Human Babies: The Best evidence against evolution

[PastorKeith]

1) 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?)

2) 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.

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

3) 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.

1) I don't believe in evolution, I was giving you one of many sad attempts to explain this problem with evolution. The story at the time stated apes on the great savannah came down from the trees for food, but because of the tall grass, they couldn't see the lions, so they adapted to standing on two legs to see predators, thus expanding their hips over time. This is not a fairy tale I conjured, this is a fairy tale I read on Scientific American years ago. Since then, that theory was trashed in place of other nonsense. My claim is simple, how could "evolution" foresee in billions of years that small changes to hip structure (for example) would pave the way to a bigger and more helpful brain? Every explanation around evolution is an absurd tale that usually gives the natural processes of evolution an apparent guiding intelligence of some sort. I grab a stick for the first time, and hit something with it... and just imagine, if I had thumbs, how much better I could grab a stick. So now you have to believe a large number of thumbless creatures tried to hold and grab sticks over a long period of time, had babies, taught them the same thing, and thousands of years later... thumbs appear.

2) We were created from dust and given authority over the Earth. Just as the Bible says, amazing.

3) I met Jesus, supernaturally in 2006. He appeared before me. Then I began to study the bible and realized every part of it was true. Many people (probably you included) don't even think Moses was a real man, meanwhile Jesus spoke of him. Was Jesus a liar, telling fairy tales?

Jesus never once abandoned the truth of scripture as you have. Evolution is just another deception of the devil to draw people away from God... and it's working. When people ask you about Noah, what do you say? It is just a bedtime story to you? Good fiction? You have given away all of your faith in scripture over to men in white coats... I am sorry you fell for it.

I like how you wrote "all of the evidence in the real world" - Meaning everything in the Bible is just fairy tales and imaginations, right?

What does science tell you about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? All of the evidence in the "real world" and all the white lab coats tell you it is impossible. So what do you believe? The Bible or the lab coats???

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Not possible, given the size of human skulls. Babies couldn't pass a birth canal if they matured any further in utero.

There is no reason at all why some mammals can't be born less mature than others. Marsupials, for example give birth to babies much less matured than human babies. It's a silly idea that evolution couldn't change things. The evidence shows that the birth of more mature infants is an evolved trait, not a primitive one.

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.

No wonder you don't like evolution. If I thought it was like that, I wouldn't like it either.
"People are down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

It's really amazing people believe this stuff.

Creationists never cease to amaze me. What they don't know, they just confabulate.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't believe in evolution, I was giving you one of many sad attempts to explain this problem with evolution. The story at the time stated apes on the great savannah came down from the trees for food, but because of the tall grass, they couldn't see the lions, so they adapted to standing on two legs to see predators, thus expanding their hips over time.

It's true that savanna chimps do spend more time in bipedal stances than forest chimps. So that makes some sense. The key is that there were hominids walking around on two feet long before any species of human evolved.

My claim is simple, how could "evolution" foresee in billions of years that small changes to hip structure (for example) would pave the way to a bigger and more helpful brain?

Why would it have to? You're selling God short here. Do you honestly think He doesn't know the outcome of the world He created?

I like how you wrote "all of the evidence in the real world" - Meaning everything in the Bible is just fairy tales and imaginations, right?

You've fallen for the "if science is true, then God must be false" fable. Have a little more faith in God and this won't bother you. Of course creation works the way God intended. He made it that way.

What does science tell you about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Absolutely nothing. Science can only look at the physical universe. If your faith isn't strong enough to believe, science can't help you. Sorry about that.

 

[sfs]

I don't believe in evolution, I was giving you one of many sad attempts to explain this problem with evolution. The story at the time stated apes on the great savannah came down from the trees for food, but because of the tall grass, they couldn't see the lions, so they adapted to standing on two legs to see predators, thus expanding their hips over time. This is not a fairy tale I conjured, this is a fairy tale I read on Scientific American years ago. Since then, that theory was trashed in place of other nonsense. My claim is simple, how could "evolution" foresee in billions of years that small changes to hip structure (for example) would pave the way to a bigger and more helpful brain?

Assuming the story were true -- evolution couldn't foresee in hundreds of thousands of years (not billions of years) that changes to the hip structure would pave the way to a bigger brain. So what? In this story, bipedalism and a different hip structure were valuable in their own right, and therefore evolved. Those changes later made other, also valuable, changes possible. What problem do you think you're pointing out here?

Every explanation around evolution is an absurd tale that usually gives the natural processes of evolution an apparent guiding intelligence of some sort. I grab a stick for the first time, and hit something with it... and just imagine, if I had thumbs, how much better I could grab a stick.

You have once again failed to explain why you think the story is absurd. An animal can grasp things, including sticks, without opposable thumbs. Grasping things is often useful for all kinds of reasons related to survival. Being able to grasp things a little better is therefore also helpful, and can be selected for. And this process is absurd because... why? What's your argument? (Mind you, this isn't likely why opposable thumbs evolved.)

So now you have to believe a large number of thumbless creatures tried to hold and grab sticks over a long period of time

Thumbless creatures (that is, creatures with 5 digits per forelimb but without the ability to oppose one of them) can and do survive in trees just fine. But any change that gives them better ability to hold on to branches -- which they can already do, remember -- gives them an edge. And that's all it takes for an opposable thumb -- which occurs to different degrees in different species -- to evolve.

Again, you're supposed to be giving an argument against evolution. You seem to have abandoned your original claim, or would you care to defend it? So far, you haven't given any real argument here.

We were created from dust and given authority over the Earth. Just as the Bible says, amazing.

Great -- we agree. But I don't think the Bible tells us how that happened. I don't think it attempts to do so.

I met Jesus, supernaturally in 2006. He appeared before me.

Again, great. So you believe in Jesus because you met him, not because you believed the Bible to be true beforehand. As for Biblical hermeneutics, that's quite a different topic than an argument about the evolution of human babies, which is supposed to be what this thread is about. How about you defend the claims you've made here?

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

Are you aware that Genesis describes ancient near east cosmology, and not modern science or biology?

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

Slow development is beneficial for our social behaviours and development. First we have more complex brains that takes longer to develop and you might say we have adapted to slower development to prolong childhood years which create strong social structures and bonds that lasts a lifetime.

When a child is no longer a child varies from time, and culture. Mary may have been as young as 12 when she become pregnant, but most think she was about 15-16yrs old. We know our bodies are physically able to have children at puberty and perhaps at a time this was still socially responsible but today preteens are too immature to raise families and many have an expectation until they have careers before they are reponsible enough to marry which can put them in the late 20s or even 30s. This boundary is getting larger and larger and childhood last longer. So this long development seems to also be connected to our cultural ways of raising children.

Orangutans are dependent upon their mothers for 6 to 8 years, even to the extent that mother's can continue nursing them through that entire time. Orangutans are not people but their complex social structures and more developed brains means they require longer childhood development. We are much more complex so need longer period to develop than Orangutans which doesn't sound absurb to me.

It's also not enough to simply say humans have slow development so evolution is false. Why does a slow development in humans mean evolution is false? This is of course thestic evolution we are talking which at its core is about divine intervention upon life. development length may be crucial to our spiritual development on top of emotional and complex social behaviours which may explain the purpose behind God's design.

 

[PastorKeith]

Slow development is beneficial for our social behaviours and development. First we have more complex brains that takes longer to develop and you might say we have adapted to slower development to prolong childhood years which create strong social structures and bonds that lasts a lifetime.

When a child is no longer a child varies from time, and culture. Mary may have been as young as 12 when she become pregnant, but most think she was about 15-16yrs old. We know our bodies are physically able to have children at puberty and perhaps at a time this was still socially responsible but today preteens are too immature to raise families and many have an expectation until they have careers before they are reponsible enough to marry which can put them in the late 20s or even 30s. This boundary is getting larger and larger and childhood last longer. So this long development seems to also be connected to our cultural ways of raising children.

Orangutans are dependent upon their mothers for 6 to 8 years, even to the extent that mother's can continue nursing them through that entire time. Orangutans are not people but their complex social structures and more developed brains means they require longer childhood development. We are much more complex so need longer period to develop than Orangutans which doesn't sound absurb to me.

It's also not enough to simply say humans have slow development so evolution is false. Why does a slow development in humans mean evolution is false? This is of course thestic evolution we are talking which at its core is about divine intervention upon life. development length may be crucial to our spiritual development on top of emotional and complex social behaviours which may explain the purpose behind God's design.

But why did God lie to us? Adam was created from dust, according to God's word... Moses could have easily written.... "And an ape begot Adam" or "and God reached into an Ape, pulled out a rib, and formed Adam"... there are literally countless ways the word could have been written to elude to evolution. But that's not what the Word says. So who is right? Man or God? If you say God didn't write the Bible... then that is an entirely different matter we need to attend to.

 

[DamianWarS]

But why did God lie to us? Adam was created from dust, according to God's word... Moses could have easily written.... "And an ape begot Adam" or "and God reached into an Ape, pulled out a rib, and formed Adam"... there are literally countless ways the word could have been written to elude to evolution. But that's not what the Word says. So who is right? Man or God? If you say God didn't write the Bible... then that is an entirely different matter we need to attend to.

you're approaching this with very western logic. There are 2 creation accounts in Genesis and they don't agree on all details. So which one is right and which one is a lie? Or have you explained the inconsistencies away? The accounts are goal driven and regardless how uncomfortable it makes you feel they are not fact driven. This doesn't make it a lie, it just means your approaching it the wrong way.

 

[Diamond72]

Every wonder why human babies take so long to develop critical life abilities like, running, walking, climbing and jumping?

Did you ever study the brain? At the stem or core is a primitive brain. This is the part of the brain that is effected by Parkinson and other disorders. The more advanced part of the brain is used for Art, math and science. Science actually learns a lot from artists about proportion and ratio. With brain surgery it is essential what part of the brain does what. If they have to go in and remove something they have to know what will be effected by that.

We see a lot of evolution even in the last 10,000 years. We have gone from primitive buildings like the pyramids and the tower of babel we read about in our Bible. The Greeks began to use pillars and that was a revolution to architecture. Even pillars were used for decoration when they were no longer needed.

We read about Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago and the revolution that took place when man and women went from a food gather to a food producers. Even Eve was the first women. Before Eve we just had females. Not just producing food but breeding animals. Even we see Jacob where he was able to breed the speckled, spotted, and dark-colored sheep and goats. His father in law had no idea that could be done. Yet we all know that today.

With Darwin's theory we have natural selection and artificial selection. They still call this animal husbandry in some of the universities. AS we know Adam was the first husband and Eve the first wife. Science spends lots of time looking at what evolved 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve. This was a huge transition in evolution of man.

If you remember David Ring is a Christian evangelist and motivational speaker who has cerebral palsy. Cerebral Palsy is caused by damage to the motor control centers of the developing brain and is considered a disability that alters speech and body movement skills. Yet he can still preach an amazing sermon even though that part of the brain is effect by the disease he has.

 

[Diamond72]

Adam was created from dust

The Bible tells us WHY God created Adam and Eve. Science tells us how. Even male and female began a long long time ago. This is what makes us unique individuals today.

 

[PastorKeith]

The Bible tells us WHY God created Adam and Eve. Science tells us how. Even male and female began a long long time ago. This is what makes us unique individuals today.

The Bible tells us exactly how. He was formed from dust into a fully grown human man.

Science tells us nothing. People who study science tell us their opinions. I don't care what the opinion of a fallen man is, especially men who don't believe in God.

 

[PastorKeith]

you're approaching this with very western logic. There are 2 creation accounts in Genesis and they don't agree on all details. So which one is right and which one is a lie? Or have you explained the inconsistencies away? The accounts are goal driven and regardless how uncomfortable it makes you feel they are not fact driven. This doesn't make it a lie, it just means your approaching it the wrong way.

There are not 2 creation accounts in Genesis, only your misunderstanding. Genesis 1 explains the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest, while Genesis 2 focuses on the events on the sixth day. This is very basic Bible knowledge, that you should have learned in Sunday school. And before you try to reply with Genesis 2:5 as a rebuttal, don't bother. The exact amount of time between plant life and man, is not mentioned, people just like to read things into the scripture that aren't there. Why? Because they desperately have to fit their views of evolution into the Bible.

But it will never fit, because it never happened.

 

[Diamond72]

The Bible tells us exactly how. He was formed from dust into a fully grown human man.

Yes and Science tells us where that dust comes from. God is all in all. Everything is in God and God is in everything. We are all connected and we are all one in God. That is why God will destroy those who destroy the Earth. (Revelation 11:19)

We can not destroy the Earth, we can not destroy each other without destroying ourselves.

 

[Diamond72]

There are 2 creation accounts in Genesis and they don't agree on all details.

They agree 100% on every detail. The Bible never contradicts itself and Science does not contradict the Bible. In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for allowing their traditions to override God’s commandments.

 

[Diamond72]

pulled out a rib, and formed Adam

Just so you know "rib" is not what the Bible says. Eve came from the side of Adam. Look at how that word is used in other places in the Bible. Science does not actually say female came from male. But we know they split and became male and female. THAT is what makes us unique individuals. Otherwise we would all be the same.

 

[Diamond72]

My claim is simple, how could "evolution" foresee in billions of years that small changes to hip structure (for example) would pave the way to a bigger and more helpful brain?

Nice strawmen you have given us. You tell us what you think evolution is so you can falsify what your telling us. Sort of like a dog chasing his own tail. If we love God, If we love the word of God then we will grasp any straw we can to better understand God and HIs love for us and what He has done. This is why God gives us science.

 

[PastorKeith]

Nice strawmen you have given us. You tell us what you think evolution is so you can falsify what your telling us. Sort of like a dog chasing his own tail. If we love God, If we love the word of God then we will grasp any straw we can to better understand God and HIs love for us and what He has done. This is why God gives us science.

When science tells you we evolved from a distant relative of the Ape.... and you believe that, you have lost your way. We did not evolve from Apes, we are created by God in His image. Just believe what the Bible teaches. You will find more glory in what God has done, if you just believe Him.

 

[Diamond72]

When science tells you we evolved from a distant relative of the Ape

God has a plan and a purpose. He wants to be a part of HIS Creation. If anyone has "lost their way", it is you. First of all the Bible teaches that we are guilty of what we accuse others of. We really only pass judgement on ourselves. Second of all we go back long before the monkey. The Bible says: God made them male and female. Genesis 5:2 & 1:27. Male and female began with what I call pond sludge. A better science term is algae.

"Sexual reproduction likely evolved over a billion years ago in simple, single-celled organisms. These early life forms, living in water, began to exchange genetic material, which provided a significant evolutionary advantage by increasing genetic diversity. This diversity helped populations adapt to changing environments and resist diseases."

The Bible actually says "dust". From dust you come, to dust you shall return. Ecclesiastes 3:20. ALL life is made up of the same "dust" or elements or "star dust". We come from the stars. God hints at this when He tells Abraham that your descendants shall be a plentiful as the stars. Genesis 15:5 & 26:4. Carl Sagan & Neil DeGrasse talk about this on the PBS program that they hosted. Both are as agnostic about religion as you are about science because of the alleged lack of evidence.

ALL life on earth is related. Every living thing. YOU are a part of God's creation. We are the tabernacle of God. He wants to dwell IN us. He wants to be a part of His creation. This is why according to the law of first use the very first letter in the Bible is a B. This represents a tent or a tabernacle. : The concept evolves with the coming of Jesus Christ, who is referred to as “Emmanuel,” meaning “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). Additionally, the Holy Spirit dwells within believers, making them temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16).

"Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple."

The Hebrew letter Bet (ב) carries rich symbolism and meaning:

1. House or Home: Bet stands for “house” or “home” (bayit in Hebrew). It symbolizes a place of shelter, protection, and belonging12.
2. Duality: Bet also signifies duality, representing the two drives within humans: the good inclination (yetzer hatov) and the evil inclination (yetzer hara)3.
3. Blessing: The Torah begins with the letter Bet, which stands for berachah, meaning “blessing.” This emphasizes the idea that creation and the study of Torah are blessed4.
4. Spiritual Connection: Bet highlights the importance of our spiritual connection with God and our unity as part of His family2.

https://halyministries.com/hebrew-letter-bet-exploring-its-christian-significance/

In Hebrew, “Bet” means “house” or “home” and symbolizes a place of shelter and protection. It carries the idea of a dwelling or a tent, providing a sense of safety and belonging. It highlights the significance of our spiritual connection with God and our unity as part of His family.

Let me ask YOU a question: Why did God make Adam and Eve Female? Are we the Bride of Christ?

Within Christianity, marriage between a man and a woman is often seen as a representation of the union between humanity and God. This concept is rooted in several biblical passages:

1. Ephesians 5:25-32: This passage compares the relationship between a husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and the Church. It emphasizes love, sacrifice, and unity, mirroring the divine relationship.

 

[Diamond72]

Just believe what the Bible teaches.

I have studied and read the Bible at least five times. The binding falls apart after the second time you read a bible. I do know people who get a second binding, but it is easier just to get a new Bible. I underline a lot as I read so I know for sure I have read all the books in the Bible. Every single begat. I do not skip over the genealogies. I read every word. DO YOU read the generations?

 

[DamianWarS]

There are not 2 creation accounts in Genesis, only your misunderstanding. Genesis 1 explains the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest, while Genesis 2 focuses on the events on the sixth day. This is very basic Bible knowledge, that you should have learned in Sunday school. And before you try to reply with Genesis 2:5 as a rebuttal, don't bother. The exact amount of time between plant life and man, is not mentioned, people just like to read things into the scripture that aren't there. Why? Because they desperately have to fit their views of evolution into the Bible.

But it will never fit, because it never happened.

this is trying to force reconcile the accounts and fill in the blanks to something the accounts do not support themselves. Perhaps not suited for your typical Sunday school discussion but scholars agree that these accounts are from different sources. Gen 1-2:3 is a P source and the remaining portion of Gen 2 is a J source. This is not only from the account's natural inconsistencies when compared but also from the different use of language in the accounts. For example, Gen 1 uses Elohim for God whereas Gen 2 uses YHWH which are classic examples of a P source vs a J source. If all from the same hand, you have to ask yourself why they choose to write the name of God differently with back-to-back accounts. The fact they differ may be an issue with in modern western logic but in Ancient Hebric block logic both accounts may be true at the same time because the truth is in the goal which has greater value than the details that make up the goal.

I'm not superimposing evolution to fit inside these accounts but instead pointing out they have a greater purpose than a mere literal representation. The differences of the accounts demand at least one to be non-literal so I don't approach them in a literal vacuum as I feel that actually distracts from the goals of the accounts. I'm not challenging the literalness of these accounts per se, I'm instead choosing to look at the greater purpose of the accounts, I find the literal discussion of the accounts to be the most uninteresting part of them not to mention it tends to encourage a lot of reading-in-between-the-lines conclusions to force reconcile them in a certain world view like what you have shown in your reply.