Evolutionary “Patchwork” or Poor Proofreading?

It used to be a requirement to
check the status of your informa-
tion when writing about science

 

by John D. Wise, PhD

Every once in a while as I read evolutionary literature I come across a comedic gem that reduces me to sidesplitting laughter.

Sadly, today’s article was not one of those.

The problem is not the anatomy. It is the interpretation imposed upon it.

“The human body isn’t a masterpiece of design – it’s a patchwork of evolutionary compromise” (The Conversation, April 9, 2026). Author Lucy Hyde is an anatomy Lecturer at the University of Bristol.

Initially, I did laugh at the title, but the comedy grew as stale as the examples she offered in support of her thesis, and by the end the best descriptor of the piece devolved to this:

Sophomoric.

Here’s her opening salvo:

The human body is often described as a marvel of “perfect design”: elegant, efficient and finely tuned for its purpose. Yet, when we look closer, a rather different picture emerges. [my emphasis]

Oh, do tell. How “closely” shall we look?

Our author seems vaguely aware that the Darwinian camp is engaged in a strategic retreat, but is trying single-handedly to hold on to ground already ceded by the evidence. Having lost the battle over junk DNA and vestigial organs to the relentless progress of functional genomics, our author seems intent on winning them back using the 20^th century’s playbook:

“Far from being a flawless machine, the body reads more like a patchwork of compromises shaped by millions of years of evolutionary tinkering.” (emphasis mine)

As we shall see, however, her cornucopia of kludges resolves on closer inspection into a stunning refutation of her own thesis.

But before we dismantle the anatomy of her lecture-notes, we must pause to admire the author’s (or perhaps her editor’s?) “design” choices. In a piece lecturing us on biological inefficiencies, she sometimes couldn’t “intelligently design” coherent sentences, giving us literary gems like this:

The characteristic curves of the human spine helps distribute weight [subject/verb disagreement], but it also predisposes us to lower back pain, herniated discs and degenerative changes affecting its most important function – protection the spinal cord and surrounding nerves.

Wait … “protection the spinal cord”?

It seems the evolutionary grammar “tinkerer” was too busy elsewhere when this draft was finalized.

Maybe wait another million years?

The Spine: The ‘Not Poorly Made’ Contradiction

But back to Hyde’s “evidence.”

As demonstrated in the quotation above, her star witness is the human spine, which she describes as a “repurposed four-legged bridge.”[1] Yet, in a moment of astonishing self-undermining, she admits the named medical conditions are common “not because the spine is inherently poorly made, but because it’s doing a job it was never originally designed to do.”

Is it too much to ask of a critique of intelligent design to attempt consistency?

The muddy grammar mirrors the muddy thinking. If the structure had a prior functional configuration, then it already embodies design. ‘Repurposing’ does not eliminate design; it presupposes it.

Or … did our author mean something other than what she actually wrote?

And if the spine is “not … inherently poorly made,” Hyde’s patchwork thesis loses its primary evidence. What exactly is she trying to say?

Rather than a design failure, our ‘predisposition to pain’ represents the operational limit of a high-performance machine functioning in a state of withdrawn preservation and real-world decay. What is truly a marvel is how well our backs function (see here and here). Before recycling old tropes, Darwin apologists should acquaint themselves with recent scientific findings.

This applies to Hyde’s next example as well.

The “Wired Backwards” Eye: A Metabolic Masterpiece

Recall the old evolutionary chestnut, the “backward wired” eye?  ‘No true engineer’ would have designed photoreceptors sitting behind nerves. This argument has been recycled since Dawkins popularized it in the 1980’s.

And I admit it “got” me the first time I read it.

But “on closer inspection,” this design is highly specialized for land-living vertebrates. The design of the eye is an engineering marvel, a true “masterpiece of design.” Placing photoreceptors against the pigment epithelium is a requirement for the high-speed metabolic support and heat dissipation necessary for high-acuity vision in our environment. Recent research even shows the design optimizes light-sorting for rods and cones.

Our author sees a blind spot and calls it a design defect, while ignoring the metabolic engine that makes our vision possible, and optimizes our color sensitivity. Her argument assumes that optical geometry can be evaluated in isolation from metabolic and thermal constraints.

It can’t.

It used to be a requirement to check the status of your information when writing about science.

The Sinuses: Confessing Ignorance as Evidence

Perhaps most telling is the author’s admission that “the sinuses … have unclear functions.” With a staggering lack of self-aware skepticism, she uses ignorance of sinus function as a reason to deny their importance.

Instead of a collection of unclear functions, the paranasal sinuses are increasingly understood as a masterfully designed pneumatic manifold that resolves competing architectural constraints within the human skull.

• Mass-Distribution Optimization: By utilizing a system of internal “honeycombing,” the design significantly reduces the overall mass of the skull without sacrificing structural strength. This allows the ‘vertical pillar’ of the spine to maintain bipedal stability and dynamic balance without the burden of supporting a solid bone skull structure.
• Environmental Conditioning Manifold: Far from being anatomical baggage, the sinuses act as a high-surface-area heat exchanger and humidification system, conditioning air to protect the delicate tissues of the lungs. This is a functional requirement for any land-dwelling vertebrate operating in diverse climatic conditions.
• Acoustic Resonance Engineering: The specific volume and placement of these cavities provide the necessary vocal resonance and acoustic amplification required for the complex, symbolic speech of the human image-bearer.

By labeling this integrated system a “patchwork” simply because they have not yet fully mapped its multi-functional complexity, evolutionists are engaging in a classic argument from ignorance.

Conclusion

From the “obstetrical dilemma” of childbirth to the “minor immune functions” of the appendix, every example in this hit piece follows a pattern: observe a complex multi-dimensional system, compare it to a flattened two-dimensional evolutionary map, and label the difference a “flaw” of engineering.

It is a hyper-rational story used to deny the evidence of engineering exploding around them.

We should beware of evolutionists claiming: ‘we see exactly what we should expect to see if evolution is the case.’ It’s true – evolutionists do see exactly what they expect to see … and as a consequence they miss what’s really there.

The Conversation should be ashamed of itself for publishing such sloppy, misleading and scientifically outdated material.

Footnote

[1] If you’re wondering what that means, I had to puzzle it out, too. Our four-legged “ancestors” suspended their spines horizontally, supported by four pillars.

Recommended Resources: These books debunk the “bad design” argument with detailed evidence.

Bergman Jerry, Poor Design

Bergman, Jerry, Useless Organs

Burgess, Stuart: Ultimate Engineering (2026)

Laufmann and Glicksman, Your Designed Body (2022)

---

John Wise received his PhD in philosophy from the University of CA, Irvine in 2004. His dissertation was titled Sartre’s Phenomenological Ontology and the German Idealist Tradition. His area of specialization is 19th to early 20th century continental philosophy.

He tells the story of his 25-year odyssey from atheism to Christianity in the book, Through the Looking Glass: The Imploding of an Atheist Professor’s Worldview (available on Amazon). Since his return to Christ, his research interests include developing a Christian (YEC) philosophy of science and the integration of all human knowledge with God’s word.

He has taught philosophy for the University of CA, Irvine, East Stroudsburg University of PA, Grand Canyon University, American Intercontinental University, and Ashford University. He currently teaches online for the University of Arizona, Global Campus, and is a member of the Heterodox Academy. He and his wife Jenny are known online as The Christian Atheist with a podcast of that name, in addition to a YouTube channel: John and Jenny Wise.