1 of 9
1
nursing a baby
Posted: 28 December 2011 09:21 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2011-12-28

Can you, please, explain to me in evolutionary terms how a human female can supply milk for a newborn. Please also include an explanation of how the infant can receive the milk.
How a human female can nurse a newborn infant is not easily understood. Many things have to be “in place” at the exact same time before the first newborn human could be given and receive nourishment. Consider just six of these many things that are needed to produce, deliver and receive milk. There are complicated hormones that must function some of which exert their influence before the child is born. There are ducts that must be in the breast for the production and conduction of milk The teat is round. (If it were a square or triangle the newborn would get more air than milk). And then the newborn’s mouth must be the right shape with lips. If the infant is going to get the product of the breast into its body he/she must have the instinct to suck AND the ability to swallow.  If any one of these 6 is not present because the evolutionary process has not had enough time to produce the chemicals and anatomical parts, then all newborns die and human evolution ends.
I wonder if an evolutionist has a believable way of explaining how even those 6 things became operational all at the exact same time. I know you believe that it “all” happened over a long period of time by chance and natural selection. The fact that these 6 are present at the exact same time BY chance is near 0. AND the fact that the supposed processes are “at work” in two separate bodies (mother and baby) the chance is further reduced and thus, NO chance.
I’m waiting for an explanation.

 Signature 

What I’m asking for is the freedom to follow
the evidence wherever it leads. ~ Richard Sternberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 12:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Geez, you don’t have the vaguest idea of how mammalian biology or evolution works, do you?  The six things you list as having to have occurred simultaneously certainly didn’t do that. Your description of how these items had to come together is totally incorrect.  Rather than attempting to teach elementary biology and evolution here, I suggest you check your local evening schools and take a couple of extension high school courses in science, then get the catalogs for local junior colleges so you can take some simple zoology or biology courses.  Once you have taken those, if you still have questions, then come on back and we’ll be willing to discuss them.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 01:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
upwardlook1 - 28 December 2011 09:21 PM

Can you, please, explain to me in evolutionary terms how a human female can supply milk for a newborn. Please also include an explanation of how the infant can receive the milk.
How a human female can nurse a newborn infant is not easily understood. Many things have to be “in place” at the exact same time before the first newborn human could be given and receive nourishment. Consider just six of these many things that are needed to produce, deliver and receive milk. There are complicated hormones that must function some of which exert their influence before the child is born. There are ducts that must be in the breast for the production and conduction of milk The teat is round. (If it were a square or triangle the newborn would get more air than milk). And then the newborn’s mouth must be the right shape with lips. If the infant is going to get the product of the breast into its body he/she must have the instinct to suck AND the ability to swallow.  If any one of these 6 is not present because the evolutionary process has not had enough time to produce the chemicals and anatomical parts, then all newborns die and human evolution ends.
I wonder if an evolutionist has a believable way of explaining how even those 6 things became operational all at the exact same time. I know you believe that it “all” happened over a long period of time by chance and natural selection. The fact that these 6 are present at the exact same time BY chance is near 0. AND the fact that the supposed processes are “at work” in two separate bodies (mother and baby) the chance is further reduced and thus, NO chance.
I’m waiting for an explanation.

Most biology and/or human anatomy books give a decent run through, but a more “believable” answer for you is not going to be found here.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 03:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
upwardlook1 - 28 December 2011 09:21 PM

Can you, please, explain to me in evolutionary terms how a human female can supply milk for a newborn. Please also include an explanation of how the infant can receive the milk.
How a human female can nurse a newborn infant is not easily understood. Many things have to be “in place” at the exact same time before the first newborn human could be given and receive nourishment. Consider just six of these many things that are needed to produce, deliver and receive milk. There are complicated hormones that must function some of which exert their influence before the child is born. There are ducts that must be in the breast for the production and conduction of milk The teat is round. (If it were a square or triangle the newborn would get more air than milk). And then the newborn’s mouth must be the right shape with lips. If the infant is going to get the product of the breast into its body he/she must have the instinct to suck AND the ability to swallow.  If any one of these 6 is not present because the evolutionary process has not had enough time to produce the chemicals and anatomical parts, then all newborns die and human evolution ends.
I wonder if an evolutionist has a believable way of explaining how even those 6 things became operational all at the exact same time. I know you believe that it “all” happened over a long period of time by chance and natural selection. The fact that these 6 are present at the exact same time BY chance is near 0. AND the fact that the supposed processes are “at work” in two separate bodies (mother and baby) the chance is further reduced and thus, NO chance.
I’m waiting for an explanation.

You DO realize that ALL mammals nurse their young, don’t you?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 04:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
upwardlook1 - 28 December 2011 09:21 PM

Can you, please, explain to me in evolutionary terms how a human female can supply milk for a newborn. Please also include an explanation of how the infant can receive the milk.

Mammalian infants are born with an instinct to suck, those who do not have this die. In this modern age, we feed infants artificially until they reach an age where they can suck enough to fulfill their nutritional needs. It doesn’t take much of an evolved brain to suck, it is a primitive instinct.


How a human female can nurse a newborn infant is not easily understood. Many things have to be “in place” at the exact same time before the first newborn human could be given and receive nourishment. Consider just six of these many things that are needed to produce, deliver and receive milk. There are complicated hormones that must function some of which exert their influence before the child is born. There are ducts that must be in the breast for the production and conduction of milk The teat is round. (If it were a square or triangle the newborn would get more air than milk). And then the newborn’s mouth must be the right shape with lips. If the infant is going to get the product of the breast into its body he/she must have the instinct to suck AND the ability to swallow.  If any one of these 6 is not present because the evolutionary process has not had enough time to produce the chemicals and anatomical parts, then all newborns die and human evolution ends.

It is obvious that either you did not learn biology, or slept through the class. Women AND men are born with milk producing ducts. These ducts are just glorified sweat glands. The nipple is round for the same reason your head is round and a tree trunk is round, because that is the most efficient shape using the fewest resources. A mother will start producing some colostrum with the hormonal changes caused by childbirth, but doesn’t truly begin to produce milk until either she starts pumping (if the child is too premature) or he child suckles. Sure, we save infants who can’t suck and swallow all the time, that is why we have NICUs….which is MY job.


I wonder if an evolutionist has a believable way of explaining how even those 6 things became operational all at the exact same time. I know you believe that it “all” happened over a long period of time by chance and natural selection. The fact that these 6 are present at the exact same time BY chance is near 0. AND the fact that the supposed processes are “at work” in two separate bodies (mother and baby) the chance is further reduced and thus, NO chance.

why ever would you think everything arose at the same time? Why would you think it would have to? You need to go to school and take a basic science class before anything can be explained to you in depth. There are reasonably priced classes in your local jr College which should have the classes you need—to understand evolution.


I’m waiting for an explanation.

The explanation is evolution,  the answer is education.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
upwardlook1 - 28 December 2011 09:21 PM

The fact that these 6 are present at the exact same time BY chance is near 0. AND the fact that the supposed processes are “at work” in two separate bodies (mother and baby) the chance is further reduced and thus, NO chance.
I’m waiting for an explanation.

Not sure what “fact” you mean,
and I don’t have much to add to what others have written,
except that perhaps a trip to an old fashioned farm during the spring time might give you some new insights.

You did remind me of the first time my freshly born daughter suckled off the nipple - mom did have to do a little coaxing, poor little girl didn’t have any experience you know, but it lasted all of a second or two and then whamo she turned into a little pro.

Also there’s this guy on YouTube Peter Hadfield who’s video channel is Potholer54 - he made a whole series explaining different aspects of evolution
Here’s a link to:

“#8—Human Evolution Made Easy”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&index=8&feature=plpp_video
Explains the Theory of Evolution in simple terms. A must for anyone who is confused by what the Theory is, what it means, and why it’s taught in classrooms. This video is part of the ‘Made Easy’ series that explains the history of our world, from the Big Bang to the human migration out of Africa.

The big question here is whether you’re interested in learning about this
or just poking at what you refuse to accept anyways.  Now, I’m not waiting for your explanation… just curious   wink

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

Drive by…

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I wonder if these nuts expect someone to post, “Oh gee.  I never thought of it that way.  I’ve been mistaken to believe in evolution for all these years.  You’ve convinced me to become a creationist.”  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland#Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals#Milk_production_.28lactation.29

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2011-12-28

Asanta wrote, “You DO realize that ALL mammals nurse their young, don’t you?” What about the duckbill platypus? It is an exception to the idea that all mammals nurse their young.

I do remember being taught that breast are special sweat glands and that mutations and selection caused certain sweat glands to be breast. That means that males are aroused by sweat glands! Amazing.

What was the first mammal to nurse its young? For nursing to happen many chemicals and parts had to be present and functional all at the same time. Otherwise the first mammal that was born would have died and evolution ended. Give me an explanation, please.

I know many deny it but in reality an evolutionist believes in miracles.To an evo a miracle is an amazing event the cause of which is extraordinary. For an evo a miracle is an exception to what can be explained by evolution. The whole process of feeding an infant is to an evo a miracle! He/She needs 100’s of millions of miracles to produce life as we see it today.  I should welcome them to the world of believers!

 Signature 

What I’m asking for is the freedom to follow
the evidence wherever it leads. ~ Richard Sternberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
upwardlook1 - 29 December 2011 11:41 AM

Asanta wrote, “You DO realize that ALL mammals nurse their young, don’t you?” What about the duckbill platypus? It is an exception to the idea that all mammals nurse their young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Reproduction

“The newly hatched young are vulnerable, blind, and hairless, and are fed by the mother’s milk. Although possessing mammary glands, the platypus lacks teats. Instead, milk is released through pores in the skin.”

What was the first mammal to nurse its young? For nursing to happen many chemicals and parts had to be present and functional all at the same time. Otherwise the first mammal that was born would have died and evolution ended. Give me an explanation, please.

I can’t give you a sure explanation, but I can give you a theory off the top of my head.

Just because a newborn cannot be nursed does not mean it will die. Look at other species besides mammals. They manage fine. The emergence of lactation may have provided an advantage to newborns, which is why it was subsequently selected for. Not all parts had to arise at the same time. Evolution is notorious for adapting parts that previously served one function to a different function. So for example, in the wikipedia article I linked, it was theorized that the mammary gland may have started as a sweat gland, then adapted to keep eggs moist, then evolved to produce milk. This is step-wise evolution. Perhaps there was even a couple intermediary steps where the proto-mammary gland was able to keep eggs moist while at the same time providing nutrients for newborns. Then, it became specialized to only produce milk once certain orders of mammals evolved to stop laying eggs. (Yes, sometimes evolution removes features as well)

For the remaining step of the newborn learning to suck, most likely it learned to suck for various reasons before the mammary gland evolved. Then when the mammary gland evolved, it was only one more step for the newborn to evolve an instinct for where to suck to get the milk.

[ Edited: 29 December 2011 02:37 PM by domokato ]
 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
upwardlook1 - 29 December 2011 11:41 AM

Asanta wrote, “You DO realize that ALL mammals nurse their young, don’t you?” What about the duckbill platypus? It is an exception to the idea that all mammals nurse their young.

I do remember being taught that breast are special sweat glands and that mutations and selection caused certain sweat glands to be breast. That means that males are aroused by sweat glands! Amazing.

What was the first mammal to nurse its young? For nursing to happen many chemicals and parts had to be present and functional all at the same time. Otherwise the first mammal that was born would have died and evolution ended. Give me an explanation, please.

I know many deny it but in reality an evolutionist believes in miracles.To an evo a miracle is an amazing event the cause of which is extraordinary. For an evo a miracle is an exception to what can be explained by evolution. The whole process of feeding an infant is to an evo a miracle! He/She needs 100’s of millions of miracles to produce life as we see it today.  I should welcome them to the world of believers!

The Platypus is a perfect example of evolutionary diversity. While it lays eggs it does so only after 28 days in utero and 10 days externally. But after it has used up the eggyolk the young hatches and takes milk from the mother. As the mother has no sweat glands adapted for delivering milk (kinda hard for a baby platypus to suckle a teat with a bill in place instead of a mouth). Apparently it laps the milk exuded through sweat glands into folds of skin.

It seems to be an example of an animal which has retained and successfully combined genes from early ancestors and developed various traits of those precursors which were useable in that environment. It is probably a lucky combination of mutation and evolution. But it does not constitute a large family and may be doomed eventually. It is probably at an evolutionary dead end.

Another such rarity can be found in the Silvery Salamander, which mates with males from other salamanders but rejects their sperm. The result is that all Silveries are females and identical clones of the mother. There are perhaps a few hundred left in Illinois and are a protected species.

These are the perfect examples of evolution which did not come out just right, but still able to survive in their particular environment. These species will eventually die as they are not very adaptable to natural changes. But hanging on !!!!

from Wiki

The evolution of mammals within the synapsid lineage (sometimes called “mammal-like reptiles”) was a gradual process that took approximately 70 million years, beginning in the mid-Permian. By the mid-Triassic, there were many species that looked like mammals, and the first true mammals appeared in the early Jurassic. The earliest known marsupial, Sinodelphys, appeared 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous, around the same time as Eomaia, the first known eutherian (member of placentals’ “parent” group); and the earliest known monotreme, Teinolophos, appeared two million years later. After the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs (birds are generally regarded as the surviving dinosaurs) and several other mammalian groups, placental and marsupial mammals diversified into many new forms and ecological niches throughout the Tertiary, by the end of which all modern orders had appeared

The early ancestors of the modern horse walked on several spread-out toes, an accommodation to life spent walking on the soft, moist grounds of primeval forests. As grass species began to appear and flourish, the equids’ diets shifted from foliage to grasses, leading to larger and more durable teeth. At the same time, as the steppes began to appear, the horse’s predecessors needed to be capable of greater speeds to outrun predators. This was attained through the lengthening of limbs and the lifting of some toes from the ground in such a way that the weight of the body was gradually placed on one of the longest toes, the third.

So when you speak of a 100 million of (miracles), over 70 million years, a single mutation or adaption per year among tens of thousands specimens,  would not be a rarity but in fact a near certainty. Breeders today can create hybrids in a few generations. Ever thought that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are close relatives of wolves.

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago.[1][2][3] Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food, fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, as the intentional cross-breeding of dogs continues, to create the so called “designer dogs.”

These examples speak clearly in favor of Darwinian evolution. Some species stood still and some species continued to evolve. The difference between brain size in a human and a gorilla may well be due to the difference in jaw muscles.

The notion of the creation of this incredible variety of species and subspecies livig in earth environments from sea worms living in 300 degree sulphur vents on the ocean floor,  to ice worms living in -40F ice packs in the No and So poles, to lizards living in 140 F dry heat of the deserts is false. These environments themselves changed sometime drastically in the course of earth’s evolution. These are clear examples of adaption to changing environments..

Is it not more miraculous to know that when you embrace your spouse, or your pet, that you are embracing millions of years of evolution and trial and error in nature. It seems miraculous, but it is a process that took a long long time.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

upwardlook1,

You heard the suggestions from learned people urging you to read some books written by scientists. If that is difficult, you have a very large library of subjects on Wiki. Just type in a few words and you will get a range of articles from very basic to very scientific.

Most atheists and agnostics on this forum are well versed in the bible and the history of religion. If you want to present “logical arguments” to back up a biblical claim or theist article on a subject, you would be wise to familiarize yourself with the science. If you do not feel the need for this, you will be at a distinct disadvantage in any debate.

Your observations on “how” things work are well reasoned, but your interpretation of the “why” are hopelessly lacking in knowledge about the actual process in nature.

Please, I urge you to do a little real research on the science before you post any statement.

Be well and safe and have a wonderful Holiday Season.

[ Edited: 29 December 2011 07:26 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Read Dawkins’s “The Blind Watchmaker,” upwardlook1.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 07:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24

Boobs just can’t be explained, therefore God is real!!!!  That is the new thesis we evos must defend.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2011 07:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3254
Joined  2011-08-15

Or anything else by Dawkins (except the god delusion, that’d just piss you off) for that matter, and he’s only one of hundreds that will lead you into the study of microbiology! More fascinating than the study of theology. Hmmm, we’re now known as evo’s? Evo’s v. Xians.  Sounds like a sci-fi movie plot or a new Ben nova book.

CP’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 9
1