I just read a CNN article about the differences between women and men. The article cites new research that shows how women's backs are better suited for carrying and balancing weight during pregnancy than men's backs.From the article:
Scientists think they have figured out why pregnant women don't lose their balance and topple over despite ever-growing weight upfront.Now, maybe the article just happened to leave out the scientists' actual reasons for basing this new discovery on evolution. But if not, then this is ridiculous because the researchers could have just found a slight difference between the anatomy of men and women and then point to evolution as the cause.
Evolution provided slight differences from men in women's lower back and hip joints, allowing them to adjust their center of gravity, new research shows.
When the researchers looked back at fossil records of human ancestors, including the oldest spines that go back 2 million years to our predecessor, Australopithecus, they found a male without the lower-back changes and a female with them.
We all know that God could have easily created women with a differently shaped lower lumbar vertebra than men's. We all know that God could have easily created women with a key hip joint 14% larger than men's. We all know that God would have put some thought into the fact that women would be carrying a baby.
I like to think that an amazing discovery such as this points to God's power and ingenuity rather than "survival of the fittest."
Related article: Original Nature news article
Photo from cnn.com
What's even funnier is that they even admit in the article that chimps and apes don't have this...but I thought "scientists" decided that WE evolved FROM THEM!
ReplyDeleteThis "elegent" engineering belongs to the one and only, our creator, God.
I don't think scientists realize how ridiculous that article makes them!
So I guess that means for hundreds of thousands of years (or maybe millions of years) that pregnant woman kept falling down, injured their babies, killing off many of the species until the evolution process allowed for the genes to adapt to this peculiarity?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that funny.. To me it is easier to believe that an all powerful, all knowing, intelligent creator designed women this way on purpose from the beginning.
Evolution??? Give me a break!! 'Science' sure is trying hard to make evolution work, but you can't make science do what you want. How blind do they think people are?? It is so pure and simple: God designed women for the task of bearing children. One does not need to be a scientist to figure that out!
ReplyDeleteas a follower of Christ who also happens to be a scientist (and believe in evolution not separated from God's purpose), i find it interesting that our knee-jerk reaction as Christians is to comment on how preposterous evolutionary claims are, forgetting that to the majority of scientists the apparent ignorance of blind belief in a Creator (with no tangible proof) is much more astounding in their worldview. i have found that much of the science is hard to ignore. sure, there are holes in the theory not filled in (perhaps not meant to be) yet, but that doesn't nullify all the findings made thus far.
ReplyDeletethis article isn't very detailed, nor is it surprising news (although fascinating all the same to me), but i find it hard to read that scientists are rediculous and that they make science do what they want based on this dumbed-down review. don't Christians do the very same thing (shove God into a box and define him in convenient and comfortable ways)?
if you are willing to think about the fact that we could have come about any way God dictated, why is it so hard to believe these intricate beings might change and adapt to their roles (childbearing versus not) over time, not necessarily killing off their young when the 'fell', but changing for comfort and ease as they began to stand more upright as well? to me, it's pretty difficult to ignore microevolution that we can see in our lifetimes that can translate into larger adaptations over larger periods of time.
just some thoughts. i could go on for days, but I'm certainly inspired to read more...
Just to be clear: In my post, I was not "commenting on how preposterous evolutionary claims are," rather I was pointing out how ridiculous it is that there were not any reasons for attributing this discovery to evolution specifically. I actually do believe that there is a lot of evidence to support evolution and I'm certainly not saying that scientists are ridiculous. I'm just saying they need reason to label it as evidence for evolution, and I didn't see any.
ReplyDelete