Perplexed Scientists Think C-Sections During Childbirth Are Affecting Human Evolution

Photo Credit: Lisa Espinosa

Why is obstructed labor such a common complication during human childbirth? A team of evolutionary scientists thinks recent human evolution and the modern practice of childbirth via C-section contribute to the problem.

Obstructed labor happens when a baby is unable to smoothly pass from the mother’s womb through the birth canal. A major cause of both maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality, obstructed labor is especially common in poorer countries and results in thousands of deaths each year.

From an evolutionary perspective, the prevalence of obstructed labor is puzzling, especially because it is more common in humans than in primates. Why has the human body not evolved to fix the problem? Shouldn’t natural selection favor women with larger pelvic dimensions, thus making childbirth easier and safer?

“Compared with other primates, human childbirth is difficult because the fetus is large relative to the maternal pelvic canal,” wrote a team of American and Austrian scientists in a journal article recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). “It is a long-standing evolutionary puzzle why the pelvis has not evolved to be wider, thus reducing the risk of obstructed labor.”

Some scientists believe the human pelvis has not evolved to be wider because that would make walking more difficult. However, the researchers writing in PNAS say “the biomechanical benefit of a narrow pelvis presumably is small.” In other words, the major advantages of having a larger pelvis outweigh any minor disadvantages it may cause.

Why then, if evolution is true, have humans not evolved wider pelvises? To address this quandary, the researchers turned to Caesarean sections. Caesarean sections, commonly known as C-sections, are an increasingly common procedure, with about one in three babies born in the U.S. delivered via C-section.

“In industrialized countries, Caesarean sections have minimized maternal mortality due to obstructed labor,” the scientists wrote in their paper.

  • Connect with Christian News

Because C-sections make possible the safe delivery of large babies that would otherwise be unable to fit through their mothers’ birth canal, the scientists who wrote the PNAS paper believe that C-sections’ popularity is affecting human evolution.

“Our model does not specify the origin of these selective forces, but we found evidence in the medical literature for a reproductive advantage of both large neonates and women with a narrow pelvis, independent of putative biomechanical advantages,” they wrote. “We predict that this weak directional selection has led to a 10 to 20% increase in the rate of fetopelvic disproportion since the regular use of Caesarean sections.”

Scientists who reject the Darwinian model agree that creatures can adapt to their environments to a certain extent. However, they also point out the limits of natural selection.

“It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information,” wrote Carl Wieland in an article published on Creation.com. “It is not capable of creating anything new.”

“In such an information-losing process, there is automatically a limit to variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing their information indefinitely,” he continued. “[N]atural selection is a far cry from the creative, ‘uphill,’ limitless process imagined by Darwin.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    Perhaps these brilliant scholars haven’t figured out that evolution is a science created myth.

    • johndoe

      They know exactly the opposite.

      • Oboehner

        They have faith in the opposite.

        • johndoe

          Sure they do….sure they do …

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for showing the best ya got. If’n you’re trying to prove than man came from monkeys, you’re doing well. If, on the other hand, you’re trying to show that you are a son of disobedience and child of wrath, you’re doing absolutely outstandingly superb!

          • johndoe

            LMAO!

    • Jenny Ondioline

      LOL
      There are fossils.

      • bowie1

        How does that apply to a caeserean section?

        • Oboehner

          I’m afraid her argument has fossilized.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Nope. It’s entirely sound and in line with scientific understanding.

          • Oboehner

            Two choices, either you can back that up with proof in your own words, or you are a liar. I’m betting on the latter.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you don’t believe scientists who prove it to you then you are a lost cause. But I knew that a long time ago. The proof is there, you just don’t want to look at it or accept it.

          • Oboehner

            Why are you arguing a point you know nothing about?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You first.

          • Oboehner

            Enlighten me then, just one tidbit of proof.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            How about that poor nylon-eating bacteria, starving for millenia until humans invented nylon for it to eat?
            No?

          • Oboehner

            They are capable of eating nylon, it’s not the only thing they can eat. Try again.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, you fail to understand, as expected. There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. More importantly: The enzyme involved has been produced by a mutation completely randomizing the original gene. Despite this, the new gene still had a novel, albeit weak, catalytic capacity. This is seen as a good example of how mutations easily can provide the raw material for evolution by natural selection.

          • Oboehner

            scientific consensus = popular opinion
            most probably = speculation
            mutations easily can = more speculation

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Haha. Yes, by all means, go through all the science texts and look at all the “probablys” and “likelys” and point and laugh. Science uses those words not because they are unsure, but because their findings are always open to other discoveries.
            “Scientific consensus” = the best answer arrived at by polling many scientists. NOT popular opinion.
            “Mutations easily can” = mutations easily can, no speculation involved.

          • Oboehner

            All the “probablys” and “likelys” are laughable. Science uses those words because they are S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-N-G, because their findings are not conclusive so they A-S-S-U-M-E it fits their religious belief.

            How is the best answer arrived at by polling many scientists not popular opinion? That is EXACTLY what it is.

            “Mutations easily can” Means “scientists” B-E-L-I-E-V-E they can because if they actually did the wording would be different, something like “mutations do” or “mutations have”.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Polling scientists whose findings might vary is how you arrive at the best answer. If you want to play this game with your faith, let’s look at how many Christians cannot even arrive at consensus about things like infant baptism, some of you do it and some of you don’t. So you’re in no position to talk about things being absolutely 100% in agreement amongst your own.

            And the reason scientists “B-E-L-I-E-V-E” things is because they have data to support it. It’s really not a hard concept. But you fight it every step of the way.

          • Oboehner

            “let’s look at how many Christians” 100%… irrelevant.
            If they had the data to support it, it would be “know” not “believe”.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And still you attack without giving your own position.

          • Oboehner

            Do tell how my position has ANY relevance to evolution being a religion?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Do tell why you’ve sneered and guffawed at settled science for so long without once ever having the courage to state your own position. I think the relevance will be quite clear once you answer.

          • Oboehner

            The only thing I’ve sneered and guffawed at is speculative nonsense. My position is still not relevant, and will never be, but here goes: my position is – evolution is nothing more than a religion created by atheists in their desperation to exclude God.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            They DO know. And so do you, whether you want to admit it or not.

          • Oboehner

            They assume and speculate, that is far different from knowing, whether you want to admit it or not.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Well, I see the problem here. You don’t know what data is, and you don’t understand why it gets collected.

          • Oboehner

            They assume and speculate, that is far different from knowing, whether you want to admit it or not.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Science isn’t arrogant enough to say “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” as your brand of Christian seems to do. It says “this is the best answer we have in the absence of something that makes more sense.” And that is in no way assuming or speculating. If it were, the data they used would have no point. Obviously….it does have a point.

          • Oboehner

            Ah a grain of truth, “…the data they used would have no point.” Absolutely correct, data based on speculation and/or assumption has no point. All dating then has no point.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There is no such thing as “data based on speculation and/or assumption.”

          • Oboehner

            Correction: when it comes to evolutionism, There is no such thing as “data NOT based on speculation and/or assumption.”
            Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

            When the rock forms there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;

            After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters;

            The radioactive decay rate must remain constant (which cannot be tested).

            If any of these assumptions are violated, then the dating fails and any “dates” have no point. No one can with any certainty know if any one of those assumptions were violated as there is NO data collected over the life of the rock, they must rely on pure speculation.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            There is no such thing as evolutionism. That is a word you made up because you want so desperately for evolution to be a belief system and it’s not. Which should tell you something – if you need to make up words, think about how few people there are who agree with you.

            The age can be, and is, accurately tested. Welcome to non-speculative, non-assumptive science.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Fossils prove evolution.
          “Why hasn’t evolution made childbirth more comfortable” doesn’t disprove evolution.

      • Amos Moses

        so what …………..

      • Oboehner

        Cool, but not proof of anything other than the creatures existence.

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Not to those with an understanding of fossils.

          • Oboehner

            You mean those who make empty claims about fossils.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, I mean those who understand strata levels and fossil dating, which you don’t.

          • Oboehner

            You mean those who use circular reasoning and assumption, which you have blind faith in.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It seems to me that when you test your data and findings, then it stops being assumption and becomes fact. The thing is, you have to have your eyes open at the time and not run away scared that it might contradict your holy book.

          • Oboehner

            You forgot the part where I have to take hallucinogenic drugs to see it as fact.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Because education is too hard and scienc-y.

          • Oboehner

            Because evolutionism is too BS-y.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Because scientists are just into blind faith, huh? None of that study and discovery stuff means much, right?

          • Oboehner

            ZZzzzz….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Sleeping is probably what got you into this mess.

          • Oboehner

            This mess put me to sleep.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you’d stayed awake, maybe you’d be on point with everyone else who accepts it.

          • Oboehner

            You mean brainwashed, no thanks, I prefer to look critically and not blindly follow.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Being “brainwashed” with facts and truth are not anything to be ashamed of.

  • Tangent002

    Why didn’t God make the birth canal big enough?

    • Lexical Cannibal

      Because Eve ate the apple, DUH.

      • Tangent002

        Best excuse for infanticide EVAH!

    • Amos Moses

      so that some people would have funny shaped heads ……………

      • Tangent002

        Is that why God made the Zika virus?

        • Oboehner

          Why is the Zika virus affecting anything after bazillions of years?

          • Tangent002

            Viruses mutate.

          • Oboehner

            But they are still viruses, and the living population should be immune by now after gazillions of years.

          • Tangent002

            Viruses persist because of their ability to outwit immune systems.

          • Oboehner

            Still, the living population should be immune by now after gazillions of years, “evolution” should have outwitted viruses in that amount of time.

          • johndoe

            You obviously don’t understand medicine or physiology.

          • Oboehner

            Then explain why it is still a virus after bazillions of years, why didn’t sprout arms and legs or gill slits or something?

    • Oboehner

      Why isn’t it big enough after bazillions of years?

      • Tangent002

        Your time scale is off by orders of magnitude.

        • Oboehner

          I agree, being the earth isn’t nearly that old.

          • Saunders61

            You are correct, 4.5 billion is a lot less than bazillions.

          • Oboehner

            Do you have historical documentation of that or do I have to take it on faith?

          • Saunders61

            Helioseismology and/or measuring radioactive decay

          • Oboehner

            Took that long for that? Helioseismology, the study based on the assumption that the Sun’s makeup hasn’t changed. I like a good assumption as much as the next guy, but hardly scientific.
            Then there is the ever popular measuring radioactive decay, “scientists” believe they can tell the age of something by how much radiation it contains, yet they have no record of the beginning levels or any outside influences involved. It’s the same as trying to find the answer to a math problem that goes like this: An ’86 TA goes by at 60 mph, how long has it been traveling?

          • Saunders61

            It’s a little ironic, a person committed to a religion refuting accepted scientific standards. Your assessment may very well be spot on. I’m actually too nihlistic to care, but if I’ve irritated you just a bit with my trolls…Job done.

          • Oboehner

            Accepted scientific fraud to be precise.
            No you have not irritated me, just proved my point.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You HAVE no point. Your point is to laugh and wiggle your ears at things science knows to be true, and to call it assumption and religion.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz… My point proven again and again and again and…

          • Jenny Ondioline

            In your own mind perhaps. The rest of us are enjoying watching your dodges.

          • Oboehner

            Dodging what? Your total lack of proof? LOL.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Why are you having such trouble finding the “proof” when the schools had no trouble doing so?

          • Oboehner

            Yet you still cannot post any, hmmm….

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I can post hundreds, but what good will it do? You’ll sneer at it, continue to refuse to post a single shred of your own belief system, and walk away smugly. The game gets tiresome.

          • Oboehner

            Randomly tossing out scientific sounding words doesn’t cut it. If I can shoot them down, then you need to try harder or tell me how I’m wrong other than “You don’t know more than scientists”. Try again.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I’m sorry, did you find those very basic words “scientific sounding”? I didn’t expect them to go over your head. I’m not sure how much more we can dumb things down for you.

          • Oboehner

            Can’t get much dumber than evolution.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Calling the world’s scientists “dumb” doesn’t put you in a very positive light. Just so you’re aware.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Why don’t you take it on science like everyone else?

          • Oboehner

            Science would have the documentation, but I see you are again confusing faith with science.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yes, but it’s of course entirely too much work to walk down to your local library or look something up online.

          • Oboehner

            Yes but I see you are arguing the matter based on nothing but blind faith as you can’t even give one tiny shred of proof, how pathetic.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            “Blind faith” – how funny coming from the man with the blinders on who refuses to take them off.

          • Oboehner

            Gave up huh?

          • Saunders61

            Gave up long ago.

          • Oboehner

            I can tell, was it a bazillion years ago?

      • Saunders61

        Modern humans have only been around approximately 200,000 years.

        • Oboehner

          LOL, sure they were.

      • Jenny Ondioline

        You’re right. It must be God punishing us for accepting homosexuals and a woman’s right to choose.

        • Oboehner

          Did I say that or are you desperately grasping at anything? BTW, it’s a woman’s right to murder – a life is snuffed out for her convenience and for profit.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            All the usual hyperbole present and accounted for, you’re nothing if not predictable.
            No, you didn’t “say” anything. You never do. You just sit back and sneer at settled science.

          • Oboehner

            What settled science? You haven’t presented any, I sneer at stupidity which is all you give.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you sneer here, you’re going to sneer at entire libraries of data. You want to talk about stupidity? Really?

          • Oboehner

            Libraries of evolutionary data = large steamy piles of BS stupidity.
            BTW, we are already talking about stupidity – evolutionism.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Clearly you’re not afraid of ridicule if you’re going to make a statement like that. You’ve essentially just called a large part of the science section of all libraries worldwide “steamy piles of BS stupidity”. Never mind for a moment that you haven’t even taken the time to read a single one of them, out of hundreds of thousands. The proof you keep demanding is right there. And you won’t read it. There’s a word for people who do things like that. I think you know what it is.

          • Oboehner

            “Truth is treason in an empire of lies” – George Orwell
            I have read enough to know it is ALL based on assumption, speculation, and an atheistic religious worldview. There is NO proof, it never happened.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            But you have to be selective in what you read. And conspiracy theories are just off the wall wing nuts. Scientists, libraries and universities are not. And it’s got nothing to do with atheism – Catholics and Lutherans for example have absolutely no issue with evolution.

    • bowie1

      Probably not a serious question but it was a result of Eve disobeying God’s command and so the consequence that women would have pain in child birth and so it is as He said. (Adam and his descendants also reaped certain consequences).

  • Saunders61

    Since observable evolutionary changes occur over thousands of generations, perhaps the new and improved species that replaces current humans will have developed a wider pelvis. The hubris of thinking humans are the beginning and the end of life on this planet is astonishing.

    • Oboehner

      Observable? You were there then, right? The thinking that an ’86 Trans Am is actually a transitional automobile between the Fiero and the Lamborghini is just as ludicrous as the so-called fossil record.

      • Saunders61

        I wasn’t there, but the fossils that seem to confuse you tell the story. Having your nose stuck in your book of fairy tales seems to keep you from understanding how science works.

        • Oboehner

          So the Fiero evolved into the Lamborghini then right? After all that’s what the evidence shows exactly like the fossils you are blathering on about. Funny how you religious evolutionist zealots use the same playbook over and over. We have the “you don’t understand”, then we have “why don’t you read a science book”, the ever popular attempted shot-in-the-dark hack on the beliefs of others (like you use), and so on. It is really sad how much bandwidth is used up without one shred of proof anything ever “evolved”.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            When people tell you that you don’t understand it’s because they’re correct. You don’t. Ten billion science texts out there and all you do is sneer at them. And very conveniently you’ve never once told us what you believe IS fact, if this is all myth. For someone with tireless energy to mock and ridicule accepted science without ONCE having the courage to state his own beliefs, are you so surprised you’re not taken seriously? Your own “playbook” is as predictable as anything else you post…call the science all the things your own belief system is (faith, religion, appeals to authority, etc.) when they in no way apply. So atheism and evolution are religions? Who’s the deity? What are the holy books involved? Where are the worship ceremonies carried out?

          • Oboehner

            Ten billion? A typical tall tale by a clueless evolutionist. I mock and ridicule popular opinion, blind faith falsely called science, appeal to authority arguments, and ad hominem attacks – which is obviously all you have. Feel free to prove me wrong in your own words – I won’t hold my breath.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            What you mock is information that has been found to be entirely accurate. The whole time never admitting your own beliefs, because then you might have to confront the fact that what YOU have is popular opinion, blind faith, appeals to authority, and ad hominems. Just take all your own criticisms and use them to attack science. It’s your whole playbook. Always has been.

          • Oboehner

            When my beliefs are taught at taxpayer expense in government schools then I’ll worry about it. Until then the burden of proof is entirely on you, so quit dodging the subject and produce something even remotely considered proof. Wake me when you have something or go showcase your ignorance elsewhere.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I have no burden. Nobody does. Evolution is so overloaded with evidence that it’s not questioned by anyone except extreme zealots. If you refuse to take the time to learn it and would prefer instead to stamp your feet then go to town. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on you that evolution’s been accepted and the dissenting voices are irrelevant.

          • Oboehner

            Just one little shred of proof is too much for you? Quite pathetic.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You’ve had it already. Fossils and the law of superposition. Fossils of extinct species. Same fossils on both sides of the Atlantic. Transitional fossils. Nylon-eating bacteria. Radiometric and radiocarbon dating. Dendrochronology.

            All the things you sneer at and think you know better than scientists do.

          • Oboehner

            Law of super position doesn’t come close to proving anything, there has been trees found through several layers, indicating the layers were deposited there is a short period of time.

            Same fossils on both sides does more to disprove evolution than to prove it, it is logical that if evolution actually occurred the creatures would differ being segregated by long distances.

            Transitional fossils are a joke, merely someone’s opinion of how they should go, there isn’t one shred of proof that any one fossil evolved into another.

            Nylon-eating bacteria can eat nylon, that is not all they eat. Not sure what relevance that has, a dog my parents once had ate it’s own poop – that doesn’t prove evolution either.

            Radiometric and radiocarbon dating based on speculation and assumption, no one knows the starting level not any outside influences. You also might want to look up the 70 year old volcanic rock that was dated at over 3 million years.

            Dendrochronology? The oldest tree was determined to be 4580 years old, not proof of evolution either.
            Do try again.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            So what we have here is what you would give the world’s greatest scientists, too – a whole lot of burying your head in the sand because you don’t like the evidence being presented. You are going to scream “speculation” at anything concrete sent your way, and this is why no one bothers when you ask for a “shred” of evidence. You get a lot more than a shred and just guffaw and sneer and go your smug way.

          • Oboehner

            “world’s greatest scientists” LOL, opinion.
            “evidence being presented” When rife with assumption and speculation, it shows nothing. If a light suddenly goes out in a room that is evidence of a power outage, a blown fuse, a burned out bulb, faulty wiring, or that Bob flipped the switch while you weren’t looking. Can you tell beyond a doubt which one while you sit there in the dark?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Is this illustration meant to be applicable to evolution in some way? By the way, no, opinion, speculation and assumption belong to YOUR belief system. They don’t apply to facts.

          • Oboehner

            If you don’t understand simple logic, we’re done here.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Of course I do. Your problem is that when you’re confronted with simple logic, you sneer and loftily wave it away. The reason that’s a problem is that it DOESN’T go away. And when it gets taught in our schools, you whine.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Besides being wrong about most everything else, your car analogy is all wrong (though I admit I’m missing half the conversation here)….being that Lamborghinis were around before Trans Ams, and if anything, a Fiero would be evolved from a Lamborghini and/or other European sports cars, at least in terms of the general design.

          • Oboehner

            Just as accurate as the fossil story, so what’s the problem?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Only that cars aren’t living beings. So the BIOLOGICAL theory of evolution doesn’t apply to them.

          • Oboehner

            Just as accurate as the fossil story, so what’s the problem?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Your opinion aside, you can’t use a biological theory on a mechanical object…obviously.

          • Oboehner

            You also can’t take a bunch of dead creatures and arrange them to fit your belief system and claim fact… obviously.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            We don’t do that…obviously. We use accurate dating methods.

          • Oboehner

            You use dating methods based on assumption and speculation.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, because they were not designed to be approximate.

          • Oboehner

            They are not even close, scientists
            from the RATE group had rocks of known age dated.
            These rocks were dated at up to 3.5 million years old when
            none of them were older than 70. Not only that, rocks considered older based on strata layers were dated as being younger than others higher up.
            *sniiifffff* Smells heavily of speculative BS.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It wouldn’t be accepted by the greatest scientific minds of the age if it were in any way “speculative”. If if WERE anything like what you’re painting it to be, people with untested theories and speculation, the data wouldn’t be stacked so overwhelmingly in favor of it. There would be a LOT more division. If denying science is your bag, maybe you should try a course in mathematics, specifically probability and statistics since numbers CANNOT lie to you.

          • Oboehner

            It wouldn’t be dissented upon by the greatest scientific minds of the age if it were in any way factual. It is made up of untested theories and speculation, the data is not overwhelmingly in favor of it. There IS division, but money talks and those with the money won’t fund anything but their religious belief. If denying science is your bag, maybe you should try a course in mathematics, specifically probability and statistics since numbers CANNOT lie to you. Try not to lump religious belief with science or you will fail every time.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The handful of people dissenting it do so because it contradicts their fundamentalist religion. The scientists accepting of it is nearly ALL of them barring those few.
            And get it straight…WE have the science, YOU have the religion. You can try to spin it any way you like and twist the meanings of words around, but yours is the religion. Evolution is science. As the 576 section in your library (non-fiction) will confirm.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No one does that. They are able to determine the order in which things died. Just because you don’t believe in the dating methods used doesn’t mean they don’t work. Willful ignorance in the face of science is about the saddest thing there is.

          • Oboehner

            Correction, they ASSUME to know the order in which things died. Even given that they can not nor will they ever be able to prove any one of the dead things ever procreated let alone “evolved” into any other dead thing. I don’t believe in dating methods because they don’t work – 70 does not equal 3,500,000. Willful fraud in science is about the saddest thing there is, right behind leading people down the wrong path with that fraud.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, because dating methods such as radiometric and radiocarbon dating have been proven to be accurate, so there is no assumption involved. For something to evolve takes millions of years and because you can’t observe that with your own eyes you dismiss it all as unprovable. The thing is, it’s not unprovable. Science doesn’t thrive and progress and give us advances in technology by being fraudulent. Your religion has taught you that.

          • Oboehner

            The ONLY way they could be prove accurate is if someone observed the ENTIRE life of any rock, which obviously they have not, therefor it is ALL based on assumption and speculation. Any honest scientist would have to admit that.
            For something to “evolve” takes millions of years and because you can’t observe that with your own eyes, it all is un-provable. “Science doesn’t thrive and progress and give us advances in technology by being fraudulent.” Very true, it thrives and progresses on observable, testable, and repeatable science. Your religion is trying to tell you otherwise.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, it’s not the only way. And it would have to take someone with zero understanding of science to say such a thing, which you’re now going to say is an ad hominem but it’s not. Fossils tell the story and they don’t just tell us they existed, they tell us when and show us how they changed over time. And I think you know that, but you just WANT to deny it.

          • Oboehner

            Looks like you’re the one telling a story, not a very good one. Fossils show us dead things – period. You only CHOOSE to believe they say anything else. And I think you know that, but you just WANT to deny it.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            We know their dates. I’m really sorry, you are frightened to believe the dating methods are accurate, but they are. Willful ignorance is not your friend in these situations.

          • Oboehner

            Frightened? What next, you want me to believe in fairies, unicorns, and such? Do explain how you can tell how much radiation has decayed when you don’t know how much there was at the beginning or if anything affected those levels along the way. That should be a first grade math problem – like this: “Joey gave away 3 apples, how many does he have left?
            Remember 70 does not equal 3,500,000.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Well, rather than give you the answer, which always works SO well with you, why don’t you show us that you can make an effort to look on the internet for the answer? Here’s a hint: as with everything else, you are hopelessly wrong, and the answer is very simple. Go.

          • Oboehner

            Too bad everything you have bling faith in doesn’t hold water, here’s a hint: try something else.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Too afraid to even look? What are you afraid of, finding out that you might be wrong?

          • Oboehner

            You look, I already have.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If you actually looked, you’d know the answer.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The problem is it’s not as accurate, nowhere near.

          • Oboehner

            No, the problem is the fossil fairytale is not accurate at all. Perhaps you should do some more digging and critical thinking into the aging process for starters.

      • Jenny Ondioline

        “You were there then, right?”

        Dr. Lenski was.

        • Oboehner

          Dr. Lenski is millions of years old? Wow, that’s something!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It isn’t necessary for him to be…obviously.

          • Oboehner

            It most certainly is for him to have personally witnessed the entire fossil record being created… obviously.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Not when we have dating methods proven to be accurate.

          • Oboehner

            But alas, we don’t. Couldn’t even handle a 70 year old volcanic rock.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            What 70 year old rock is this?

          • Oboehner

            See my other post.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Is it anything like your usual posts?

  • cadcoke5

    Often absent from these discussions is the mention of the regulatory genes. These seem to be a major purpose of what used to be called “Junk DNA”. These seem to be how God permits an organism to have a range of sizes and adaptability. So, true mutation is not necessary to provide this adaptability.

  • CanadianPilgrim

    What a load of mythical crap. Not all women have C-sections. How could the entire human genome’s “evolution” be affected by the medical practices of some?

    • Oboehner

      Desperation.

      • Jenny Ondioline

        Oh, someone’s desperate, all right.

        • Oboehner

          They have nothing other than jumping up and down and repeating “science!” with nothing to back it up.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yes, when you choose to ignore newspapers, scientific texts, libraries, scholars and experts and choose instead to wave your Bibles at school boards for teaching kids evolution in science classes. Which it is.

          • Oboehner

            Still more nothing.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            That “nothing” is taught in schools. In science class. You lose.

          • Oboehner

            With proof at all, how sad for all those brain-washed children.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Billions of them.
            Or maybe…just maybe…you’re wrong, and the 99.99% who trust in science are right?

          • Oboehner

            Popular opinion again.

          • Roger Peritone

            Read “talk origins” or maybe even some of the sites that I listed in a previous comment:

            “The Continuing Evolution of Genes” by Carl Zimmer on the New York Times site on April 28, 2014

            “Evolving
            a new function via gene duplication and divergence” on the Panda’s
            Thumb website by Richard B. Hoppe on November 12, 2012

            Not that you’ll bother. Xians don’t care about evidence, as the “statement of faith” of AiG shows.

          • Oboehner

            Straight out of the evolutionist playbook, appeal to authority (via cut and paste)-
            “Read ‘talk origins’ or maybe even some of the sites that I listed in a previous comment:
            ‘The Continuing Evolution of Genes’ by Carl Zimmer on the New York Times site on April 28, 2014
            ‘Evolving a new function via gene duplication and divergence’ on the Panda’s
            Thumb website by Richard B. Hoppe on November 12, 2012”

            Followed by the old ad hominem – “Not that you’ll bother. Xians don’t care about evidence, as the “statement of faith” of AiG shows.

            If all you have is that, quit before you look more the fool. I have read “talk origins” and found it to be nothing more than a religious text. EVERY bit of evolution can be boiled down to assumption, speculation, and plain old blind faith, every bit.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s not an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is “This guy is smart, and he believes in evolution, therefore it’s true.”

            What Jenny is saying is “Here’s the evidence. Go read it for yourself.” I concur.

          • Oboehner

            An appeal to authority is “This guy(s) (Carl Zimmer , Richard B. Hoppe) is smart, and he believes in evolution, therefore it’s true.”
            You missed the ever present ad hominem.
            What she is saying is, “I don’t know what I’m talking about so I’ll just toss out some website or whatever.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            She “tossed out some websites” so you’d read them. Have you?

          • Oboehner

            “Insanity: reading the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – me and Albert Einstein
            There is no proof in any of them.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yes. It’s there. You just have to have your eyes and mind open.

          • Oboehner

            Don’t just spread rumors of it, share something that can hold up. Or do I have to open my mind so far my brain falls out?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Reams and scads and libraries of information containing data and facts and not guesswork, and you’re sitting back and calling it all “rumors”. Utterly….UTTERLY fascinating.

          • Oboehner

            ALL based on assumption and speculation rendering it reams and scads and big steamy piles of worthless BS. You seem to be incapable of producing anything worthwhile from any of it, how sad.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            So you know better than experts in the scientific field worldwide. Ever thought of writing a book where you tell the greatest scientific minds of this age about their steamy piles of worthless BS while you continue to hide behind a Christian fundamentalism you are too ashamed to publicly state?

          • Oboehner

            “greatest scientific minds of this age” (opinion), they have nothing yet continue to blather on about that nothing. Bringing up the beliefs of others only shows your desperation to defend your religion, how utterly pathetic.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Opinion? Possibly, in this case. But I am content to let the experts nominate themselves for “greatest scientific minds of the age,” how about you? Or would you prefer to leave that task to some fundamentalist conspiracy theorist? I mean, since you want to talk about utterly pathetic behavior.

          • Oboehner

            So you are a follower with no ability to think for yourself, don’t feel bad most if not all who have faith in evolutionism are the same.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If I were following someone’s guesswork, you might have a point. You can continue to call this factual data “fairy tales”, “appeals to authority”, “speculation” and whatever other ridiculous cowardly words you like. There is no appeal involved. This is accepting data. Something you have absolutely no reason to refuse to do.

          • Oboehner

            “If I were following someone’s guesswork, you might have a point.” I guess I have a point as you yourself have stated that it is guesswork.
            If there isn’t any factual data (which there isn’t) you don’t have a point.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, I never stated that it was guesswork. Don’t let your desperation start to turn your statements into baldfaced lies. I don’t think that sits well with your God.
            There is factual data. Nothing but. If it wasn’t factual it wouldn’t BE data.

          • Oboehner

            Go back in you history and look for any synonyms that apply, they are there.
            There is speculative data, nothing more.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No thanks. I’m entirely familiar with your playbook and creating hyperbole in the form of Englishese like “evolutionism”. I know what I said.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why not?

          • Oboehner

            Why?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You’re right, I responded to the wrong post. Why do you think there’s no evidence in them?

          • Oboehner

            I believe what I said is: “There is no proof in any of them.” You should know the difference between evidence and proof.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Which NOBODY is doing.
            He IS smart, and he DOES accept evolution.
            But your “therefore” is completely misplaced.
            A more factual statement would be, “He is smart, and accepts evolution, and does so based on overwhelming facts and evidence which are necessary.”

          • Oboehner

            A more factual statement would be, “He is smart, and accepts evolution, and does so based on overwhelming assumption and speculation which are necessary for anyone to believe that BS.”

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You’re making the claim that science obtains its findings with assumption and speculation. I’m still trying to take in the enormity of the stupid it takes to make a statement like that one. We can end this right now. You can simply say you don’t like, believe, or trust science nor scientists. Say that, and everyone walks away.

          • Oboehner

            I am stating the facts, I’m still trying to take in the enormity of the stupid it takes not to see them. We can end this right now. You can simply say you blindly believe evolutionism because you choose too.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            The only blind one is yourself. All I am guilty of is accepting evidence and proof. Which you won’t allow yourself to do because of your fundamentalist religion.

          • Oboehner

            You can’t accept proof, you have NONE, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Schools, universities, libraries, all the halls of knowledge and learning. They have the proof, Oboehner. Your church doesn’t.

          • Oboehner

            Still none, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Schools.
            Universities.
            Libraries.

            Are they all wrong? Is their data wrong? Are their findings wrong? Are they lying? Are you a conspiracy theorist?

          • Oboehner

            When the religion of evolutionism holds a monopoly, of course their beliefs will be more prevalent – does not indicate truth. ALL data based on assumption and speculation, which is the root of evolutionism, is nothing more than religious belief.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I read this in Scientific American a few moments ago, it describes your situation perfectly:

            “Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

            Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith.”

            Add to this the simple fact that you never state your belief system. You hide it precisely because it is all the very things you throw at science – speculation, religion, faith. All untested and lacking in logic and reason.

          • Oboehner

            Thinly veiled ad hominem with no basis in fact from a biased publication.

            How’s this: “Have you ever noticed how evolutionists never present any proof? They just elude to it then hide behind appeal to authority arguments and ad hominem attacks, claiming if the dissenter doesn’t buy the BS they’re selling that somehow the dissenter is a science denier even though none was presented.
            This applies more correctly to evolutionists than anyone else –
            “Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.”

            Evolutionists, for example, claim the evidence they manufactured for evolution in fossils which they fraudulently claim as transitional (with absolutely no proof) and DNA (which they conveniently ignore any other explanations) because they are concerned about God encroaching on their religious faith.

            My belief system is just that, a belief system that has never been disproved, and has remained constant. Evolutionism constantly changes whenever a hole is poked in that religious belief system. Evolution – speculation, religion, faith. All untested and lacking in logic and reason.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Did you notice that the article was from Scientific American and not Speculative American or Appeal to Authority American?
            Funny how everyone sees the proof and accepts it but you.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You continue to take settled matters of fact and try to pain them as matters of speculation and opinion. And you fail every single time. And many people are telling you that.

          • Oboehner

            If you cant dazzle them with brilliance…

          • Roger Peritone

            “Appeal to authority”? Only the authorities that have actually studied it, and published evidence. All of which you did indeed ignore, as shown by your last statement. “Every bit” of evidence for evolution is just “assumption, speculation, and plain old blind faith”?

            You haven’t read a thing. Did you pick anything from those articles and dispute it? Nope.

            I was right about you after all.

          • Oboehner

            I don’t ignore exclusive evidence, have any credible evidence not based on assumption or speculation? I’m all a-twitter with anticipation.
            I have already stated this would include you – give me one thing at a time, no stupid links, and no lengthy cut and paste crap.

          • Roger Peritone

            Literacy. It’s for more than posting on blogs. I gave your the sources. If you refuse to read them, that’s your fault, and your problem.

            Any excuse to ignore evidence, you willfully ignorant coward.

            By the way, sherlock? “Argument from authority” is only a fallacy when the “authority” in question is commenting OUTSIDE their field.

          • Oboehner

            Large talk from someone who doesn’t even read his own crap. But since I have read all of that crap and have not the time to post about all of the assumption, speculation, and exclusionary “science” I found, why don’t you post your favorite proof one at a time in your own words. This would also prove your own literacy.
            By the way Sherlock, Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who is said to be an “authority” on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the “authority.”

          • Roger Peritone

            “Appeal to authority” is only a fallacy if you use an authority who does NOT have knowledge in the relevant field. Why? Because they likely don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

            How’s about an ancient incident of chromosome fusion? Human chromosome number two which has bits of chromosome ENDS near it’s core. Scientists looked at some chimp chromosomes and found that two of them matched the fused human 2 chromosome.

            We have a common ancenstor which the chimps, where that chromosome fusion happened.

            For more detail: “The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists)” by Carl Zimmer on the July 19,. 2012 edition of “Discover” online site on Zimmer’s blog “The Loom”.

          • Oboehner

            “Scientists looked at some chimp chromosomes and found that two of them matched the fused human 2 chromosome.” Common designer, created to exist in the same environment.
            I think the Author suffers from an extra chromosome if they really think they can post a big flowery fairytale based on a grain of assumption and somehow think it has any truth to it.

          • Roger Peritone

            And….BIG SURPRISE! You disregard the evidence! That so-called “grain of assumption” was borne out by physical, chromosomal evidence. Try and think, something you religious people have trouble doing…

            –what are the chances of two chimp chromosomes matching that of a human chromosome which itself shows evidence of a chromosomal fusion in the past? How does your fairytale explain that?

            Amazing, eh? Someone who spent a few decades studying this stuff gets insulted by a know-nothing superstitious fool like YOU, simply because he presents evidence that you don’t like.

            Typical religious behaviour.

          • Oboehner

            And… BIG SURPRISE! Any evidence automatically fits YOUR religious world-view! The grain of assumption was born out of a fairytale religious world-view (evolutionism) and embellished upon. Then the fraudulent assumptive claim of “chromosomal fusion” with no proof they didn’t come that way, but based on the religious world-view, they magically did!!

            Let me know when you can be considered even a minute fraction of a tiny bit as smart as God’s thumbnail, then you can ponder the whys and wherefores. But speaking of questions, why didn’t ANYTHING else “evolve” up some intelligence like humans? Seems that over bazillions of years some other being would have figured it out – like the magically fused chimps, why can’t they play on Jeopardy? They had bazillions of years too did they not?

            Amazing, eh? Someone who spent a few decades studying this stuff gets insulted by a know-nothing superstitious fool like YOU, simply because he presents evidence that you don’t like.

            Typical religious behavior.

          • Roger Peritone

            So: What would you accept as evidence of common descent then?

          • Oboehner

            Nope, common designer. You would have to accept that as well, after all science isn’t exclusionary based on religious views.

          • Roger Peritone

            So you’d not accept anything. Big surprise. Here’s the thing: That chromosome fusion thing was predicted by scientists. It was a test that evolution passed.

            What can you people do? Come along AFTER the fact and say: “common designer”. Problem?

            You can say “common designer” about anything…after the fact.

            If there’s any similarities, it’s “common designer”. If there’s differences, you can say that “god made it that way”.

            On the other hand, if they had never found those chromosomal fusion artifacts and genetic similarities to chimp’s unfused chromosomes, that would put common descent from chimps into trouble.

            Real science is testable. Creationism is not.

          • Oboehner

            I hear that the chromosome fusion thing was debunked by further research, guess that test was a fail.

          • Roger Peritone

            Citation?

          • Roger Peritone

            Citation? Or did you pull that out of nowhere?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And we have, and you either pretend to not understand it and walk away sneering, or you legitimately DON’T understand it and walk away muttering “assumption”, “speculation” and “appeal to authority.”

            Prime example: You’re shown that bacteria that can eat synthetic nylon exists. You respond with “They are capable of eating nylon, it’s not the only thing they can eat.”

            But the bacteria have been around for FAR longer than nylon. Meaning they EVOLVED the ability to eat nylon. That they can also eat other things is irrelevant. So you DON’T know. Or are trying to muddy the waters and mislead and dodge.

            Nylon was invented in the 1930’s, and many years later bacteria were found which are able to digest it. Therefore, at some point the bacteria had to mutate to the point where they were able to do that, which is a basic principle of evolutionary theory.

          • Oboehner

            “They are capable of eating nylon, it’s not the only thing they can eat.” True statement right?

            But the bacteria have been around for FAR longer than nylon. Meaning YOU THINK they “evolved” the ability to eat nylon, which they could have had from the beginning, you DON’T know nor can you (or anyone else) prove otherwise.
            A true vegan cannot eat meat or they will be quite ill, yet if they kept at it, eventually most would have the ability. Does that mean they mutated or evolved? No.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            We aren’t even speaking the same language. I’m speaking science and you’re speaking science-denier.

          • Oboehner

            That all you have? Post after post of nothing, not even a half-@$$ed rebuttal?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I’ve given you far more than most other patient and reasonable people would have. You won’t even accept the factual data people are giving you. You stick your head in the sand every single time. And continue to pretend your extreme fundamentalist Christianity is science while actual science is religion. Arguing with a mind so firmly welded shut is an exercise in futility.

          • Oboehner

            I’ve shot down the pathetic pittance you’ve posted, but even when faced with common sense you still desperately cling to your blind faith. I am open to science, so post some or give it up.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Common sense is found in libraries and universities and schools. What you have is common dense. And good luck finding a single person who agrees with your crapola.

          • Oboehner

            There are thousands.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And you never manage to produce a single one, nor do you ever have the courage to state your own belief system.

          • Oboehner

            http://www.discovery. Org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
            Eliminate the space before “org”.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            These people oppose Darwinism. Sneaky of you, but that doesn’t mean evolution.

          • Oboehner

            Darwinian evolution to be precise.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            And there are many other kinds.

          • Oboehner

            “Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

            Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

          • Jenny Ondioline

            (yawn)
            whyevolutionistrue.wordpress dot com/2009/02/24/forbes-loses-it-again-over-evolution/

          • Oboehner

            Now your disagreeing with the world’s greatest scientific minds?
            Read your little link which boils down to long flowery appeal to authority arguments and ad hominem attacks – no proof what-so-ever.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            It’s just laughing at a crackpot. Something you must be very used to by now. Why don’t you link to a great scientific mind as was requested?

          • Roger Peritone

            You have him pegged, Jenny. Take a gander at what his response was to my posting of the article by Zimmer above!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            He elects not to believe people when they prove things. He will scream “speculation” and “appeal to authority” when anything contradicts his fundamentalism. And proudly uses he failure to understand it as an escape hatch. Quite amazing.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Let’s go with popular science and facts instead.

          • Oboehner

            Facts? LOL.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Yes. Facts LOL.

          • Oboehner

            The only fact of evolution is that it is a religion.

    • jscotttheory

      The article is clearly a straw man intended to passively aggressively belittle a model the author considers incorrect.

  • CanadianPilgrim

    A woman’s pelvis separates during the birthing and the child’s skull (usually the largest part of the child) is collapsed on itself also during the birth. Really quite miraculous. The real reason for the increase in the number of C-Sections is because doctors are paid on the number of deliveries, not for the time spent on them – and they do not want to wait 12+ hours for the natural process to take place. Look at the stats. The number of C-sections is always highest at the end of doctor’s shift (so they get paid for the delivery).

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Once again Evolutionists give us a living example of Proverbs 1:22.

  • Roger Peritone

    At the end of the article, Weiland claims that “information” is only lost in natural selection. Natural selection does weed things out, but genetic information increase and mutations DO happen also:

    So Weiland is wrong:
    “The Continuing Evolution of Genes” by Carl Zimmer on the New York Times site on April 28, 2014

    “Evolving a new function via gene duplication and divergence” on the Panda’s Thumb website by Richard B. Hoppe on November 12, 2012

    An excellent example of Weiland’s kind of deception is Ken Ham and Andrew Fabich lying about Lenski’s bacterial experiment during Ham’s debate with Bill Nye.

    Lenski’s grad student, who worked with Lenski on that experiment was not impressed: (from the “Telliamed Revisited” blog post on February 7, 2014 · 12:01 am), titled “Zachary Blount on “Ham on Nye” Debate, Follow-up #3”

    Quote:
    “The second argument was more direct. Both Ham and Fabich asserted that
    the Cit+ function did not evolve because using citrate did not involve
    “any kind of new information … it’s just a switch that gets turned on
    and off.” (Fabich went on to state that this “switch” is what we
    reported. That is emphatically not true. It beggars belief that
    anyone, much less a trained microbiologist, could actually read our 2012
    paper, where we reported the genetic basis of Cit+, and come away
    thinking this.) Variations on that wording are often used by
    creationists who discuss the citrate work because it implies that Cit+
    arose because of a pre-existing regulatory switch and involved no
    evolution at all. But that simply is not the case – that wording, dare I
    say it, is a lie.”

  • Roger Peritone

    Good thing I take screenshots. The information that I gave which refuted Weiland’s “no new information” claim can still be seen. Just not here.

  • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

    Perplexed scientists think this is new. It is not. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” These scientists would be less perplexed if they spent their time avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

  • Robert

    This would be a change with in the same specie . Not a evolving into a entirely different specie
    They even got this wtong desperation at the max

  • Ginai Doma

    Evolution is a religion with no solid evidence to back it up. Everything is subjective and changing in their so-called evolutionary processes. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the Bible and creationism.