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]

Because all we see is that degeneration, mutations and vestiges. Not beings getting properties they didn't previously have.

Again, that's simply not true.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1115323109

[Kylie]

I want you to tell me why "fall from perfection" is a better explanation for them than "evolution."

Because all we see is that degeneration, mutations and vestiges. Not beings getting properties they didn't previously have.

This is just plain wrong. We can see how birds developed flight, how horses developed their legs specialised for running fast, how whales developed bodies well suited for an aquatic lifestyle. These are clearly shown in the fossil record.

[1213]

This is just plain wrong. We can see how birds developed flight, how horses developed their legs specialised for running fast, how whales developed bodies well suited for an aquatic lifestyle. These are clearly shown in the fossil record.

Whale evolution is perhaps the best example of degeneration and so best evidence for the creation. If we believe the fossil record shows something.

But, I don't think the fossil record really shows anything else than there was animals that died. They could have been separate species, not ancestors of new species.

[Difflugia]

Whale evolution is perhaps the best example of degeneration and so best evidence for the creation. If we believe the fossil record shows something.

This is an utterly bizarre statement. What is the degenerative path that led to the incredible array of adaptations for swimming and survival in deep water? What is cetacean tail-powered locomotion a degeneration of? What is baleen a degeneration of? How does degeneration lead to neutral buoyancy? Whales have adaptations for both storing huge amounts and tolerating low levels of oxygen. What degenerated into these adaptations?

Your statement is the equivalent of claiming that a school bus is just a degenerate motorcyle and expecting it to be self-evident rather than utterly absurd.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #106]

I am not asking you for evidence that a bird is a bird. Please focus on the subject of my questioning your apparent claim that evolution is not evidence of mindful design.

You are correct! There is no evidence for a mindful design being involved with how populations of animals change over time.
There is evidence for natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, gene flow and non random mating though.

If you for some reason think that there is a mindful design involved, YOU need to put in some work.
I'm pointing to a bird and supplying the definition of what a bird is. You're asking me to show you that it's not a squirrel. I'm asking you why on earth a bird would be a squirrel. Did you notice a bushy tail something? In place of supplying that which you detected (if there even is anything) that just might suggest a mindful design, you ask me again to provide evidence that a bird is not a squirrel and pretend that I'm not focusing on the subject.

I fear you might still be struggling, so in an attempt to clarify further:
bird
/bərd/
noun
1.
a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, and a beak and (typically) by being able to fly.

Does this sound like a squirrel to you? If so, please explain.

Evolution: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.

Does this sound mindful to you? If so, please explain. Show me that bushy tail if you think it's there. If you don't think it is there and you actually agree with me, you are just wasting our time once again.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #125]

I am not asking you for evidence that a bird is a bird. Please focus on the subject of my questioning your apparent claim that evolution is not evidence of mindful design.

You are correct!

I am. While I do not treat you statement as a claim, I do treat it as something which requires supporting evidence that it can then be treated as a claim.

There is no evidence for a mindful design being involved with how populations of animals change over time.

I am not asking for evidence showing mindful design throughout the structure of specie evolution, What I am asking evidence for is that there is no mindful application involved in the process because that is the content of your statement - that evolution is a thoughtless process.

If you meant "design flaws we find in organism are something that would also be found via a thoughtless process" without identifying "evolution" as that "thoughtless process", then we wouldn't be having this debate. As it is, your statement stands looking like an unsupported claim and will continue to do so until you can either provide supporting evidence or re-write it so that it reflects a more truthful pose - such as the example I have given.

[Difflugia]

I am not asking for evidence showing mindful design throughout the structure of specie evolution, What I am asking evidence for is that there is no mindful application involved in the process because that is the content of your statement - that evolution is a thoughtless process.

This is the "part of this complete breakfast" conversation all over again. Mutation and natural selection are both necessary and sufficient as the mechanisms of evolution by common descent. It's possible that something else, like a cosmic mindfulness, is involved, but there's no evidence of any such something and nothing changes if it's not there. It's the same sort of claim that gremlins actually push cars around, but they only do so whenever the engines are running.

All directionality in evolution can be accounted for via natural selection. We can measure selection in populations and its effects on population fitness. If there are any other pressures on evolution, they're indistinguishable from the pressures that we do know about and therefore superfluous. Your mindfulness is just intelligent design in a different hat.

[1213]

Whale evolution is perhaps the best example of degeneration and so best evidence for the creation. If we believe the fossil record shows something.

This is an utterly bizarre statement. What is the degenerative path that led to the incredible array of adaptations for swimming and survival in deep water? What is cetacean tail-powered locomotion a degeneration of? What is baleen a degeneration of? How does degeneration lead to neutral buoyancy? Whales have adaptations for both storing huge amounts and tolerating low levels of oxygen. What degenerated into these adaptations?

Your statement is the equivalent of claiming that a school bus is just a degenerate motorcyle and expecting it to be self-evident rather than utterly absurd.

Yeah, almost as ridiculous as to claim whales evolved from land animals.

I believe whales were created, not evolved.

Have you ever asked how did "evolution" do all those changes?

[Difflugia]

Your statement is the equivalent of claiming that a school bus is just a degenerate motorcyle and expecting it to be self-evident rather than utterly absurd.

Yeah, almost as ridiculous as to claim whales evolved from land animals.

Which you say, but so far, your only justification is based on things that are self-evidently untrue. If they didn't evolve from land animals, and other mammals in particular, whence alveolar lungs, mammary glands, and placental pregnancy?

I believe whales were created, not evolved.

That's clear. If you're being honest about your reasons, then your reasons for that belief are wrong, but you've made it clear that's what you believe.

Have you ever asked how did "evolution" do all those changes?

Yes.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #127]

Mutation and natural selection are both necessary and sufficient as the mechanisms of evolution by common descent. It's possible that something else, like a cosmic mindfulness, is involved, but there's no evidence of any such something and nothing changes if it's not there.

Any statement which involves declarations to do with the process of evolution are best treated as opinion rather than supported by evidence.

My critique of clownboats statement is valid because it reveals something dressed as unsupported claim and without supporting evidence must be treated as an opinion rather than true/fact.

If you or anyone else have the same belief that evolution requires no mindfulness, then I will continue to accept such statements as belief based opinion no matter that these are presented as factual/truth.

Science has not yet determined whether reality is a mindfully created thing or an accident.

It has never been established. Science is not in the business of showing any such thing, even that a majority of scientists might think that evolution is a mindless process, they have done nothing to show that this is indeed the case/truth. It is just belief which evolve into statements of opinion when broadcasted by atheists who have motivation in doing so. Broadcasted atheistic beliefs are no more shown to being true than theistic ones.

This is no less true about theists who broadcast that their particular idea of GOD is the mind behind creation.

What is obtained by all this are arguments based upon opinions based on beliefs to do with whether or not we exist within a mindfully created thing or a mindless accident.