This was spurred on by a few lines in a Neal Stephenson novel, probably Cryptonomicon. At one point, Stephenson describes a weed as a stupendous evolutionary badass because it, like every other living thing on earth, was the product of millions of years of winnowing.
So, I carried that thought in my mind for quite some time and my wife, an OB-GYN, tripped a connection. She was talking about the large numbers of women who need C-sections and the many different pregnancy complications that are continually part of her world. I thought, wait a minute, why are there so many faulty child-bearers out there?
After millions of years of winnowing, the trait of having an inadequate cervix, or lack of pushing force, or failure to begin labor should have been bred out long ago. It's only been the last fifty years or so that we could save women like that. Previously, they and their children would have overwhelmingly met their end in labor . . . and did.
Question for the evolutionists: Why aren't we blessed with a flock of women bearing babes with maximum efficiency? Why have the bad childbearing traits survived in such great numbers?
Hunter, I'm not offering this in support of evolution, but merely as some additional information: not all of our physical changes are encoded in our genes. Human babies are a lot larger now than they were 200 years ago, and are larger in the developed world than the undeveloped. This is almost completely because of improved nutrition. In particular, babies' heads are a lot larger now. This size increase has a direct effect on the necessity of Caesarian delivery.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is often reversed and used as evidence against an intelligent designer. As one scientist has said, "I know of no proponent of 'Intelligent Design' who has given birth; the human birth canal is surely one of the premier examples of crummy design in the animal kingdom." A theological answer might be to point to a fallen creation, and the curse, such as in Gen. 3:16. But I'm not sure how ID'ers would answer the charge, other than to dispute the premise.
ReplyDeleteKathy,
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point, but it could be pointed out that this is a matter of proportionality; the WOMEN are larger, also, so their birth canals should, logically, have increased in size also!
The whole business of live births is a fascinating point, Hunter, and strikes me as being at odds with Darwinian Evolution. It is simply dangerous.
the WOMEN are larger, also, so their birth canals should, logically, have increased in size also!
ReplyDeleteExcept they haven't really -- certainly nothing like proportionally. People of both sexes are bigger and weigh more now, but it's mostly because they're taller and have more body fat. The skeletal structure is far more hard-coded by genetics than are the others, which are based on food availability.
Here's an example of unintelligent design (but by humans, not the Great Designer): the great majority of English bulldogs are born by Ceasarian, because breeders have just simply bred their heads too damn big.
The whole business of live births is a fascinating point, Hunter, and strikes me as being at odds with Darwinian Evolution. It is simply dangerous.
ReplyDeleteThere's an obvious problem way before you get to live births. As far as I know, no one has ever explained why survival of the fittest in a population of prokaryotes would ever result in the appearance of sexual reproduction.
Why don't you just flesh that out a little, LA? Nobody's going to run out to the library for the citation.
ReplyDeleteKathy's point is good, but it can't explain away my challenge. Big children could be one factor influencing labor difficulty, but there are many others that still come down to a woman's fitness as a bearer and birther of children. Again, we shouldn't see as many as we do if natural selection has been selecting good birthers (which one would surely expect) to pass on their traits.
Oh, I definitely think that those things can be derailed by folks who aren't fluent in the field. And what arrant bulls*** it is to claim that a think like the evolution of sex is established and "tested". Gimme a break - that is a testable proposition?!
ReplyDeleteThat two matching sets of sexual organs can evolve separately, that systems of blood traveling to engorge one organ and secretions emerging to lubricate the other can evolve, that impulses of attraction to feed desire and desire to trigger the sexual activity can evolve, that a parallel set of organs for carrying a pregnancy can evolve in a woman, that a system of muscular contractions to push the baby out when it's ready can evolve, that an aperture to release the baby can evolve, all of which are individually meaningless and even damaging to each creature until they are absolutely complete, and that after all this evolution is finally finished and put into use the prior system of asexual reproduction falls into desuetude, this is a set of premises for a blooming halfwit. All your highfalutin university talk, with your vaunted specialized-discipline expertise, is just a fanvy-pants way of trying to sell people with common sense on the idea of The Emperor's New Clothes.
You`ve hit the nail on the head, Mr. Homnick! Darwinists always seem to fall back on intellectual pedigree and condescension when they`re caught. The old ``blind `em with science``, the attempt to use technical jargon to obfuscate what is being discussed seems to be the hallmark of many of the sopranos in Darwin`s Tabernacle Choir.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of science, Mr. Liberal Anonymous, is to CLARIFY not obfuscate! Just how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?
If you want to talk about Evolutionary Biology, then talk about Evolutionary Biology. Speak clearly. Quit hiding behind your pseudo-intellectualism.
Obfuscation, appeals to authority, and insults are tactics usually employed by those losing the argument.
Lib. Anon, I'm not allergic to claims of authority, but I can appeal to authority, too. Well-known and well-pedigreed historians and philosophers of science have documented the basic problems the evolution has consistently had, continues to have, and reacts to in ways that are often neither scientific nor honorable. The whole history of it is one that minimizes the substantive challenges while overblowing the successes.
ReplyDeleteI'll repeat what I've said before. The Darwinian theory is dominant, but I think one would be unwise to assume that it is the last word on the subject.
What Mr. Birdnow said is correct. There have been too many challenges met by claims to authority when too much of the evidence is speculative, nonexistent, or in opposition to the facts as they currently stand. I don't deny that the theory is impressive and as good an explanation of the natural situation as we've seen, but authority won't answer the question. I haven't seen too many of our liberal commentators happy to punt to the authority of a Reynolds or Zycher, have you?
Lib. Anon, I think part of why I decided to make a post of this birthing issue with regard to evolution is because I have never heard it discussed.
ReplyDeleteWe hear so much about the eye, for example, as a problem for evolution theory, but why not birth? I mean, really, human birth would seem to be one of the key, key areas for challenges to be made.
This is one of the things blogs are good for, raising questions and seeing if anyone has a good answer.
Both very interesting. It seems the human is a bit of a paradox. Bipedal locomotion with small pelvic openings and babies with too big heads. Doesn't sound like the product of natural selection to me. Sounds like something else.
ReplyDeleteThanks for going out and finding something for us to read, Lib. Anon. Much appreciated.