The Darwin Conspiracy website #fundie

The Darwin Conspiracy website #fundie darwinconspiracy.com

Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved". But most of them have offspring that are born helpless and unfit to survive on their own. Every life form before mammals and birds has offspring that are essentially self-reliant and truly fit to survive. It is not possible for Darwinism to explain how life could evolve in the direction of having less and less fit babies. If Darwin were correct, each new species that evolves would have babies that are more fit.

48 comments

old comment by JasoNF

1. No species is more evolved than any other: All species are the products of different evolutionary paths over the same amount of time.

2. "Less-fit" babies only occur in species that have developed a social organization. Such species group, flock, or herd. The mutual protection, and mutual access to resources that this provides outstrips any direct deficit of being born in an underdeveloped state.

3. You seem to be operating under an incorrect assumption that "fittest" is some kind of stronger, faster, brutal ubermensch concept. Rather, it describes the "fit" between and organism and its environment, which can change, and which often includes social interactions: A big, strong, mean loner will die or be shunned and not reproduce. A smaller, weaker, social, and cooperative human will live, and with any luck, be quite popular with the opposite sex.

old comment by cyborgtroy

"Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved""

ERNT
Try again.

"But most of them have offspring that are born helpless and unfit to survive on their own."

Well, you can't give birth to a full-size human with a fully developed brain!
Can you?

"Every life form before mammals and birds has offspring that are essentially self-reliant and truly fit to survive."

Not really, offspring are usually pretty helpless in my experience.

"It is not possible for Darwinism to explain how life could evolve in the direction of having less and less fit babies."

It's not the babies, it's the species. Apes and humans are apparently better off spending more time carrying children around rather than being pregnant with them [Our superior intelligence certainly doesn't learn much in utero]

The parents evolved to care more, and love kinda co-evolved with all of this.

Yes, evolution can explain love.

"If Darwin were correct, each new species that evolves would have babies that are more fit."

Our babies are extremely fit.

Do you see any other babies that can fit into human society and reproduce with other humans as successfully as human babies?

Fuck no.

Plus I can do calculus.

old comment by

"Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved"."

Bullshit. Considering something to be the "most evolved" is a relative description. If I stick you in a festering cesspool who would be the "most evolved" given the environment, you or the bacteria that thrive quite happily there?

"But most of them have offspring that are born helpless and unfit to survive on their own."

And?

"Every life form before mammals and birds has offspring that are essentially self-reliant and truly fit to survive."

So?

"It is not possible for Darwinism to explain how life could evolve in the direction of having less and less fit babies."

The reliability of young on their parents does not make them unfit.

"If Darwin were correct, each new species that evolves would have babies that are more fit."

I don't think you quite understand what "fit" means in an evolutionary sense.

old comment by FMG

Because the more "self reliant" animals churn out vast quantities of babies which they will probably lose to the rat race that is evolution. While most mammals follow a rule called K selection. Where you have small numbers of children that you rear up for a long period of time. Its primarily used by larger mammals since we are quite complex and need to develop for a while.

Which is why K selection has a good survival rate when compared to your "lesser animals". If you lose 50% of your offspring while K selected you are still doing well compared to the 90% of the "r Selected" offspring dying.

K selection is also handy in animals that "learn" because quite a few animals need to learn how to do things. A mouse and a kitten will get along just fine if introduced together at a young age. Not so if mummy is around.

old comment by Swede

Why mammals and birds? Why not fish and reptiles, or trees and fungi? Or bacteria; they are self-reliant from the earliest moment.

Everything is equally "evolved", you silly bint. There is no goal, no aim, no direction. If you have live offspring, that have live offspring of its own, you are evolved enough.

Some mammals can run with their parents the same day they were born. Some, like humans, take some seven years until they are sort-of self-going.

Yes, it's perfectly possible for the ToE (no-one uses the term Darwinism, except uneducated fundies) to explain how life evolved to having less and less self-reliable babies. If humans were to be born at age seven, the mothers would die during pregnancy and/or childbirth. That is bad.

Darwin lived about 150 years ago. Whether HE was right or wrong is of little or no importance TODAY. The science has "evolved" much further than he could ever have imagined, and it has proven things that he could only speculate about.

One if the reasons the Neanderthals are no longer with us, might have been because their brains and thereby their skulls were bigger than ours and women often died during childbirth as the skull was too big for their hips.

The Darwin Conspiracy website #fundie darwinconspiracy.com

48 comments

Confused?