Originally Posted by void *
You appear to be making an argument from incredulity, no? (I am not anti-evolution - I basically think it's the best explanation we've got at the moment and if we're wrong, we'll figure it out eventually - I just think that the basis of arguments for/against should not be logical fallacies)
I'm pointing out a new (to me) example of unintelligent design is all. For people who look around and see everything as a put together plan with a god behind it, I wonder why they think this great photosynthetic "design" only made it into 3 animals. It's like putting your best battery technology into a few things and using something far less efficient and far more polluting for everything else. Especially when you talk about that god being a loving and benevolent god, you'd think he'd make full use of a system that eliminates the need for critters to tear each other apart to survive.
Create a perfect energy system for life, place most life within easy reach of that energy system, create pain and suffering, make one group of the critters you create subject to pain and suffering by being required to search for possibly scarce second parties to tap into that energy source, make another group rely on inflicting pain and suffering on the first group to tap into that energy source, make this a continuous cycle.
It's like the laryngeal nerve or running a sewer through a playground twixt our legs. Not the best plan that could be designed.