Unintelligent Design - The Evolutionary Compromises That Made The Human Female Pelvis - No Intelligence Involved

Virtual reconstructions of the Neanderthal pelvises of a 1.5-year-old infant from Dederiyeh Cave, Syria (left), and a young adult female from Sima de las Palomas de Cabezo Gordo, Spain (right). Age- and sex-matched modern human pelvises are superimposed in transparency to highlight form differences.

Image credit: Marcia Ponce de León
and Christoph Zollikofer
(University of Zurich)

A Neanderthal woman and Baby. Her Pelvis is the result of the same evolutionary processes as that of Homo sapiens women.

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.6 Sol).

Rethinking Birth and Bipedalism - School of Science University of Tokyo

The human pelvis is a particularly poor candidate for anyone wishing to argue that the human body was intelligently designed from scratch. It must support the upper body, anchor muscles used in standing and locomotion, protect internal organs, maintain the pelvic floor and— in females—provide a passage through which a large-bodied, large-brained infant can be born. The result is not an ideal solution to a single engineering problem, but an evolutionary compromise assembled by modifying an inherited structure while several competing selection pressures acted upon it.

For much of the past century, one influential explanation for its shape has been the “obstetrical dilemma”. According to the simplest version of this hypothesis, the female pelvis represents a compromise between a birth canal wide enough to accommodate a large-brained baby and hips narrow enough to permit efficient bipedal walking. Childbirth pushes pelvic evolution in one direction, in other words, while locomotion pushes it in the other.

That explanation has never been beyond dispute. Studies have questioned whether wider hips necessarily impose the assumed energetic penalty on walking or running, while alternative hypotheses have emphasised maternal metabolism, infant development and the need for a stable pelvic floor capable of supporting the abdominal organs. The pelvis is involved in too many functions for its evolution necessarily to be reduced to a single contest between walking and childbirth.

Unintelligent Design - The Perpetual Evolutionary Arms Race In Your Gut

Certain bacteriophages found in the human gut have mutation hotspots scattered throughout their genomes that help them modify key defense genes, researchers report.

Credit: Sundharraman Subramanian and Alaina Pabbathi
Cryo-EM Core Facility
Michigan State University

Mutation hotspots help 'friendly' viruses outmaneuver the bacteria in your gut

One of the more persistent creationist falsehoods is the claim that mutations can only damage or destroy genetic information and can therefore provide none of the variation needed for evolution. The claim is usually protected from contrary evidence by leaving “information” conveniently undefined or by dismissing every beneficial mutation as merely a “loss of function”.

However, a new study by Jasper B. Gomez, Jeffrey E. Barrick and Christopher M. Waters of Michigan State University provides an especially clear demonstration of mutation generating heritable variation on which natural selection can act. Their findings were published in Nature Microbiology.

The researchers found that the genomes of the bacteriophages T2 and T4 — viruses that infect bacteria such as Escherichia coli — contain regions of repetitive DNA called contingency loci. These are mutational hotspots in which the DNA-copying machinery is particularly liable to slip while copying a run of repeated bases. It may insert or omit one of the repeats, changing the way the remainder of a gene is read and consequently altering the protein it produces.

Such replication errors occur in these regions thousands of times more frequently than mutations across the rest of the phage genome. Far from producing a population of genetically identical copies, therefore, phage replication continually generates a mixture of variants with different inherited characteristics.

The discovery arose from experiments involving a bacterial antiviral system called TgvAB, normally found in Vibrio cholerae, the bacterium that causes cholera. The researchers transferred the genes for this defence system into laboratory E. coli and exposed the bacteria to T2 phages. Although the defence initially restricted the phages, the viral population began overcoming it within hours.

Unintelligent Design - How Badly-Designed Mitochondria Can Make Us Sick - When They Behave Like Their Ancestral Bacteria

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.6 Sol)

Malevolent Design - More Evidence That Malaria Was 'Designed' By Creationism's Putative Designer God? - Or Just Evolution Again?

A daughter parasite forms through budding from the mother cell.

As budding of the daughter parasite progresses and membrane protrusion increases (yellow), the molecular safety rope (blue) lengthens.

The images were created based on electron microscopy data and processed using AI.

© UKHD

Figure EV1: Blood-stage immunofluorescence expression profile of PfSFA2 and ultrastructure expansion microscopy (U-ExM) of PfSFA1 localization.

(A) IFA of PfSFA2-smV5 expression across the asexual blood stages, stained with an anti-V5 antibody (green), an anti-PfGAP45 antibody (magenta), and Hoechst (DNA, blue). “Ring” stage with one nucleus, trophozoite stage (“Troph”) with 2, and several stages throughout schizogony, including segmentation, are shown with the number of nuclei. The minimum and maximum displayed values for the PfSFA2-V5 and PfGAP45 channels follow the “Reset” values of the first segmentation image. Scale bars: 2 µm. (B) U-ExM of PfSFA1-smV5 schizonts stained with an anti-V5 antibody (cyan), an anti-CrCen antibody (outer-CP, magenta), SYTOX (DNA, blue), and an NHS ester-conjugated dye (grayscale). Sub-z-slices of a 7-nuclei (top) and a 14-nuclei (bottom) schizont are maximally projected and shown to the left. Representative centriolar plaque regions are numbered and shown as insets to the right. Z-depth of each maximum projection is shown to the right. Scale bars: 5 µm for full schizont; 1 µm for inset.

He, B., Ali, I., Dorner, L.P. et al. (2026).

News - Research in Germany

Creationists insist that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved. If several interacting components are required for a system to function, they label it “irreducibly complex”; if genes encode proteins that perform a particular function, they call the DNA “complex specified information”. Both are then presented as evidence that the system must have been deliberately designed by an intelligent agent.

Curiously, however, this supposedly reliable design-detection method tends to be applied only to systems that creationists find impressive or beneficial. When comparable complexity enables a parasite to invade its host, evade its defences, reproduce rapidly and cause suffering and death, the inference to design is quietly abandoned. The parasite is instead blamed on “the Fall”, “genetic degeneration” or some other evidence-free theological excuse.

But a method that gives different answers according to whether its conclusion is theologically convenient is not a method at all. If molecular complexity, functional interdependence and genetically encoded organisation really demonstrate intelligent design, then they must do so just as reliably in a malaria parasite as in a bacterial flagellum, an eye or a blood-clotting system. And that would make them evidence not merely of intelligent design, but of intelligent malevolent design.

Two recent studies have now uncovered more of the extraordinarily elaborate machinery by which malaria parasites multiply. Instead of dividing into two daughter cells in the familiar way, Plasmodium parasites repeatedly copy their DNA and multiply their nuclei within a shared cell before producing numerous daughter parasites more or less simultaneously. The process must ensure that each viable daughter receives a nucleus and the cellular structures required to invade another host cell.

Creationism Refuted - Why The Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design And Supports Mindless Evolution.

The human body isn’t a masterpiece of design – it’s a patchwork of evolutionary compromise

Back in December 2024, I published The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design as part of my Unintelligent Design series. In it, I argued that:

Looked at objectively, beneath the superficial appearance of design, the human body, with its inefficiencies, vulnerabilities and vestigial features, is best explained through the lens of evolution.

Far from reflecting intelligent design, our anatomy and physiology reveal a history of incremental changes shaped by natural selection and constrained by pre-existing structures. These imperfections underscore the reality of evolution as a tinkering process, producing functional but far-from-perfect outcomes.

In this light, the human body stands as a powerful testament to our evolutionary heritage and tells a story far more impressive than the childish notion of it all being made by magic by a super-intelligent yet invisible and undetectable designer.

It is therefore gratifying to see those conclusions independently reinforced by Lucy E. Hyde, a Lecturer in Anatomy at the University of Bristol. In a recent article in The Conversation, she makes essentially the same case, drawing upon many of the same examples that I used.

This is not because anatomists and evolutionary biologists have agreed upon a preferred story and then set out to make the evidence fit it. It is because people who understand evolution and possess more than a superficial knowledge of human anatomy and physiology can examine the same evidence and independently reach the same broad conclusion: the human body is not the product of foresightful engineering but a historical patchwork of inherited structures, evolutionary compromises and modifications to what already existed.

Evolution explains not only why the human body works as well as it does, but also why it so often fails, why some of its structures follow absurdly circuitous routes, why others are poorly suited to their present functions and why still others persist despite having little or no remaining usefulness. “Intelligent design”, by contrast, explains none of this without retreating into the scientifically worthless claim that an unknowable designer must have wanted things that way.

Lucy Hyde’s article is reproduced below under a Creative Commons licence, with its formatting adapted for consistency with this blog:

Unintelligent Design - The DNA In A Developing Brain Gets Broken And Has To Be Repaired - Incompetent Design Or Evolution?

Neurons migrating through dense tissue in the developing brain (green) frequently undergo DNA damage (magenta).

DNA in neurons is damaged and repaired during brain cortex formation | News | Kyoto University iCeMS

Like my last post, this post illustrates how the human body, far from being the perfect design of the omnipotent, omniscient designer creationists would have us believe in, is the result of a utilitarian evolutionary process. Layers of complexity arise, not from divine brilliance, but from evolved solutions to problems created by suboptimal earlier solutions to other problems — which were themselves the result of imperfect evolution.

In the previous post we saw how DNA replication is sufficiently imperfect that it requires mechanisms to repair the resulting DNA damage. However, these repair processes are themselves potentially dangerous and need control systems to maintain a careful balance between too little and too much repair. When this control process fails, it can lead to cancers that mimic those caused by the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

In this post we see how newborn neurons in the developing brain need to squeeze through tight spaces in dense tissue, past other cells and between fibres, in order to reach their final positions and form neural circuits in the cerebral and cerebellar cortices. This process is such a physical struggle that the DNA in these neurons can suffer double-strand breaks and must be repaired quickly to ensure normal brain development. This is the finding of a research team from Kyoto University, the University of Tokyo, Osaka University, the National University of Singapore and the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science, led by Professor Mineko Kengaku who have just published their findings in Nature.

Mostly, this repair is quick and successful. However, the research team also found striking similarities between the development of mice in which the repair process failed and human genome-instability syndromes that affect the cerebellum.

Another important point is that this repair process appears to be much more successful in damaged neuronal DNA than in similar damage that can occur when some cancer cells migrate through narrow channels. The difference seems to lie in where the DNA breaks occur. In neurons, they tend to occur in regions of the genome that are not actively being transcribed, whereas in cancer cells the damage can involve essential genes. That suggests there is some biological bias in where these breaks occur in neurons, rather than the process being simply random mechanical shattering.

This raises the obvious question for creationists: why create a process that breaks DNA in developing brain cells, only to require another process to repair it, with the inherent risk that the repair process might be incomplete or imperfect? It also raises the possibility that the resulting small differences in the genomes of individual neurons could contribute to neuronal individuality and perhaps to some neurodevelopmental or neurodegenerative diseases.

The emerging picture, from this and from the rogue repair-control process that can mimic cancers caused by the BRCA genes, is not of a human body designed by an omniscient engineer. It is more like a William Heath Robinson contraption: improvised, overcomplicated, dependent on compensatory mechanisms, and always vulnerable to the failure of the very systems needed to keep it working.

Unintelligent Design - What Happens when A Badly 'Designed' Process Goes Rogue - Cancer - Malevolent Design Or Evolution?

Dr. Alexandra Nusawardhana, the lead author of the study and who earned her doctorate in biomedical sciences this year from Penn State College of Medicine, conducts research to understand genomic instability and cancer treatment response.

Credit: Jason Plotkin / Penn State. Creative Commons

DNA repair protein gene gone rogue may unlock new cancer treatments | Penn State University

A characteristic of evolved biological systems, and one that distinguishes them from systems designed from first principles, is that they are often unnecessarily complex, vulnerable to failure and dependent on layers of patchwork compensation. This is what we should expect from systems produced by utilitarian, suboptimal compromises built from whatever was available at the time.

With no plan, no foresight and no predetermined objective, natural selection can only favour whatever leaves more descendants in a particular environment. The result is not an ideal solution, but merely a workable one — one that is better than what preceded it, even if it remains a very long way from perfection. An intelligent designer, such as the one proposed by advocates of intelligent design, would be under no such historical constraints and could, in principle, rebuild a system from scratch to arrive at the optimal solution.

To illustrate this, this post and the next will look at two recent papers that incidentally demonstrate how many human health problems arise from these over-complex, error-prone systems — systems that would not exist if the human body were the pinnacle of created perfection that creationists imagine it to be. Unless, of course, the designer intended us to suffer when its systems failed.

The first concerns a paper published in February 2026 in Nature Communications by researchers at Penn State College of Medicine. It shows how one component of the DNA repair machinery — a system needed because DNA replication and maintenance are themselves vulnerable to error and damage — can itself go wrong and produce a pattern of genomic instability resembling that seen when the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour-suppressor pathway is defective.

The culprit is EXO1, a gene that encodes an exonuclease involved in DNA processing and repair. In normal cells, EXO1 helps trim and process damaged or mismatched DNA so that repair can proceed. But when EXO1 is overexpressed, as the researchers found in a significant proportion of several cancers, including about 20–30% of breast and ovarian cancers as well as melanoma, testicular, cervical and hepatobiliary cancers, too much of this normally useful protein becomes destructive. Instead of helping to preserve genome integrity, excessive EXO1 activity can degrade newly synthesised DNA during replication stress, expanding single-stranded DNA gaps and degrading reversed replication forks.

The result is a BRCA-like pattern of genomic instability even in cells whose BRCA pathway is still functional. In other words, the cell behaves in some important respects like a BRCA-mutant tumour cell, not because BRCA1 or BRCA2 is mutated, but because too much EXO1 has overwhelmed the normal protective system. This matters clinically because such tumours may respond to some of the same treatments used against BRCA-mutant cancers, including drugs that target DNA repair vulnerabilities.

So, we have a DNA replication and maintenance system that needs elaborate repair machinery because the genome is constantly vulnerable to damage; then we have the catastrophic consequences when that repair machinery itself goes rogue. Compare that with the simpler, more robust system we might expect from an intelligent designer endowed with foresight and unconstrained by evolutionary history. Complexity is not the hallmark of intelligent design that creationists claim it to be. In biology, it is very often the accumulated consequence of failure-prone, suboptimal compromises produced by evolutionary tinkering without a predetermined objective.

Refuting Creationism - A Vast Global Fungal Plant-Support System - Unintelligently 'Designed' Over 480 Million Years [Updated]

Mycorrhizal fungi under the microscope at AMOLF biophysics institute in Amsterdam. The circular structures are spores. Color is altered for legibility.

Credit: Tomás Munita

New global research maps underground fungal infrastructure for the first time - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

An international team of researchers, led by ecologist Justin Stewart of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, has announced the creation of the first global map of the vast underground infrastructure formed by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. The team has published its findings in Science.

These are not fungi in the familiar sense of mushrooms, but microscopic, thread-like filaments, or hyphae, which form intimate partnerships with plant roots. The figures involved are astonishing. The researchers estimate that the upper layer of the world’s soils contains about 110 quadrillion kilometres of these fungal filaments — enough to stretch from Earth to the sun nearly three-quarters of a billion times, or there and back about 368 million times. The networks also transport roughly 4 billion tonnes of CO₂-equivalent into soils each year, about 11% of annual human-caused CO₂ emissions.

This is not a new evolutionary phenomenon. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are part of an ancient plant-fungal symbiosis that appears to date back roughly 475–480 million years, close to the origin of the first land plants. That does not mean, of course, that the individual fungal filaments mapped today are hundreds of millions of years old, but that this type of mutualistic relationship has been evolving since the early colonisation of land by plants.

One sure way to tell that biological systems are not intelligently designed is not simply that they are complex, but that they are historically contingent. They carry the marks of accumulated compromises, improvised workarounds and layered dependencies. Evolution can only modify what already exists; it cannot scrap an imperfect arrangement and begin again with a clean sheet. Its only test is whether a change works well enough, in a particular environment, to leave more descendants than the alternatives.

None of these constraints would apply to an intelligent designer, still less to the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect designer imagined — though rarely named explicitly — by creationists trying to disguise fundamentalist creationism as science. A designed global life-support system would not be expected to emerge through countless local bargains between plants and fungi, mediated by nutrient stress, carbon demand, soil chemistry, competition, disturbance and natural selection.

So we can be as sure as it is possible to be that this vast, intricate and globally important biological infrastructure was not intelligently designed. It evolved because both partners gained from the exchange: plants provided carbon fixed by photosynthesis; fungi extended the reach of plant roots, supplying water and mineral nutrients, especially phosphorus and nitrogen. Over deep time, those local mutual advantages became part of the living fabric of terrestrial ecosystems.

The paper in Science is accompanied by a news release from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, which includes a link to an interactive map of this global fungal infrastructure.

Unintelligent Design - Evolution By Viral Infection

Pomacea canaliculata egg clusters above the water line.

Apple Snail, Pomacea canaliculata

By KENPEI, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Lingnan University joint research analyses genome of global agricultural pest ‘apple snail’: Ancient viral gene-driven evolution of ‘terrestrial oviposition’ ability - Press Release | Lingnan University

A paper recently published in the journal Advanced Science, by researchers including Assistant Professor Jack Chi-Ho Ip, from Lingnan University, Hong Kong, is deeply problematic for creationists, not only because it describes a process that took place over an immense period of time incompatible with the biblical narrative, but also because it deals with a mechanism for evolution that cannot be waved aside as mere "variation within a kind", or something creationists like to dismiss as "micro-evolution".

Creationists continue to insist that large-scale evolution does not happen, so everything must have been specially created more or less as it is, with only limited variation within the "kind" — a term always left conspicuously undefined, so the goalposts can be moved whenever the evidence becomes inconvenient. This is despite the well-attested mechanisms by which biodiversity arises, including classical Darwinian natural selection acting on inherited variation, and genetic drift, in which chance changes in allele frequencies can lead to a neutral mutation becoming fixed in, or eliminated from, a population gene pool.

There is also the founder effect, where a non-representative sample of a population becomes isolated from the parent population, usually by a physical or ecological barrier. The new population therefore begins with a different allele-frequency profile from the population from which it came. Then there is hybridisation, where hybrid offspring can, in some circumstances, become reproductively isolated from both parent species, forming a new genetically distinct population or species.

And lastly, we have horizontal gene transfer, where an organism acquires genetic material from another biological lineage in its environment. This is especially familiar in bacteria, but it also occurs in animals, often through viruses. Retroviruses are particularly important in this respect because they insert a DNA copy of their genome into that of their host. Over time, the viral sequence may be disabled by mutation, or the host may evolve a defence against it. Either way, the remnant of the virus can become part of the host genome, where it is free to mutate over time. Occasionally, such inherited viral DNA is exapted for a new function, creating useful new genetic information without the slightest need for supernatural assistance. One well-known example is syncytin, derived from ancient retroviral genes, now involved in the formation and function of the mammalian placenta.

Now researchers at Hong Kong's Lingnan University and their collaborators have shown that a viral-derived gene in apple snails is probably involved in their ability to lay eggs out of water — a key adaptation in the evolution of aerial egg-laying and one reason some apple snails have become such successful invasive pests. The gene, associated with the perivitelline fluid surrounding the developing embryo, was probably acquired by the ancestor of the Ampullariidae during the Jurassic. It would be interesting to see a creationist explain how acquiring a gene from an entirely unrelated viral lineage can be described as "variation within a kind". It would also be interesting to see them explain why an intelligent designer would need to borrow viral genetic material to equip a snail to lay eggs above the waterline.

Refuting Creationisn - How An Evolutionary Arms Race Made Us What We Are

Graphic representation of the impact of malaria on the formation of the human niche

© Michela Leonardi

Malaria Shaped Distribution of Early Human Populations

A powerful and predictable result of an arms race between a host and a parasite is that the host population will evolve in ways that make it better able either to resist the parasite or to survive despite its presence. In other words, the presence of a parasite can be a strong environmental selector and a major driver of evolutionary change. And, of course, parasite-host arms races make no sense in terms of intelligent design, still less when the designer is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

One well-known example of this evolutionary pressure is the persistence of the sickle-cell allele in parts of the world where malaria is, or has been, common. Carrying one copy of the sickle-cell mutation provides a degree of protection against the malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum. Carrying two copies, however, causes sickle-cell disease, which can be severely debilitating and sometimes fatal. The result is a classic example of balancing selection: in malarial regions the allele can be maintained in the population, despite its harmful effects in those who inherit two copies, while in populations not exposed to malaria it tends not to persist at high frequency.

Now scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology and the University of Cambridge, with colleagues, believe they have shown that Plasmodium falciparum malaria was a significant factor in the deep history of Homo sapiens in Africa. Their study suggests that malaria helped shape where early human populations could live between about 74,000 and 5,000 years ago, fragmenting populations across the landscape and influencing patterns of contact, separation and genetic exchange long before recorded history. This was the crucial period before humans dispersed widely beyond Africa and before agriculture dramatically altered patterns of malaria transmission.

They have recently published their findings, open access, in the journal Science Advances.

The irony, of course, is that this study shows modern humans not as the product of an intelligent designer’s magic, but as the outcome of deep evolutionary history, shaped in part by parasite-host arms races — one of the strongest arguments against any intelligent, benevolent agency being involved in the process.

Malevolent Design - A Parasitic Fly With All Creationism's Hall Marks for Intelligent Design Is Heading For The USA

Lava of the New World screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax.

By John Kucharski - via Wikipedia

The New World screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax.

Judy Gallagher, CC BY

An article in The Conversation by Richard Wall, Emeritus Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol, should remind creationists—if they had the wit to understand why—of the theological quagmire into which their favourite leaders have led them.

The Discovery Institute and its fellows, with their reliance on notions such as irreducible complexity and complex specified genetic information, have taken creationism to a point where the only escape lies in three almost equally unacceptable options:

• They can abandon the very arguments they present as proof of intelligent design, and so admit that they have no proof at all.
• They can accept that the designer god they traditionally equate with the god of the Bible and Qur'an is in fact an evil god, relentlessly designing ever more ingenious ways to increase suffering in the world.
• Or they can retreat into theology and Bible-literalist fundamentalism, abandoning any pretence that intelligent design is genuine science rather than simply rebranded creationism, by blaming everything on 'The Fall'. But in doing so they must also admit the existence of some other creative force with powers sufficient to rival their creator god—one to which their god is either powerless or indifferent. That, of course, destroys the basic principle of Judeo-Christian monotheism: a single omnipotent ruling deity. Ironically, the Discovery Institute was established for the very purpose of persuading US legislators and state education officials that intelligent design is real science.

This problem for creationism arises because the notions of irreducible complexity and complex specified genetic information apply just as well—if not better—to parasites and pathogens as they do to those aspects of nature that creationists like to present as evidence of their god's existence and benevolence; in other words, anything that happens to benefit them.

Professor Wall's article concerns a parasitic fly, the New World screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax, whose larvae feed on open wounds in cattle and sometimes humans, often with fatal consequences. The fly is currently extending its range northwards through Mexico and has now reached states bordering Texas. His article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Unintelligent Design - Men Lose Their Y Chromosome - And Why It Matters

Men lose their Y chromosome as they age. Scientists thought it didn’t matter – but now we’re learning more

Creationists who point to the supposed 'perfection' of the human body as evidence of intelligent design have yet more evidence to ignore if they are to retain that belief. In my book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design, I listed many of the conditions and vulnerabilities from which humans suffer precisely because our bodies are the products of evolution, not intelligent design. Viewed objectively, rather than through the rose-tinted lens of creationism, the human body is one of the strongest arguments against intelligent design and in favour of evolution.

We now have additional evidence of this. As men age, increasing numbers of their cells lose the Y chromosome — the chromosome that males normally possess alongside a single X chromosome, while females usually have two X chromosomes. It is becoming increasingly clear that this loss is implicated in several diseases that affect men disproportionately, including cardiovascular disease, Parkinsonism, and some cancers such as ocular melanoma. Together, these help to explain men's lower life expectancy.

According to the ID creationist paradigm, the human body is the supreme achievement of their god's design. So, if we assume, as they do, that this designer is the omniscient and omnibenevolent god of the Bible and Qur'an, then this male-specific vulnerability must either have been intended or be the accidental result of incompetence and lack of foresight. Traditionally, of course, ID creationists try to absolve their designer of responsibility for such flaws by blaming them on some other entity supposedly capable of thwarting the divine plan, with humans bearing the guilt because of the 'sin' of a mythical ancestral couple. This merely exposes Intelligent Design for what it really is: not science, as the Discovery Institute and its allies insist, but biblical literalism in a lab coat, forced to rely on fundamentalist superstition to explain away the failures of its own claims when the facts are examined.

How scientists are discovering this age-related loss of the Y chromosome in men's cells, and the damaging effects it has on male health, is the subject of an article in The Conversation by the distinguished geneticist Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice-Chancellor's Fellow at La Trobe University, Australia. Her article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

First, some background information on the origins and function of the Y chromosome:

Unintelligent Design - The DNA Design Blunder That Causes Cancers and Dementia - Malevolence, Incompetence or Evolution?

New research discovers dementia-linked protein’s role in DNA mistakes | Houston Methodist Newsroom

Scientists have discovered that a protein responsible for regulating DNA repair can itself become a source of genomic instability, contributing to cancers and neurodegenerative diseases. The finding provides another example of the fragile and failure-prone complexity that characterises biological systems shaped by evolutionary tinkering rather than the work of a competent designer.

The research, reported in an open access paper published in the journal Nucleic Acids Research, was carried out by a team led by Professor Muralidhar L. Hegde, PhD, professor of neurosurgery at the Houston Methodist Research Institute's Center for Neuroregeneration and Department of Neurosurgery. The team describe how a key regulatory protein, TDP43, which controls the genes involved in DNA repair, can itself become a major cause of genomic instability.

When the regulation of TDP43 fails, the consequences can include cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). The difficulty is that this protein can either be absent or overproduced, and both conditions cause the DNA repair genes it regulates to become overactive, resulting in a destabilised genome. This sort of delicate regulatory balance is exactly what evolutionary biologists expect from systems assembled gradually through natural selection, where new control mechanisms are added to existing processes rather than engineered from scratch.

This presents an awkward problem for creationists who claim that biological complexity is evidence of intelligent design. For those with the intellectual integrity to confront the implications, the findings present a difficult choice. Either accept that evolution provides a coherent explanation for such biological paradoxes, or accept that what is claimed to be evidence of intelligent design instead suggests a designer who is incompetent, malevolent, or possibly both—certainly nothing like the allegedly omnibenevolent god of the Bible and Qur'an.

There are also a couple of additional problems here for ID creationists. First, well-designed DNA should not require an additional layer of complexity in the form of a suite of repair genes, followed by yet another regulatory system to control them. Secondly, a well-designed repair mechanism should not itself require such delicate regulation, and the regulatory system should certainly not fail—let alone fail catastrophically. Within the ID creationist paradigm, this is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a competent and benevolent designer.

Unintelligent Design - How an Intelligent Designer Could Have Made Photosynthesis More Efficient

Smooth hornwort, Phaeoceros laevis

Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0) Link

Phaeoceros laevis, a species of hornwort commonly known as smooth hornwort.

Credit: Des Callaghan

This odd little plant could help turbocharge crop yields - Boyce Thompson Institute

Scientists led by researchers at the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI), Cornell University, and the University of Edinburgh have discovered a plant with a neat trick that makes photosynthesis more efficient and which, if replicated in crop plants, could enhance food production. They have just published their findings in the journal Science. The trick makes the ubiquitous enzyme RuBisCo (ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) more efficient — or perhaps it would be more accurate to say less inefficient, because it is probably one of the least efficient enzymes in the whole of nature, something that ought to be acutely embarrassing for any advocate of intelligent design who understands it.

A fundamental belief of creationism is that all living things were created for the benefit of humankind on a planet supposedly designed for humans to live on. If that were so, it is reasonable to assume that such a planet would be organised to supply humans with food in the most efficient and productive way possible. Yet here we have an example of one plant possessing something that, had all plants been given it, would have been massively beneficial to humans.

So, did creationism's putative omnibenevolent designer choose not to incorporate this feature into our food crops, or did it simply forget? This is the sort of question that always goes unanswered by creationists, who mutter vaguely about 'mysteries' and 'not knowing the mind of God' — the same god they assure us has a plan for all of us, and whose wishes they somehow claim to know in detail.

First, a little about RuBisCo, from my book The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting The Intelligent Design Hoax:

Malevolent Design - Yet More Evidence Of Intelligently Designed Cancer?

Scientists Uncover Key Driver of Treatment-Resistant Cancer

These images show the beginnings of chromothripsis in colorectal cancer cells. The N4BP2 enzyme (green) infiltrates a micronucleus (zoomed in square selections), where it induces DNA damage (red). Blue represents the main cell nucleus.

Credit: UC San Diego Health Sciences

At the risk of labouring the point I made in my post yesterday — that the exact same arguments ID creationists use as ‘proof’ of intelligent design can also be applied to cancers, parasites, pathogens, and genetic diseases, thereby ‘proving’, in ID terms, that these too were intelligently designed by the same deity — we have yet another example of complex specified genetic information driving the evolution of cancers as they rapidly develop resistance to treatments.

This is reported in a research paper in Science by researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego).

The researchers discovered an enzyme responsible for breaking up a chromosome in cancer cells and rearranging it into a scrambled version, enabling the tumour to evolve rapidly. The process is quite simple and closely mimics evolution by natural selection, or the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Shuffling genes in this way increases the likelihood that a small number of cancer cells will survive the treatment aimed at destroying them. The tumour then regrows from these resistant cells, producing a treatment-resistant cancer.

This ability, known as chromothripsis, is found in about 24% of human cancers.

The key to this process is the protein enzyme N4BP2, and the complex, specified gene that produces it. The process begins when an error in DNA replication causes individual chromosomes to become trapped inside tiny, fragile structures called micronuclei. When these micronuclei burst, the chromosome is exposed to nucleases — enzymes capable of breaking DNA.

Within the ID creationist paradigm, there are no such things as mistakes: everything works exactly as it was designed to work. So we are left to assume that these fragile micronuclei, with their entrapped chromosomes, are a deliberate design feature.

The researchers showed that N4BP2 is uniquely capable of entering micronuclei and breaking the trapped chromosome.

To test the hypothesis that N4BP2 is the culprit, they eliminated it in brain cancer cells and observed a reduction in chromothripsis. They then introduced it into healthy cell nuclei and found that it caused chromosomes to break even in otherwise normal cells.

This is, of course, just as much compelling evidence of intelligent design as anything traditionally cited by ID creationists as proof of an intelligent designer. By contrast, the theory of evolution provides an explanation with none of the problems that force creationists to retreat into contradictory theology, Bronze Age origin myths, and appeals to ‘mystery’.

Creationism Refuted - Why We Need Our Gut Microbiome To Keep Us Healthy

Gut microbiome - AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.2)

Electron microscopic image of rod-shaped gut bacteria.

© Bacteria in the gut. NIH Image Gallery/Donny Bliss, NIH

What gut bacteria like

An open access paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) is a stunning example of the ludicrous complexity evolution has produced — the exact antithesis of what an intelligent designer would create, if such a designer were anything more than grossly incompetent. As I explain in my book, The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting The Intelligent Design Hoax, and as I have pointed out repeatedly on this blog, the hallmark of intelligent design should be minimal complexity and maximal efficiency. And yet what we find in humans — and in just about every other bilaterian animal with a gut — is a vast, intricate symbiotic microbiome supplying functions that could far more simply have been provided directly, with even a little forethought on the part of any competent designer.

Instead, in the sort of convoluted complexity that creationists like to attribute to their putative designer god, but which is in reality a hallmark of evolved systems, we see yet another example of a biological arrangement that betrays not intelligence, but its absence.

The paper, by an international team led by Professor Victor Sourjik and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, the University of Ohio, and Philipps-University Marburg, describes how an interdependent gut microbiome helps to keep both the microorganisms and their host healthy. They show that this complex and dynamic community is governed by countless chemical interactions — not only among the microorganisms themselves, but also between microbes and host tissues. The perception of nutrients and signalling molecules by gut bacteria is therefore crucial in maintaining these relationships.

One key role of this microbiome is in deterring and combating pathological species which would otherwise find the gut — with its warmth and steady supply of pre-digested nutrients — an ideal environment to colonise. This must have been a problem even for the earliest animals with a digestive tract: a vulnerability effectively built into the body plan. The solution, in the form of beneficial commensal organisms, is therefore probably as old as the first tube-like bilaterians themselves.

The problem the human gut faces in this respect can be gauged from the fact that some studies have shown that 50-55% or more of the dry weight of human faces is bacteria, dead and alive[1] , with populations of bacteria in the order of 10¹¹ bacteria per gram![2] Imagine then the opportunities this presents to a potentially pathological bacteria with a generation time in minutes. With a population exploding exponentially, the potential to overwhelm the host in a few days is enormous. This is the scale of the problem, and of the selection pressure to overcome it, that has produced this massively complex solution, because it wasn't solved in the initial 'design' stage.

Since it worked well enough, there has been no evolutionary pressure to replace it with a less vulnerable gut, or one better equipped to cope with infection without relying on an entire ecosystem of different microorganisms to maintain health. In other words, what we have today is the result of more than half a billion years of evolutionary history since this basic body plan first emerged in the Cambrian.

Malevolent Design - The Malaria Parasite Is Irreducibly Complex And Has Complex Specified Genetic Information - Oops!

Blood smear showing P. falciparum parasites.

CDC/Dr. Mae Melvin Transwiki approved by: w:en:User:Dmcdevit
This media comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
Public Health Image Library (PHIL), ID #2704
Public Domain, Link

Malaria: Newly Identified “Crown” Stage Controls Parasite Reproduction

Researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have uncovered yet another layer of exquisite molecular sophistication in one of humanity’s most persistent and lethal parasites, Plasmodium falciparum, the chief cause of malignant malaria. Their findings, reported in a recent press release and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cell Biology, describe a newly identified regulatory “crown” checkpoint that controls parasite reproduction with remarkable precision.

It is difficult to imagine a discovery more awkward for Intelligent Design creationists, because Plasmodium falciparum is precisely the sort of organism that embodies everything Michael Behe and William Dembski insist cannot arise by evolution. Here is complex specified genetic information, tightly regulated developmental choreography, and interlocking biochemical machinery operating across multiple life stages — the very definition, we are told, of “irreducible complexity”.

Unfortunately for the Discovery Institute, this irreducible complexity does not produce a bird’s wing, a human eye, or some uplifting example of divine craftsmanship. It produces malaria — a parasite responsible for immense suffering and hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, mostly children. If complexity is meant to be a hallmark of intelligent design, then the designer’s portfolio includes some rather grim specialities.

The problem is compounded by the fact that Michael Behe has already made malaria central to his arguments. In The Edge of Evolution, he famously pointed to the parasite’s resistance to anti-malarial drugs as an example of the supposed limits of Darwinian evolution, claiming that multiple coordinated mutations were beyond the reach of natural selection. Yet malaria has since become one of the clearest demonstrations that evolution not only occurs, but does so rapidly and repeatedly, exploiting enormous population sizes and intense selection pressures to produce exactly the adaptations Behe claimed were improbable.

As Kenneth Miller pointed out, Behe's mathematical sleight of hand was to assume resistance had to evolve as a single event in a single cell, not across a large population over time - a fallacy of which any good microbiologists should have been aware.

This newly described “crown” stage is simply the latest reminder that biological complexity is not evidence of supernatural design. Evolution predicts complexity wherever it confers survival advantage — including in parasites, pathogens, and diseases. The only real surprise is that creationists continue to present complexity as a theological virtue, when nature so often deploys it in the service of exploitation rather than benevolence.

As ever, none of this will deter creationists from repeating their familiar articles of faith. Faced with an organism whose life cycle resembles a biochemical symphony — regulated checkpoints, specialised invasion machinery, host-cell remodelling, immune evasion, and reproductive stages split between mosquito and human — they will insist that this is not evidence for evolution but evidence against it. The argument, such as it is, runs that complexity must have been present from the start, because it could not have arisen gradually.

But this is simply the old “irreducible complexity” claim in a new disguise: the assertion that because creationists personally cannot imagine intermediate stages, no such stages could have existed. Science, of course, is not obliged to conform to the limits of anyone’s imagination. Evolution does not require that complex systems appear in a single leap. It proceeds by modification of what already exists — co-option, duplication, repurposing, and incremental refinement over deep time — producing the layered complexity we observe today.

Another common retreat is the insistence that this is merely “microevolution”, the trivial shuffling of genes within some mythical created “kind”. Yet Plasmodium falciparum is not merely adjusting the colour of its spots. It is evolving novel biochemical strategies, repeatedly acquiring drug resistance, fine-tuning developmental regulation, and exploiting host environments with extraordinary efficiency. If this is “only microevolution”, then the term has been drained of all meaning.

Unintelligent Design - A Bacterium That Goes Wrong And Self-Destructs

SAR11 bacteria comprise some 40% of marine bacterial cells, making them an essential part of our ocean ecosystems.

Image source: Smithsonian / Xiaowei Zhao.

One of Earth’s most abundant organisms is surprisingly fragile

Microbiologists at the University of Southern California (USC) have discovered that one of Earth’s most abundant species, the SAR11 bacterium, has a fundamental — and potentially fatal — ‘design’ flaw. They have just published their findings in Nature Microbiology, and it should make grim reading for any creationists with sufficient courage to read it.

When you have trillions of copies, what does it matter to ‘selfish’ genes if a few billion go wrong and end up destroying the organisms they travel through time in? For an evolved organism, it matters not one tittle or jot to its genes, because they can always produce more copies. So long as there is a sufficiently large population to keep replicating, they will continue to exist and reproduce — and they have no other ultimate function. This is all they evolved to do.

But could we say the same for an organism designed by an omniscient, intelligent designer? What would be intelligent about creating an organism that, under particular but entirely predictable conditions, attempts to reproduce but succeeds only in making repeated copies of its DNA, fails to divide, and enters a runaway cycle of replication until it becomes so disorganised that it can no longer survive and effectively self-destructs?

SAR11 dominates the surface waters of the world’s oceans and accounts for around 40% of marine bacterial cells. As such, it is a vital component at the base of the marine food chain, and is so successful partly because of a process known as genetic streamlining — the evolutionary loss of genes to reduce energy demands in nutrient-poor environments. This alone is not the main problem for creationists to explain, although it does raise the obvious question of why a designer would burden an organism with a genetic load it does not need in the first place.

The real problem is that this streamlining, as an evolved process, comes at a cost. In shedding a load of mostly surplus genes, some essential ones are lost too — including genes that regulate the cell cycle. The result is a failure to divide after genome replication, with the cell instead entering an uncontrolled loop of DNA replication without division.

How on Earth can that be regarded as intelligent design? The organism does exactly what it is ‘designed’ to do under conditions of low nutrient stress, but in doing so falls into an inescapable trap. The consequence is that populations continue to decline even when nutrients later become available again — with potentially serious knock-on effects for other species higher up the food chain.

Unintelligent Design - The Prolific Waste Of Baby Dinosaurs as Food - 150 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Ecosystem reconstruction of the Late Jurassic Dry Mesa Dinosaur Quarry around 150 million years ago in Colorado, the United States

Credit: Sergey Krasovskiy and Pedro Salas

Life in Late Jurassic Colorado.

AI-generate image (ChatGPT5.2)

Baby dinosaurs a common prey for Late Jurassic predators | UCL News - UCL – University College London.

The prolific-waste reproductive strategy of Late Jurassic dinosaurs has been highlighted in a paper published in a New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin by a team of palaeontologists led by Dr Cassius Morrison of University College London’s Department of Earth Sciences.

The team constructed a detailed food web using fossil data laid down around 150 million years ago in the Morrison Formation of the United States. The Morrison Formation is a prominent sequence of Upper Jurassic sedimentary rocks (approximately 156–147 million years old) spanning around 1.5 million square kilometres across the western United States. It is North America’s most prolific source of dinosaur fossils, preserving vast deposits of mudstone, sandstone, and limestone formed in ancient river systems and floodplains.

Their analysis revealed that a major food source for carnivorous dinosaurs consisted of the young of the largest herbivores. These animals followed a reproductive strategy in which large numbers of offspring were produced and then effectively abandoned after hatching. Such juveniles would have been abundant, vulnerable, and easy prey for predators. This strategy is a familiar one in biology and only makes sense as the outcome of evolutionary processes. As an intelligently designed reproductive strategy, however, it is difficult to make sense of at all.

This is yet another example of the prolific waste that characterises living systems and betrays the absence of intelligent foresight in their design. Prolific waste and unnecessary complexity are hallmarks of evolution, whereas minimal waste and minimal complexity are the defining features of genuinely intelligent design — a distinction I explore in detail in my book The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting the Intelligent Design Hoax.

Unintelligent Design - One Design Blunder Led To Another And Ended Up Causing Cancer - Or Was It Deliberate?

A broken DNA repair tool accelerates aging | News from Goethe University Frankfurt

Researchers from Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, have shown how a faulty DNA repair mechanism triggers inflammation and leads to accelerated ageing, developmental abnormalities, and cancer.

Their findings are published in Science.

As I explained in my book, The Unintelligent Designer: Exposing the Intelligent Design Hoax, one of the hallmarks of an evolved system — and one which creationists have been conditioned to mistake for evidence of intelligent design — is complexity. In reality, the opposite is true: intelligently designed objects and processes are typically *minimally

complex, doing exactly what is required and no more.

One reason complexity arises in evolved systems is the need for additional layers of processes to compensate for the suboptimal designs that evolution inevitably produces. An intelligently designed process — especially one devised by a designer endowed with foresight — would require no such compensatory mechanisms. It would function reliably every time and be robust enough to withstand environmental stressors and other causes of malfunction. Nor would a perfectly designed copying process be prone to copying errors.

What we observe in reality, however, is an excessively complex system that still malfunctions — and when it does, it can do so unpredictably and catastrophically, leading to increased suffering and even death. The equivalent, in engineering terms, would be an aircraft manufacturer producing planes that were mostly safe most of the time, yet costly to build because they relied on intricate back-up systems to compensate for other components prone to failure — and which nevertheless suffered unpredictable mid-flight failures when those back-ups failed, causing aircraft to fall from the sky. Such an incompetent aircraft manufacturer would not remain in business for long.

In contrast to evolved systems which are overly complex and still prone to errors, an intelligently designed organism would be minimally complex, maximally efficient, robust enough to withstand environmental stressors and work perfectly every time. As so often, what ID predicts is not what we actually observe. In normal science, the falsification of a hypothesis is regarded as confirmation that the hypothesis was wrong, but in creationism the reverse holds; if the facts fail to confirm the hypothesis the facts must be wrong. The hypothesis must be clung to with grim determination, come what may.