Summary of Evolution's Third Fatal Flaw:
Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
71 comments
Actually, the cuteness of many babies are part of their survival abilities. Additionally, have you ever seen how a baby reacts to the sensation of "falling", or when someone tickles its foot? Evolved instincts, or else your god made sure babies could survive abusive parents.
Edit: Mortok is absolutely right. Why else would an 18-year-old woman with no interest in having children AT ALL melt at the sight of a cooing baby? Don't say that goddidit, please just don't go there.
Of course babies are fit. They're cute.
Evolution has made babies cute and the rest of us are forced to automatically love babies for this.
That's why nobody will admit how ugly and nasty babies are.
Okay, here's a test. Go find a baby in amongst many young mothers. Pinch the baby, hard enough to make it cry. Here's a hint. Your next move would best be spent running. Maternal instinct trumps a child's helplessness.
Are you suggesting that it would be beneficial for mothers to carry their offspring until the offspring reached near-adulthood?
Of course not, the concept of incompetent design probably eludes you.
I hate to admit this, but this could the dumbest damn thing I have ever read here. If this is not a poe or parody, this human being is too stupid to be out without a keeper(or his MOMMY which is the answer to all his idiotic questions).
Well, human babies are born when they are because if their heads get any bigger, they will be unable to pass through the pelvic bones and out the birth canal. A baby can only stay in a womb for so long before it gets too big for the mother to carry it.
Birds with helpless young have babies with smaller brains. So they need more care as they grow and their brains grow. When they're an adult they're brains will be able to learn more. But, say, when a chicken is born its brain is about as big as when it is fully grown. It won't gain as much ability when it's grown. The birds that have helpless babies will have more skills and abilities when they're an adult.
Actually, there is a theory that human brains evolved to find all things little and helpless cute. Not just our babies, either, but other peoples' and other species' babies. It's very easy to see why societies made up of people who love what they see as "cuteness" would endure. Leaving parents aside, if we think other peoples' toddlers are cute, we'll notice if they wander into a hazard and help the parents out. If we think baby chickens or ducks or deer are cute, we'll let them grow up and reproduce instead of eating them, thereby helping preserve their species and our food supply.
Interesting article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03cute.html
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong, as usual.
Survival of the fittest means that the population that best protects their young survives. Ever seen a heard of elephants?
When a predator comes, what do they do? They form a protective circle around their young.
Yes it can! It's called "parenting". Parents have the natural insinct to care for their offspring (no matter how much they get annoyed). That is natural selection in action, becuase the ones that don't either:
A) Died off
Hey asshole, you ever try to give birth to a full formed adult? Ain't gonna happen.
Mother's brains are wired to care for infants,thereby passing those genes for survival along. And that same wiring is what makes people get all mushy and Awwwww about kittens and puppies.
As for your posting this Anonymous, I can understand why.
....They can afford to be helpless because they have parents.
"The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest.""
Which does not mean what you appear to think it means.
"But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones."
The term "fit" is generally only applied to sexually mature organisms.
"Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness."
I'd guess there's quite a good reason for it. My own personal guess is that if you birth/hatch offspring that are not fully developed it means you can more quickly have the next batch. Sure, you have to expend more energy caring for them but the side effect is that a bond develops within the species which means the species as a whole now has another tool to use in its fight for survival as social species tend to do better than those who are not social. There's also the advantage of numbers when you can rear litter after litter after litter in a short span. Just look at vermin populations. I'd say they're quite successful despite humans attempting to eradicate them for thousands of years.
"Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw."
You're a moron. Go read a biology textbook. And get off the internet if you're not going to take advantage of the vast amount of information available to you.
That's right. My daughter just up and walked right out of my womb and chose her college after 5 minutes. I'd hide if I were you. Many mothers are seeking you out.
"But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies"
Please find any mammal or bird species that is born helpless. Then go anead and mock it. Be sure to stand between the helpless creature and its mother. I would reccommend you start with a grizzly, or, something more dangerous to you, a woodpecker.
HAHAHHAHAHHA!!! That was stupid. Yeah, if parents would just leave their babies on their own, that could be valid argument. Newsflash, they don't!
Mr Smith: "He's got a point. If the first humans were tiny little helpless babies, they would have died before they could have reproduced."
Good for us that their parents didn't let that happen.
For all those saying young women melt at the sight of babies - it isn't inherent. I don't coo over them, in fact I find them rather creepy-looking and vaguely gross, thus I am uncomfortable around them. I always have, can't remember a time when I didn't. I've known quite a few women who were just as weirded out by infants.
"Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw."
Except for the fact that mammals and birds have strong maternal instincts. Also, most animals that are born "strong and fit" have very primitive brains that can't think beyond "Sleep, Fight, Flee, F*ck." Mammals and birds take longer to mature because complex brains take longer to develop. Strong maternal instincts ensure that these infants are not left to die. If it weren't for maternal instinct, these animals would all have gone extinct millions of years ago, and you wouldn't have been able to spout idiocy at us.
On the contrary, the birth of helpless babies is compensated by caring parents. The parents who are not caring will obviously do a worse job than caring ones in assuring a descendence, hence the caring ones are the fittest and their genes will spread throughout the population.
Of course, caring will come at a cost, and it is only logic that parents who are too caring will not be favored by natural selection either, depending on how big the cost will be.
I guess it would be futile to try to explain reproductive strategies or r-select vs K-select species.
Anonymous doesn't even know enough about biology to know that he/she doesn't know enough about biology.
*facepalm*
Um, I'd imagine that those who are able to best care for their young are the ones who are most likely to not go extinct.
Of course they're "helpless." But only without a parent (or other caring adult figure) to take care of them. Skills for survival, along with body development, have to be earned.
"...mammals and birds..."
It's not "fittest" as in strongest, silly-nilly, but as in the most adaptable, the ones who fit best into the environment. Your "nutshell" is broken.
I have news for you, Anon. Darwin's been dead for 136 years. He's not involved any more, dearie. Him being wrong then would have little or no impact on today's ToE, as it has evolved on its own, been tested on its own merits for decades and decades, ever since Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey.
Both Darwin and the ToE can explain infantile helplessness. If babies were born fully developed, their mothers would probably die during childbirth. A lot of babies of grass-eating species are up and running hours, even minutes, after birth. That's hardly helpless. The more helpless the offspring, the more maternal/paternal instincts in the parents.
Your supposed "flaw" is easily explained, not just by ToE, but by simple common sense.
Your nutshell is way, way lacking.
As to the fatal flaw, GENE POOLS evolve, not individuals.
So, no, not a fatal flaw.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
