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 we are to accept the logic of that argument, then it follows that giraffes also rejected God.

1. God created all animals perfectly.
2. Modern giraffes have an anatomical flaw.

What anatomical flaw? How could evolution cause them an anatomical flaw, isn't it supposed to fix those issues?

In Biblical point of view, when God was rejected, many things were corrupted. Could include even giraffes.

[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.

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.

I disagree.

Please explain why?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to 1213 in post #11]

The anatomical flaw I was referring to is the ‘Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve’ (example 4 in the OP).

How could evolution cause them an anatomical flaw, isn't it supposed to fix those issues?

The fact that such a long-necked mammal exists today shows that the comparative advantage of being able to reach high up leaves for food outweighs any flaw that’s the result of gradually (over millennia) naturally selecting for a longer neck.

You ask a reasonable question, but the answer presupposes a willingness to learn a few basic principles about evolution. Is that you?

In Biblical point of view, when God was rejected, many things were corrupted. Could include even giraffes.

That’s simply nonsense. We have a much simpler and self-consistent explanation for the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve than having to hand-wave it into existence as a result of a deity being upset.

[A Freeman]

So, the ignorant and arrogant scientists who mistakenly labeled the part of the human genome that they didn't understand as "junk", have been proven wrong yet again, …

…by whom?

Scientists, it appears.

Your argument therefore looks very much like ‘cherry picking’.

To whom?

To someone who obviously doesn't know what the term "cherry picking" means, or when they're hypocritically doing what they accuse others of doing?

Pointing out the FACT that scientists, who obviously didn't understand the function of the overwhelming majority of DNA, decided to label it as "junk", so they could pretend to know what they're talking about, when they obviously didn't, isn't "cherry-picking"; it's simply pointing out a fact. If they were wrong about the function of the overwhelming majority of DNA, why would anyone logically assume their opinion should be trusted on the small percentage of DNA they didn't call "junk"?

Wouldn't that assumption actually be "cherry-picking", i.e. choosing what seems like the very best of their guesswork, while ignoring their obvious errors on everything else?

If we can actually learn anything from science, it should be that it has a repeating pattern: we make observations about things we know nothing about, and then make assumptions to describe what we believe we are seeing, only to be proven to be wrong again and again. A trial-and-error process we affectionately refer to as "the learning curve".

And worse yet, we then arrogantly and ignorantly use that "science" to try to alter things we know little or nothing about, frequently with disastrous consequences, e.g. ALL genetically-modified organisms.

A perfect example of people pretending they understand "the science" and what logic really is, while making blatantly illogical statements and baseless assumptions, using analogies with loaded questions, etc. Like this:

If we are to accept the logic of that argument, then it follows that giraffes also rejected God.

1. God created all animals perfectly.
2. Modern giraffes have an anatomical flaw.

It isn't the giraffe that believes it has an anatomical flaw, or that it knows better than its Creator. The giraffe, and its design, have functioned well for thousands of years. as evidenced by its continued survival.

It's arrogant and ignorant humans who make such silly assumptions, about things they know nothing about, to try to be clever in a vain effort to mask their own ignorance.

That's why arrogance and ignorance are so dangerous; the arrogance masks the ignorance, including the ignorance of one's own arrogance. Hence the need for humility, to pursue true wisdom.

Proverbs 15:33 The fear of the "I AM" [is] the instruction of Wisdom; and before honour [comes] humility.

[Compassionist]

If we are to accept the logic of that argument, then it follows that giraffes also rejected God.

1. God created all animals perfectly.
2. Modern giraffes have an anatomical flaw.

What anatomical flaw? How could evolution cause them an anatomical flaw, isn't it supposed to fix those issues?

In Biblical point of view, when God was rejected, many things were corrupted. Could include even giraffes.

Did you not read my original post?

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.

Evolution does not have sentience, foresight and strategy. That's why organisms are so flawed.

[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 ...

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

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.

I disagree.

Please explain why?

I disagree because no one has proven to me that the Bible is 100% true. I have done a lot of studying, thinking and research. My conclusion is that the Bible is false. The Biblical God is imaginary and evil. By the way, recent research has discovered utility for "junk DNA". Science is self-correcting. That's what I love about science. Religions do not self-correct.

[Diagoras]

Pointing out the FACT that scientists, who obviously didn't understand the function of the overwhelming majority of DNA, decided to label it as "junk", so they could pretend to know what they're talking about, when they obviously didn't, isn't "cherry-picking"; it's simply pointing out a fact.

More like an opinion than a fact, actually. Which scientists and when? Any article available to corroborate your claim?

If they were wrong about the function of the overwhelming majority of DNA, why would anyone logically assume their opinion should be trusted on the small percentage of DNA they didn't call "junk"?

Because there’s a difference between being ‘wrong’ and being ‘ignorant’. When a scientist determines the coding purpose of a particular gene (making a particular protein for example) but professes not to understand a different gene, that doesn’t mean they are wrong about the first one.

And worse yet, we then arrogantly and ignorantly use that "science" to try to alter things we know little or nothing about, frequently with disastrous consequences, e.g. ALL genetically-modified organisms.

It’s natural to fear that which one doesn’t understand.

It isn't the giraffe that believes it has an anatomical flaw, or that it knows better than its Creator.

Presupposes a ‘Creator’, for one thing…


The reader may be interested in this article which talks about junk DNA:


https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-comp ... -20210901/

[King Phenomenon]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

U R lost

[1213]

....My conclusion is that the Bible is false. The Biblical God is imaginary and evil. By the way, recent research has discovered utility for "junk DNA". Science is self-correcting. That's what I love about science. Religions do not self-correct.

Ok, I don't think anyone can prove Bible false. And I don't think God is evil. But, when science is self correcting, why would anyone trust it is now correct? After 50 years it may have corrected the ideas you now have, and you will look foolish, when you have founded your beliefs on it.

If religion does not self correct, it can be because there is no good reason for doing so.

[1213]

...
Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (Giraffe Example)
• Flaw: This nerve travels from the brain to the larynx, but loops around the aorta.
....

Thanks, I believe there is a good reason for that, and I will wait till "science" self-corrects.