• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Babyhood to adulthood

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.

There's so many things wrong with this, it's pointless to even address it, other than to recommend that you actually read some text books on what evolution is, and how it works.
 

Amechania

Daimona of the Helpless
Some animals require more time to develop than others, but that is because they evolved to this condition. Their ancestors did not need such lengthy nurturing.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
If you have studied human biology and chemistry, and the endocrine system, you are able to understand how hormones (growth hormone and sexual hormones) can transform human body radically.
It's all chemical reactions.
but you have to study chemistry thoroughly first, to understand it
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.

I take it that you are implying that adults had to exist first for children to have the means to survive? Something like that?

Not really. Our distant ancestors speciated very gradually.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.

So you find it hard to believe that a baby should change, over several years, to an adult. Adults dont just pop out of the ground, as you noted they grow and change from baby to child to teen to adult.

I find it hard to believe that people still think humans come out of the ground fully formed.
 

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.

What came first? The chicken or the egg? Really?
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Some people don't have a kindergardeners worth of education in biology.

The problem isn't with education but with imagination.

Your reply and the others show me that you understand the question but got no rational or any scientific reply.

Babies can't grow gradually without an adult caring about them that has grown in the same manner,gradually doesn't have the answer, chemistry doesn't have the answer.

Stop memorizing silly answers and think it in the right way or better to keep silent than giving stupid answers, it is OK to express your opinion which i may accept regardless of how silly it is, but showing your opinion as a fact and as a scientific answer won't work except for the kindergartens.
 

methylatedghosts

Can't brain. Has dumb.
The problem isn't with education but with imagination.

Your reply and the others show me that you understand the question but got no rational or any scientific reply.

Babies can't grow gradually without an adult caring about them that has grown in the same manner,gradually doesn't have the answer, chemistry doesn't have the answer.

Stop memorizing silly answers and think it in the right way or better to keep silent than giving stupid answers, it is OK to express your opinion which i may accept regardless of how silly it is, but showing your opinion as a fact and as a scientific answer won't work except for the kindergartens.

Ahhahahaha

You truly are the king of irony
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.

I'm no biologist FearGod but your point has issues. Way, way back evolutionists say things started with species that produced asexually and the offspring didn't require parental care. Then sexual reproduction with species that don't require parental care (like fish). Things probably advanced to species that were advantaged by parental care and then to species requiring parental care. Either way it's a mind-boggling thing that a planet can go from lifelessness to such complexity and forms of life by the only the processes accepted by science


My personal belief is things did happen basically as evolutionists say but the process was fostered by intelligent nature-spirits or it all would not have progressed past square one. But my belief can't be addressed scientifically so there really is nothing really to debate with materialists. But either way it's mind-boggling to believe a planet can go to the full complexity of so many lifeforms by just the processes accepted by science; seems almost unbelievable.
 
Last edited:

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.

FearGod, every sexually reproducing organism on earth had a mother and father. Every human baby (until recently) had a mother and father. Every mother and every father grew from a baby, and had a mother and father of their own.

Science does not disagree with this. And this is not inconsistent with evolution.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
FearGod, every sexually reproducing organism on earth had a mother and father. Every human baby (until recently) had a mother and father. Every mother and every father grew from a baby, and had a mother and father of their own.

Science does not disagree with this. And this is not inconsistent with evolution.

He's making the chicken or egg argument for mammals basically. What came first, the first parent or the first baby?

It is challenging to think how so many complex processes did get going though.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The problem isn't with education but with imagination.

Your reply and the others show me that you understand the question but got no rational or any scientific reply.

Not by your expectations, perhaps. But that only shows how unconnected those expectations are.


Babies can't grow gradually without an adult caring about them that has grown in the same manner, gradually doesn't have the answer, chemistry doesn't have the answer.

I can only assume you fail to understand what we are saying, or perhaps you can't accept it for some reason.


Stop memorizing silly answers and think it in the right way or better to keep silent than giving stupid answers, it is OK to express your opinion which i may accept regardless of how silly it is, but showing your opinion as a fact and as a scientific answer won't work except for the kindergartens.

Sorry, but you are being a bit silly.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
He's making the chicken or egg argument for mammals basically. What came first, the first parent or the first baby?

I suppose it would be a difficult question to answer if we took as a premise that humans are not descended from other animals.
 

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
What came first? The chicken or the egg? Really?

FearGod, every sexually reproducing organism on earth had a mother and father. Every human baby (until recently) had a mother and father. Every mother and every father grew from a baby, and had a mother and father of their own.

Science does not disagree with this. And this is not inconsistent with evolution.

He's making the chicken or egg argument for mammals basically. What came first, the first parent or the first baby?

It is challenging to think how so many complex processes did get going though.

I know. I'm trying to get him to think a little harder about his objection before I try to be helpful. But here goes;

Part of the problem is the conception of type, species, or human; all meaning the same thing, that we are all of one kind, and all non-human are not of this kind. It is an illusion that the human type can be defined in such exclusive terms. If we were able to sample humans of 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, years ago, they would all be humans, and each population would be very different in terms of gene frequencies and we would define a new type, a different species.

Every population of humans would be reproductively compatible with every other population that was next to it, temporaly speaking. But the populations at the end of the spectrum would not be.

So yes, every baby needs parents, and every parent was a baby, and all parents and offspring are very similar genetically and can't give rise to something much different. But recombination necessitates that offspring will be a tiny bit different, And 100000 differences add up from start to finish.

Think of a stairway with 10,000 steps. From any one step you can only get to the one above or the one below. Someone standing on the bottom step cannot take one step and get to the top. It is impossible. But after 10,000 steps you can no longer even see the bottom.

This may be helpful. By looking at the problem spatially rather than temporally we find very similar situation with 'ring species.' Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A classic example of ring species was the Larus gulls' circumpolar species "ring". The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole, which is not normally transited by individual gulls.

The European Herring Gull (L. argentatus argenteus), which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American Herring Gull (L. smithsonianus), (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull (L. vegae), the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull (L. vegae birulai), can hybridize with Heuglin's gull (L. heuglini), which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull (L. fuscus). All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain.

The Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
The first "parents" of everything were not human. Or even mammalian. They were blobs of cells floating around in the sea that developed the ability to swap DNA. Their offspring also were. Blobs of primordial, sexually reproducing cells don't breastfeed. Problem solved.
 
Top