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.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to rob4lynn in post #66]

From an atheist view, it is understandable that these inconsistencies would be there. From a view of a creator, these changes are grace, and there is a plan to redeem creation.

That’s a theological interpretation, not an alternative scientific explanation.
Science deals with mechanisms; theology deals with meaning.
Calling defects “grace” doesn’t account for the mechanism that produced them, whereas evolutionary theory predicts precisely such sub-optimal features as the leftover results of historical constraints.

Examples:

The recurrent laryngeal nerve loops under the aorta because fish ancestors had that layout.
Human eyes have blood vessels in front of the retina because our vertebrate ancestors’ eyes evolved that way.
The human appendix, wisdom teeth, and tailbone are inherited vestiges, not forward-planned designs.

A designer could make the optimal version directly; evolution has to work with what already exists.

It is amazing to me to see everything within the universe would be built on similar building block structures... making everything from the same building blocks would be the sign of intelligent design.

Shared building blocks - DNA, amino acids, cell chemistry - are exactly what we’d expect from common ancestry. If life were separately created, there’s no necessity for identical codons, identical twenty amino acids, or identical genetic errors (pseudogenes) shared across species.
Design predicts functional similarity; evolution uniquely predicts nested hierarchies of shared mistakes, which we observe in genomes across all taxa.

If I create a world and a being that has choices... This introduces within it the start of opposition, and thus suboptimal use of the resources built within the plan.

That explanation might address moral evil, but biological design flaws long predate human choice - blind spots, hernias, cancer-prone cell machinery, and parasitic life cycles existed hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared.
So the “Fall” cannot account for those imperfections in non-human organisms.

What is more interested is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which actually goes to a point that creation happened and then reduced from there. Generally as science sees, decay is the state in which things exist. Thus leading to a conclusion that things don't necessarily evolve, they devolve from the current state.

The law of conservation of mass–energy applies within the universe; it doesn’t mean creation “happened then reduced.”
Entropy (the tendency toward disorder) concerns energy distribution, not biological complexity.
Local increases in order are routine when energy flows through a system - like crystals forming, snowflakes developing, or embryos growing.
Earth constantly receives energy from the Sun, which fuels those local increases in complexity.
So evolution doesn’t violate physics.

If there were things such as evolution, you would expect the human anatomy to have some evidence of change even over thousands of years... bone structure, organs and so forth do not miraculously change.

We do see measurable change:

Genetic: Allele frequencies in human populations shift every generation (e.g., lactose tolerance, malaria resistance, altitude adaptation).
Anatomical: Human skulls have become rounder and smaller in the last 30,000 years; wisdom-tooth frequency and jaw size are decreasing; some people now have extra wrist bones or absent third molars.
Physiological: Average adult height, metabolism, and immune genes evolve through selection and drift.

Evolution is observed in bacteria, insects, and some mammals in real time - human evolution timescales just happen to be long.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #69]

I believe that a product's creator is the one who defines when their product is "complete" with reference to the purpose for which it was designed and created. If a product works according to the purpose for which it was designed and created by its creator, then it is perfect.

That may be true for human manufacturing, where we can ask the designer what the intended function was.
In biology, however, we have no external specifications to consult - only the organisms themselves and the processes we can observe shaping them.
Natural selection produces traits that work well enough to reproduce, not traits that meet any externally declared purpose.
Calling every outcome “perfect” because it exists removes any explanatory power: perfection becomes whatever happens.
Science distinguishes between adaptation (fit for present conditions) and perfection (no possible improvement). No living system meets the second definition.

A human being cannot decide what a perfect human being is, since humans didn't create themselves. In fact, if an evolutionist finds flaws in an organism that "functions effectively," the most they could say is that under current conditions, that organism is flawed from their personal perspective...

In evolutionary biology, “flaw” isn’t a moral judgement; it’s a departure from optimal function given the organism’s goals of survival and reproduction. We can measure inefficiency objectively: the blind spot in the human retina, the risk of choking from a shared airway, the wasteful detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the high rate of spinal problems from bipedalism. These are not “personal perspectives”; they’re quantifiable disadvantages compared with alternative anatomies found in other species. Evolution explains them as inherited constraints - vestiges from earlier body plans - not as moral defects or designer intent.

Deut. 32:3-5 … A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; … They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own.

That passage offers a theological interpretation of human moral failure, not a biological explanation of congenital malformations, vestigial organs, or inefficient anatomical layouts that predate humanity. Invoking divine perfection doesn’t change the anatomical facts - every genome bears the marks of descent, mutation, and compromise. Quoting the Bible doesn't make it true.

Try and make your own.

Humans actually do improve designs: we create vaccines that correct immune limitations, glasses that fix optical flaws, prosthetics that outperform natural limbs, and surgical techniques that repair congenital errors. The very success of medicine and technology demonstrates that our bodies are modifiable systems, not flawless creations.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #72]

Science distinguishes between adaptation (fit for present conditions) and perfection (no possible improvement). No living system meets the second definition.

Then why does "science" have a definition for "perfection"? Are scientists looking for it?

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

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.

Why might we expect that?

Or rather, if there was no contrast, we would have no "expectation" as we would exist in a simulation/creation which reflects the perfection and so - "logically" - we would not question it as we would have no idea as to contrast.

THis is perhaps why the "all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity" idea evolved - because in our simulation/creation we see contrasts and define those as imperfect. THey bear no resemblance to what we could expect from an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity.

Christian (and other theistic mythologies dealing with similar questions) proclaim stuff like a war in heaven where the losers were cast down to the earth.

What was the "war" about? Perhaps someone looked around at all the perfection they were in and wondered if it was a true representation of what an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity and started the rumor that the perfect simulation wasn't actually showing us that this was the result of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity.

Arguments ensured. But in a perfect world, these were not "wars" as humans have them. They were debates. In the end, niether side could clearly show that it was the case - since "imperfection" had arisen from the apparent perfection and asked the question..."If I exist in a system which represents the exactly expected reflection of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity then, why does he sit on a throne while the rest of us serve him?"

Why are we all not sitting on that throne? What's up with that?

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.

Yes - so we can dovetail that nicely into the mythology.
Since niether side could effective answer the imperfect question which had arisen, agreement was reached whereby those who felt doubt about the perfect reflection of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity, would create a place whereby they could explore the question through the experience of a different simulation/creation...something which as it turns out, cannot easily be said to be "perfect" or "imperfect" other than perhaps - it is the "perfect" place in which to - if not find answer - then at least shed light.

Tell me Compassionist. How do you imagine in your expectations what it might be like if one existed in a simulation-creation which perfectly reflected an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #72]

Science distinguishes between adaptation (fit for present conditions) and perfection (no possible improvement). No living system meets the second definition.

Then why does "science" have a definition for "perfection"? Are scientists looking for it?

Science defines perfection conceptually for the same reason it defines vacuum, infinity, or absolute zero - to mark theoretical limits, not to claim those limits exist in nature.

A “perfect vacuum” is one with zero particles per cubic metre, but scientists have never produced one.
A “perfect crystal” has atoms in flawless symmetry, but every real crystal contains defects.
Likewise, a “perfect organism” would be one that cannot be improved for any environment. Evolution, however, produces fit enough organisms, not perfect ones.

So the term perfection exists as a benchmark for comparison, not as an object of search. Science studies how systems adapt and how trade-offs limit improvement; the word “perfect” is just a boundary case in that analysis, not a goal of discovery.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to William in post #74]

That’s an interesting speculative framework - the idea that “imperfection” might exist only as a contrast within a larger simulation is imaginative, but it moves the discussion from evidence to mythology.

In science, an explanation earns credibility not by being possible to imagine, but by making testable predictions.
Evolution by natural selection predicts exactly what we observe:

1. Structures that reuse older designs rather than starting from scratch (e.g., vertebrate eyes wired backwards, human spines adapted from quadrupeds, panda’s “thumb,” recurrent laryngeal nerve looping under the aorta).
2. Genetic and anatomical vestiges of ancestry.
3. Trade-offs rather than perfection.

These are all measurable facts, not narrative contrasts.

By contrast, positing that imperfections exist because we are in a divine simulation designed to let us “explore doubt” adds layers of untestable assumptions - about heaven, rebellion, and intent - without increasing predictive power. It could be true in principle, but it explains nothing that evolution doesn’t already explain more simply.

“What would it be like to exist in a simulation perfectly reflecting an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity?”
It would likely be a world without suffering, injustice, death, predation, disease, or error; every being would experience maximal flourishing, and moral growth would occur without harm. Since that is manifestly not our world, the hypothesis of divine perfection predicts the wrong universe, while evolution predicts exactly this one - dynamic, adaptive, and imperfect.

[William]

That’s an interesting speculative framework - the idea that “imperfection” might exist only as a contrast within a larger simulation is imaginative, but it moves the discussion from evidence to mythology.

Much like dying might do the same. The mythology isn't beyond reason any more than the theory of multiple universes are.
Point being, if we accepts that only nothing can ever come from nothing, we cannot explain something coming from nothing as reasonable explanation for something existing. The fact is we at least know the something we are existing within, and we have yet to show it is or is not a created thing.

In science, an explanation earns credibility not by being possible to imagine, but by making testable predictions.
Evolution by natural selection predicts exactly what we observe:

Evolution is simply the explanation of what we observe. It does not explain to us how what we observe came to be observable.

1. Structures that reuse older designs rather than starting from scratch (e.g., vertebrate eyes wired backwards, human spines adapted from quadrupeds, panda’s “thumb,” recurrent laryngeal nerve looping under the aorta).
2. Genetic and anatomical vestiges of ancestry.
3. Trade-offs rather than perfection.

These are all measurable facts, not narrative contrasts.

Yes. But you have overreached the measurable facts but narrating good and evil into them and declaring the contrast between what we should "expect" from an omni-creator in the way of creative reflections which are true to that concept. Introducing mythology on top of that argument should be acceptable...not to observable scientific limitations because those don't venture where your question is venturing.

By contrast, positing that imperfections exist because we are in a divine simulation designed to let us “explore doubt” adds layers of untestable assumptions - about heaven, rebellion, and intent - without increasing predictive power. It could be true in principle, but it explains nothing that evolution doesn’t already explain more simply.

"More simply" excludes such in order to be "more simple" but niether does it answer the questions you pose here.

“What would it be like to exist in a simulation perfectly reflecting an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity?”
It would likely be a world without suffering, injustice, death, predation, disease, or error; every being would experience maximal flourishing, and moral growth would occur without harm. Since that is manifestly not our world, the hypothesis of divine perfection predicts the wrong universe, while evolution predicts exactly this one - dynamic, adaptive, and imperfect.

And isn't that what the mythology provides by way of "heaven"?

And if "heaven" were another name for "prior universe from which our universe derived", by way of explaining why our universe is as it is?

Admittedly, it is not as "simple" as the explanation physical observable science offers, but since that particular science doesn't invest itself in mythology, (it dabbles, as with multi universe theory etc) how is that the correct instrument to answer your questioning?

Re that, do you think that a world without suffering, injustice, death, predation, disease, or error; every being would experience maximal flourishing, and moral growth would occur without harm would have in it a throne with one being as the most superior and all others ranked according to station and usefulness?

eta:
UICDS: A massive game where influence determines outcome
If You Must Believe - Believe This:
Choose What to Pay Attention To
Why do people have different levels of intelligence?
Self-mastery
Sensing connections through subconscious means

Me: So yes, I accept that (re my own subjective experience in this “so-so” simulation-creation… the Bible God is the expected reflection of a “so-so” environment…but not the expected reflection of a God in an environment created to specifically reflect the creativity of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity.

And because expectation arose in the “heaven” environment, questioning happened…

So, how I would answer the question of what type of environment I would expect to experience as a perfect reflection of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity…I would desist with “environment” as in, I would not make simulation creations at all, because I am perfect and complete without those “extras”…

SOURCE

[Compassionist]

[Replying to William in post #77]

That’s an interesting continuation of your simulation-creation model, but it seems to conflate three very different kinds of reasoning:

1. Scientific explanation: which describes and predicts observable regularities;
2. Metaphysical speculation: which asks why anything exists at all; and
3. Mythic narrative: which uses story to express meaning.

Each has its own standards of evaluation. The problem arises when we slide between them without noticing.

“Evolution is simply the explanation of what we observe. It does not explain to us how what we observe came to be observable.”

Exactly - and it doesn’t need to. Evolution explains the diversity and imperfection of life once life exists.
The question of why there is something rather than nothing belongs to cosmology and metaphysics, not biology. Mixing those questions makes both less clear. It’s true that the origin of the universe isn’t yet fully understood, but quantum cosmology offers a plausible, natural mechanism.
In several well-supported models - such as those proposed by Tryon (1973), Vilenkin (1982), and Hawking (1983) - universes can spontaneously arise from quantum fluctuations in a vacuum or quantum field. Because total energy can sum to zero (positive mass-energy balanced by negative gravitational energy), such a “quantum tunnelling from nothing” event doesn’t violate conservation laws.

That doesn’t mean this is proven; it’s a working hypothesis under investigation, consistent with quantum field theory and general relativity.
Unlike mythological or supernatural explanations, it’s grounded in known physics, produces testable predictions (for instance, specific inflationary signatures in the cosmic microwave background), and doesn’t require positing an uncaused God with unverifiable intentions.

So when we talk about plausibility:

A quantum fluctuation model is consistent with empirical physics, though unconfirmed.

A divine-creation model is unfalsifiable, resting on assertion rather than measurable consequence.

Until further evidence emerges, the honest position is: we don’t yet know, but natural models show that an intelligent designer isn’t required for universes to exist.

“You have overreached the measurable facts by narrating good and evil into them.”

My point about “imperfection” wasn’t moral but functional. A retina wired backwards isn’t “evil”; it’s sub-optimal engineering by human design standards, but exactly what we’d expect from a lineage constrained by ancestry. The contrast is explanatory, not ethical.

“And isn’t that what the mythology provides by way of ‘heaven’?”

Yes - mythology offers imaginative pictures of perfection. Science offers models that predict fossils, genomes, and developmental pathways. They address different questions: meaning versus mechanism. When we ask which model best explains the physical facts, the answer has to come from data, not narrative symmetry.

“Re that, do you think a world without suffering … would have a throne with one being as the most superior?”

If perfection means maximal flourishing for all, hierarchy would be unnecessary. A being that is all-loving and all-knowing would have no need to dominate; cooperation and understanding would be intrinsic. That’s precisely why the hierarchical imagery in many scriptures looks like a projection of ancient monarchy, not a reflection of infinite benevolence.

So yes - mythological frameworks can be creative metaphors for questions about origin and purpose. But when we test which framework best explains the pattern of life’s design flaws, vestigial organs, and evolutionary trade-offs, only evolutionary theory makes predictions that are specific, testable, and confirmed. The “divine simulation” model is imaginative, but it doesn’t yield measurable consequences we can check.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #78]

Mythological frameworks can be creative metaphors for questions about origin and purpose. But when we test which framework best explains the pattern of life’s design flaws, vestigial organs, and evolutionary trade-offs, only evolutionary theory makes predictions that are specific, testable, and confirmed.

We appear to be agreeing on that as neither of us has argued elsewise.

That’s an interesting continuation of your simulation-creation model, but it seems to conflate three very different kinds of reasoning:

It isn't a case of conflating but rather joining the dots. Finding where the various pieces fit to create a coherent picture.
As my position on the experience goes, (Agnostic Gnosis) I am free to do this, whereas you from your position (Agnostic - Agnostic), are not.
That is really all the difference is between our models.

The “divine simulation” model is imaginative, but it doesn’t yield measurable consequences we can check.

I would label that as "The Divined Simulation-creation model" and it does yield measurable consequences we can check and replicate - but to what degree we do so, is up to each individual.

Do we exist in a created thing or not and how does one go about gathering evidence?

The simplest guideline re that is less simply than the guidelines your position forces you to follow.

Unlike mythological or supernatural explanations, it’s grounded in known physics, produces testable predictions (for instance, specific inflationary signatures in the cosmic microwave background), and doesn’t require positing an uncaused God with unverifiable intentions.

Mythology does not necessarily show us that anything is "supernatural" in the first place, any more than we could or should argue that other universes must be "supernatural"

The mythology of Heaven can be seen this way. Not as a supernatural place but as a prior universe birthing or having something to do with the creation of our universe.

That is how I read it. The question is posed in Heaven, and a possible solution answering the question is introduced by means of a simulated - creation which can allow for a more flexible examination under such conditions enabling possible answers to come from that.

Even in you answer to my question as to what we should expect IF our universe was created by a perfectly good being

If perfection means maximal flourishing for all, hierarchy would be unnecessary. A being that is all-loving and all-knowing would have no need to dominate; cooperation and understanding would be intrinsic. That’s precisely why the hierarchical imagery in many scriptures looks like a projection of ancient monarchy, not a reflection of infinite benevolence.

One can say the same then of Heaven, else it would not have necessitated the creations of any further universe.

That is why I think I offered the better answer. "I would answer the question of what type of environment I would expect to experience as a perfect reflection of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity…I would desist with “environment” as in, I would not make simulation creations at all, because I am perfect and complete without those “extras”…

Those "extras" that would not be required, naturally include "others" You me, and any other individual entity would not exist because of this. Do you agree with that assessment?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #79]

I would label that as "The Divined Simulation-creation model" and it does yield measurable consequences we can check and replicate - but to what degree we do so, is up to each individual.

I have be accumulating said evidence even before I came to the realisation that I have been doing this my whole life.
Once I realised this, I was then able to focus on making this a conscious experience rather than simply having it continue to sit in the subconscious "inner universe" - something I was also able to study and communicate with in amazing insightful ways. In that, I included the aspect of imagination, connecting that to a natural extension of intelligence, rather than defining it as more or less "Baggage of Unnecessary Silliness" that the subjective human needn't haul around with.

One thing I do carry around with me re evidence, is my Name to Number notebook. That allows me to organize mathematically phrases such as "Baggage of Unnecessary Silliness" - which when used with a simple code - shows organisation is possible between words and language use in general.

So far my N2N notebook has the following same-numeric-values, in the order that they were placed there.

313
Diligently Observing Data Offered.
Mindfulness Beyond Mathematics
For Your Greater Enjoyment
Forty days and forty nights
Move beyond the human condition
But is that really the truth
Turning Disorder into Order
It Is Only Occult If It Is Hidden
Baggage of Unnecessary Silliness

This evidence points toward the "what was once hidden can be revealed" buzz...so I will continue to be diligent re the data, observing that my imagination has coupled me with a mindfulness beyond just math, because admittedly yes, I do enjoy it - although to begin with it was a a 40d&40n type mission and thus not always enjoyable - that part grew as I learned to think of myself as "not just the human condition" and aligned with the various "mysteries" as they were sorted...yes we can go there BUT "is that really the truth?" and I think to myself, "why yes it is!" because, in its revealing, what appeared to be chaos is shown to be Order - and has always been - Orderly...ordered. I am free to follow the orderly...

305
Keeping Things In Perspective
Positive Social Connections
Something has always existed
Something not worth debating
Communication through feeling
The Second Bible Creation Story
I am free to follow the orderly...