# The Bad Design Argument

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-bad-design-argument/184>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [May 10, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-bad-design-argument/184 "2018-05-10T15:26:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2018, 3:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-bad-design-argument/184/6 "2018-05-10T15:11:56Z")

</div>

> [@The Cambrian Explosion And Evolution](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-cambrian-explosion-and-evolution/160/68):
>
> This bad design argument is common but pretty bad. I’ve always opposed it. Surpringly even TE use it. Why do you think that is?

@swamidass

Aren’t you painting with a pretty big brush when you say “bad design arguments are pretty bad”?

Bad design topics, including nested hierarchies, seem to be what I consider best practice:

Why would all primates except, Chimpanzees and Humans, who share the most recent of common ancestry, have functioning Vitamin C genes … while Chimpanzees and Humans have the same gene broken?

Is this a “bad” refutation?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-bad-design-argument/184)._