---

Did you know that during the first days of men, while Homo Erectus was still in competition, when women would give birth, they would die. It is because at 12-13 months, the baby is able to be sustained by itself, and so that was the only time that the women would give birth. The mother would then die.  
From there, we forced the babies out at 9 months to let the mothers live, and now, it is becoming a lot more natural for it to happen. All thanks to evolution.

---

All in all, that sounds wildly preposterous.

Post edited at 10:11 am on June 28, 2009 by SpM

---

No.

---

Quote: from Sexy 69 at 9:42 am on June 28, 2009

---

To many holes in it, no.

---

Let me guess... you believe god created everything in 7 days?

---

Quote: from Tavis at 5:51 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Did you know that during the first days of men, while Homo Erectus was still in competition, when women would give birth, they would die. It is because at 12-13 months, the baby is able to be sustained by itself, and so that was the only time that the women would give birth. The mother would then die.
From there, we forced the babies out at 9 months to let the mothers live, and now, it is becoming a lot more natural for it to happen. All thanks to evolution.

---

Considering infant mortality rates back in the day, the population would crash if every mother died in child birth and, even if every single baby lived, the female sex would soon disappear as there would only be a 50% chance that the replacement child would be female (and that's not even delving into breast feeding and the like). And even if the male:female ratio was drastically skewed in favour of the latter, the population would still be unable to sustain itself, because every male baby born would be unable to replace itself.

All in all, that sounds wildly preposterous.

---

We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was.

-------
All night restaurant, North Kildonan. Luke warm coffee tastes like soap.
I trace your outline in spilled sugar, killing time and killing hope

Check out my photgraphy

---

We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was.

---

---

Quote: from Tavis at 6:14 pm on June 28, 2009

---

We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was.

---

Unless these first humans created dozens of offspring with each pregnancy, which somehow I rather doubt, your idea is literally impossible.

---

The other species created the dozens of us. And we went from there.

-------
All night restaurant, North Kildonan. Luke warm coffee tastes like soap.
I trace your outline in spilled sugar, killing time and killing hope

Check out my photgraphy

---

The other species created the dozens of us. And we went from there.

---

Also explain how a species that could not maintain itself for even a few generations even in the best of circumstances managed to evolve in the first place.

Post edited at 10:23 am on June 28, 2009 by SpM

---

Quote: from SpM at 1:17 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Tavis at 6:14 pm on June 28, 2009

---

We are talking about the first humans, in Africa, thousands of years ago. Some believe, including myself, we were adopted from either Neaderthals or H. Erectus, and that is why we didn't die out right away. We found a way to avoid it early enough, that the other race hadn't been wiped out by whatever it was.

---

 
 Unless these first humans created dozens of offspring with each pregnancy, which somehow I rather doubt, your idea is literally impossible.

---

The other species created the dozens of us. And we went from there.

---

So you reject common ancestry between humans and the other great apes? Then why is there so much scientific evidence for this conclusion? Do you also reject universal common descent? Why do you do this when there is so much evidence for this? Independently discovered phylogenetic trees ranging from areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary psychology, biogeography line up seamlessly showing the conclusion of universal common descent. Why is this? Why does these findings also line up seamlessly with data from the sequencing of endogenous retroviruses.

Was all this evidence planted by an evil and malicious god in order to lie and deceive mankind?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

I do not believe, I know.

---

Scientific inquiry isn't something that's open to interpretation or else it wouldn't be science.

I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I know and accept it based on the process it was derived from.

-------
y'all nukhuhs that be aight wit dat bullshiiit, just hit us up mang

(englishfail)

---

Quote: from Moridin at 10:25 am on June 28, 2009

---

I do not believe, I know.

---

This.

Scientific inquiry isn't something that's open to interpretation or else it wouldn't be science.

I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I know and accept it based on the process it was derived from.

---

---

But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know.

---

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009

---

But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know.

---

All scientific theories should be falsifiable. I have no personal attachment to the theory, if it fits it fits, if it doesn't discard. But based on what we know now, there's more than a wealth of evidence in it's favor. It's just good science.

---

---

My objection is to the "I know" statement. You can "believe" and/or "accept" that it's correct or that it's true, but "know" it is? I'm not sure you can go that far.

---

If you know enough about something and have evidence that are pieced together in the most honest way possible, then isn't it safe to conclude that you know something based on the wealth of evidence behind it?

I thought it was, I could be wrong.

-------
y'all nukhuhs that be aight wit dat bullshiiit, just hit us up mang

---

I do not believe, I know.

---