Like I said, you wouldn't.
So you think that human bodies don't have any physical flaws in them whatsoever?
No, I said there were no faults in the design.
I call trick play. Don't ask me for the purpose of a part of a design. The entire design goes to the purpose. What does a windshield have to do with moving passengers from point A to point B?
The pharynx and accompanying windpipe are as essential to a human as an air intake valve is to a car. Without oxygen, neither the car nor the person would function at all.
Doesn't invalidate my point. There are animals without a pharynx and a windpipe. The point is that the effectiveness of the design is about the car, not a part taken out of the context. Your saying something is a flaw doesn't make it a flaw. I've had homosexual males tell me a vagina is a "flaw".
The value of good designs not only involve benefits or reduced risks, but things like efficient use of space, multi functioning parts, and scalable structures. Everything gained in a design sacrifices some other thing. Want a fast car? You will lose fuel efficiency. Want a spacious car? You will lose aerodynamics. But hubristic armchair creators never have to deal with reality.
Which is probably why their "better" designs never make it past their talk phase.
How would increased spatial efficiency, multifunctionality, and scalability outweigh a greatly increased risk of dying of asphyxiation, for example?
How many people die of choking? It is great that our heads can swivel 180 degrees on our necks. Would we be able to do that if we larger necks? Your argument is, as I said, purely subjective. One armchair creator thinks a heart encased in bone is "better", another thinks being able to bend our midriff is better. So what? Both are just opinions. Each design comes with advantages and disadvantages. Different people place different values on different advantages.
You read about the pharynx and windpipe and because it fit your atheist belief system, you stopped thinking. You never considered that If our pharynx and windpipe were in different tubes, where would the forced air come from to power our speech? So now you need more muscles, or you lose the power of speech. More muscles mean more load on the heart, more complexity, and thus more things to go wrong. More access into the body for pathogens.
And then armchair designers like you would be pontificating that joining the pharynx and accompanying windpipe would be a "better" design.
Is what I said true or false? Has anyone made a single cell?
Ultimately, this point is a red herring. Humans not being able to replicate life wouldn't in any way defeat the point that human anatomy has flaws in it.
It certainly would give your claim of having a better design some credibility. Right now, your armchair designing doesn't impress me.
No it isn't. And even if it was, it would still be based on God's original design.
And tell us, which artificial organ is better designed than the natural one? Hmmm?
Why does it have to be "better designed"?
It does HAVE to be, but you claim you can dream up better designs. Would not organ replacements be a fine time to test out your " better" design abilities?
Artificial organs are designed to replicate the functions of the biological ones that have failed.
But they need not replicate the form of the biological ones that have failed. How come artificial organs always mimic the design of the original?
This alone proves that human bodies are flawed.
If you replace the organ you call " flawed" with an exact replica, how then is it flawed? Why not use your design chops and put in a "better designed" organ? Your word "flawed" is subjective claptrap. It is simply an expression of your personal preference, not fact.
Your hubris is what causes you not to see that.
