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.

[Carnivalfaces]

?????? 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.

You're way out of your element. Here, this can explain the reality of evolved species for you. Pay close attention to the detailed skeletal configurations of tetra pods and fish alike and where species emerge in the geographical time lines revealed in the earth. Bear in mind the hard work that goes into making scientific discoveries and the constant tests to be sure; verses reading an ancient collection of myths and concluding arbitrarily what's possible and what isn't...

[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.

You're way out of your element. Here, this can explain the reality of evolved species for you. Pay close attention to the detailed skeletal configurations of tetra pods and fish alike and where species emerge in the geographical time lines revealed in the earth. Bear in mind the hard work that goes into making scientific discoveries and the constant tests to be sure; verses reading an ancient collection of myths and concluding arbitrarily what's possible and what isn't...

Four legged tetrapods were never fish, nor an evolutionary link between fish and amphibians.

As with all macroevolutionary speculation, that is based solely on need to prove something, not on fact proving it. There is no fossil record of fish evolving four legs, but only of fish alongside four legged amphibians. Some suggested there were extinct fish developing legs, that were only fins swimming like legs under water.

There are no fossil remains of fishtrapods.

You want to congratulate someone's hard work on producing speculative evidence, but not proven facts, then go ahead. The university/cottage industry for macroevolution has been full of them...However, they are dwindling without proven results, and returning to private funding where they began, before pushing it into public schools. The inflated boom is busting.

[Carnivalfaces]

?????? 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.

You're way out of your element. Here, this can explain the reality of evolved species for you. Pay close attention to the detailed skeletal configurations of tetra pods and fish alike and where species emerge in the geographical time lines revealed in the earth. Bear in mind the hard work that goes into making scientific discoveries and the constant tests to be sure; verses reading an ancient collection of myths and concluding arbitrarily what's possible and what isn't...

Four legged tetrapods were never fish, nor an evolutionary link between fish and amphibians.

As with all macroevolutionary speculation, that is based solely on need to prove something, not on fact proving it. There is no fossil record of fish evolving four legs, but only of fish alongside four legged amphibians. Some suggested there were extinct fish developing legs, that were only fins swimming like legs under water.

There are no fossil remains of fishtrapods.

You want to congratulate someone's hard work on producing speculative evidence, but not proven facts, then go ahead. The university/cottage industry for macroevolution has been full of them...However, they are dwindling without proven results, and returning to private funding where they began, before pushing it into public schools. The inflated boom is busting.

I've heard this sermon before. Demonstrate this "creator" created man as I've demonstrated it didn't. Asserting statements of ignorance doesn't support said ignorance even if one believes in magical fairytale friends from a bronze aged myth book.

If you need to lie to yourself then your faith isn't worth having. Would you say that's a fair statement?

[The Barbarian]

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

This is the excuse argument for no individual fish fossil never producing an amphibian fossil.

Simple biological evolution is proven science. Evolution between different class of species is unproven theory, and mostly ideology. You say it's false altogether, and I'll agree.

In fact, even honest YECs admit that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory":

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the homini series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YEC Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

The follow up excuse argument, is that it takes so many millions of years to evolve from a fish to an amphibian, that the missing fossil link between a fish and an amphibian can't be found, yet...

There are many, many such examples. Even honest YECs admit that these exist. Dr. Wise mentions them.

Only fanciful dreamers and/or ideologues deny something exists, that has been shown to exist.

Speciation between different species therefore, is not proven as simple biological evolution within a species.

Even most YECs admit the fact of new species evolving. It's been observed to happen.

The rapid origin of new species (in thousands of years or less) is not speculation but demonstrated fact,
YE creationist John Woodmorappe Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study

[The Barbarian]

Four legged tetrapods were never fish, nor an evolutionary link between fish and amphibians.

Acamthostega:


It's a fish. Internal gills, lateral line system, limbs adapted to moving in shallow water, but not walking on land. Like most early fish, it had lungs, but the ribs could not have supported breathing on land. But it has four legs, the bones of which are derived from the find bones of other lobed-fin fish. And the limbs are not securely attached to the spine, meaning that this fish had not evolved the ability to walk on land. Pretty much exactly what a transitional tetrapod should be.

[The Barbarian]

So-called "junk" DNA has been clearly debunked by modern scientists themselves. Much of DNA consists of non-coding "switches", originally thought to be "junk" but later determined to be completely and entirely necessary to the organism involved.

When I started studying biology in the 1960s, there were research papers showing what creationists called "junk DNA" were often functional sequences. But there is DNA with no function, such as the broken vitamin C gene in humans and other apes. It's just that a lot of non-coding DNA actually has other functions. One significant function turns out to be a source of new genes under natural selection:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-024-02059-0

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

That's a common misconception, but the evidence shows how it indicates a common ancestry for humans and other apes:



One human crhomosome precisely matches up with 2 chimpanzee chromosomes. The human chromosome even retains the remnants of the chimp telomeres where the fusion happened. The odds of all this material lining up precisely to mimic an actual fusion are so tiny as to be effectively impossible.

Denial withers in the face of the evidence.

[RBD]

Four legged tetrapods were never fish, nor an evolutionary link between fish and amphibians.

As with all macroevolutionary speculation, that is based solely on need to prove something, not on fact proving it. There is no fossil record of fish evolving four legs, but only of fish alongside four legged amphibians. Some suggested there were extinct fish developing legs, that were only fins swimming like legs under water.

There are no fossil remains of fishtrapods.

You want to congratulate someone's hard work on producing speculative evidence, but not proven facts, then go ahead. The university/cottage industry for macroevolution has been full of them...However, they are dwindling without proven results, and returning to private funding where they began, before pushing it into public schools. The inflated boom is busting.

I've heard this sermon before. Demonstrate this "creator" created man as I've demonstrated it didn't. Asserting statements of ignorance doesn't support said ignorance even if one believes in magical fairytale friends from a bronze aged myth book.

??? My response is to the failure to prove macroevolution. What sermon of a Creator?

Or are you simply exposing your heart and the true intent of spurious macroevolution: And ideological rejection of creation, rather than a proven science...

If you need to lie to yourself then your faith isn't worth having. Would you say that's a fair statement?

Dittoes with your supposedly proven macroevolution.

If I'm lying about the absence of fossils between finned fish and legged tetrapods, then produce it, rather than just another promotional video.

[RBD]

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

This is the excuse argument for no individual fish fossil never producing an amphibian fossil.

Simple biological evolution is proven science. Evolution between different class of species is unproven theory, and mostly ideology. You say it's false altogether, and I'll agree.

In fact, even honest YECs admit that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory":

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids).

Now if you could just get proof between hominoid and man, then you've got something. Lucy doesn't get it.

Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the homini series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YEC Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Now if you can get proof between reptiles and mammals, and not only mammal-like reptiles, or man-like hominoids. As well as some previous nonbird, nontetrapod, nonwhale evolving into early bird, tretrapod, whale...

Once again: There is no found nor proven necessary incremental link in macroevolution, as there abundantly is for microevolution. Similarities, likenesses, and 'strong' evidence is not proven fact.

And yet there is daily overly abundant proof of men and women being created in the Creator's image: The spiritual intelligence that separates all people from all natural animals. So that, even if some person using their spiritual intelligence to argue against creation in God's image, which no natural animal can think nor do, then they prove their own spiritual creation by arguing against their own spiritual intelligence.

And some have even gone to the extent of denying their own intelligence is any different from the mentality of their spiritual bug brethren...

Ecc 10:3
Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.


So, while macroevolution of physical creatures remains unproven, the intelligent creation of all people, and no animals, remains proven every day that men and women think, imagine, study, and debate such things...

The rapid origin of new species (in thousands of years or less) is not speculation but demonstrated fact,
YE creationist John Woodmorappe Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study

The rapid origin of new species is called creation, not evolution.

[RBD]

Four legged tetrapods were never fish, nor an evolutionary link between fish and amphibians.

Acamthostega:


It's a fish. Internal gills, lateral line system, limbs adapted to moving in shallow water, but not walking on land. Like most early fish, it had lungs, but the ribs could not have supported breathing on land. But it has four legs, the bones of which are derived from the find bones of other lobed-fin fish. And the limbs are not securely attached to the spine, meaning that this fish had not evolved the ability to walk on land.

Correct. It's a fish, not a mammal. Exactly what a fish hybrid looks like. Find the necessary changes between this fish and any mammal. But first show any incremental transition fossils between this hybrid and other fish. Otherwise, we simply have a discovered fish hybrid, as easily explained by creation, more so than any speculative evolution. A proven fact has no other explanation, especially not an obvious one.

Pretty much exactly what a transitional tetrapod should be.

Pretty much more exactly what a hybrid fish is: Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc... are all water fish, not any land mammals among them.

Show a gilled fish with walking legs for land, or land mammal with fish fins for swimming. In the fossil record, not just on filled-in pictographs. All examples you can trot out, are all the same examples of hybrids without proven transition before nor following.

Anti-creation Macro evolutionists expect thinking people to accept unproven connections between fish and mammals, and yet do not even acknowledge their own proven intelligent separation between all people and natural animals...

[Carnivalfaces]

Four legged tetrapods were never fish, nor an evolutionary link between fish and amphibians.

As with all macroevolutionary speculation, that is based solely on need to prove something, not on fact proving it. There is no fossil record of fish evolving four legs, but only of fish alongside four legged amphibians. Some suggested there were extinct fish developing legs, that were only fins swimming like legs under water.

There are no fossil remains of fishtrapods.

You want to congratulate someone's hard work on producing speculative evidence, but not proven facts, then go ahead. The university/cottage industry for macroevolution has been full of them...However, they are dwindling without proven results, and returning to private funding where they began, before pushing it into public schools. The inflated boom is busting.

I've heard this sermon before. Demonstrate this "creator" created man as I've demonstrated it didn't. Asserting statements of ignorance doesn't support said ignorance even if one believes in magical fairytale friends from a bronze aged myth book.

??? My response is to the failure to prove macroevolution. What sermon of a Creator?

You can't comprehend the evidence and lie to yourself thinking the body of work that proved evolution is somehow on equal footing as the your god belief you can't substantiate from a bronze aged myth book.

Or are you simply exposing your heart and the true intent of spurious macroevolution: And ideological rejection of creation, rather than a proven science...

You're lying to yourself again. Please explain how the proven fact of macro evolution is "spurious" without appealing to ignorance.

If you need to lie to yourself then your faith isn't worth having. Would you say that's a fair statement?

Dittoes with your supposedly proven macroevolution.

It was a simple question. If you need to lie to yourself then your faith isn't worth having. Is that a fair remark? What I know of science isn't faith based. Answer the question please, yes or no?

If I'm lying about the absence of fossils between finned fish and legged tetrapods, then produce it, rather than just another promotional video.

You just confirmed you have no idea what you're talking about. Please refer to the above question and answer it. And explain how the video was a "promotion" as you intentionally fabricated rather than the educational tool of the facts of science and what we know it was? "We" used figuratively of course because you just confessed you didn't know scientific reality and think it's a 'promotion' of some sorts. Tell me, did you feel the urge to reach for your wallet or something when you watched or did you not bother to watch it?