Saturday, 18 July 2009

Women's spines evolved to curve as fetus grows

A scientist at Harvard University has analyzed why pregnant women don't tip over from the added weight in front of them.
I would love to have someone explain the exact evolutionary mechanism that would result in the outcome described in This Article.
I suppose that prior to this evolutionary development, pregnant women were constantly tipping over.

But seriously, according to my understanding of evolutionary theory, a female at some time would have been born with a mutation; namely, vertabra(e), "reinforced and slightly curved." This mutation would then have been passed on to her female offspring only, not her male offspring. As the article says, men do not have this spinal attribute. Now, first of all, would that mutation have been one vertabra, some of them,or conveniently, all of them at once?

If only one, then how many mutations must have occurred before all lower vertabrae were suitably curved and reinforced?

Would this have been while our 'ancestors' walked upright or on all fours? If while they walked upright, how did they survive before this mutation. Would this mutation have been valuable enough so that 100% all 'non-curved- females were eventually eliminated while only 'curved-spined' females survived. Females must have been bearing children for any number of years prior to this mutation, and most of the species would have continued to bear offspring, and survive, for any number of years afterward.

I assume that "all" females today, of every race, have this particular spinal 'adaptation.' If that is so, then all women today must have had this first mutated female as a common ancestor. Or are we to assume that this mutation occurred simultaneously in multiple females.

Whitcombe says, "The whole point of an adaptation isn't to be perfect, or optimally designed, but just to be better,..." (emphasis mine), but remember that an adaptation is not purposeful at all, but just an accident that sticks. Assigning a point to an evolutionary development indicates some kind of purpose, and therefore, some intelligent direction -- the complete antithesis of evolutionary theory.

If this occurred before our 'ancestors' walked upright, what would have been the evolutionary point of it. If both males and females were quadripeds, and this mutation occurred only in the female, what was it that first made her stand up on two legs? Why would she do it. There would have been no advantage, unless this first 'curved and reinforced-spined' female just decided to stand up as soon as her fetus grew to more than 3 pounds, while all the rest of her species, male and female, were crawling around on all fours. What a rebel!

Frankly, I find it much more difficult to accept this entire string of coincidences on faith, than that women were just made that way.

Take Care

1 comment:

Marie said...

I know this 'study' and post weren't intended as humor, but that just cracked me up!

Ummm...we do have muscles, y'know. Or maybe we just have special, super-strong muscles that are also a result of evolutionary improvement.

Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

The length some of these geniuses will go to in order to deny that God knows what He's doing...