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 #348]

Perfect. More talk of millions of years past, to override natural science of today. Hey, given millions of years anything is possible with ideological theory, unbound by natural reproductive biology.

No one is denying the power of macro-evolution theory to sustain itself, but only any practical end to it...

Millions of years in the past is possible, and millions of years in the future, just not now. That's how ideological education industries remain supported. However, this one is running it's course, and being relegated back to private funding of fellow ideologues.

It's highly apparent that throwing the word "ideological" at something you don't like makes you feel better, but it doesn't solidify your position.

Millions of years are part of what makes macro-evolution work.

All theories claiming natural science, that reject natural science, are ideological propaganda, not natural science.

2 Timothy{6:20}
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

[The Barbarian]

plants producing fruit tree, primates producing humans...

Fruit trees are plants.

Thanks for the correction. Fruit trees are part of the plant kingdom, the same as fish and amphibians are part of the animal kingdom.

Fish eggs don't produce amphibians, and apple see doesn't produce oranges.

Since you still can't give us a testable definition of "fish" or "amphibian", your belief is completely unsupported.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #351]

All theories claiming natural science, that reject natural science, are ideological propaganda, not natural science.

2 Timothy{6:20}
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

So you found a Bible verse with the word "science" in it and quoted it as if it bolsters your position.

There's nothing wrong with natural science which doesn't fit your misunderstanding of natural science.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to RBD in post #351]

All theories claiming natural science, that reject natural science, are ideological propaganda, not natural science.

2 Timothy{6:20}
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

So you found a Bible verse with the word "science" in it and quoted it as if it bolsters your position.

There's nothing wrong with natural science which doesn't fit your misunderstanding of natural science.

The word in the NT is γνῶσις "gnosis." Meaning "knowledge." Creationists have misunderstood the verse.

[Clownboat]

I acknowledge that you made the claims above that you made.

1) Which has me interested in your explanation for the fossil record that you brought up? Specifically the diversity of life we no longer see on this planet and how it formed.
Slowly, and over grand time scales is one explanation. What would be yours?

I read and believe Gen 1. It remains the most sensible explanation for whole new and different classes of species, that are not produced from, nor can reproduce with one another.

When the fish first appeared on earth, there was no other class of species it could be produced from. Dittoes the fowls, amphibians, mammals, primates, and in the end men and women.

natural science forbids the egg/seed of any class to produce/reproduce with any other class. Reproductive autonomy is a rule of class distinction.

Physical similarities alone are not, and especially do not prove any past union, whether with present or fossil similarities.

2nd attempt. What is your explanation for the fossil record that you brought up? Specifically the diversity of life we no longer see on this planet and how it formed?

2) This would then make it interesting to hear your explanation for the fossil record in the Grand Canyon and how it transitions from bacterial life at the bottom, to ancient marine life to then land dwelling creatures at the top.

That's for archeologists to explain. It has nothing to do with the fact that marine fish eggs cannot biologically produce amphibian land walkers...

I acknowledge that you are unable to account for transitional life as shown in the Grand Canyon. Leaving it to archeologist is just a defense mechanism in place in order for you to maintain your preconceived belief. I cannot respect such thinking.
Be well.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

Such flaws, @Compassionist, can just as easily be explained with Adam and Eve's fall into sin, whereby humanity falls with them into imperfection.

People have said that the presence in us of a tailbone shows that we have descended from an ape-like ancestor, but we can also say that it shows that we have the same Creator in common.

Apparently, you interpret the Bible in the light of science, but a better way is interpreting science in the light of the Bible (Psalm 19:1, 7).

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork....The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." 

[Clownboat]

Such flaws, @Compassionist, can just as easily be explained with Adam and Eve's fall into sin, whereby humanity falls with them into imperfection.

So it would be your argument that humans were made with spines that were not a failed design for walking upright, but that human spines changed after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge?
You must admit, this would be an odd explanation.

People have said that the presence in us of a tailbone shows that we have descended from an ape-like ancestor, but we can also say that it shows that we have the same Creator in common.

Humans are apes. For all sorts of reasons, not just a tailbone.
Anyone is free to imagine that god concept created such things of course, but that has nothing to do with the fact that humans are apes.

Apparently, you interpret the Bible in the light of science, but a better way is interpreting science in the light of the Bible (Psalm 19:1, 7).

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork....The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." 

The Bible is religious promotional material. Not a science book and shouldn't be used to interpret the world around us anymore than the Quran.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #357]

You wrote, "So it would be your argument that humans were made with spines that were not a failed design for walking upright, but that human spines changed after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge? You must admit, this would be an odd explanation."

No, God make Adam and Eve perfect, but their rebellion has the effect of their bodies bringing about decay and death, including imperfections.

You also wrote, "Humans are apes. For all sorts of reasons, not just a tailbone. Anyone is free to imagine that god concept created such things of course, but that has nothing to do with the fact that humans are apes."

You write this statement as if you believe that it is a fact. What makes it a fact instead of a theory? Did you or anyone observe an ape ancestor changing into a human? If it's a theory, you can't be that positive about it.

You finally write, "The Bible is religious promotional material. Not a science book and shouldn't be used to interpret the world around us anymore than the Quran."

No, the principles of the Bible are God's ideas and trump the theories of science any day, because he has given them for believers to use in observing the creation, as the Psalmist says in Psalm 19:1,7,8: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork....The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." 

[Jose Fly]

What makes it a fact instead of a theory?

Please educate yourself in the basics of science before attempting to debate the subject.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/teach-ev ... lution/#e2

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.
CORRECTION: This misconception stems from a mix-up between casual and scientific use of the word theory. In everyday language, theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. In order to be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. Evolution is a well-supported and broadly accepted scientific theory; it is not ‘just’ a hunch. To learn more about the nature of scientific theories, visit the Understanding Science website.

Did you or anyone observe an ape ancestor changing into a human? If it's a theory, you can't be that positive about it.

Again, please educate yourself in the basics of science. We reach conclusions about events we didn't see happen all the time, e.g., archaeology, geology, forensic science.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #359]

I was taught in science class that it starts out as a hypothesis, then develops into a theory, and finally into a fact, when proven, @Jose Fly. Was my teacher wrong? How would you classify evolution among these categories, if they are valid? Just because it is accepted in the scientific community doesn't mean that every single scientist accepts it, does it? I know some scientists who are Christians who believe in microevolution, not macroevolution? Do you believe in both? If so, why?