Human Babies: The Best evidence against evolution

[PastorKeith]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

 

[PloverWing]

There's a tradeoff between multiple factors. Sure, babies with more fully developed brains at birth would have a survival advantage. On the other hand, the skull encasing that brain has to pass through the pelvis of a mother who walks fully upright (unlike the other primates). So, the skull and brain can only get so big and still have mother and baby survive the birth. Even as it is, childbirth is difficult for human mothers.

You say that this is an obvious problem with evolution. I'm not seeing it; can you give some more detail for your argument?

 

[BobRyan]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

Good point --

A good non-evol reason for taking a long time for babies to become independent in their motion and thinking is that it gives parents time to adjust to a new person in the house.

But there are many other things that disprove the evol speculation about life.

1. The long running evolution experiment that shows ZERO evol after 80,000 generations of direct observation. More generations than the "story" of evolution claims that it took for humans to develop from their pure-evol ancestor.
2. The abio-gen experiment that shows ZERO ability to produce all the viable building block amino acids for life - with mono-chiral oriented products.
3. The total lack of any ability to show how DNA would just pop-into existence complete with its encoding, transport, and decoding mechanism needed to actually "work". And NO step-wise sequence shown for it -- that can be reproduced in the lab.

Scientists such as Walter Veith (evolutionary biology ) have noted such defects for decades.

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

dissentfromdarwin.org

There you will find the names of 1400 scientists - many of them PHD's in the field of Biology, bio-chem, physics etc - who supposedly "do not exist" if one reads the pro-evol sources on the internet.

 

[BobRyan]

There's a tradeoff between multiple factors. Sure, babies with more fully developed brains at birth would have a survival advantage. On the other hand, the skull encasing that brain has to pass through the pelvis of a mother who walks fully upright (unlike the other primates). So, the skull and brain can only get so big and still have mother and baby survive the birth.

Small babies do not have less intelligence.

Small-for-Gestational-Age (SGA) Newborns - Small-for-Gestational-Age (SGA) Newborns - MSD Manual Consumer Version

Small-for-Gestational-Age (SGA) Newborns - Learn about the causes, symptoms, diagnosis & treatment from the MSD Manuals - Medical Consumer Version.

www.msdmanuals.com

• Newborns may be small because their parents are small, the placenta did not function normally, or the mother has a medical disorder, has taken certain medications, or has used illicit drugs, tobacco, or alcohol during the pregnancy.
• Unless they are born with an infection or have a genetic disorder, most small-for-gestational-age newborns have no symptoms and do well.
• Some small newborns remain small as adults.

 

[Lost4words]

We didnt evolve. We are made in the image of God. This i believe 100%.

 

[PastorKeith]

There's a tradeoff between multiple factors. Sure, babies with more fully developed brains at birth would have a survival advantage. On the other hand, the skull encasing that brain has to pass through the pelvis of a mother who walks fully upright (unlike the other primates). So, the skull and brain can only get so big and still have mother and baby survive the birth. Even as it is, childbirth is difficult for human mothers.

You say that this is an obvious problem with evolution. I'm not seeing it; can you give some more detail for your argument?

Evolution (supposedly) passes on traits that help a creature to survive.... if something is ineffective or not working, it leaves the trait behind. If all primates had evolved to the point where they gave birth, and the child had to quickly run, jump, swim, climb or fly to escape predators, then this is a survival advantage that helped advance the species.

Being a helpless primate for years would be the opposite process of evolution... It would increase the chance of being killed by predators exponentially.

So now we have to believe that the magical, unseen force of evolution had a hunch, that a future larger brain would be a bigger survival advantage (then fast physical development), and gave up the advantage of early development to pursue a future larger brain. Again, it's absurd.

 

[PloverWing]

Small babies do not have less intelligence.

I'm not talking about babies that are small for their gestational age. I'm talking about the difference between a newborn and that same person at (say) 2 years old. The question is why gestation doesn't last longer, so that the baby wouldn't be born until it is more fully developed.

 

[PloverWing]

Evolution (supposedly) passes on traits that help a creature to survive.... if something is ineffective or not working, it leaves the trait behind. If all primates had evolved to the point where they gave birth, and the child had to quickly run, jump, swim, climb or fly to escape predators, then this is a survival advantage that helped advance the species.

Being a helpless primate for years would be the opposite process of evolution... It would increase the chance of being killed by predators exponentially.

So now we have to believe that the magical, unseen force of evolution had a hunch, that a future larger brain would be a bigger survival advantage (then fast physical development), and gave up the advantage of early development to pursue a future larger brain. Again, it's absurd.

Evolution doesn't have hunches. The theory, as I understand it, is that several traits developed at the same time and reinforced each other:
- Walking upright, which frees the upper limbs to be hands which can work with tools.
- A complex brain, which can think about using tools to shape the environment.
- Also, a brain which is capable of more sophisticated communication than we see in other animals, allowing complex social structures to form.

All of these are extremely valuable for survival. But there are costs. Upright walking requires a differently shaped pelvis, which is good for walking but makes childbirth harder. And that wonderful brain takes years and years to train, so childhood lasts a very long time. Having gestation last 9 months and no longer seems to me a tradeoff between the various costs.

I note that I am not a paleobiologist. If any paleobiologists are reading this thread, I welcome corrections if I have misunderstood the current scientific understanding.

 

[PastorKeith]

Evolution doesn't have hunches. The theory, as I understand it, is that several traits developed at the same time and reinforced each other:
- Walking upright, which frees the upper limbs to be hands which can work with tools.
- A complex brain, which can think about using tools to shape the environment.
- Also, a brain which is capable of more sophisticated communication than we see in other animals, allowing complex social structures to form.

All of these are extremely valuable for survival. But there are costs. Upright walking requires a differently shaped pelvis, which is good for walking but makes childbirth harder. And that wonderful brain takes years and years to train, so childhood lasts a very long time. Having gestation last 9 months and no longer seems to me a tradeoff between the various costs.

I note that I am not a paleobiologist. If any paleobiologists are reading this thread, I welcome corrections if I have misunderstood the current scientific understanding.

Hands to work with tools? So you believe some creature who had no hands, developed hands over time, because of the potential to use tools at some very distant point in the future??? This is my problem with evolution, every small change takes countless generations and millions of years.... that is quite the foresight on tool usage.... by the way, who made the tools? By what hands?

 

[HarleyER]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

Hi PK

Your question makes me also wonder how many people who believe in evolution believe in abortion? Seems to me they go hand in hand.

 

[PloverWing]

Hands to work with tools? So you believe some creature who had no hands, developed hands over time, because of the potential to use tools at some very distant point in the future??? This is my problem with evolution, every small change takes countless generations and millions of years.... that is quite the foresight on tool usage.... by the way, who made the tools? By what hands?

No, not foresight. The first tools were likely objects in the environment -- a rock, a stick. The next step is refining the objects in the environment -- hitting one rock against another to break the rock and produce a sharp edge, or removing side twigs from a stick to make a longer, straighter stick. Compare, for example, chimpanzees using sticks to fish for termites and ants.

Chimpanzees use their hands partly as hands, partly as feet, and that's one good way that evolution can go; chimpanzees are well-adapted to their environments. But another way that evolution can go is for hands to become much less good at walking on, and much better for a dexterous manipulation of the environment, which is what happened with humans and some of the other hominids.

 

[PastorKeith]

No, not foresight. The first tools were likely objects in the environment -- a rock, a stick. The next step is refining the objects in the environment -- hitting one rock against another to break the rock and produce a sharp edge, or removing side twigs from a stick to make a longer, straighter stick. Compare, for example, chimpanzees using sticks to fish for termites and ants.

Chimpanzees use their hands partly as hands, partly as feet, and that's one good way that evolution can go; chimpanzees are well-adapted to their environments. But another way that evolution can go is for hands to become much less good at walking on, and much better for a dexterous manipulation of the environment, which is what happened with humans and some of the other hominids.

So you believe, some ancient ancestor of the ape, decided one day to start using her hand differently, and then that ape gave birth to another ape and taught that ape to use her hand the same way, and so on and so on....hundreds or thousands of generations later.... evolution. It's really amazing people believe this stuff.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

Deer and birds are not comparable to humans development.

Gorillas, however, are comparable. Their babies don’t walk until they’re 9 months and are primarily carried until they are 3 or 4. Chimps start walking at 6-9 months and are carried for 3-4 years. When you factor in that their lifespan is 40ish, humans actually walk and self-propel faster in their development than those primates.

Science has revealed that, in general, the higher on the food chain the animal is, the longer it takes to be mobile and the longer it stays with a parent, with notable exceptions with birds of prey and big cats. However, the unifying factor for both big cats and birds of prey is that despite being higher on the food chain, they are in less hospitable environments with sharp survival learning curves and they need to be able to navigate their terrain earlier in their life cycle.

 

[public hermit]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

Ever wonder why people make assertions and then act like they're argument is proven when no argument has been given? Yeah, me neither. It's a waste of time.

 

[PastorKeith]

Ever wonder why people make assertions and then act like they're argument is proven when no argument has been given? Yeah, me neither. It's a waste of time.

Yes, evolutionists do it all the time. It's pathetic.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, evolutionists do it all the time. It's pathetic.

Is that your argument, mockery? Interesting.

 

[PastorKeith]

Is that your argument, mockery? Interesting.

When you start to be serious, I will meet you there. You're adding nothing to the conversation with your last two comments.

 

[sfs]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?
All other animals mature much faster, as is necessary to survive in the wild. Deer walk almost immediately, Birds fly quickly. But humans? Helpless for YEARS.

Scientists have tried to come up with outlandish tales to explain this obvious problem with evolution, but each answer they give is patently absurd.
Just remind your evolutionary friend of this fact the next time you talk.

Let's look at the problems with this argument. First, the central premise, that early development should always be favored by evolution, is wrong. In evolution, if a set of traits is successful -- if it allows its possessors to survive and reproduce well -- then that set of traits will be selected for. Humans, as you may have noticed, have been spectacularly successful at surviving and reproducing with the set of traits we've got, including slow development. So why would you ever think it wouldn't be favored by evolution?

Second, your other main premise -- that all other animals mature much faster -- is simply wrong. Chimpanzee infants develop on a very similar timeline to human babies -- which makes sense, since they're our closest relatives. You have inadvertently pointed out yet another fact that makes sense in light of evolution.

Third, even if your premises were correct, how is this not equally an argument against a creator? Why would God create us with such defective infants that are so vulnerable to early death?

 

[PastorKeith]

Let's look at the problems with this argument. First, the central premise, that early development should always be favored by evolution, is wrong. In evolution, if a set of traits is successful -- if it allows its possessors to survive and reproduce well -- then that set of traits will be selected for. Humans, as you may have noticed, have been spectacularly successful at surviving and reproducing with the set of traits we've got, including slow development. So why would you ever think it wouldn't be favored by evolution?

Second, your other main premise -- that all other animals mature much faster -- is simply wrong. Chimpanzee infants develop on a very similar timeline to human babies -- which makes sense, since they're our closest relatives. You have inadvertently pointed out yet another fact that makes sense in light of evolution.

Third, even if your premises were correct, how is this not equally an argument against a creator? Why would God create us with such defective infants that are so vulnerable to early death?

Humans weren't always humans according to evolution, we came from apes with smaller brains. So how/why would this magical force of evolution decide one day, that a bigger brain is better, so we better start walking upright to widen the hips of the females to allow for larger skull structures in the birth canal....? Remember evolution is tiny tiny tiny tiny steps over billions of years... but people seem to think these traits just appeared and worked, so they were kept intact.

IF you ask why God would create us in such a way, you should do so from a position of awe..... Humans have always been the dominant species on Earth, God gave us dominion over all of His creation. You speak about His choice to make us grow up as we do, as an apparent flaw in His design... yet the results are quite contrary to your conclusion: Humans have taken control over the world quite easily... and all other species are under our subjugation. Not bad for weak humans who grow up slowly.

You sound like an atheist who plods on about the bad design of the human eye.... That miraculous creation that allows us all to see the world around us in great majesty. There are no flaws in His design, only flaws in our understanding.

Evolution is an exercise in absurdity... and the only reason Christians adopt this belief, is because they don't accept the Word of God. But they accept everything a science textbook has to say. If you don't believe what the Bible says about creation, or Moses, or the flood... then on what ground do you have to believe what it says about Jesus??? You might as well throw your Bible away at this point.

 

[sfs]

Humans weren't always humans according to evolution, we came from apes with smaller brains. So how/why would this magical force of evolution decide one day, that a bigger brain is better, so we better start walking upright to widen the hips of the females to allow for larger skull structures in the birth canal....? Remember evolution is tiny tiny tiny tiny steps over billions of years... but people seem to think these traits just appeared and worked, so they were kept intact.

Sorry, but this doesn't address any point I made. To repeat my question: why would you think that delayed development, along with bigger brains, wouldn't be favored by natural selection? You claim evolution shouldn't have favored the traits we have. Defend that claim or retract it. (And where did you get the idea that we started walking upright in order to have wider hips? What are you talking about?)

IF you ask why God would create us in such a way, you should do so from a position of awe..... Humans have always been the dominant species on Earth, God gave us dominion over all of His creation. You speak about His choice to make us grow up as we do, as an apparent flaw in His design... yet the results are quite contrary to your conclusion: Humans have taken control over the world quite easily... and all other species are under our subjugation. Not bad for weak humans who grow up slowly.

Exactly. You should tell this to the person who started this thread, who thinks that weak humans who grow up slowly are incapable of being evolutionarily successful.

You sound like an atheist who plods on about the bad design of the human eye.... That miraculous creation that allows us all to see the world around us in great majesty. There are no flaws in His design, only flaws in our understanding.

Wrong again. I'm a Christian who studies evolution (among other things) for a living, responding to a really bad argument against it.

Evolution is an exercise in absurdity... and the only reason Christians adopt this belief, is because they don't accept the Word of God. But they accept everything a science textbook has to say. If you don't believe what the Bible says about creation, or Moses, or the flood... then on what ground do you have to believe what it says about Jesus???

The only reason I accept evolution is that all of the evidence in the real world points to it. As for the Bible... Do you believe in Jesus because for some reason you decided to believe the Bible is infallible? Have you never met Jesus yourself? I take the Bible seriously because Jesus did, not the other way around -- and that does not mean that I have to think everything in it is literally true. That's never been a requirement for being a Christian.