Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Accept the Theory of Evolution

In a female mammal there is a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus. These are called the Fallopian Tubes (salpinges). Sometimes when a human egg is ejected from an ovary it does not make it into the fallopian tube. This is because, quite oddly, the fallopian tube is not actually connected to the ovary. Rather, the opening of the fallopian tube envelops the ovary, like a too-large garden hose resting on a too-small spigot. The two are not actually attached, and sometimes an egg gets squirted out of the ovary and into the abdominal cavity instead of into the fallopian tube.

When this happens, it is usually of no consequence. The egg simply dies after a few days and is resorbed by the peritoneum, the thin wall of highly vascular tissue surrounding the abdominal cavity. No problem.

However, if an egg falls into the abdominal cavity and sperm arrives within a day or so, it might find this egg and fertilise it. The resulting embryo, completely unaware of how far it is from home, begins the process of growth, division, and tunnelling into whatever nearby tissue that it can find, usually the peritoneum but occasionally the outer covering of the large or small intestine, liver, or spleen. This is called an abdominal pregnancy

Abdominal pregnancies pose serious risks. In developing countries, they usually result in the death of the mother. In developed countries, they are easily spotted with ultrasounds and treated with surgical intervention to remove the doomed embryo and repair any damaged tissue or bleeding.

Despite creationists’ laughable claims of an ‘intelligent designer’, abdominal pregnancies are 100% the result of unintelligent design. Any reasonable plumber would have attached the fallopian tube to the ovary, thereby preventing tragic and often fatal mishaps. An ‘intelligent designer’ would never have created the small gap between the human ovary and Fallopian tube, so that an egg must cross this gap before it can travel through the tube and implant in the uterus.

In reality, the gap is a remnant of our fish and reptilian ancestors, who shed eggs directly from the ovary to the outside of their bodies. The Fallopian tube is an imperfect connection because it evolved later as an add-on in mammals.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Qwerty14

I know this is an old post but I'd like to pose another theory... Our designer was a dick. I mean let's face it, even in evolution, this doesn't make sense to have a potentially fatal risk of the ovary and the tube not connecting. Do scientists have any clue why they don't just connect? The issue with evolution is it always creates more questions than it ever answers. I firmly believe in it but I fully understand why people choose not to lol

1-25 of 29

Sharon · F

@Qwerty14 Evolution is not teleological. As long as the ovary/fallopian tube (or oviduct) interface works, it will carry on to the next generation. The reason they don't connect is that they work well enough to allow procreation as they are. It comes down to simple probability, the better a system works, the better chance it has of being propagated but it just has to work well enough to survive.

Qwerty14

@Sharon That doesn't make sense. If all that matters is "good enough to survive" then why change from what worked at all? Why bother with any of the changes we have made in evolution? Evolution is survival of the fittest correct? Implying that we work towards the best outcome (being the fittest), not the good enough outcome. Especially when this is a fatal flaw that would result in the death of both mother and child. Seems like a weird thing to pass on.

MethDozer · M

@Qwerty14 Same reason our spines aren't designed for bipedal motion. Evolution is a series of small advantageous hops over time. Not grand leaps in the blink of an eye.

Being the fittest to survive is relative. Not supreme efficiency.

Qwerty14

@MethDozer I know. There are a lot of weird evolutionary decisions that don't make sense. Hence why is said it creates more questions than it answers lol

Sharon · F

@Qwerty14 [quote]Why bother with any of the changes we have made in evolution?[/quote]
Because, as I said, evolution is not teleological - it doesn't have a goal to aim for.

[quote]Evolution is survival of the fittest correct?[/quote]
That's a very simplistic, layman's, way of putting it. If a mutation is viable it can be propagated to the next generation. If it gives the organism an advantage over other specimens (i.e. "the fittest"), it has a better chance of being propagated but, so long as it works it can carry on, it doesn't have to be the best.

[quote]Especially when this is a fatal flaw that would result in the death of both mother and child. Seems like a weird thing to pass on.[/quote]
The point is, it does not always result in the death of mother or child, it works often enough for it to be passed on. There's no intelligence involved, nothing thinking "that's not the best way, I'll change it." That's where the idea of "intelligent Design" falls flat on its face in the mud.

MethDozer · M

@Qwerty14 They do make sense, that is why they happened. You're critique doesn't make any sense though. What you arw missing is evolution is a continuous process. You're critique only holds up if we are to assume life forms are all final projects. I guess you don't understand prototyping because it us basically just like that.

Qwerty14

@Sharon Oh I don't care about the religious pov. Just the scientific one. If your argument is that evolution has no logic to it then fine but I feel the point of evolution is survival. Having a fatal flaw when it doesn't need to exist at all doesnt sound like survival but more random stupidity

Qwerty14

@MethDozer That's a poor man's excuse for an argument. If we are to believe evolution is all about survival then you need to provide a logical reason for every change. You can't just say "well it might change even better next time" lol

MethDozer · M

@Qwerty14 People are but you're ignoring them for your own illogical arguement.

Are we here? Yea we are, nuff said.

Sharon · F

@Qwerty14 [quote]I feel the point of evolution is survival. [/quote]
Evolution doesn't have a point, it just happens. If the specimen can survive long enough to procreate, that's all that's needed for (some of) its characteristics to be passed on to the next generation.

You seem to be looking at things as if there's some grand design involved. There isn't.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Qwerty14 [quote]Evolution is survival of the fittest correct?[/quote]

Incorrect

That was never an evolutionary maxim.

What occurs is differential survival of the [i]reproductively[/i] fittest genes for the particular [i]environment[/i] in which they find themselves [i]at the time.[/i]

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Qwerty14 [quote]it might change even better next time[/quote]

Better than what?

What is the ideal, and where would it come from?

Each generation has to be simply good enough to replicate itself, and the chances of that happening are determined (in part) by the particular environment into which it arrives.

However, the environment is constantly changing, so genes march backwards into the future, yet are constant and unceasingly subject to replication and extinction (sex and death)

Qwerty14

@MethDozer Again that's a poor man's argument. "We're here, enough said" is on par with "the earth looks flat, therefore it is"

MethDozer · M

@Qwerty14 Nah, it really isn't. You're just intentionally stubborn and daft as usual.

Qwerty14

@Sharon Again this isn't about religion. This is about science. You said there isn't a point to evolution then proceed to say the goal is to survive and procreate (which you're right, is the very point of existence as we know it and the point of evolution). You adapt, reproduce or you die. But this specific issue causes death and stops reproduction at the same time. It also would expend no energy to just connect up so it's not even an energy factor. Is there a logical reason for the ovary and the tube not to properly connect? Like scientifically is there something that explains why they don't?

Qwerty14

@MethDozer I'm just challenging you to explain. If you can only insult and not debate then feel free not to comment.

MethDozer · M

@Qwerty14 You have been told the fundimental flaws in your inaccurate miaunserstandings repeatedly yet ignore them. There ia no reasonable way to debate someone stuck holding onto a misrepresentation of a concept. Stubborn and daft isn't an insult, it's just what you are being.

Qwerty14

@newjaninev2 first, thanks for responding to an old post.

Second, you just said survival of the fittest in more words.

Third, better is, as you put it, "survival of the reproductively fittest genes". Now we all agree a fitter choice would be one that doesn't result in the death of mother and child correct?

Is there a logical reason why the tube and the ovary don't connect? This is really all I'm asking.

Qwerty14

@MethDozer Yeah yeah bud. You have always been a dick to people on here. Please go away so I can discuss this topic with people who want to discuss it. Thanks 👋

MethDozer · M

@Qwerty14 Imma dick to those who need a dicking.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Qwerty14 [quote]causes death and stops reproduction[/quote]

Yes, [i]but not completely[/i].

That’s why nature is extremely profligate on reproductive matters.

When I was born, I had four million eggs. Only one of them was ever fertilised... but that was enough to provide my genes with an escape pod

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Qwerty14 [quote]a logical reason for the ovary and the tube not to properly connect[/quote]

As I said, it’s an artefact of our evolutionary history (a little reminder of our inner fish)

What we have works well enough, so there’s no selection pressure for the situation to change.

It’s not ideal... but it’s good enough, and that’s all it needs to be

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Qwerty14 [quote]fitter choice would be one that doesn't result in the death of mother and child[/quote]

Nature doesn’t care whether or not any specific mother or baby survive. Nature doesn’t give a dam. Nature, red of tooth and claw, neither notes the loss of that particular combination of genes, nor seeks a cause.

Qwerty14

@newjaninev2 Surely the creature cares enough about surviving that it evolves in the first place, no? You say nature doesn't care but nature is often just a catalyst for evolution. What I really want to know is why doesn't the body just sort it so the two are connected. There must be some logic to it. Like what was the process in determining the entire system? Can we see the development of the organs somehow through other animals? Or are we just gonna have to assume for now?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Qwerty14 [quote]the creature cares enough about surviving[/quote]

Individuals don’t matter. It’s the aggregate effect over huge spans of time that determine what happens to collections of individuals (species)

[quote]why doesn't the body just sort it[/quote]

There’s nothing to sort, because sorting out a problem implies then an ideal against which to identify a problem. As Americans say, it is what it is... and what it is needs to be merely good enough for now

[quote]There must be some logic to it[/quote]

Why? Nature has no interest in, nor knowledge of, logic. There’s a 3.5 billion year history of different frequencies and distributions of alleles replicating within constantly changing and completely unpredictable environments, and what we see today is the temporary (and very fleeting) outcome of all that... an outcome that is, as it always has been, merely a momentary twinkle on the way to either something else, or extinction.

[quote]development of the organs somehow through other animals[/quote]

Yes, we certainly can. I’ve touched on that in some other posts, and comparative evolution is a fascinating field of study that addresses that very area

1-25 of 29