To show there are design flaws you need to show how you would improve it.
That's trivially easy:
If Humans Were Built to Last




To show there are design flaws you need to show how you would improve it.
To show there are design flaws you need to show how you would improve it.
In spite of the findings, Professor Bill Parker says that this does not mean we should cling onto our appendices at all costs.
“It’s very important for people to understand that if their appendix gets inflamed, just because it has a function it does not mean they should try to keep it in,” he explained.
“So it’s sort of a fun thing that we’ve found, but we don’t want it to cause any harm, we don’t want people to say, ‘oh, my appendix has a function’, so I’m not going to go to the doctor, I’m going to try to hang onto it.”
As far as I know the maximum human lifespan hasn't changed much in the last 15,000 years. Or so. Historically very few people attained that maximum, mainly due to infectious diseases. But I think they could.
But who do you mean by our oldest ancestors?
One of these?
![]()
Of one of these?
![]()
So, the answer to your question seems to be yes and no. At some stage in the evolution of human beings, the maximum life span might well have been more or less 35.
Do you mean that? Don't you mean "doesn't mean it isn't a horrible design"?
But I was picking up on the usual theme that the appendix doesn't have a function. You may not have meant that in the first place. You weren't that explicit about it.
Mine is that age now. I changed the words to "Mockingbird" to include the phrase "and if you don't behave, Daddy'll bury you in a shallow grave." She's killing me.
Okay, how about the shift in the shrillness of a baby's cries after the first few weeks?
Early on, it's "wa[I'm terribly cute, and you love me, and I'm uncomfortable], wa, wa"
Later on, it's "WAAAA [Dance to my tune! There's NOTHING, NOTHING you can do to get me to stop] WAAAAA'
During that early stage, I'm totally happy to help Jr. out. He'll keep crying until I figure it out, but it ain't bad, I can deal. That later stage? OMG. Give him to Mom, and use all your willpower to not suggest locking him in the furthest room of the house until he cries himself to sleep.
35 I think is the average lifespan, which is brought down by infant mortality. According to Wikipedia (of course, it is Wikipedia) the average was actually 40-50 if you survived childhood in antiquity and 60 in Medieval Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Mine is that age now. I changed the words to "Mockingbird" to include the phrase "and if you don't behave, Daddy'll bury you in a shallow grave." She's killing me.
You're not wrong. My wife read a study last week which concluded that it is this present age group that is most commonly associated with shaken-baby syndrome. The parents simply snap after hours of non-stop screaming for no discernible reason.Yeah, it actually really confuses me. The early stage is so much easier to care for, morale-wise. To be utterly serious, I think that's where shaken-baby syndrome comes from.