Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How babies evolved, according to Darwinian evolution

arroba Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Our favourite photographer philosopher, Laszlo Bencze, translates from the Darwinspeak:

Certain factors associated with facial symmetry appear to be tied to the expression of the Hox gene 124a cis prime. These factors have been linked to greater parental pleasure due to visual receptors with proclivities towards regularities. It is surmised that symmetry and visual receptors evolved through a sequence of mutational instability towards equilibrium and stasis. Hence, Hox gene 124a cis prime which is surmised to have originally controlled bipedal motion took on symmetricity enhancement via allelic transfer resulting in increased inheritance of this gene. Parents with responsive visual receptor systems already in place emitted greater caloric transport to their offspring resulting in improved survival and ultimately reproductive success. In this way evolutionary mechanisms have insured that infants with highly symmetrical physiognomies predominate within familial units and day care centers.

Now, the English:

Early babies were ugly and their parents killed them. But then some mutations occurred and babies became cuter than buttons, cute as cute can be, cute as a bug’s ear, and their parents loved them to death. End of story.

As published in really high-powered journal Schmience, and soon to be part of the national schmience standards, coming soon to a tax-extorted school near you.

PS: As if reality mattered, but (well, let’s pretend it does, just for fun), natural birth babies are NOT born cute or even necessarily very symmetrical. They are usually screaming, sometimes misshapen, red as a beet, and getting redder if someone thinks to wind up the cord around the placenta, forcing the valuable cord blood into the infant’s body before severing that organ forever and tying off the umbilicus.

Take it from friend who is a delivery room nurse: The beautiful babies are the “sections,” the ones the surgeons remove, with no labour, and nurses hand to their mothers after they wake up. It takes the natural born lot several days to become so cute.

All newborns, in any event, are just noisy, difficult, and largely free of apparent personality for weeks. But who can blame them? Their first real experience in life was usually awful and terrifying.

Maybe we can get a just-so Darwin story out of that fact, just in time for the schmience standards.

See also: Design inference used in detecting science fraud, but significance not really admitted

Ok, I'm sufficiently embarrassed! It wouldn't have surprised me if such an article was published and I have a tendency to trust what is posted here as accurate information, regardless of the interpretation of it or commentary attached to it. I'll try and be a bit more discerning in the future, but posts like this need to be sufficiently labelled as a pun so that people like me don't go spreading rumors - which I did not do, but I could see it happening. tjguy
We hope still to do giant frite snakes but may have to settle for giant frite jellyfish. See, Occupational Health and Safety is on our case now about working conditions ... News
How silly of me. I mistook the comment about Darwinist just-so stories at the end of your post as par for the course. timothya
It's from Laszlo Bencze's imagination. Did you happen to notice the Just for Fun label? Did we leave out the cup of coffee? Darn. See, the Fri Nite Frite story collapsed when the researcher into frite snakes collapsed due to heart attack, unaccountably, while working. So we had to do comedy instead .... News
Can you provide a cite for the quoted material at the top of the original post? I can't find it anywhere on the web. timothya
The cuter the baby, the more care parents gave them so babies got cuter and cuter over time? This is sick and disgusting! It means the value of a person is determined by how cute one is. So any babies born with birth defects have low value! This is the type of thinking that will encourage eugenics. But this is the best a godless world has to offer - conditional love based on looks! Compare that with God's unconditional love which sees value in all people regardless of one's looks or abilities. This is the kind of love parents need to have. Teaching junk science like that will have horrible consequences for kids who happen to grow up in families brainwashed with this kind of warped value system. Absolutely disgusting! tjguy

Leave a Reply