Evolution Keeps Pregnant Woman Upright
Curious AP story about scientists who claim to have discovered why pregnant women don't "topple over" due to the extra weight carried in their bellies. According to these researchers it has to do with a previously unnoticed wedge-shaped vertebra and a larger hip joint. Fair enough.
What interests me is that while evolutionists in the media loudly dismiss any talk of "intelligent design," they just can't avoid using the language of design when describing "what evolution did." To read this story, you'd have to conclude this evolution guy is a genius. See what I mean:
What interests me is that while evolutionists in the media loudly dismiss any talk of "intelligent design," they just can't avoid using the language of design when describing "what evolution did." To read this story, you'd have to conclude this evolution guy is a genius. See what I mean:
AP Science writer: "Evolution provided them with slight differences from men . . ."I know. I know. They don't really believe "evolution" is an intelligent entity, just an effective process. Still, some evolutionists just can't seem to help but describe the process as something more personal, something that engineers with elegance and beauty and tinkers and even designs. Not that "it" does any of those things on purpose. We're all just fantastically lucky it "provides" what we need to not fall down. To suggest anything else would be crazy talk.
AP Science writer: "This elegant engineering is seen only in female humans . . ."
Liza Shapiro, an anthropology professor at the University of Texas, on pregnancy: "You experience discomfort. Maybe it would be a lot worse if (the design changes) were not there."
Shapiro: "Evolution has tinkered ... to the point where they can deal with the challenge. It's absolutely beautiful. A little bit of tinkering can have a profound effect."
Posted by Christopher Lyon on at
10:08 AM
3 Comments:
Mr Lyon,
The vast majority of evolutionary scientists use this sort of loose language when talking about evolution, simply as a shorthand.
Many popular science writers, such as Dawkins and Mayr, actually have passages where they introduce the "evolution as agency" shorthand to the reader - to make sure people don't think that evolution is some sort of genuine force or conscious entity.
The reason is simple - it is shorter that way. It is not because nature seems to be designed - it is merely because it is easy saying
"the design changes"
than saying
"the changes brought about by random mutation and genetic drift which, happening to convey selective advantage, became fixed after many generations of interbreeding and selection."
----------------------
As for us being "fantastically lucky" - I would beg to differ. Mutation isn't common (it runs at a rate of 1 in 10^6 or 7 in nuclear DNA), but in a large population, almost every single point mutation is a certainty within a single generation. After thousands, millions, billions of generations, we should expect considerable adaption to the environment.
Moreover, evolution is an extremely wasteful process. There were many that were not so lucky. In that sense, we are quite lucky - we are the ones whose ancestors successfully bred and passed their genes onto the next generation. The vast majority of creatures who ever lived never got that pleasure. The vast vast majority of lineages have died off. We are, in effect, a chosen very very few whose ancestors ALL survived and bred. In that sense, we would positively expect to be well adapted.
Mathematically, good adaption is not a matter of luck. Given a large enough population breeding over sufficient generations, it is almost a matter of certainty.
------------------------
Lastly, your other "suggestion" is not in fact a scientific theory, but a passage from the bible (a letter from St Paul to the church in Rome).
Suggesting this as an alternative to a scientific theory is indeed crazy talk. The biblical narrative of creation, taken literally, has been disproved scientifically many times over. This, along with various other problems, means that it is not and can never become a scientific theory.
I would suggest you read some good books (other than THE good book), such as:
- Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Dennett, D)
- River Out of Eden, The (Dawkins, R)
- What Evolution Is (Mayr, E)
Perhaps this will broaden the scope of your understanding of science, and mean that you do not have to be corrected by the likes of me.
Mr Hume, famous dead philosopher
Just out of curiosity, what about men who just have really big bellies? Why don't they topple over? Not trying to refute your points made in this blog, just curious :)
unseen: Thanks for your comment. It's not my study, so refute at will. However, the article does mention the big-bellied fellows:
"But what about men with stomachs the size of babies or bigger? What keeps them from toppling over?
Their back muscles are used to compensate, but that probably means more back pain, theorized Shapiro, who added: "It would be a fun study to do to look at men with beer bellies to see if they shift their loads." "
----------
David: Aren't you kind of making the point? The "loose" language evolutionists use as shorthand is the exact opposite of what they mean to convey because it's a more intuitive way of talking about things that are "engineered" or "designed" with "elegance." The shorthand is easier because it's the way we all think most naturally about complex systems -- "someone built this thing." For me, it's the most rational assumption.
Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment
<< Home