Design flaws in organisms indicate evolution, not intelligent design

[Compassionist]

The existence of design flaws in living organisms is often cited as evidence for evolution by natural selection rather than intelligent design by an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. If such a being existed and created life intentionally, we might expect optimal design yet what we see instead are structures and processes that are inefficient, prone to failure, or even harmful.
Here are some significant biological design flaws that point to evolution rather than perfect design:
________________________________________
1. Human Birth Canal vs. Big Brain
Flaw: Human babies have large heads due to our large brains, but the human pelvis is narrow for bipedal walking.
Result: Childbirth is extremely painful and dangerous a leading cause of death historically.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors evolved larger brains and upright walking separately, leading to a dangerous compromise.
________________________________________
2. Wisdom Teeth
Flaw: Most people don't have room for third molars, causing impaction, infections, and pain.
Result: Many need surgery to remove them.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors had larger jaws due to diet, but modern humans' jaws shrank faster than tooth evolution could keep up.
________________________________________
3. Human Retina Is Backward
Flaw: The photoreceptor cells in the human eye are behind layers of neurons and blood vessels.
Result: Creates a blind spot and reduces image quality.
Evolutionary Explanation: The eye evolved incrementally, not from a clean-slate design.
________________________________________
4. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (Giraffe Example)
Flaw: This nerve travels from the brain to the larynx, but loops around the aorta.
Result: In giraffes, it travels over 15 feet instead of a direct path of a few inches.
Evolutionary Explanation: It's a leftover from fish ancestors, where this path made sense. Evolution modified existing structures rather than redesigning from scratch.
________________________________________
5. Human Menstrual Cycle
Flaw: Humans shed the uterine lining even if not pregnant, wasting resources and causing pain.
Result: Menstrual cramps, anemia, mood changes.
Evolutionary Explanation: Other mammals reabsorb the lining. Our approach may have evolved due to pathogen risks in internal fertilization.
________________________________________
6. Shared Path for Food and Air
Flaw: The esophagus (food) and trachea (air) share an entrance.
Result: Risk of choking a leading accidental cause of death.
Evolutionary Explanation: The throat evolved in stages, without foresight.
________________________________________
7. Human Spine and Back Pain
Flaw: Our spine is an S-curve not ideally suited for upright walking.
Result: Many people suffer chronic back pain, herniated discs, etc.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors were quadrupeds. The upright posture evolved later, leading to inefficient structure.
________________________________________
8. Brain Vulnerability and Mental Illness
Flaw: The brain is highly energy-consuming and prone to many dysfunctions.
Result: High rates of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.
Evolutionary Explanation: Natural selection favored reproductive success, not mental wellness or long-term wellbeing.
________________________________________
9. Knee Joint Design
Flaw: Knees bear immense strain, especially the ACL (anterior cruciate ligament), which often tears.
Result: Common injuries in sports and aging.
Evolutionary Explanation: Knees evolved from quadruped ancestors, not optimally engineered for bipedal running and jumping.
________________________________________
10. Genetic "Junk" and Mutations
Flaw: The genome is full of non-coding or redundant DNA and is prone to harmful mutations.
Result: Genetic diseases, cancer, and congenital defects.
Evolutionary Explanation: DNA accumulates "baggage" over time. There's no intelligent editing or streamlining process.
________________________________________
11. Susceptibility to Cancer
Flaw: Cells divide for life but are prone to mutations that cause cancer.
Result: One of the top global causes of death.
Evolutionary Explanation: Cell division is essential for life, but natural selection can't eliminate all cancer risk especially after reproductive age.
________________________________________
12. Human Psychology Biases
Flaw: We are prone to cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, tribalism, overconfidence).
Result: Misjudgments, discrimination, and conflict.
Evolutionary Explanation: These evolved to enhance survival in specific environments, not to produce truth-seeking rationality.
________________________________________
If we were designed by an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being, such flaws are impossible to justify. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, explains these quirks and imperfections as the result of a messy, blind, trial-and-error process where old parts are tweaked, not replaced, and survival/reproduction, not perfection, is the end goal.

[Jose Fly]

All natural things have nonfunctional sequences in the end, since all things are naturally decaying and mortal.

Which proves it must be by design, and cannot be by random selection alone. Otherwise, there would be the inevitable random selection of naturally incorruptible and immortally functional things.

Again, you're not even making sense. Just earlier you were arguing against the existence of non-functional DNA, but here you're saying non-functional DNA "proves design". Make up your mind.

The fact that all natural things are only one way: Nonfunctional mortality. Proves it must be by design, not by random chance alone.

FYI, things don't become true merely because you say so.

[RBD]

?????? You're not even making sense. Just above you indicated that you were ok with evolution within a taxonomic class, but now you're questioning evolution of new species? Do you not understand basic taxonomy?

Do you not read to understand?

New species isn't questioned, since the world is full of species that always began new on earth.

One old species evolving to a different new species, fish to amphibian, primate to man, that do not interbreed, is the unproven theory of speciation. Which has nothing to do with the proven single species evolution of simple biology.

Fish evolve new species of fish, and amphibians of amphibians, and primates of primates. Only man has never evolved from a different kind of man.

[RBD]

Exactly. With all the many 'similarities' studies, such as chromosome count, the primate-man evolutionists negate the single difference, rather than logically conclude, that there is no match between any living primate and human, nor fossil record.

I.e. the one chromosome difference makes all the difference in the world, so that man is not ape and vica versa. Rather than dismissing the difference as meaningless between man and ape. I've ceased following all their 'similarities' links, because they all conclude the same thing, close but no cigar. Almost only counts in horse shoes...

Again, you're not even making sense. Are you expecting the human genome to be the same as other primates or something?

No. Because man is not a primate.

The similarity test does not include the exclusionary test: All humans have the same genome, and we have genes that no primate on earth has.

What primate-man evolutionists assume is that similarities prove evolution, only because they theorize present exclusionary genes 'evolved' from primates, rather than began that way as people, and not primates: Evolutionary ideology can exclude any possibility of creation, but not the science.

We see how ideologues corrupt scientific fact, by claiming it on the one hand, and then dismissing the obvious conclusion on the other.

How did you manage to become such a high level expert in both genetics and paleontology?

How does anyone fail to notice all nonmatching similarity studies, de facto include exclusive separations? No one has to do the testing, in order to know they are inconclusive, except by assumption of evolving from past matching. And if i were a trained genteticist or paleontologist, then i would still argue the same common sense conclusion, that any objective person can understand.

Exclusive genome of all people apart from all primates, are not made past matches by assuming a past evolutionary divergence, rather than a simple example of being made that way from the beginning.

Primate-human evolution can seek to become a scientific alternative to creation, but it's never proven by similarities alone, that need assumed past matching to bridge the similarities-only gap.

Fact: No fossil remains ever prove the necessary minute links between primate and people. No genetic, biological, nor physiological match between primates and people, have ever been proven at present nor in the past. Dittoes for any fishes becoming amphibians, etc...

Simple biological and single species evolution have both been proven by study and fossil record: whether fish, fowl, mammal, or tree. Only people have been exempt from any evolutionary changes at all, since the beginning of people on earth. different colors and heights, but all the same physical bodies from the beginning.

'Human' evolution is at best an unproven theory based upon proven evolution within the species, and most commonly based upon ideological alternative to creation of all animal species after their kind, and only one kind of people on earth: The Man and Woman kind.

[RBD]

All natural things have nonfunctional sequences in the end, since all things are naturally decaying and mortal.

Which proves it must be by design, and cannot be by random selection alone. Otherwise, there would be the inevitable random selection of naturally incorruptible and immortally functional things.

Again, you're not even making sense. Just earlier you were arguing against the existence of non-functional DNA, but here you're saying non-functional DNA "proves design".

You're subjective reading doesn't make sense.

Non-functional DNA means natural degeneration and mortality. The natural DNA is not functionally incorruptible and immortal.

All natural things being naturally degenerative and mortal, proves design by natural law of degeneration: There are no chance exceptions in the natural universe for functionally perfect natural DNA.

That proven law therefore disproves, that all natural degenerative DNA can possibly by random chance alone; otherwise there must be the random possibility of immortal natural DNA, which is not found to exist anywhere in the natural universe. The fact of all natural things being made one way only, proves they must be designed that way, and not by unlimited random chances.

The argument that all natural things being degenerative mortal, proves the opposite of unlimited random chance alone, where functionally nondegenerative natural DNA must also be randomly possible.

The fact that all natural things are only one way: Nonfunctional mortality. Proves it must be by design, not by random chance alone.

FYI, things don't become true merely because you say so.

Practical truth does not change merely because you don't agree with it.

Are you saying there is any natural thing in the universe, that is proven to be functionally incorruptible and immortal? Do stars never die out? This sun or moon must remain forever? The earth and any natural thing therein is immortal?

Or, do you reject the truth, that if all things are only made one way, then it cannot be by unlimited random chance. Are you saying random chance can be limited to one way alone? If so, then the limitation can only be by design, not by random chance alone...

[Jose Fly]

New species isn't questioned, since the world is full of species that always began new on earth.

One old species evolving to a different new species, fish to amphibian, primate to man, that do not interbreed, is the unproven theory of speciation.

That's simply false. Speciation to the point of reproductive isolation has been observed many times. It's extremely common in plants for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9904344/

And BTW, "fish", "amphibian", and"primate" are not species designations. Go back and learn basic taxonomy.

Which has nothing to do with the proven single species evolution of simple biology.

Gibberish.

Fish evolve new species of fish, and amphibians of amphibians, and primates of primates. Only man has never evolved from a different kind of man.

Yes we did.

No. Because man is not a primate.

Taxonomically, we most certainly are within the Primate Order.

The similarity test does not include the exclusionary test: All humans have the same genome, and we have genes that no primate on earth has.

Oh for the love of.....

All humans have the same genome? That's your level of knowledge in genetics? Dude, all humans don't even have the same number of chromosomes, let alone the same genome. Here, educate yourself...please: https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/e ... -variation

So, given your shockingly low level knowledge of even basic genetics, I see absolutely no reason to take the rest of your opinions on the genetics behind human/primate common ancestry as anything more than online ramblings from someone who doesn't even have a high school level knowledge of the subject.

I strongly suggest you take the time to learn the basics first, then move on to the more detailed subject areas, and then get back to us and tell us what you found.

You're subjective reading doesn't make sense.

Non-functional DNA means natural degeneration and mortality. The natural DNA is not functionally incorruptible and immortal.

All natural things being naturally degenerative and mortal, proves design by natural law of degeneration: There are no chance exceptions in the natural universe for functionally perfect natural DNA.

That proven law therefore disproves, that all natural degenerative DNA can possibly by random chance alone; otherwise there must be the random possibility of immortal natural DNA, which is not found to exist anywhere in the natural universe. The fact of all natural things being made one way only, proves they must be designed that way, and not by unlimited random chances.

Practical truth does not change merely because you don't agree with it.

Are you saying there is any natural thing in the universe, that is proven to be functionally incorruptible and immortal? Do stars never die out? This sun or moon must remain forever? The earth and any natural thing therein is immortal?

Or, do you reject the truth, that if all things are only made one way, then it cannot be by unlimited random chance. Are you saying random chance can be limited to one way alone? If so, then the limitation can only be by design, not by random chance alone...

I'm not the slightest bit interested in arguments about gods or atheism.

[1213]

What science is this, that proves natural things were ever nondegenerative immortal? The law of natural decay proves that all things are presently decaying, because all natural things are flawed.

You don't agree that all things are constantly decaying shows things were previously less decayed?

The fact that all things are naturally decaying as by law, proves a Creator must make all natural things decay by law, without any possible random exception...

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe so.

And there's no Bible for any created naturally incorruptible. All things were created naturally mortal from the beginning. Nowhere is any natural thing created by God immortally. The only reason the bodies of man and woman can live indefinitely is by the fruit of life.

I think it is possible that in the beginning the humans were immortal.

[RBD]

New species isn't questioned, since the world is full of species that always began new on earth.

One old species evolving to a different new species, fish to amphibian, primate to man, that do not interbreed, is the unproven theory of speciation.

That's simply false. Speciation to the point of reproductive isolation has been observed many times. It's extremely common in plants for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9904344/

\

Same thing for simple plant evolution within the same class: seedless plants do not evolve into seeded plants, but only within their simple classification. Same for trees: orang trees do not evolve into apple trees. Fish do not evolve into amphibians, and primates do not evolve into people.

You're blindness to the difference between single species evolution, vs unproven speciation between classes of species, plants, and trees, is on purpose.

And BTW, "fish", "amphibian", and"primate" are not species designations. Go back and learn basic taxonomy..

Then fish, amphibians, and primates are not species...

Speciation is evolution between classes of species, which is not proven. Simple evolution withing the same species is proven.

The similarity test does not include the exclusionary test: All humans have the same genome, and we have genes that no primate on earth has.

Oh for the love of.....

All humans have the same genome? That's your level of knowledge in genetics? Dude, all humans don't even have the same number of chromosomes, let alone the same genome. Here, educate yourself...please: https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/e ... -variation

Oh for the love of...

The genome for people, however .1% varied, is not found in any animal on earth. Nor is the genome of any animal found in any person on earth.

I strongly suggest you take the time to learn the basics first, then move on to the more detailed subject areas, and then get back to us and tell us what you found.

The same. No proven speciation between fish/amphibians. Primates/humans.

Only unlearned ideologues want to believe and say so.

People can act like animals, even worse than brute beasts, but people are not animals, and animals are not judged by their works as every person is. Which is why some people want to be animals instead.

[RBD]

You're subjective reading doesn't make sense.

Non-functional DNA means natural degeneration and mortality. The natural DNA is not functionally incorruptible and immortal.

All natural things being naturally degenerative and mortal, proves design by natural law of degeneration: There are no chance exceptions in the natural universe for functionally perfect natural DNA.

That proven law therefore disproves, that all natural degenerative DNA can possibly by random chance alone; otherwise there must be the random possibility of immortal natural DNA, which is not found to exist anywhere in the natural universe. The fact of all natural things being made one way only, proves they must be designed that way, and not by unlimited random chances.

Practical truth does not change merely because you don't agree with it.

Are you saying there is any natural thing in the universe, that is proven to be functionally incorruptible and immortal? Do stars never die out? This sun or moon must remain forever? The earth and any natural thing therein is immortal?

Or, do you reject the truth, that if all things are only made one way, then it cannot be by unlimited random chance. Are you saying random chance can be limited to one way alone? If so, then the limitation can only be by design, not by random chance alone...

I'm not the slightest bit interested in arguments about gods or atheism.

Nor about unproven speciation vs single species evolution.

Nor that all natural things are solely degrative and mortal, proves it's by design, and can't be by random chance alone.

Unless you have something new, we're done here. Thanks.

[RBD]

What science is this, that proves natural things were ever nondegenerative immortal? The law of natural decay proves that all things are presently decaying, because all natural things are flawed.

You don't agree that all things are constantly decaying shows things were previously less decayed?

Of course not. Anyone can observe that new things are not as degenerated as old things, whether energy, material, or life. But no natural thing ever remains good as new forever...

The fact that all things are naturally decaying as by law, proves a Creator must make all natural things decay by law, without any possible random exception...

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe so.

Believing has nothing to do with natural truth and practical logic. People either agree, or argue an alternative.

Since all natural things are made one degenerative mortal way, without the possible alternative of nondegenerative immortality, then it must be by design, because it can't be by random chance alone.

And there's no Bible for any created naturally incorruptible. All things were created naturally mortal from the beginning. Nowhere is any natural thing created by God immortally. The only reason the bodies of man and woman can live indefinitely is by the fruit of life.

I think it is possible that in the beginning the humans were immortal.

Spiritually in the image of God, of course. Not naturally with mortal flesh and blood.

1Co 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Natural flesh and blood can never be immortal, because it's made natural flesh and blood, not incorruptible immortal.

Only lying myths say people could ever be immortal gods on earth:

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[Jose Fly]

Same thing for simple plant evolution within the same class: seedless plants do not evolve into seeded plants, but only within their simple classification. Same for trees: orang trees do not evolve into apple trees. Fish do not evolve into amphibians, and primates do not evolve into people.

You're blindness to the difference between single species evolution, vs unproven speciation between classes of species, plants, and trees, is on purpose.

That's just gibberish coupled with ignorance of basic science.

While you're certainly welcome to your rather odd views, you shouldn't expect anyone to take them at all seriously.

The genome for people, however .1% varied, is not found in any animal on earth.

Well duh. If another species had a human genome they would be humans. Sheesh.

Unless you have something new, we're done here. Thanks.

Good bye.