Why design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence, nor the reason for the compulsory existence of a god:

The dysteleological argument or argument from poor design is an argument against the existence of God, specifically against the existence of a creator God (in the sense of a God that directly created all species of life). It is based on the following chain of reasoning:

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


The argument is structured as a basic Modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:

Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
This creator is God.

"Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

In terms of a fitness landscape, natural selection will always push "up the hill", but a species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley.

The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin; modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generally reject the argument from design, but do still maintain belief in the existence of God.


Source

Do you have any example of this poor design?

Examples:

In humans

Several flaws in the human design frequently result in death, especially without modern medical care:

⁰In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

⁰⁰In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.

⁰⁰⁰The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this "oversight".

Some other examples:

ⁱBarely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot, that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case.

ⁱⁱThe common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.

ⁱⁱⁱAlmost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and in guinea pigs, but is functional in most other animals.


^ivFemale org.asm is usually produced only by the direct stimulation of the cli.toris. The cli.toris is not typically stimulated during se,x.ual intercourse.

Example from other life forms:

^o_oIn the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials.

ⁱ_iIntricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers.

^y_yThe existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.

^d_dThe route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals; in the case of the giraffe, this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.

^r_rThe loss of tetrachromatic vision by mammals as compared to other tetrapods.

^s_sPlants are green and not black, even though black plants would absorb more light energy.

ooman: Examples:

In humans

Several flaws in the human design frequently result in death, especially without modern medical care:

Let's have the flaws.

ooman:
⁰In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

I don't consider this to be an indication of a flawed system. If a human female will take into consideration every activity demanded of her during prenatal care, the possibility of this happening will be zero. Disorderliness in this human system is usually followed by a pathological or physiological cause. I would appreciate an example that doesn't contradict the normal cycle by pathological or physiolohgical means.

ooman:
⁰⁰In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.

But this is not a design problem either. You are telling me that a system designed to eject a certain size of head under normal circumstances, is flawed because it cannot take some big head size. You missed something. Why is the head so big in the first place? What caused it. That I think is where the problem is coming from.

ooman:
⁰⁰⁰The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this "oversight".

I don't understand this part.

Reyginus: Let's have the flaws.
I don't consider this to be an indication of a flawed system. If a human female will take into consideration every activity demanded of her during prenatal care, the possibility of this happening will be zero. Disorderliness in this human system is usually followed by a pathological or physiological cause. I would appreciate an example that doesn't contradict the normal cycle by pathological or physiolohgical means.
But this is not a design problem either. You are telling me that a system designed to eject a certain size of head under normal circumstances, is flawed because it cannot take some big head size. You missed something. Why is the head so big in the first place? What caused it. That I think is where the problem is coming from.
I don't understand this part.

Can you activate your thinking faculty before writing. You are under no obligation to respond, so stop writing rubbish. Read, understand, then respond.

You didnt respond to the arguments, you only gave a reply from your retarded brain.

ooman: Some other examples:

ⁱBarely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot, that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case.

Lol. Genetics and pathology explains the above.

ooman:
ⁱⁱThe common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.

Common malformation of the vertebral coloum? Common? What do you mean by the above?

ooman:
ⁱⁱⁱAlmost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and in guinea pigs, but is functional in most other animals.

This is a classification problem. How do expect the Kingdom Animalia to exhibit the same functions as the Plantae? This example is completely out.

ooman:
^ivFemale orgasm is usually produced only by the direct stimulation of the clitoris. The clitoris is not typically stimulated during sexual intercourse.

Lol. How is this a design problem?

ooman:

Can you activate your thinking faculty before writing. You are under no obligation to respond, so stop writing rubbish. Read, understand, then respond.

You didnt respond to the arguments, you only gave a reply from your retarded brain.

Oh! Is that so? You see, you cannot attribute a pathological, or genetic outcome to a flaw in design. Do you really want to discuss?

Reyginus: Oh! Is that so? You see, you cannot attribute a pathological, or genetic outcome to a flaw in design. Do you really want to discuss?

Huh?

plaetton:


Huh?

More . The dude went about posting examples without considering which is induced or not. Pseudoscience my foot!

You can also give an example with headache or people big eyes.

Reyginus: More . The dude went about posting examples without considering which is induced or not. Pseudoscience my foot!

Everything the dud posted made made sense.

Rather than asking questions and trying to put meaningless posers to him, why don't you, if you can , try to explain the issues in plain english.

Like the dude said, you are not compelled to respond id you do not have enough ammunition to rebut all his points.

plaetton:

Everything the dud posted made made sense.

Rather than asking questions and trying to put meaningless posers to him, why don't you, if you can , try to explain the issues in plain english.

Like the dude said, you are not compelled to respond id you do not have enough ammunition to rebut all his points.

I don't have to. I just want one thing from him. To tell me all the above are not genetic, pathological or categorically induced. More like saying that a squeezed placenta is evidence of poor design.
Big head. Why don't humans photosynthesize like plants. Why the female doesn't get the heavenly feeling. Mehn! He should go back and re-equip. You can help him too.

ooman: Why design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence, nor the reason for the compulsory existence of a god:

The dysteleological argument or argument from poor design is an argument against the existence of God, specifically against the existence of a creator God (in the sense of a God that directly created all species of life). It is based on the following chain of reasoning:

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


The argument is structured as a basic Modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:

Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
This creator is God.

"Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

In terms of a fitness landscape, natural selection will always push "up the hill", but a species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley.

The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin; modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generally reject the argument from design, but do still maintain belief in the existence of God.


Source

U just roam about trying to encourage urself. Abi? Evangelist ooman