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.

[The Barbarian]

Finally, if for religious reasons some people don't accept the conclusions of scientists about the evolutionary history of life on earth, that's certainly their choice. Throughout history various religious groups have refused to accept all sorts of things that they see as conflicting with their beliefs, so that some Christians refuse to accept human-primate common ancestry because of how they read the Bible isn't unprecedented or even surprising. People are generally free to believe or not believe whatever they want.

From the largest Christian denomination:



INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God*


...According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution...

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #369]

I agree with you, @Jose Fly. Hey, we have something in common! I hope that God blesses you.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #370]

I'm not sure what you are saying, @The Barbarian. Please explain it.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #370]

I'm not sure what you are saying, @The Barbarian. Please explain it.

Sure. Let's recap:

"Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. Once there were, but not now. "

Turns out, there's more genetic variation within any designated human "race" you can cite, than there is between such "races." Races exist by they are merely social constructs, not biologial realities. There once were such races. Anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, Denisovans, and at least one other human race all existed and interbred with each other at one time. But now, it's just us.

Because I was wrong. In a landmark paper based on the Human Genome Project, scientists showed that there are no “races” but a single human race—not in sociological terms, but according to biology.

The project found that there is more genetic variation within a single population subgroup than between two different population subgroups. For example, there may be more genetic diversity within a population in Asia than between that same population and a different population in Europe.

https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/

"In fact, most creationist groups now admit the evolution of new species and genera. Sometimes a bit more than that."

Here's "Answers in Genesis" for example:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... peciation/

"Speciation is an observed fact. That's what macroevolution is."

noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

"I suspect you've confused macroevolution (an observed fact), with universal common descent, an inference from genetic analyses."

DNA phylogenies show how the genetic code has evolved in various taxa over time:


This phylogeny is an inference from the evidence of genetics, supported by anatomical homologies, transitional fossils, and other evidence. Common descent of living things on Earth is a conclusion from evidence. Biological evolution is an observed phenomenon, a fact. That's the difference.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #370]

I'm not sure what you are saying, @The Barbarian. Please explain it.

Sure. Let's recap:

"Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. Once there were, but not now. "

Turns out, there's more genetic variation within any designated human "race" you can cite, than there is between such "races." Races exist by they are merely social constructs, not biologial realities. There once were such races. Anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, Denisovans, and at least one other human race all existed and interbred with each other at one time. But now, it's just us.

Because I was wrong. In a landmark paper based on the Human Genome Project, scientists showed that there are no “races” but a single human race—not in sociological terms, but according to biology.

The project found that there is more genetic variation within a single population subgroup than between two different population subgroups. For example, there may be more genetic diversity within a population in Asia than between that same population and a different population in Europe.

https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/

"In fact, most creationist groups now admit the evolution of new species and genera. Sometimes a bit more than that."

Here's "Answers in Genesis" for example:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... peciation/

"Speciation is an observed fact. That's what macroevolution is."

noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

"I suspect you've confused macroevolution (an observed fact), with universal common descent, an inference from genetic analyses."

DNA phylogenies show how the genetic code has evolved in various taxa over time:


This phylogeny is an inference from the evidence of genetics, supported by anatomical homologies, transitional fossils, and other evidence. Common descent of living things on Earth is a conclusion from evidence. Biological evolution is an observed phenomenon, a fact. That's the difference.

If you can explain this idea in plain English, @The Barbarian, it would be a lot more helpful. Two words, "inference" and "conclusion" stand out in your explanation. Other people might draw other conclusions, then, can't they?

[Clownboat]

No, God make Adam and Eve perfect, but their rebellion has the effect of their bodies bringing about decay and death, including imperfections.

Our spines are adapted from spines which were previously used for four-limbed walking in a horizontal position which is why back pain is so prevalent in humans. What was different about Adam and Eve's spines compared to our own?

You also wrote, "Humans are apes. For all sorts of reasons, not just a tailbone. Anyone is free to imagine that god concept created such things of course, but that has nothing to do with the fact that humans are apes."

You write this statement as if you believe that it is a fact. What makes it a fact instead of a theory?

That is intentional:
The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/; hominids /ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), whose members are known as the great apes,[note 1] are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo (the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan); Gorilla (the eastern and western gorilla); Pan (the chimpanzee and the bonobo); and Homo, of which only modern humans (Homo sapiens) remain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

Did you or anyone observe an ape ancestor changing into a human?

Of course not! Could you imagine one species giving birth to another! That would be crazy, so why are you asking such a thing? Perhaps you don't know that evolutions works on populations of animals and not individuals?

If it's a theory, you can't be that positive about it.

In science, a theory is powerful.
Ever heard of the theory of gravity or germ theory? Do you now questions gravity or germs, of course not!

You finally write, "The Bible is religious promotional material. Not a science book and shouldn't be used to interpret the world around us anymore than the Quran."

No, the principles of the Bible are God's ideas and trump the theories of science any day, because he has given them for believers to use in observing the creation,

You would have made a great Muslim had you been born elsewhere on the planet. Religion because of geography... what an odd way to land on a god concept.

as the Psalmist says in Psalm 19:1,7,8: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork....

The only problem for you is that fact that the heavens don't do this. It's a fun religious platitude of course, but that seems to be it.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #361]

What about microevolution versus macroevolution, @Jose Fly? People don't observe the changes of one species into another one, which I understand to be macroevolution and which then remains a theory, doesn't it?

Many people struggle with understanding how evolution works. This is a great illustration IMO.

The Canterbury Tales: General Prologue

By Geoffrey Chaucer - Born 1343
Here bygynneth the Book of the tales of Caunterbury
Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur
Of which vertú engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth....

This is Old English. Hard to read isn't it?
Now, if you were to believe that one morning, an English mother gave birth to a baby that spoke modern English, you would be laughed at. What happened was minor changes in the way that people spoke over time, which led us to the modern English we now speak, something very different than the original. Small changes over the years is all that it took to get English from one 'species' (I trust you understand what I mean) to another.

Now imagine a population of animals. One animal didn't give birth to another species. What happens is small changes over time that that resulted in a species different than the original, just like how English evolved over the years.
Let me know if you think I am mistaken or if you have any questions.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #376]

It's much easier for me to believe that God has created everything than for me to believe that it all just happened and continues to cause its own changes, @Clownboat.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #376]

It's much easier for me to believe that God has created everything than for me to believe that it all just happened and continues to cause its own changes, @Clownboat.

I acknowledge that it is easier for you to believe that Allah created everything. Learning about evolution takes work after all and not everyone is willing to put in the work. Humans have been inventing god concept for tens of thousands of years to explain unknowns after all, so this does not come as a surprise. If you could show that you speak the truth instead of just telling us what you believe, now that would be a surprise though!

What did you think of my Old English example to help illustrate what evolution actually claims? Do you still expect to find one species giving birth to another, or have you amended your thinking on the matter?
Do you know what a ring species is?
A ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with their immediate neighbors, but where two end populations overlap and cannot reproduce.

Someone speaking English in 1400 would probably understand/'be able to breed with' (I trust you understand what I mean here) someone speaking English in 1500. In 2026, the original English can no longer reproduce with the English we now speak. It's a new species that evolved. Allah, nor any god concept is needed to be involved in this. Language evolves by small changes taking place within a population. Latin is now extinct, that it evolved within differing populations to become Spanish, French, Italian (3 similar, but different species) to name a few is understood.

Again, I acknowledge that it is easier for you to believe that Allah (or some god concept) caused the changes, but IMO, you are just taking the easy way out. Learning can be difficult and time consuming. If a person doesn't want to learn about actual evolution (and many other topics), then crediting a god is an alternative.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #370]

I'm not sure what you are saying, @The Barbarian. Please explain it.

Sure. Let's recap:

"Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. Once there were, but not now. "

Turns out, there's more genetic variation within any designated human "race" you can cite, than there is between such "races." Races exist by they are merely social constructs, not biologial realities. There once were such races. Anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, Denisovans, and at least one other human race all existed and interbred with each other at one time. But now, it's just us.

Because I was wrong. In a landmark paper based on the Human Genome Project, scientists showed that there are no “races” but a single human race—not in sociological terms, but according to biology.

The project found that there is more genetic variation within a single population subgroup than between two different population subgroups. For example, there may be more genetic diversity within a population in Asia than between that same population and a different population in Europe.

https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/

"In fact, most creationist groups now admit the evolution of new species and genera. Sometimes a bit more than that."

Here's "Answers in Genesis" for example:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... peciation/

"Speciation is an observed fact. That's what macroevolution is."

noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

"I suspect you've confused macroevolution (an observed fact), with universal common descent, an inference from genetic analyses."

DNA phylogenies show how the genetic code has evolved in various taxa over time:


This phylogeny is an inference from the evidence of genetics, supported by anatomical homologies, transitional fossils, and other evidence. Common descent of living things on Earth is a conclusion from evidence. Biological evolution is an observed phenomenon, a fact. That's the difference.

If you can explain this idea in plain English, @The Barbarian, it would be a lot more helpful. Two words, "inference" and "conclusion" stand out in your explanation. Other people might draw other conclusions, then, can't they?

I'm assuming a middle-school level of biological understanding. What did you find confusing other than "inference" (a conclusion based on evidence)? And perhaps you could explain what other conclusion you could drew from the genetic evidence presented.

Conclusion:A judgment or decision reached after deliberation.

What's puzzling to you?