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.

[1213]

... If they didn't evolve from land animals, and other mammals in particular, whence alveolar lungs, mammary glands, and placental pregnancy?

As I said, I believe those qualities were created. And one reason why I believe so is, I think it would be impossible for evolution to develop those without the animal being killed while waiting thousands of years correct changes and mutations.

[Carnivalfaces]

... If they didn't evolve from land animals, and other mammals in particular, whence alveolar lungs, mammary glands, and placental pregnancy?

As I said, I believe those qualities were created. And one reason why I believe so is, I think it would be impossible for evolution to develop those without the animal being killed while waiting thousands of years correct changes and mutations.

How does that in your mind mean evolution, which is fact, didn't happen?

[Kylie]

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.

Yeah, you keep saying it is degeneration, but all you are doing is making big claims. Where is your evidence to support the idea that it is degeneration?

[Kylie]

... If they didn't evolve from land animals, and other mammals in particular, whence alveolar lungs, mammary glands, and placental pregnancy?

As I said, I believe those qualities were created. And one reason why I believe so is, I think it would be impossible for evolution to develop those without the animal being killed while waiting thousands of years correct changes and mutations.

Do you think it's possible that maybe you don't have sufficient understanding of evolution to make such a statement? Do you think that maybe there are things in evolution that you don't know about that could provide an explanation for how it happened according to the way science says it happened?

[Compassionist]

as many times as I have baked a chocolate cake, occasionally it flops in the oven ... It does not indicate that an intelligent person did not construct it and bake it ... it simply means “stuff happens”

I understand the intuition behind the analogy, but it breaks down in an important way.

When a cake fails, we already independently know:
• a baker exists
• the baker has limited power and knowledge
• mistakes, distractions, and constraints are normal.

So a failed cake is compatible with an intelligent but fallible designer.

Biology is different.

The claim of intelligent design usually involves a designer who is:
• is allegedly all-knowing
• is allegedly all-powerful
• intentionally designing organisms.

In that context, systematic, inherited design flaws are not just “stuff happens” — they require explanation.

Examples include:
• The recurrent laryngeal nerve looping meters out of its way.
• Blind spots in vertebrate eyes.
• Wisdom teeth causing crowding in human mouths.
• The human spine being poorly adapted for bipedalism.

These are not one-off accidents. They are predictable, inherited constraints that make sense if organisms are modified from earlier forms, and are exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

If the designer is allowed to be:
• limited
• error-prone
• constrained by prior designs.

Then, the view quietly collapses into something very close to evolution anyway.

So the argument is not:

“Flaws mean no intelligence”

It is:

The specific pattern of flaws we observe is far better explained by descent with modification than by intentional optimal design by an all-knowing and all-powerful God.

That’s why biologists see design flaws as evidence for evolution.

[Difflugia]

... If they didn't evolve from land animals, and other mammals in particular, whence alveolar lungs, mammary glands, and placental pregnancy?

As I said, I believe those qualities were created.

You've repeatedly said this. All of the reasons you've supplied are false, but yes, we know you believe it.

And one reason why I believe so is, I think it would be impossible for evolution to develop those without the animal being killed while waiting thousands of years correct changes and mutations.

Your beliefs about the underlying mechanism and math are obviously wrong. Within a population, organisms that are even slightly more fit than others and die even slightly less often will, over those thousands of years, gain a larger and larger population share leading to fixation within the population.

To be sure, there are populations that are so negatively affected by some novel change to the environment that they do die off before evolution can provide an adaptation. That describes essentially every extinction event. Most changes to the environment and phenotypically important mutations aren't quite so binary, though, and your objection applies to the exception rather than the rule.

[Difflugia]

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.

"Best treated?" It seems to me that considering settled science as opinion is only "best" if you're trying to justify magic.

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.

Clownboat's statement is that there's no evidence of mindfulness. That's "true/fact." Your critique is an attempt to "unnecessarily multiply entities," in the words of Occam's Razor. You want to add things to this already complete breakfast without having to justify their addition. "You can't prove that this can of shaving cream doesn't make this breakfast better in some way that we can't measure!"

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.

Right. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that mere possibility isn't enough and that's fatal to your argument.

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

Science has determined that it's indistinguishable from what you're calling an accident in all the ways we can measure. Of course, it's still possible that there's some immeasurable form of nutrition in that can of shaving cream. Almost certainly not, but only almost. Reality might require fairy dust and Frosty's magic hat, too. Probably not, but it's possible.

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.

They absolutely have. The papers I linked last time show that the evolutionary outcomes that we have are consistent with the completely natural processes that we know about. Those processes are sufficient. It's possible that there's something else going on that's otherwise undetectable, but whatever that might be is superfluous. That in itself is fact. One might apply "opinion" to the idea that something unnecessary and undetectable isn't real, but we can't wish away the data showing that it is in fact unnecessary and undetectable.

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.

That's right. Those atheistic beliefs are only almost certainly true.

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

That's also right. It's only almost certain that there are no gods.

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.

As long as you "accept such statements as belief based opinion," anyway.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #137]

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

"Best treated?" It seems to me that considering settled science as opinion is only "best" if you're trying to justify magic.

Justify that the science is settled by providing the evidence. I am not arguing for anything, "magic" or otherwise, so if your comment is to say the only alternative to mindless evolution is "magic" you will have to explain why that is your opinion and that still won't let you off the hook of providing positive evidence that evolution is a mindless process.

Clownboat's statement is that there's no evidence of mindfulness. That's "true/fact."

As a statement of fact, it falls short. As a statement of opinion, it has no substance. It is meaningless other than to say that in ones opinion, "there is no evidence of mindfulness." It is also "true/fact." that there is no evidence of mindlessness which anyone has presented to support that opinion.

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.

Right. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that mere possibility isn't enough and that's fatal to your argument.

Not at all. It is possible either way, and you admitted this in you earlier post where you wrote "It's possible that something else, like a cosmic mindfulness, is involved..." and then add "but there's no evidence of any such something" meaning in your opinion, the evidence does not support mindfulness. Now you can stick with that as you wish, but that doesn't make your opinion valid/true without explaining the evidence you might have shows us positively that mindfulness is not involved in the process. Just saying "nothing changes if it's not there" is simply more opinion.

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

Science has determined that it's indistinguishable from what you're calling an accident in all the ways we can measure.

What science has determined any such thing?
Presently it remains an opinion and opinion doesn't magically become truth simply because a majority of scientists have the opinion that "that it's indistinguishable". Science doesn't say anything about what is distinguishable. You need to understand the difference between science (a process) and scientists (sentient beings with opinions.)

Of course, it's still possible that there's some immeasurable form of nutrition in that can of shaving cream. Almost certainly not, but only almost. Reality might require fairy dust and Frosty's magic hat, too. Probably not, but it's possible.

Going off on a "magical" tangent might afford you a belief your position is unassailable, but it is my opinion that it is delusional to think of mindfulness in such a manner. You can either explain why you resort to magical language in relation to mindfulness, or you can drop such argument as the silliness that it is, and focus on what I am actually arguing.

If it is your opinion that mindfulness is immeasurable, (too large, extensive, or extreme to measure) then you will need to back that up with evidence in order to promote that opinion to something worth investigating.

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.

They absolutely have. The papers I linked last time show that the evolutionary outcomes that we have are consistent with the completely natural processes that we know about.

Linking papers is useless. If those papers have any evidence to support your opinion here, to elevate it to a claim worth investigating, then quote from those papers what you think is relevant evidence.
Presently your statement of opinion tells us that scientists believe that mindfulness is not a natural process. I find that hard to believe and think it more likely that you are inflicting your own beliefs onto what scientists think.

But even if these papers do indeed show us that the majority of scientist do not think mindfulness is a natural thing, why should we believe these?

One might apply "opinion" to the idea that something unnecessary and undetectable isn't real, but we can't wish away the data showing that it is in fact unnecessary and undetectable.

The opinion that mindfulness is "unnecessary" to the process of evolution does not make it fact/true. The opinion that mindfulness is "undetectable" re the process of evolution does not make it fact/true.

It may be more likely that such opinions are the product of confirmation bias. How do these scientists measure mindfulness in relation to their observations of evolution? Apparently your opinion is that they do not because mindfulness is immeasurable, (too large, extensive, or extreme to measure).

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.

That's right. Those atheistic beliefs are only almost certainly true.

Lathering more opinion on top of opinion doesn't make something true. "Almost certainly true" ≠ "certainly true".

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

That's also right. It's only almost certain that there are no gods.

More opinion! In order to upgrade your opinion to something worth investigating, you would need to define what you mean by "gods" and show that we do not exist within a created thing.

________________________________________________________

There is a critical, often overlooked problem with popular scientist consensus.

If the consensus statement is:

"The scientific models of evolution work without needing to include mindfulness as a causal factor."

That is valid and reflects methodological practice.

But if the consensus belief of scientists extends to:

"Therefore, evolution is a fundamentally mindless process in its entirety, including its origin and overarching nature."

Then that consensus faces a self-referential problem.

Any scientists forming this consensus are products of evolution using evolved mindfulness to study the process. Their conclusion ("it's mindless") is a mindful output of the very system they claim is mindless. If their conclusion is true, then the mindful reasoning that produced it is ultimately an illusion. A deterministic chemical outcome which undermines the rational authority of the conclusion itself.

A mindless process cannot produce binding rational truth, only conditioned responses. A consensus of minds claiming to have discovered "mindlessness" as an objective fact is caught in a performative contradiction.

Therefore, the scientific consensus on mechanisms is robust, but any consensus on the ultimate, metaphysical nature of the process (as inherently mindless) is not a scientific finding, but a philosophical stance that inadvertently borrows from the very quality (mind, reason, meaning) it seeks to dismiss from its own origin story.

The true, humble scientific position is agnostic on the ultimate "mindlessness" of the whole. It can only describe the rules of the game it finds itself playing.

iow

Scientists have determined that the models work without inserting a 'mind variable.' That is methodological practice. To leap from 'our models don't need it' to 'therefore, reality is devoid of it' is to commit the fallacy of scientism. More critically, the leap is self-refuting - using a mindful product of evolution (reason) to declare the entire process mindless. If true, reasoning is an illusion, and conclusion is untrustworthy. The only consistent, humble scientific position is agnosticism on the nature of the process.

[1213]

...All of the reasons you've supplied are false

You expect me to believe that without any good reason?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

Evolution is a false, naturalistic religion.

Before you begin to explain away Creationism, by using evolution...you must first explain in abiogenesis, with evolution.

Can't do it.