I was minutes away from posting a 3 page long explanation about my life and how I am changing things around for myself. No more pity party, no more emo posts about being unhappy. Then I realized that was an emo post too. So I highlighted all of the text I had written out and not saved, then I deleted it all. The undo for the document is far in the past and beyond retrieval. If you want to know, you have to ask.

Now – moving onto a real post. It will encompass more of my present mind childe instead of reflecting backwards. I have been thinking about this for a while but I wanted to wait until I got unkommon/searchingforhim.com up and running. Well, I would rather write this now instead of waiting for that. I will have a more detailed, faith based, and researched article once I get unkommon up. Feel free to yell at me to finish it up. It has been far too long.

There has always been contention between intelligent design and science. Here is my problem that neither one seems to solve. There are bipeds and quadrupeds. This is something we can observe all over nature. In plants we can observe plants which are rooted in the ground and have 1 leg (or so it seems, roots get tricky). Spiders have eight legs. Centipedes and Millipedes have anywhere from 30 to over 300 legs. Their legs are in pairs and depending on the number of sections on the bug you have a result of the pairs on each section. Okay, so there are a TON of species out there, each with pairs of legs or extremities.

Why are there no species with naturally occurring odd numbers of legs? Scientists would explain that nature tends to happen in patterns, pairs, and symmetry. That would explain that pairs of legs win over an odd number. The problem that appears is the idea of tripods being the most stable. Triangles are the most stable shape (impossible to collapse them, unlike any other 2d shape). We know that two legs require a lot of coordination in body parts to keep up. We have sensors in our ears for this reason, and that’s a little weird.

This is a problem for science that evolution should have fixed. We have one brain, one heart, one stomach, five fingers and toes (it is an odd number, though through 2 extremities with digits it becomes 10 toes/fingers and therefore symmetric.) Nonetheless you can have odd amounts of body parts as a general rule. Why not a third leg? I am sure that the front leg would be freakishly stronger than the two back legs. There are many developments that would change due to a third leg but I think they would have been worth it on an evolutionary level.

Is evolution through “survival of the fittest” a flawed model? It seems to me that the fittest only survives if it fits into the model of evolution. Symmetry doesn’t seem like it would be a logical thing for evolving creatures. One new appendage would make sense, but two would be too large of a jump to me. So how does it go from two legs to four legs? Or, if we are losing appendages as we don’t need them any more, why don’t we go from four legs down to three legs? And once you are at three legs, wouldn’t it make sense to keep the more stable evolutionary trait instead of losing/gaining another in order to keep symmetry?

I don’t know, there isn’t any science behind this. I haven’t tried to investigate and experiment with this hypothesis but I think it would be interesting to get an answer for it.