Krank I'm by no stretch of the imagination capable of discussing this on your level, so rather that appear foolish might I respectfully suggest to both parties that perhaps there a little bit of semantics going on and a little bit of apples vs oranges.
What I mean by that is the following. To use the specific term as it was used humans weren't 'designed' at all. We evolved as did all life on this planet. Started in one place / set of attributes, that changed slowly over millions of years as environmental factors would see minor random changes offering just enough of an advantage that that became the more favourable sub species to prevail.
As such whilst humans may indeed be able to perform a variety of functions/movements, someof that is happenstance and there are (hypothetically) tweaks to the existing bone structure/layout etc that would make as more ideally suited some particular task than we currently are but it by no means rules it out as being possible to perform safely and productively.
Similarly as has been brought up there's a discrepancy in terminology in terms of scientific agreed upon descriptive terms in contrast to colloquially used terms.
Since I made a passing reference to Evolution, and example can be found there. When it was a topic of debate an oft heard criticism of the theory of evolution was that it was 'just a theory' which was a bit cringe to hear if one understands that the scientific usage of the term theory is closer to 'the entire body of knowledge of this phenomenon' and what people not would commonly think it means is actually much closer to the term 'hypothesis' - a proposed but as yet hasn't passed sufficient testing explanation for xyz.
I'm currently suffering from insomnia I now return you to your regular programming.
I realise it's splitting hairs of course but hey, would y'all rather I post about brian wearing female panties?
