An Evolutionary dead end?

I agree but there is a designer it is the evolutionary process that designs effectively by default. My understanding is design is not reaction it is just plain action, unthought, unplanned and subject to the vagaries of everything that acts upon it. Take two trees one has grown buttresses from its genetic inheritance the other has no buttresses because all its antecedents had no buttresses. When exceptional winds blow the buttressed tree will stay standing to procreate more and the other will blow over and rot on the woodland floor to procreate no more. This type of thing happened millions of times and evolution will select the design that fits best as the others will not have survived and that design, by small changes will be honed to perfection, not by consideration but by the mere act of being the best survivor.

I think we are arguing the same thing. These random events result in a design suited for the purpose for which the random events created it. It is difficult to use language that does not imply some creative desire but there is no desire, no direction, no plan but the result is a design. Evolution is a system, it works, it creates things by its existence and things exist because of the evolutionary process. We can shoogle the marbles as often as we like but if we end up with a pattern that both repeats and duplicates then we have to consider some form of evolutionary process within that box of billions of marbles. Fortunately the primordial chemical soup was not a box of marbles.

Well can I just ask is the human body a design for which there is a pattern available which is followed in sequence in order to construct it?

It's complicated and I'm not an expert, but the basics are simple. For each gene type you get one gene from the father and one from the mother. Some genes are dominant (A) and some recessive (a). The dominant gene is the one expressed. So each person may have the following genes AA, Aa, aA and aa. So 75% of offspring will have the dominant gene A expressed and only 25% will have the recessive gene. Over time in a large population the recessive gene will effectively disappear but in a small population the recessive gene is more likely to survive.

So if you take a simple example like blue and brown eyes. Brown is the dominant gene and blue the recessive. So brown will tend to eliminate blue in large populations - for blue to survive the population has to be made up of large numbers of aa people. So the Scandinavians have mostly blue eyes and blond hair but the more "dark phase" people who immigrate to the country the rarer they will become - and ultimately they will disappear. 

That's how true "diversity" can be lost and it's probably why animals are programmed to breed with only their own kind. In the case of hair colour or eye colour it may be inconsequential, but we may be losing characteristics that we later find are important. But, as you say inbreeding (i.e. with a small selection of parents) can allow recessive genes to survive - and some will be disadvantageous like Huntingdon's. Widening the breeding pool will be advantageous in this case.

On the other hand you are going to lose recessive genes that may be advantageous. Remember that evolution (including advantageous evolution) often occurs most rapidly in very small populations. This is how evolution gets speeded up. Provided that the disadvantageous gene combinations are eliminated this can be beneficial. Unfortunately that's what humans are eliminating. We don't eliminate the "bad blood" and we don't allow "inbreeding". That's why we're killing evolution. In fact we're putting it into reverse.  

I put it to you that the design of humans is fatally flawed, that we will go the way of the Dodo. The complexity of the human mind and its possibilities require thinking and leadership.

Here is an example. That in bygone centuries, people had open cess pits where people crapped etc, it was not separate, diseseases death was rampant, the disease got intoi the water supply. Today we are doing THE SAME.

Its not poo this time but industrial effluent.

Secondly, in the process of picking persons to think and make decisions, we pick the people who art the LEAST fit. Its a well known fact that politicians have the lowest mental health of all. When youve looked at the list of our prime ministers you can only hold your head in your hands.

The design of what we think we need as governance is wrong, that the problem is solved by competition. By using competition you guarantee that the least fit will win, its not about whats best, but how to win. As Starmer has said, he will put country before party.

A WHOPPER.

Lies are embedded in politics, that every thing any politician says is wrong because of the above. Now, someone tell me this is the way to go. The race to get elected is like the jungle, that those with the most money, biggest teeth win.

This is the inverted nonsense that will kill us all, and is evidence that although we possess intelligence it is not enough, more is needed. But how? What is needed? A psychopath just blew up a hospital for kids. How do you talk to someone like that?

You cant, we are an evolutionary dead end. And heres proof, Russians think Putin is a good geezer.

Evolution has come up with a design and has laid down a pattern and repeats that design. We are no longer random, we exist in a design that has further random events acting on it for better and for worse.

So ‘ evolution’ is God then? A design needs a designer.