[derektank]

>Given its vast complexity, and the timeline of its creation/evolution

I will just say, the human body in particular has only been around for a vanishingly short period of time in evolutionary terms. A lot of the quirks and arguable flaws identified in this piece (painful childbirth through the pelvis, back pain) and others (varicoceles in the left internal spermatic vein, hernias, other pelvic floor disorders) can be attributed to our very recent move to full bipedalism.

If we’re talking about features we share with other mammals or even other primates, sure, they’ve probably stood the test of time for a reason. But for features that have only really been in existence for a couple million years, those I don’t think we should treat with the same kind of reverence.

[mbivert]

> human body [...] has only been around for a vanishingly short period of time in evolutionary terms.

"as far as we know." Every few years, I see in the headlines stuff like "oldest 'human' ever found in X." The theory of evolution itself has morphed since Darwin [0], and is probably far from being in its definitive form.

The timeline remains astronomical w.r.t. a human life, and the perception of a single human. A few centuries ago, we may have burnt people for proposing something like the theory of evolution.

> [...] can be attributed to our very recent move to full bipedalism

Admittedly. But it's still not contradictory with this still having unknown roles. Actually, multi-causality feels like a good way to ensure the stability and solidity of a design: "don't put all your eggs in the same baskets", portfolio diversification, etc.

Thinking about painful pregnancies and birth, [1] hints at the "need" for pain/discomfort. If it's indeed some sort of a necessity, then it may be more of a feature than a bug for us to experience pain directly, through the womb, etc.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_though...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

[pinkmuffinere]

> as far as we know." Every few years, I see in the headlines stuff like "oldest 'human' ever found in X."

The discovery of older humans does not respond to the point you’re arguing against — in evolutionary time scales, humans are recent.

> The theory of evolution itself has morphed since Darwin [0], and is probably far from being in its definitive form.

Fields continue to change as they grow older, but the magnitude of changes tend to get smaller. Of course evolution will change, but it would be very surprising to have large changes in the fundamental elements

> Thinking about painful pregnancies and birth, [1] hints at the "need" for pain/discomfort.

Evolution only optimizes for what results in dna being passed on. It doesn’t care about ancillary details. I think painful childbirth pretty much shouldn’t matter much to evolution, because the parents have no control over the birth at that point — it’s happening one way or another. Perhaps it promotes bonding with the child, or something like that? But in general, I think it’s wrong to say “evolution provided X, so X must be needed”. If X has no significant effect on the passage of dna, then it could just be random noise.

[mbivert]

> The discovery of older humans does not respond to the point you’re arguing against — in evolutionary time scales, humans are recent.

I meant, evolutionary time scales themselves are subjected to accuracy issues. The measurements techniques themselves are subject to accuracy issues as well.

> but the magnitude of changes tend to get smaller

Agreeing with the tendency, but there are great exceptions; physics comes to mind. The fact that we still don't properly understand QM, and physics being conceptually at the root of many sciences, a proper understanding of it may force to revisit a few things "up there".

> I think painful childbirth pretty much shouldn’t matter much to evolution, because the parents have no control over the birth at that point

Sorry, I (genuinely) don't get the argument.

Regardless, I saw articles [0][1] linking (minor) DNA alterations to exercising. It'd be interesting to see how body stresses in general could impact DNA, and how this would wrap up with evolution.

> then it could just be random noise.

Well, the problem with "noise", is that from the outset, we can't know distinguish between "actual noise" − assuming such a thing exist − or if it's merely a reflection of ignorance. The latter at least gives us direction in which to search stuff. So "evolution provided X, so X _may_ be needed" I guess

[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-025-00217-0

[1]: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/34391-scientists-discove...