females. New offensive capabilities evolve corresponding defences, which can only be overcome by evolving still other offensive capabilities... and so it goes.

But that doesn't answer the question.

Here's a simple answer. Are we really defenseless? As you say, an individual man or woman is unlikely to last long in a physical contest with an individual lion or bear. But evolution isn't about preserving individuals; it's about preserving genes. And you have to admit that our natural offensive and defensive capabilities are currently doing a much better job of saving and replicating our genes than bears' or lions' do theirs.

That leads us to the second answer. If nature's law is eat and be eaten, then it is obvious that all species need defences against other species. The question to ask is, what constitutes a defence. Fearsome teeth, tusks, deadly claws, impenetrable armour... well, they're pretty obvious ones. But an equally good defence is running away, and less costly in energy terms (the price of evolution's benefits is paid in energy) to develop and maintain. Unless you're a predator that needs teeth or claws to get your dinner, it's often better to be fleet of fin, foot or wing, or simply good at dodging.

But even running away is beyond the capacity of one entire kingdom of life: the plants. Rooted, slow-living, plants ain't going anywhere. But just look at the defences they've evolved! They have Animalia* beaten hollow when it comes to defending themselves. In fact, many of them have incorporated being eaten into their reproductive mechanism: they rely on insects to have their sex for them and on birds and mammals to spread their seed abroad. They've done this by turning their reproductive organs and offspring into the most attractive and delicious parts of themselves, so 'predators' will come along, help themselves and leave the rest of the plant alone to grow more flowers and fruit, to propagate its genes another season.

Nature's defensive strategies are legion. Think of skunks and stink-bugs; leaf-insects, chameleons and false coral snakes; stonefish and poison-toads; hermit crabs and rhinoceroses; catnip and cannabis; redcap mushrooms and deadly nightshade. Think of the bacteria, whose strength is in sheer numbers. I could go on and on. The thing these species - all species - have in common is that they exist to protect and procreate replicating molecules - genes - and not themselves.

I hope this explanation was satisfactory.
*Just using the old Linnean classifications for fun.

I want to explain a little more about energy. Life, all life, is economic at a basic level. All organisms need energy to maintain bodily functions and go about their business of surviving and reproducing. They also, obviously, need energy to grow and develop into their adult forms.

The amount of energy needed for all this is an organism's costs, which must be balanced by its consumption of food. A small, simple organism like a bacterium needs a lot less food than a large, complex one like a whale. An energetic, fast-moving animal like a swift or an orca will need more energy than a sedentary one like a lichen or a tree.

You might say the ideal animal would be one with amazing predatory equipment - teeth, claws, electric weapons like an eel, whatever - together with massive defensive armour, lightning speed, jackrabbit-like manoeuvrability, camouflage abilities, etc., etc. But such an animal couldn't evolve, even assuming the fall of Nature's dice came up with the right numbers, because it would require far too much energy to acquire and maintain all those phenotypic traits.

Besides, the arms-race part means that the ideal defence is constantly changing. Think about human warfare: castles and fortresses were the ne plus ultra until the Wright brothers came along and buried the curtain-wall contracting business. The same applies in Nature.