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]

[Replying to RBD in post #190]

And so, the whole argument is flawed from the beginning: Whether intelligent or nonintelligent design, flawed things does not mean the design is flawed, but only that they are flawed by design. And flawed things by design, does not disprove intelligent or nonintelligent design.

However, things that are always made the same way, with flaws, does disprove unintelligible chance design, since all things could not possibly be made the same way with flaws, without any chance of flawless design.

When the possibilities of unwilled chance is limited to only certain possibilities, and especially only one certain possibility, then there is no unwilled chance design with unlimited possibilities.

Ordered complexity of the natural universe does not, therefore, disprove nonintelligent chance design, but rather the fact of limited natural order proves intelligently willed design: All natural things are ordered with flaw, therefore no natural thing is by unwilled chance alone.

The only question remaining is, what is the manner of the intelligent Maker, who only makes natural things with flaws and decaying mortality? It's simply a Maker whose will is to make all natural things with mortal flaws and decay. It does not make the Maker flawed.

In fact, ordering all natural things in one way alone, without any chance of another design, is proof of intelligent will and power, that must maintain continued order on all natural things,that were made and are being made:

Rev 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

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

[Difflugia]

I rightly point out you're not an atheist, but only another doubting skeptic

You're a touchy skeptic, that fails at playing an atheist.

Weird. Is this an attempt to gaslight me? Do you think I believe in Santa Claus and leprechauns, too? Made-up is made-up.

Reasonable people don't get whiny about things people say exist, that do not exist.

Is this some sort of projection? If you're not here to debate, why are you here?

This is why most Bible antagonists are not honest with what's wriiten in the Bible.

I have no problem with the Bible as such and it's amusingly ironic that you accuse me of not being honest about what's written, considering that in a concurrent discussion, your defense is that the Bible doesn't actually say what it says.

How can they be, when they're not even honest about themselves with God.

QFT

[Carnivalfaces]

[Replying to RBD in post #190]

And so, the whole argument is flawed from the beginning: Whether intelligent or nonintelligent design, flawed things does not mean the design is flawed, but only that they are flawed by design. And flawed things by design, does not disprove intelligent or nonintelligent design.

By what manner of reason do you assert this? None of the cosmic forces whether in a chaotic or more of a controlled calm state in various regions of space, indicate an intelligence at work. Many of the forces at work we can measure, see results of, and predict, and obviously there are unknown forces as well since we do not have all the answers. But what we're able to study and/or observe does not indicate a sentient force behind the volatility of space.

However, things that are always made the same way, with flaws, does disprove unintelligible chance design, since all things could not possibly be made the same way with flaws, without any chance of flawless design.

How does it "disprove" unintelligent chance of design? What would "proof" look like tangibly that does "disprove" unintelligible chance design? What does intelligible chance design look like? So we have something to cross reference besides your circle of thought. Please provide definitions and examples of your claims.

When the possibilities of unwilled chance is limited to only certain possibilities, and especially only one certain possibility, then there is no unwilled chance design with unlimited possibilities.

What's possible and what isn't doesn't need a god to be invoked in order to be true. Who has said the possibilities of life is narrowed to only one certain possibility? What would that be?

Ordered complexity of the natural universe does not, therefore, disprove nonintelligent chance design, but rather the fact of limited natural order proves intelligently willed design: All natural things are ordered with flaw, therefore no natural thing is by unwilled chance alone.

Order, complexity, design,, chaos, intelligible, unintelligible, these are terms humans use to describe human concepts derived from human perspectives on trains of human thought; and tell us nothing concrete in the way of the origins of life or the cosmos.

The only question remaining is, what is the manner of the intelligent Maker, who only makes natural things with flaws and decaying mortality? It's simply a Maker whose will is to make all natural things with mortal flaws and decay. It does not make the Maker flawed.

Or all things are temporal in this life we experience, even the universe as we see it today, and we don't know why. And it ends there for us with the possibility that descendants of this age might learn a lot more about the questions of life than we have down the line.

In fact, ordering all natural things in one way alone, without any chance of another design, is proof of intelligent will and power, that must maintain continued order on all natural things,that were made and are being made:

What do you mean by "ordering all natural things in one way alone"? The rest of your sentence is pure conjecture based in primitive religious cultures. That also thought the gravitational forces of the sun and planet was an intelligent, sentient god.

Rev 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

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

[Carnivalfaces]

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 ...

Yes, I believe the design was optimal originally. But then people rejected God and degeneration begun.

Any empirical evidence to support a decline from optimal origins to counter the piles of evidence from various disciplines of science that supports evolution being part of the process that causes this "genetic junk"?

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....

I think "genetic junk" is one of the best evidences for creation. It shows things were originally good and at one point started to degenerate.

See above and please explain how life appeared scientifically if you think genetics somehow evidences creation? Then explain scientifically how creation works. Please, apologetic websites present psuedo science so don't use them thinking they have true scientific conclusions to offer.

[1213]

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 ...

Yes, I believe the design was optimal originally. But then people rejected God and degeneration begun.

Any empirical evidence to support a decline from optimal origins to counter the piles of evidence from various disciplines of science that supports evolution being part of the process that causes this "genetic junk"?
...
See above and please explain how life appeared scientifically if you think genetics somehow evidences creation? Then explain scientifically how creation works. Please, apologetic websites present psuedo science so don't use them thinking they have true scientific conclusions to offer.

Evidence for decline is: accumulating mutations, which are essentially mistakes in the copy process of DNA. Mistakes means there were once intact DNA that started to decline. If you believe what modern scientists say, whales for example lost their legs.

I don't know accurately how God created. I only know that God created by his words and that in the beginning everything was good. That means, the beings were fully functional and there was no flaws. For example no mutations, or mistakes in the DNA. Later, because of many reasons, there has come many errors to DNA, which has made beings less what they were once.

[Carnivalfaces]

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 ...

Yes, I believe the design was optimal originally. But then people rejected God and degeneration begun.

Any empirical evidence to support a decline from optimal origins to counter the piles of evidence from various disciplines of science that supports evolution being part of the process that causes this "genetic junk"?
...
See above and please explain how life appeared scientifically if you think genetics somehow evidences creation? Then explain scientifically how creation works. Please, apologetic websites present psuedo science so don't use them thinking they have true scientific conclusions to offer.

Evidence for decline is: accumulating mutations, which are essentially mistakes in the copy process of DNA. Mistakes means there were once intact DNA that started to decline. If you believe what modern scientists say, whales for example lost their legs.

I don't know accurately how God created. I only know that God created by his words and that in the beginning everything was good. That means, the beings were fully functional and there was no flaws. For example no mutations, or mistakes in the DNA. Later, because of many reasons, there has come many errors to DNA, which has made beings less what they were once.

What is meant by "optimal"? What's the criteria that distinguishes optimal, more so, less so or not optimal at all? Across what spectrum of life sustaining environments?

Do you have empirical evidence of Adam and Eve and that they were in fact eternal beings before the fall? The bible your source of scientific knowledge? If that is what you mean by "optimal".

[1213]

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 ...

Yes, I believe the design was optimal originally. But then people rejected God and degeneration begun.

Any empirical evidence to support a decline from optimal origins to counter the piles of evidence from various disciplines of science that supports evolution being part of the process that causes this "genetic junk"?
...
See above and please explain how life appeared scientifically if you think genetics somehow evidences creation? Then explain scientifically how creation works. Please, apologetic websites present psuedo science so don't use them thinking they have true scientific conclusions to offer.

Evidence for decline is: accumulating mutations, which are essentially mistakes in the copy process of DNA. Mistakes means there were once intact DNA that started to decline. If you believe what modern scientists say, whales for example lost their legs.

I don't know accurately how God created. I only know that God created by his words and that in the beginning everything was good. That means, the beings were fully functional and there was no flaws. For example no mutations, or mistakes in the DNA. Later, because of many reasons, there has come many errors to DNA, which has made beings less what they were once.

What is meant by "optimal"? What's the criteria that distinguishes optimal, more so, less so or not optimal at all? Across what spectrum of life sustaining environments?

Do you have empirical evidence of Adam and Eve and that they were in fact eternal beings before the fall? The bible your source of scientific knowledge? If that is what you mean by "optimal".

In this case optimal is the state of no errors for example in the DNA. No mutations had yet occurred. And I think mutations, or errors in DNA replication are like a clock that tells how old humans are.

I have no reason to say Adam and Eve were eternal beings on their own before the fall. But, without rejecting God, I think God would have made them to live eternally.

[Carnivalfaces]

Yes, I believe the design was optimal originally. But then people rejected God and degeneration begun.

Any empirical evidence to support a decline from optimal origins to counter the piles of evidence from various disciplines of science that supports evolution being part of the process that causes this "genetic junk"?
...
See above and please explain how life appeared scientifically if you think genetics somehow evidences creation? Then explain scientifically how creation works. Please, apologetic websites present psuedo science so don't use them thinking they have true scientific conclusions to offer.

Evidence for decline is: accumulating mutations, which are essentially mistakes in the copy process of DNA. Mistakes means there were once intact DNA that started to decline. If you believe what modern scientists say, whales for example lost their legs.

I don't know accurately how God created. I only know that God created by his words and that in the beginning everything was good. That means, the beings were fully functional and there was no flaws. For example no mutations, or mistakes in the DNA. Later, because of many reasons, there has come many errors to DNA, which has made beings less what they were once.

What is meant by "optimal"? What's the criteria that distinguishes optimal, more so, less so or not optimal at all? Across what spectrum of life sustaining environments?

Do you have empirical evidence of Adam and Eve and that they were in fact eternal beings before the fall? The bible your source of scientific knowledge? If that is what you mean by "optimal".

In this case optimal is the state of no errors for example in the DNA. No mutations had yet occurred. And I think mutations, or errors in DNA replication are like a clock that tells how old humans are.

I have no reason to say Adam and Eve were eternal beings on their own before the fall. But, without rejecting God, I think God would have made them to live eternally.

You're starting with their existence which hasn't been established. How did these two emerge scientifically? You said you can't explain how your god did it. Hypothesise then, because then how do you know it did it? And if dna was perfect why would it start mutating? This thread highlights known facts about biological mutations that add up over time that can produce completely different looking creatures or produce little differences anatomically from the outside. Definitely biological evolution which has been the conclusion across all the disciplines of science and falsification. So what the bible says has no value unless you can demonstrate how the science works in the creation narrative.

I think you should have left it at you had "no reason to say"... As it is you then went on to say,"I think God would have made them to live eternally." So you do believe they were eternal till the fall though there is no science to support your beliefs. Which is fine but I see it as believing blindly with no reason.

[1213]

...How did these two emerge scientifically? You said you can't explain how your god did it. Hypothesise then, because then how do you know it did it?

I believe God created, because I think it is the most reasonable explanation for life and all that we can see. I think everything we can see in nature points to that everything was originally good, and then started to degenerate. All the evidence for evolution also shows the degeneration.

I don't have any good reason to make up how God created. And even if I would know, i think it would probably be better to not tell it to others.

And if dna was perfect why would it start mutating?

By allowing all kind of things that can cause changes.

This thread highlights known facts about biological mutations that add up over time that can produce completely different looking creatures or produce little differences anatomically from the outside.

In theory. None has shown it to happen. So it is no fact, only a belief.

[Carnivalfaces]

...How did these two emerge scientifically? You said you can't explain how your god did it. Hypothesise then, because then how do you know it did it?

I believe God created, because I think it is the most reasonable explanation for life and all that we can see. I think everything we can see in nature points to that everything was originally good, and then started to degenerate. All the evidence for evolution also shows the degeneration.

But no evidence shows the "optimal" point of beginning that you talked about either. And you admit mutations exist, good. That is what you mean by "degeneration"?

I don't have any good reason to make up how God created. And even if I would know, i think it would probably be better to not tell it to others.

Very wise. But then how could you think you know enough to know evolution is wrong without understanding the scientific processes? Not that evolution seeks to explain abiogenesis because it doesn't; but purely in reference to your distrust of advances made due to the fact evolution is fact.

And if dna was perfect why would it start mutating?

By allowing all kind of things that can cause changes.

So this optimal point wasn't so optimal? Changing your position?

This thread highlights known facts about biological mutations that add up over time that can produce completely different looking creatures or produce little differences anatomically from the outside.

In theory. None has shown it to happen. So it is no fact, only a belief.
[/quote]

There is a wide array of diverse disciplines of science such as geographical, archeological, biological, microscopic biology and genetics just to name a small few that does show it has and is in the process of still happening. The theory of evolution is fact. Your god is a figure of belief.