If Evolution is true, shouldn’t the human race have died out?
Posted by Steve on April 17th, 2010
I’ve just come from the hospital is with my brand new little baby boy who is, at the time of writing, 3 days old.
Now I don’t know if you’ve looked at babies much in your life, and until now, I hadn’t either, but as cute as they are, they’re really quite extraordinarily pathetic. Don’t get me wrong, I’m so much in love with my new little boy it’s not funny, but he’s really extremely useless. He can’t do ANYTHING on his own, except make a noise.
And from an evolutionary perspective that puts him at a MASSIVE disadvantage. Let’s think about this for a while, from an evolutionary standpoint where survival of the fittest is the mantra. When microbes turn into microbiologists, only the strongest in the gene pool keep swimming. And why is that? Well because the weak get preyed upon and eaten. You see it all the time in the wild animals of nature. And there’s a big difference between us and the wild animals of nature, because their offspring can run like billyo within a few hours of their birth.
Lambs, can stand within an hour of birth – and the birth process itself (labour) takes a mere one to three hours. Horses can similarly stand and run within a very short time after birth. Just about all ‘prey’ animals have the ability to stand and run within a very short time after birth – which reduces their risk of becoming prey.
Predators often display more human like birthing patterns – with offspring that cannot readily walk. The cat family often produces offspring that are blind for weeks, and then totally dependant on mum for months for their food and shelter. But in these situations, almost every animal that produces offspring such as this, except humans, produce multiple offspring so that if some are caught by other predators the rest will hopefully survive. Also, these animals often have reduced gestation periods and remating periods if a litter is lost. Humans don’t exhibit this trait either.
Humans generally have one baby at a time that is dependant on mum (at least) for YEARS not weeks or months. If a human loses her baby to a predator it takes 9 months to grow a new one. And then it must be protected and nurtured for years before it becomes capable of looking after itself and more importantly from a survival of a species under evolutionary pressure it is years before the offspring is capable of reproducing itself.
So lets look at a couple of other things that make it difficult to accept evolution when it comes to babies.
They make a LOT of noise. So they attract attention of unwanted predators. This would mean that for many many babies, mum either has to defend herself and her baby against the predator, or run away, thus losing the baby. Wouldn’t the quiet babies be naturally selected, since they’d be the most likely to survive the baby process and reach maturity?
They’re incredibly slow for years – indeed for the first year or so they cannot walk AT ALL. Mum must carry them. This means that in a predator situation, mum is slowed down with the weight of the baby – or she must abandon the baby to fight the predator. The outcome for her is not going to be good if she carries baby – and is deadly for baby if she abandons it. Wouldn’t humans have evolved to be able to run or defend themselves much earlier?
On the other hand, if we’re created beings made in the image of God, we haven’t needed to defend our patch for tens of thousands of years, we were created with the necessary intelligence to build shelters and tools to defend ourselves after the fall turned many creatures against us. From a creation standpoint, looking after our babies for years is perfectly acceptable.
I’d be interested to hear your opinion on the subject so please leave a comment below.
Related posts: