Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:27:03 UTC No. 16366095

If it works, it doesn't matter if it's messy. Simplicity is the hallmark of design, and we were not designed. Why would we be simple?

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:30:45 UTC No. 16366100

>>16366095
If configuration isn't effective now it probably was. Nature loves simplicity in this regard

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:40:21 UTC No. 16366112

Isn't like 98% of the human genome leftover junk code? And most of it is very unoptimized, but it works, so nature didn't find a reason to change it?

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:54:29 UTC No. 16366131

>>16366100
Effective doesn't mean simple. Your vein network in effective, but is by no means simple.
If it works well enough, that's all you need.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:56:20 UTC No. 16366132

Looks like a simpler way to make a coherent imagen from multiple 'sensors'

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 17:51:25 UTC No. 16366184

>>16366081
This is probably a consequence of the advent of deuterostomes 600 million years ago, diverging from protostomes and enabling vertebrates to exist. The inversion at the beginning of embryonic development means many anatomic features end up also being inverted. Arthropods naturally have hard, protective features on the outside but we have bones inside. They have a dorsal heart and we have a ventral heart. They process optical input on the side of the brain closest to each eye but vertebrates need to have crossover. They are more examples like that. So it's probably just the way things need to happen when starting from an inverted embryo.

Anonymous at Sat, 7 Sep 2024 19:08:23 UTC No. 16366334

>>16366184
That makes sense. Thanks anon.

Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 09:34:10 UTC No. 16367734

>>16366081
What appears to be the issue with the configuration? It's perfectly sane.