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.

[Kylie]

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.

Can you show that this is the only explanation? Or even the most plausible explanation?

Obviously people can make countless number of explanations. I think degeneration is what we see, so in my opinion there is no question about what is the most plausible explanation.

And why do you think degeneration is the best answer?

[1213]

And why do you think degeneration is the best answer?

Because it is what we see. Mutations increase, and apparently there is many vestigial parts, which show things were once more than now.

[Difflugia]

Because it is what we see. Mutations increase, and apparently there is many vestigial parts, which show things were once more than now.

How do "we see" this? What are the sources of your data? Are you walking through the woods counting mutations? Are you counting the number of "vestigial parts" that you see in TV shows?

You're just asserting nonsensical things. If your claims actually made sense, you could quantify them. Can you?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #97]

Is there evidence re evolution, that design flaws are rectified?

I wouldn't expect any rectified flaws in evolution because evolution isn't a conscious designer fixing mistakes. It's just a process where organisms adapt (or die off), often times leading to imperfect features.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Sure, lets start with defining it. I then encourage you to investigate how it takes place if you are still interested.

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
noun
1.
the process by which animals, plants, and other living organisms are transformed into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations.

What it is not is a conscious designer. This will be understood once a person understands how the process of evolution works. Failing to understand how the process works allows for our imaginations to get the best of us. Next thing we know we are being asked to provide evidence to show that natural processes are natural.

Can you provide evidence that thunder and lighting don't come from the gods! That is basically what you are asking me William.

light·ning
/ˈlītniNG/
noun
the occurrence of a natural electrical discharge of very short duration and high voltage between a cloud and the ground or within a cloud, accompanied by a bright flash and typically also thunder.

Would it be logical for me to now ask of you for evidence that lighting isn't conscious or making decisions about where to strike? Or is a lack of understanding about lightning required before such a questions will be asked?

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #97]

Is there evidence re evolution, that design flaws are rectified?

I wouldn't expect any rectified flaws in evolution because evolution isn't a conscious designer fixing mistakes. It's just a process where organisms adapt (or die off), often times leading to imperfect features.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Sure, lets start with defining it. I then encourage you to investigate how it takes place if you are still interested.

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
noun
1.
the process by which animals, plants, and other living organisms are transformed into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations.

What it is not is a conscious designer. This will be understood once a person understands how the process of evolution works. Failing to understand how the process works allows for our imaginations to get the best of us. Next thing we know we are being asked to provide evidence to show that natural processes are natural.

Can you provide evidence that thunder and lighting don't come from the gods! That is basically what you are asking me William.

I am asking you to provide evidence for your statement "evolution isn't a conscious designer fixing mistakes". What about "how the process of evolution works" provides evidence that evolution isn't a conscious designer fixing mistakes? If you can show that, then I can accept your statement as a supported claim.

[Clownboat]

I am asking you to provide evidence for your statement "evolution isn't a conscious designer fixing mistakes". What about "how the process of evolution works" provides evidence that evolution isn't a conscious designer fixing mistakes? If you can show that, then I can accept your statement as a supported claim.

I'm perfectly ok that you don't accept/understand or acknowledge (whichever the case may be) the provided definition for evolution and how it doesn't include a conscious designer fixing mistakes.
You're asking me to evidence that a mechanism (decent with modifications in populations) isn't a conscious designer. You have the cart before the horse.

Allow me to demonstrate:
Hey William, see that defined thing that is a bird over there? Please provide me with the evidence that shows it is not a squirrel. Once you do that, I'll accept your statement that the bird is a bird, but not until you first show that it isn't a squirrel.

Shouldn't I at least show that the bird has a fluffy brown tail, that it doesn't have a beak or something before I start demanding to be shown that it isn't a bird? I think so and sit here wondering what you might have, but aren't alluding to that would require me to show you that the mechanism that is evolution isn't actually a designer fixing mistakes.

[William]

[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.

[Kylie]

And why do you think degeneration is the best answer?

Because it is what we see. Mutations increase, and apparently there is many vestigial parts, which show things were once more than now.

And yet evolution can explain all of these.

Why is your idea that we were once perfect and have fallen from that perfection because of sin a more reasonable option?

[1213]

And yet evolution can explain all of these.

The ability to explain is not questioned, only the given explanations.

Why is your idea that we were once perfect and have fallen from that perfection because of sin a more reasonable option?

Because observations show degeneration/devolution, not generation/evolution.

[1213]

Because it is what we see. Mutations increase, and apparently there is many vestigial parts, which show things were once more than now.

How do "we see" this? What are the sources of your data? Are you walking through the woods counting mutations? Are you counting the number of "vestigial parts" that you see in TV shows?

You're just asserting nonsensical things. If your claims actually made sense, you could quantify them. Can you?

Are you saying mutations are not happening and there is no vestigial parts? I can accept your terms.