Just the sheer variety of different methods is astounding and the fact that the vast majority of methods are both inefficient and ineffective is a classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed but simply another example of "just barely good enough" that seems the hallmark of living organisms throughout history.
This strikes me as a self-defeating statement. All of the living things on the planet, presumably we would all agree have viably reproduced to this day, so how is this a classic sign of, "barely good enough design"? Go and create one viable reproductive system. Is that easy, in terms of design? Viablity is one feature of design which requires intelligence all on it's own. That's why every organism is riddled with contingency planning which shows INCREDIBLE design.
Obviously from the point of view of Christian creationists, we believe the extinct forms are largely because the flood led to a tougher world but the millions of species on earth all viably reproduce, so you didn't actually provide any evidence that this is, "inefficient and ineffective". If we presume God also has control and balance of the food chain in mind, some of that mortality may even show teleology.
I think also, we have to consider that the miracle of life is very great, you can't deal with a giraffe as some kind of static, oblong anatomy, you have to remember that it goes from being a spherically shaped blastocyst to being a mature adult with is anatomically viable, and sexually viable.
If this is poor design, please show me one idiot that can create a car that reproduces itself. Because if that person existed, he would be more famous that Einstein for his/her off-the-scale level of intelligence.
Then we also find that "male and female he created them" is actually the exception to the rule. The vast majority of species have neither males or females but rather are without sex; many species are both male & female; many have more than two genders and there are even species that change sex as needed or with age.
That seems like a fair point. But let's not jump to conclusions I say.
When we add in the fact of infant mortality where even successful reproduction does not mean a critter lives long enough to reproduce it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction and in fact entirely different models and methods have evolved where none are really reliable or effective and all simply barely good enough to continue.
Well, if you are arguing against a creation model, FIRST understand it. We don't argue that looking at the present state of the planet, is any indication of how it was made. We argue that God created a "very good" world, where there were no thorns or disease or malfunction. Since that time the harmful effects of mutations building up, are what have actually caused a lot of the problems you will be referring to.
Attenborough argues that God wouldn't create a parasite for the human eye, but that's the classic failure to fail to understand the creationist position, we don't believe God created parasites for those reasons, or malfunctions on purpose, any more than we believe He invented mad cow disease.
It also seems this last comment assumes that the world now and the harsh survival conditions for animals, would have been the same then. Now there are all kinds of reason young offspring doesn't survive, and a lot of those reasons have nothing to do with reproduction.
Conclusion; I think your argument is a non-sequitur..."these things don't show design to me....therefore evolution" but in fact even if we agree it is bad design, bad designs still need a designer, I don't see any solid reason to believe everything invented itself by evolution, you just seem to jump to that conclusion by attacking design.