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.

[RBD]

Let's test your assumption. Which of these are (is) a fish and which are (is) an amphibian? Explain the evidence for your answer.

The ones with fish gills, they're fish. The ones with land legs, they're amphibians.

Are their any with fish gills for water, and also walking on land?

Since a fish/amphibian hybrid is not possible today, aside from intelligent genetic engineering, then a fish/amphibian hybrid has never been naturally possible on earth, whether produced from a fish, or an amphibian. Which is why there are no naturally reproduced fish/amphibians today...

Just going to keep returning to the impossible reproductive challenge to any fish species naturally producing any amphibian species...No fish egg can produce an amphibian.

[RBD]

Plants producing different species of plant, is not a plant producing a fruit tree...

You're wrong there, too...
In a study published in Current Biology, the research team compared cultivated apples with their wild relatives from Europe and Asia. Their findings reveal that apples are not the product of a simple domestication process. Instead, they have evolved through ongoing interactions with wild species, which have left a lasting imprint on their DNA.

https://nyuad.nyu.edu/en/news/latest-ne ... hange.html

??? A wild relative plant of a fruit tree??? A wild species of plant producing a fruit tree??? A wild species of apple tree can't produce an orange tree, must less a wild species of plant...

Look, I'm not going to respond anymore to nonsensical answers, that have nothing to do with the challenge.

When does a fish egg produce an amphibian,

Barbaroan suggests:
Give me a testable definition of "fish" and "amphibian."

No.

If you can't even tell the difference, what makes you think you can say anything about it?

Dittoes responding to answers clipped out of context.

You're deteriorating into childish games.

[The Barbarian]

Plants producing different species of plant, is not a plant producing a fruit tree...

You're wrong there, too...
In a study published in Current Biology, the research team compared cultivated apples with their wild relatives from Europe and Asia. Their findings reveal that apples are not the product of a simple domestication process. Instead, they have evolved through ongoing interactions with wild species, which have left a lasting imprint on their DNA.

https://nyuad.nyu.edu/en/news/latest-ne ... hange.html

??? A wild relative plant of a fruit tree??? A wild species of plant producing a fruit tree??? A wild species of apple tree can't produce an orange tree, must less a wild species of plant...

If an apple tree produced an orange tree, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Your difficulty is, you want it to work your way instead of God's way.

Look, I'm not going to respond anymore to nonsensical answers,

I get it. Dealing with actual evolution, rather than your view of how it should be, is probably disorienting.

When does a fish egg produce an amphibian,

Barbaroan suggests:
Give me a testable definition of "fish" and "amphibian."

No.

If you can't even tell the difference, what makes you think you can say anything about it?[/quote]

You're deteriorating into childish games.

Just pointing out that you're denying the existence of something you can't even define for us. That's a very telling admission on your part.

[The Barbarian]

Let's test your assumption. Which of these are (is) a fish and which are (is) an amphibian? Explain the evidence for your answer.

The ones with fish gills, they're fish. The ones with land legs, they're amphibians.

Acanthostega has fish gills and land legs.

Are their any with fish gills for water, and also walking on land?

Even today, we have those...

Since a fish/amphibian hybrid is not possible today,

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Just going to keep returning to the impossible reproductive challenge to any fish species naturally producing any amphibian species...No fish egg can produce an amphibian.

If you can't even give us a testable definition of "fish" or "amphibian", your assumption is clearly not supportable.

[RBD]

Plants producing different species of plant, is not a plant producing a fruit tree...

You're wrong there, too...
In a study published in Current Biology, the research team compared cultivated apples with their wild relatives from Europe and Asia. Their findings reveal that apples are not the product of a simple domestication process. Instead, they have evolved through ongoing interactions with wild species, which have left a lasting imprint on their DNA.

https://nyuad.nyu.edu/en/news/latest-ne ... hange.html

??? A wild relative plant of a fruit tree??? A wild species of plant producing a fruit tree??? A wild species of apple tree can't produce an orange tree, must less a wild species of plant...

If an apple tree produced an orange tree, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

If an apple seed produced an orange tree, then macro-evolution would be confirmed. It would mean that a fish egg can produce an amphibian, since the natural law of egg/seed reproduction is not true. If the natural law of reproducing by egg/seed only after it's own kind is not true, then there is no limitation to any manner of macro-evolution between fish, amphibians, primates, oranges, kumquats... There would no law forbidding any species on earth from reproducing another, including whale-primate-man...

What's already debunked is your amateur ideological argument, that refuses to acknowledge natural reproductive law. As well as refusing to ignore the only huge elephants in the room that matter: No one cares about single species evolution, whether within the same class of fish or fruit tree.

The ideological lie is fish producing amphibians, plants producing fruit tree, primates producing humans...

I'll be searching for a professional macro-evolutionist, that will at least have enough sense to answer the natural law of egg/seed reproduction for different classes of species and fruit trees.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #345]

If an apple seed produced an orange tree

"However, in evolutionary terms, the difference between apples and oranges is not ineffable. It is not a folksy aphorism or a Zen puzzle at which to throw up one’s hands. To the contrary, it can be temporalized and quantified; or at least estimated. In fact, in evolutionary terms, that difference comes down to about 100 million years. That is, at least, the date (give or take) when the last common ancestor of apples and oranges lived — a flowering plant from the mid-Cretaceous."

https://share.google/gozb1bwovkzpeJgZa

[The Barbarian]

If an apple tree produced an orange tree, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

If an apple seed produced an orange tree, then macro-evolution would be confirmed.

No. That would invalidate evolutionary theory. Macroevolution is evolution of a new species. A new species of fruit tree, not an entirely new family in one generation

It would mean that a fish egg can produce an amphibian

We're kind of stuck on that claim, since you're unable to give us testable definitions for "fish" and "amphibian."

If the natural law of reproducing by egg/seed only after it's own kind is not true,

It's not merely false; it's nonexistent.

then there is no limitation to any manner of macro-evolution between fish, amphibians, primates, oranges, kumquats...

No wonder you're confused. Wouldn't it be a good idea for you to read up on what genetics and evolutionary theory actually say, before telling us about it?

There would no law forbidding any species on earth from reproducing another, including whale-primate-man...

Apparently, you don't know what "law" means in science, either. What do you think it means?

What's already debunked is your amateur ideological argument

Declaring victory without any evidence is probably not a very good debating tactic.

No one cares about single species evolution, whether within the same class of fish or fruit tree.

Speciation is the unit of macroevolution. Continued speciation results in hgher taxa. Even most YE creationists now admit the fact of new species, genera, and sometimes families. You don't know very much about creationism or science.

The ideological lie is fish producing amphibians

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

plants producing fruit tree, primates producing humans...

Fruit trees are plants. Humans are primates. Thought you knew.

I'll be searching for a professional macro-evolutionist, that will at least have enough sense to answer the natural law of egg/seed reproduction for different classes of species and fruit trees.

Your law. Up to you to support it with evidence.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #345]

If an apple seed produced an orange tree

"However, in evolutionary terms, the difference between apples and oranges is not ineffable. It is not a folksy aphorism or a Zen puzzle at which to throw up one’s hands. To the contrary, it can be temporalized and quantified; or at least estimated. In fact, in evolutionary terms, that difference comes down to about 100 million years. That is, at least, the date (give or take) when the last common ancestor of apples and oranges lived — a flowering plant from the mid-Cretaceous."

https://share.google/gozb1bwovkzpeJgZa

Perfect. More talk of millions of years past, to override natural science of today. Hey, given millions of years anything is possible with ideological theory, unbound by natural reproductive biology.

No one is denying the power of macro-evolution theory to sustain itself, but only any practical end to it...

Millions of years in the past is possible, and millions of years in the future, just not now. That's how ideological education industries remain supported. However, this one is running it's course, and being relegated back to private funding of fellow ideologues.

[RBD]

plants producing fruit tree, primates producing humans...

Fruit trees are plants.

Thanks for the correction. Fruit trees are part of the plant kingdom, the same as fish and amphibians are part of the animal kingdom.

Fish eggs don't produce amphibians, and apple see doesn't produce oranges.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #348]

Perfect. More talk of millions of years past, to override natural science of today. Hey, given millions of years anything is possible with ideological theory, unbound by natural reproductive biology.

No one is denying the power of macro-evolution theory to sustain itself, but only any practical end to it...

Millions of years in the past is possible, and millions of years in the future, just not now. That's how ideological education industries remain supported. However, this one is running it's course, and being relegated back to private funding of fellow ideologues.

It's highly apparent that throwing the word "ideological" at something you don't like makes you feel better, but it doesn't solidify your position.

Millions of years are part of what makes macro-evolution work.