Babyhood to adulthood

[George-ananda]

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.

Yeah but there had to be a very first breast-fed baby animal? How'd that happen our OP wonders. Still sounds pretty weird.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah but there had to be a very first breast-fed baby animal? How'd that happen our OP wonders. Still sounds pretty weird.

No, not exactly. There are a lot of intermediate stages
Some "halfway breastfed" species are still extant, although I've forgotten the details. It was in an Attenborough documentary I saw years ago. I'm sure you could just look up "evolution of breastfeeding". in fact, I'm gonna do that myself.

 

[FearGod]

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.

Thats great, but the question remains.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that a tiny and gradual changes happened to evolve fish to humans in a period of millions of years, still the first mammal have to be a baby, no escape from growing in stages from babyhood to adulthood and it is impossible for a baby to grow without parental care which should already existed and passed the baby stage without parental care regardless of how evolution worked.

 

[FearGod]

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

Not even to the expectations of any sane sincere man that got the ability to think.

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

No, i understand what all had said, but sorry to say most of the answers were silly except the one by George-ananda who agrees with me on how weird it is.

Sorry, but you are being a bit silly.

For being sincere.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thats great, but the question remains.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that a tiny and gradual changes happened to evolve fish to humans in a period of millions of years, still the first mammal have to be a baby, no escape from growing in stages from babyhood to adulthood and it is impossible for a baby to grow without parental care which should already existed and passed the baby stage without parental care regardless of how evolution worked.

You're assuming that the parents of the "first mammal" were somehow drastically different from it. They weren't.

See, "mammals" are a clade within the broader spectrum of endothermic amniotes. Mammals are just a particular variation of amniotes, so the "first mammal" was still an amniote born from amniotes - and therefore its parents were already well suited to tend to any needs it required. There was no drastic change between the two, only a very small, subtle change, so there was no problem with the first mammal being raised.

 

[FearGod]

You're assuming that the parents of the "first mammal" were somehow drastically different from it. They weren't.

See, "mammals" are a clade within the broader spectrum of endothermic amniotes. Mammals are just a particular variation of amniotes, so the "first mammal" was still an amniote born from amniotes - and therefore its parents were already well suited to tend to any needs it required. There was no drastic change between the two, only a very small, subtle change, so there was no problem with the first mammal being raised.

Regardless of how evolution worked and how mammals splitted from the first reptiles still the fact remains that mammals as we know it today can never raised without parental care and of course the first mammal should have gone the same procedure to reach adulthood and which is through parental care, so how the first mammal being raised without parental care regardless of how it splitted or how evolution worked.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Regardless of how evolution worked and how mammals splitted from the first reptiles still the fact remains that mammals as we know it today can never raised without parental care and of course the first mammal should have gone the same procedure to reach adulthood and which is through parental care, so how the first mammal being raised without parental care regardless of how it splitted or how evolution worked.

I literally just explained that. The first mammal DID have parental care. Did you read my post?

Here it is again, with added emphasis:

You're assuming that the parents of the "first mammal" were somehow drastically different from it. They weren't.

See, "mammals" are a clade within the broader spectrum of endothermic amniotes. Mammals are just a particular variation of amniotes, so the "first mammal" was still an amniote born from amniotes - and therefore its parents were already well suited to tend to any needs it required. There was no drastic change between the two, only a very small, subtle change, so there was no problem with the first mammal being raised.

 

[Glaurung]

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

The answer is obvious. There is an infinite regress of pre-existent parents, clearly.

 

[LuisDantas]

Regardless of how evolution worked and how mammals splitted from the first reptiles still the fact remains that mammals as we know it today can never raised without parental care and of course the first mammal should have gone the same procedure to reach adulthood and which is through parental care, so how the first mammal being raised without parental care regardless of how it splitted or how evolution worked.

There was no clear cut-off from reptiles to mammals, though. It was a very gradual transition.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not even to the expectations of any sane sincere man that got the ability think.



No, i understand what all had said, but sorry to say most of the answers were silly except the one by George-ananda who agrees with me on how weird it is.




For being sincere.

I'm not sure why you insist on denying what is known, but it saddens me that you do.

 

[FearGod]

I literally just explained that. The first mammal DID have parental care. Did you read my post?

Here it is again, with added emphasis:

You can't see any problem with it.

Anyway thats how you see it even though that you don't know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to split to mammals and how gradually it happened through millions of years, but for you things are very clear and obvious,nothing weird about it.

 

[FearGod]

There was no clear cut-off from reptiles to mammals, though. It was a very gradual transition.

For some others they know what had happened and how easily the first mammal was formed, blind evolutionists i may say.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can't see any problem with it.

Anyway thats how you see it even though that you don't know what had happened exactly that made reptiles to split to mammals and how gradually it happened through millions of years, but for you things are very clear and obvious,nothing weird about it.

Why have you suddenly changed subject? Do you or do you not understand that the first mammal did have parents? Why did you think they wouldn't?

 

[FearGod]

I'm not sure why you insist on denying what is known, but it saddens me that you do.

I didn't deny what is known,such as fossils and that human came at a point which shows that life have been evolved and progressed gradually, but my point that there is someone behind it, i think it is stupid to think otherwise, just my opinion.

 

[Alceste]

Thats great, but the question remains.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that a tiny and gradual changes happened to evolve fish to humans in a period of millions of years, still the first mammal have to be a baby, no escape from growing in stages from babyhood to adulthood and it is impossible for a baby to grow without parental care which should already existed and passed the baby stage without parental care regardless of how evolution worked.

There wasn't a "first mammal". Evolution happens much too gradually for there to be a "first" anything. Every generation is the same species as its parents, but a teensy bit different. You are not identical to your parents, and your children will not be identical to you. Over thousands of generations, those small differences add up and become big differences. You and your parents look very similar. You and your great X 50,000 grandparents, not so much.

 

[FearGod]

Why have you suddenly changed subject? Do you or do you not understand that the first mammal did have parents? Why did you think they wouldn't?

Mammals as we know them need parental guidance, without parental guidance no mammals can survive or even exist.

Evolution doesn't have the answer but it is just a blind faith as religion is.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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.

An adult is a baby's way of making more babies. Even more accurately, babies and adults are genes' way of making more genes which will have a chance to survive and carry the genes' line into the future (not that the genes are considering the future--they just do what they do--making copies!).

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Yeah but there had to be a very first breast-fed baby animal? How'd that happen our OP wonders. Still sounds pretty weird.

Mammary glands are sweat glands, modified to provide a very nutrient rich fluid. Birds have a brood patch, an area of skin that becomes very rich with blood vessels and heats up eggs underneath it, during their breeding season. Mammals developed a patch of skin that sweated more than normal that may have provided nothing more than moisture, then salt and other minerals, as the glands became more developed and specialized so dis the fluid.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Thats great, but the question remains.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that a tiny and gradual changes happened to evolve fish to humans in a period of millions of years, still the first mammal have to be a baby, no escape from growing in stages from babyhood to adulthood and it is impossible for a baby to grow without parental care which should already existed and passed the baby stage without parental care regardless of how evolution worked.

Every offspring had a parent. You are still not understanding that there was no first mammal. mammal is a type, a word, a human concept. Life is an unbroken chain. At no time ever was there a parent and offspring that were more than a few crossovers different from each other.

Your mistake, as I've said above, is you are failing to conceptualize outside of the artificial language of species, type, mammal, etc. These things do not exist other than to facilitate language. In reality there is an unbroken lineage of humans back to protocells. For facilitation of communication, we construct a language and jargon that categorizes different aspects of this chain to distinguish the subject of current conversation.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Regardless of how evolution worked and how mammals splitted from the first reptiles still the fact remains that mammals as we know it today can never raised without parental care and of course the first mammal should have gone the same procedure to reach adulthood and which is through parental care, so how the first mammal being raised without parental care regardless of how it splitted or how evolution worked.

Nothing we call mammal went through babyhood without parental care. This is not a claim of science.

You seem to keep ignoring this fact. Science, the theory of evolution, does not predict that any thing we call mammal every went through babyhood without parental care.

Therefore your objections is basically a flawed understanding of the principles of evolution that, for you, give rise to the false prediction of 'mammal with no parent.'

You keep objecting over and over that baby mammal can not grow without parent. No one, including science and evolution disagree.