I am often struck with the realization that I believe evolution more than adherents of the theory. I operate with a better understanding than most of the experts I read. I have often read the following or similar statements: ”Evolution needed to make XX happen so it evolved a method to accomplish this.”
I have been thinking about birth lately (no personal connection, just thinking) and recall reading an explanation of conception years ago. I have not seen an update nor a disclaimer. This will be a little delicate so if there are kids in the room, you might want to occupy them elsewhere.
Speaking as an evolutionist here, the lower animals copulate from the rear. This is convenient and meshes with their life style with no problems. Once the sperm has been “deposited” (is that delicate enough) within the vagina, the female can go on about her business while the little “guys” swim up the appropriate tubes to meet and merge with the egg. Voila`! We have a new little whatever on the way.
While we are here, most of the animals are capable of multiple births because mutiple eggs are released each cycle. Most, of if not all, of the larger animals only release one egg at a time, limiting the “litter” to a single entry into the population. Some aberrations occur and occasional multiple ovulations occur, but that is not the normal situation.
Why would evolution limit the number of offspring, since its “goal” is to preserve the species? Now you can throw in natural selection and say that the mothers who only carry one fetus to term have a greater probability of survival for both themselves and the new entity. But that does not explain the DNA modification that now restricts the ovaries to one at a time.
I think that I believe evolution more than they do. They just say that “it happens” while I am pestering the method to explain how, in addition to why the changes occurred. And while we are at it, it is remarkable that all “up and down the line” once an egg has been penetrated by the sperm, it develops a shield to repel any additional “fertilizations.” But the sperm count in the male “contribution” continues to be many times more than necessary for the vital process to occur. Just a thought.
But back to our now pregnant “higher” animal. The horizontal birth canal is conducive to the movement of sperm from “one end to the other.” Then when man comes along, walking on two legs, a species-fatal adjustment occurred. Now the birth canal is vertical, and the probability of the “little guys” being able to swim all the way up to the egg are greatly diminished. In fact, the natural flow of fluids would tend to “wash” them all out before they can accomplish their vital function. Ergo, species death.
Now for the fun part. I aver that I am not making this up. (I wanted to say swear, but forebare.) So evolution realized that the twin hemispheres of the female hinder parts were a guide and beacon to the male to aid in copulation. In order to get him to approach from the front, and the female to lie on her back (horizontal for the directionally challenged), nature needed to “add” a pair of hemispheres to the front end of the female. So the mammary glands enlarged and became that beacon to attract the male to the front. Then, just to sweeten the pot, the ability to orgasm was added to the female, so that after copulation, she would continue to lie on her back, side , or front, enjoying the sensation. This allowed the “s-troop” time to migrate past the danger zone and into the business part of their trek.
(I am not making this up. I have not researched it lately, but this was what I read.) And while we are at it, the number of mammary glands has been decreasing. (We call them teats in animals. Pronounced, “tits.”) Evolution surely has funny ways.
So that explained how the “naked ape” was developed by a benevolent evolutionary force. Only if you believe evolution, you have to admit that all of this was random, non-directed mutation. It was just propitious that the modifications worked out as they did. Well, the problem is not satisfied by this simplistic explanation.
For instance, which came first, the ability to walk upright, and the multitude of changes to the skeleton and appendages, or the recognition of the need for a horizontal birth canal. See where I am going? Random, non-directed changes would not only have to be coincident in time, but also in sexes. Both would have to “develop” simultaneously, but most probably from different mothers. It is getting kind of messy.
The enhancement of the mammary glands would also have to randomly, spontaneously occur with the ability to experience orgasm. Female animals do not exhibit visible evidence of wild, rapturous response to coitus. Neither do males, as a matter of fact. Growing up on a farm gave me many opportunities to observe animal reproduction. The mechanics, which you probably know, are similar. An erection is required for penetration, and after ejaculation, it shrivils back to a manageable size for transport. Nuff said.
Like I said, I believe evolution more than my evolutionist friends. I believe that the random, unguided process would have to have done this. That is why I cannot believe that it could have happened. One last comment. The entire sexual reproduction process, from the lowest animals to man, is so intricate and exquisite that to believe that it is the product of random mutations stretches the credibility far beyond the breaking point. If someone really believes it, they wouldn’t believe it.
“‘scuse the pun,” but who could conceive of this?
No comments:
Post a Comment