…and this is a 
I know it's a teaching cliche that there is no such thing as a stupid question…but it's not true. There really are stupid questions.
So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young. Many construct homes and shelters...(all without knowing/understanding she's even pregnant) and do so with great care and attention to detail.
So I've got two questions about this:
1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food to their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous -- she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn't there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk? Why go to the trouble of building a nest to protect the young? Wouldn't it be easier just to skip all that? I thought evolution was all about being selfish..........so why do so many animals put others' needs before themselves? What's the advantage to that?
2) Why wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young? I know it sometimes happens in nature.....but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young...even when they're hungry. But wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it didn't starve? Mothers should be consuming their offspring everywhere in nature -- afterall, it would advantageous getting that extra nourishment.
How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this "love" or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What's the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember -- evolution cannot plan ahead.
I showed you another eexample of a self-refuting creationist question earlier today, but this one is even better. Wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it ate its own babies?
Comments
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2009 9:30 PM
Reproduction of the fittest, not just survival.
Posted by: daedalus2u | May 30, 2009 9:31 PM
Just reading that question made me stupider.
Posted by: Rudi | May 30, 2009 9:33 PM
Oh dear. Just...oh dear.
Posted by: GBM | May 30, 2009 9:34 PM
Wow...I am actually shocked by the stupidity inherent in that question.
Posted by: AK47 | May 30, 2009 9:37 PM
It's a parody, right?
Posted by: beanjavert
|
May 30, 2009 9:38 PM
For comparison purposes, I asked this same question to my third grader. His answer seemed perfectly reasonable:
"Because then there wouldn't be any kids, and the mommy would be [a dead end]."
So, why doesn't this fellow get it? Oh wait, I know...
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 30, 2009 9:39 PM
Now that is some weapons-grade stupid.
Posted by: Bad Albert | May 30, 2009 9:39 PM
They must be trick questions, right?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2009 9:44 PM
Wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it ate its own babies?
Only if it could send its eyes out to meet the sunlight.
Posted by: Andrew | May 30, 2009 9:44 PM
Yeah, that's shockingly idiotic, even for a creationist.
Posted by: mayhempix | May 30, 2009 9:46 PM
The more important question is:
What is the evolutionary advantage of creationists being so obtusely stupid?
Posted by: Dracil | May 30, 2009 9:47 PM
Reading his RESPONSES to the answers made me stupid.
/facepalm.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 30, 2009 9:51 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmm... That's a Real Puzzler.Posted by: Evan | May 30, 2009 9:51 PM
My desk is now intimately acquainted with my forehead.
Posted by: Braiden | May 30, 2009 9:52 PM
PZ, there are no stupid questions... just stupid people. Five-year-olds have the right to ask questions that would appear absurd from the mouth of a fully-functioning adult.
Posted by: Porco Dio
|
May 30, 2009 9:53 PM
ppppppppppppppppzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
i know you're trying to take the mickey of these fuckwits but puuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!!!! don't do it with comic sans...
just hurts me eyes!!! cant even read the bullshit you quote just because of the font!!!!!
Posted by: 386sx | May 30, 2009 9:54 PM
Those are all trick questions, right? Those sound like questions an adaptationist might ask.
Posted by: Alan B | May 30, 2009 9:54 PM
Anyone read the bonus questions?
2. Wouldn't it be "advantageous" for all animals to be intelligent like humans are? So why aren't they?
Apparently some animals are more intelligent than some humans.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
May 30, 2009 9:54 PM
This is a joke, right? If not, I think this one is going to be taken down by friendly fire, since hostile fire is too busy banging their heads into their desks to stop the Stupid.
Posted by: Braiden | May 30, 2009 9:55 PM
PZ, there are no stupid questions... just stupid people. Five-year-olds have the right to ask questions that would appear absurd from the mouth of a fully-functioning adult.
Posted by: Field Notes | May 30, 2009 9:55 PM
Holy shit. That one brought tears to my eyes.
Posted by: Ian | May 30, 2009 9:56 PM
Well, if mothers made a habit of eating their young, only the strongest, smartest young would survive.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 30, 2009 9:56 PM
"Survival of the fittest" means
Regardless of related genes
My kids should never reach their teens
Since toddlers taste like veal.
And I can make myself more fit
(As Darwinists should all admit)
By roasting baby on a spit
For one delicious meal!
Nutritionists all know I need
My protein, if I'm going to breed
It's Evolution's sacred creed--
No ifs, no buts, no maybes!
A healthy mom has got to eat,
And barbecue is oh, so sweet;
Well-fueled, I'm ready to complete
My task of having babies.
Posted by: Kraes85 | May 30, 2009 9:56 PM
What the H-bomb?! I mean, their convoluted, self-contradictory logic trying to justify their beliefs is bad enough but this is like the same kind of logic, only used intetionally (I think... or hope) to misunderstand evolution! How on Earth do they do that?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 30, 2009 9:58 PM
Porco Dio, Comic Sans is PZ's way of telling us that the stupid is being quoted. I usually don't get past the second sentence without a WTF, and quit there. PZ is much stronger in certain respects, in particular his ability to tolerate the stupidity, than I am.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 30, 2009 9:58 PM
Andrew @ # 10 - you & me both.
People, follow the dialog at any place with a name like christiandiscussionforums.org at risk of your brain cells (unless suitably equipped for research into religion as pathology) ...
Dammit, why doesn't the interweb come with safety ratings?
Posted by: rev. Bigdumbchimp | May 30, 2009 9:59 PM
Why wouldn't mothers use their children as building material for nests?
Posted by: mikeg | May 30, 2009 9:59 PM
ow
Posted by: eggymanyum | May 30, 2009 10:00 PM
Holyshit PZ that went up fast,i only sent the email about an hour ago, or did someone else already send it?
that crap you jusy gust read was from supersport/guzman, im sure some of you guys remember him, i believe he used one of those names here, but i DO know he is banned from this site, dawkins site, pretty much every site that isnt christian based that people who have a clue about evolution by now i would imagine.
Posted by: rev. Bigdumbchimp | May 30, 2009 10:02 PM
Why wouldn't mothers use their children as building material for nests?
Posted by: Tim Awake | May 30, 2009 10:03 PM
The amount of confusion of thought that some creationists suffer from is astounding. While certainly a huge chunk of the blame for his difficulty with the basic concepts of evolution, and basic logic, come from his religious background whatever education he had also failed him. Because anyone with even a half-ass education should be able to realize the answer to those questions.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | May 30, 2009 10:03 PM
I wonder if this is really that much stupider than Plantinga's superficially more sophisticated argument: an ability to ascertain the truth isn't survival enhancing; so, if evolution by natural selection is how it all happened, we're saddled with minds not fit for determining the truth; therefore, we have no way to determine whether evolution by natural selection happened; therefore, we're reduced to either 1) radical skepticism a la Sextus Empiricus, or 2)GOD AND JESUS!
Except that, well, 1) an ability to ascertain truth (in the modest sense of determining which propositions about the phenomenal world more accurately describe that world as it impinges on us) is VERY survival enhancing (e.g. there's growling coming out of that cave; the Wind God perhaps, or a cave bear?; 2) our minds need not be perfectly competent at ascertaining truth in this sense, or competent without interruption, or competent even most of the time, for us to, from time to time, come to accurate conclusions about the world and build on that initial information; 3) quite apart from natural selection, we might have obtained a capacity for ascertaining truth (in this modest sense) purely by chance--natural selection would then be irrelevant; 4) natural selection may be irrelevant anyway, even if it and only it was the engine that created our faculties for evaluating sense data, and even if empirical discernment had no survival value; it's a pretty blatant example of the genetic fallacy to assume that where a faculty came from tells you what that faculty can at present accomplish.
I still think, Myers, that you extended this guy much more slack than he deserved. Show me, please, how I'm wrong in thinking so.
Posted by: Josh BA | May 30, 2009 10:04 PM
The stupid!! It burns!!!
Porco Dio: I can think of several solutions to the comic sans problem. 1) Use something like greasemonkey to change it to an acceptable font or 2) Just remove the font from your system. I have never had that font installed and have never been inconvenienced by its absence. You can still tell the pertinent quotes apart by the little red… umm… Muppet?
Posted by: Michael | May 30, 2009 10:05 PM
Actually, mother cats will eat their baby if it is too small. So the argument still falls apart. (not yours.. theirs)
Once again.. evolution wins by default.
Posted by: eggymanyum | May 30, 2009 10:05 PM
@#22
lol you HAVE to post that in the thread
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 30, 2009 10:06 PM
that's just....
no. i've got nothing. this stupid fried my brain.
Posted by: samson | May 30, 2009 10:07 PM
Supersplurt is an admitted troll.I don't have the quote,but others do that has splurt admitting he does this just for his own enjoyment.He also goes by guzman.Most sites allow him to troll because occasionally some valuable information gets discussed.Seems to be good for lurkers.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | May 30, 2009 10:08 PM
Oh, and Cuttlefish, I love the poem! Did you whip that up just in response to this, or were you holding it in reserve? Either way, very good.
Posted by: Rev bdc | May 30, 2009 10:08 PM
Yes I am an asshole for double posting
I blame my iphone
/ shame
Posted by: MadScientist | May 30, 2009 10:08 PM
Oh, if only the creatards would abandon or eat their young; it may improve the human gene pool. Those stupid questions show that creatards think of themselves as the center of the universe - other people and future generations don't matter, the only important thing is their own stupid selves.
Posted by: DuckPhup | May 30, 2009 10:09 PM
This all comes down to probabilities. If your parents didn't have any children, chances are pretty good that you won't, either.
Posted by: Ryogam | May 30, 2009 10:09 PM
Cuttlefish, It is always a pleasure.
This really is weapons grade stupid, but he really does seem to gloss over the fact that in nature, many animals do just abandon their young. More than take care of them, I think. There really is no ONE perfect survival adaptation that all animals in all environments will display. There are many survival maximizing tactics in nature, and you can find them all.
So then, I guess that fact that many mothers in nature do just leave their progeny to survive on their own is a sign that god is evil and has abandoned his children as well?
Posted by: John Morales | May 30, 2009 10:11 PM
[meta]
Porco Dio @16, are you using some weird browser that doesn't let you override fonts?
In IE, it's "tools"→"internet options"→"accesibility"→"ignore font styles specified in web pages".
Posted by: Paper Hand | May 30, 2009 10:11 PM
I think I just lost a few brain cells reading that ...
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 30, 2009 10:12 PM
eggymanyum--feel free; I am not registered there, nor will I be.
Aaron Baker--whipped up. Maybe 15 minutes, if that.
Ryogam--thanks!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 30, 2009 10:20 PM
That cuddly rabbit doe you see could eat it's stillborn/dead young. Also a duck who wandered too close to the nest...Posted by: eggymanyum | May 30, 2009 10:21 PM
ok its posted in the thread now :)
Posted by: Ted Powell | May 30, 2009 10:21 PM
Ian@23: Well, if mothers made a habit of eating their young, only the strongest, smartest young would survive.
Have you been reading The Legacy of Heorot?
Posted by: WordSpinner | May 30, 2009 10:22 PM
I think this stems from the term "survival of the fittest" as a common description of evolution. I think a lot of creationists don't bother looking any further, and so think that evolution is, fundamentally, about survival, which isn't the case. It's more about reproduction of the fittest, so sacrificing for offspring makes complete sense in that way, so long as the benefit is high enough, even if it reduces the fitness of the individual a bit. But I do think the problem comes from creationists not bothering to actually do research before spouting off against evolution.
Posted by: Faintpraise | May 30, 2009 10:22 PM
What the....oh, it's Supersport.
@ Josh BA #33 That is a gumby, as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumbys
Posted by: Kel | May 30, 2009 10:29 PM
Creationists really need a better sex education. The cycle element of the life cycle isn't emphasised enough obviously. But I guess that happens when they are taught that they live for eternity as opposed to being an another living-breathing life form that will eventually die - so by passing on their genetic code a part of them will survive into the next generation...
Posted by: Just This Time | May 30, 2009 10:30 PM
Thanks for the headache,PZ!
Posted by: Nicolas Keller | May 30, 2009 10:32 PM
ftw:
-----------------
supersport
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ft. Worth Texas
Posts: 20,258
Reputation: 299
supersport 201-300 pointssupersport 201-300 pointssupersport 201-300 points
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshboy View Post
"They don't 'know', but the genes that produce this behaviour are the ones that get passed on more successfully. This sport is your bete noir, the single error that you cannot stop committing, your inescapable need to see little fairies pulling the levers of biology."
Can you show me one of these genes that "produce this behaviour?"
and do you not see that the genes must "know" something in order to produce the behavior for it? I mean if I know how to fly south, then the gene that tells me how to fly south must know how to fly south, no?
--------------------------------
literally roflmao..
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 30, 2009 10:38 PM
At moments like these, I feel this odd mix of elation... and of sadness.
Elation, of course, because I was there. At the moment all previous records were shattered, blasted to dust, all previous efforts left so very far behind...
Yes, I was there. At the moment the Stupidest Question Ever was finally asked.
I was there, and, thus, in my small fashion, I was a part of history.
But yes, there is sadness in this, strangely, too. Because it is only a moment. Because it is as much an ending as a beginning. Sadness because it is unlikely I will live to see another such moment. They will try and try, but it will be a long, long time before this very, very high mark is ever exceeded...
If ever. For I find myself wondering: what if this is it? What if it's all over, now? What if this is the one? Could it be that this is the very height of stupidity, and from here, it's all downhill. And never again, will we reach such Olympian heights...
Still. I was there.
Posted by: Blog Mallmal | May 30, 2009 10:40 PM
Gosh! Human inteligence has limits for sure... Human dumbness surely doesn´t...
Posted by: G Rock | May 30, 2009 10:42 PM
Well, I've seen similar idiocy. I was discussing the irrelevance of social Darwinism to actual Darwinism with a family member, and brought up a recent study on how quick skin color was to change in the days before clothing. He actually asked me, "Then why aren't all of our heads black?"
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | May 30, 2009 10:42 PM
AJ Milne
There, there, let Mommy rub it's little belly. And when it is tenderized, chomp.
Posted by: Rosechimera | May 30, 2009 10:46 PM
We don't know the age of these people. We don't know if they grew up in an educational system that we as the citizenry have allowed to teach mythology in science class. We don't know if they have access to the resources that inform us. We should know that this type of communication inflames rather than informs. Although . . . it was rather a guilty pleasure.
Posted by: Kel | May 30, 2009 10:51 PM
Find a creationist who is actually willing to discuss the matter rather than look for excuses as to not listen.Posted by: Mike | May 30, 2009 10:54 PM
I vote it's sarcasm. It's too perfectly self-mocking.
Posted by: eddie
|
May 30, 2009 10:55 PM
As with the drool thread, the creos are exceptionalist about the human species.
Would PZ or DC, OM like to tell us about cephalopod parenting?
I've said before how I like spiders. I hear that some species parent with the ultimate sacrifice.
Posted by: Mike | May 30, 2009 10:58 PM
I vote it's sarcasm. It's too perfectly self-mocking.
Posted by: Michelle | May 30, 2009 11:07 PM
Oh my gawd. The stupid... it burns.
I want to believe that the guy who made that post was being purely satirical and mocking the creationists, but I'm not sure. There are creationists who really ARE that stupid. And the original poster continues his stupidity in subsequent comments, so I think he really believes that pile of bovine excrement.
I mean, I want to write a retort, but how do you even begin to address something that is so absolutely ludicrous from start to finish?
Posted by: Ediacaran | May 30, 2009 11:07 PM
Oh. My. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Time to stop eating puppies and kittens, and start eating the offspring of creationists.
Scientia et Fermentum
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
May 30, 2009 11:10 PM
Oh, oh, oh, okay, I've got one!!
If it really were the genes that mattered, and the genes that were selfish, then evolution would make me more fit if I just ripped myself open, took out all my genes, and sprinkled them all over the ground so that they could grow into whatever they wanted to be, instead of me!
We don't see that happening, do we? Nope. So, evolution is one big fail. And now, if you'll kindly excuse me, I have an appointment with the creator of the universe. I have a request, and I'm certain he'll alter the laws of physics on my behalf to make it so.
Posted by: Lorkas | May 30, 2009 11:13 PM
LMFAO
UnBELIEVably dumb.
Posted by: Michelle | May 30, 2009 11:14 PM
Oh my gawd. The stupid... it burns.
I want to believe that the guy who made that post was being purely satirical and mocking the creationists, but I'm not sure. There are creationists who really ARE that stupid. And the original poster continues his stupidity in subsequent comments, so I think he really believes that pile of bovine excrement.
I mean, I want to write a retort, but how do you even begin to address something that is so absolutely ludicrous from start to finish?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 11:25 PM
At least this shows that Alan Clarke and RogerS aren't the only stupid creationists around.
Posted by: ev | May 30, 2009 11:27 PM
I was stuck abroad a semester living with two born-again Christians, and I emphasize the word "stuck." Although they were congenial and compromising in regards to room and occasionally board (but not always, which astounded me), they were completely recalcitrant and unbending when it came to their beliefs. They believe in science "myths" just as I believed in Biblical myth; just as I tended to simplify their whole cosmology, they completely leveled the theory of evolution. The only things they referenced when talking about evolution was 1. "scientists think humans came from apes" and 2. "you believe in 'survival of the fittest'". They didn't give a crap about the complexity or interconnection of processes of evolution. It doesn't matter because it doesn't fit in with their epistemology. Evolution loses, ad hominem. Religion is (or tends to be) authoritarian. It doesn't give a crap about proof or truth, or it redefines those two concepts. Either way, I wish I didn't care.
Posted by: ev | May 30, 2009 11:28 PM
I was stuck abroad a semester living with two born-again Christians, and I emphasize the word "stuck." Although they were congenial and compromising in regards to room and occasionally board (but not always, which astounded me), they were completely recalcitrant and unbending when it came to their beliefs. They believe in science "myths" just as I believed in Biblical myth; just as I tended to simplify their whole cosmology, they completely leveled the theory of evolution. The only things they referenced when talking about evolution was 1. "scientists think humans came from apes" and 2. "you believe in 'survival of the fittest'". They didn't give a crap about the complexity or interconnection of processes of evolution. It doesn't matter because it doesn't fit in with their epistemology. Evolution loses, ad hominem. Religion is (or tends to be) authoritarian. It doesn't give a crap about proof or truth, or it redefines those two concepts. Either way, I wish I didn't care.
Posted by: luna1580 | May 30, 2009 11:30 PM
uhm, doesn't it make us look a little dumb to quote a known poe/troll and play it straight?
sort of like we are either gullible or humor-deficient? the quote is awe-inspiringly stupid, but the other comments on the thread it came from make it clear that the poster is highly unlikely to be sincerely asking....
what gives, PZ?
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | May 30, 2009 11:30 PM
Yeeeeah... I'm gonna have to go ahead and call "Poe" on this one.
Posted by: ev | May 30, 2009 11:30 PM
I was stuck abroad a semester living with two born-again Christians, and I emphasize the word "stuck." Although they were congenial and compromising in regards to room and occasionally board (but not always, which astounded me), they were completely recalcitrant and unbending when it came to their beliefs. They believed in science "myths" just as I believed in Biblical myth; just as I tended to simplify their whole cosmology (which I shouldn't have done), they completely leveled the theory of evolution. The only things they referenced when talking about evolution was 1. "scientists think humans came from apes" and 2. "you believe in 'survival of the fittest'". They didn't give a crap about the complexity or interconnection of processes of evolution. It doesn't matter because it doesn't fit in with their epistemology. Evolution loses, ad hominem. Religion is (or tends to be) authoritarian. It doesn't give a crap about proof or truth, or it redefines those two concepts. Either way, I wish I didn't care.
Posted by: Bridget McKinney | May 30, 2009 11:32 PM
I was thinking about what Jesus would do about this. At first I thought "facepalm" and then I thought that Jesus would probably think of some parable to gently and kindly show what a dumb question it was--Jesus was good at that! Something like: The Parable of the Mommy Squirrel and Her Biological Drive to Perpetuate Her Species. Or something.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 11:36 PM
You people are so intolerant. You should have more respect for the inherent dignity of stupid people.
Posted by: weaves | May 30, 2009 11:36 PM
"1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young?"
...er...more offspring survive to continue to breed? mother's that don't do this don't contribute to the gene pool?
brb, mind hurts
Posted by: Kayla | May 30, 2009 11:37 PM
...your indirect fitness increases by the success of your young, or even a sibling
Posted by: M. Brazeau | May 30, 2009 11:41 PM
The horror...the horror.
I really want to call Poe on this, but I've been burned too many times before, doing that.
The horror...
Posted by: GaryB, FCD | May 30, 2009 11:42 PM
Supersport is a well known loon that has invaded and been booted out of dozens of sites. He really is that stupid.
Posted by: BreatheEasy | May 30, 2009 11:55 PM
Oh, I'm sure this has to be a joke. No way is that real.
Posted by: littlejohn | May 31, 2009 12:01 AM
Obviously the answer to all those stupid questions is that the offspring carry the parents' genes. How much of a person's brain would have to be removed for them not to understand that?
Is it possible this is a poe?
Posted by: anon | May 31, 2009 12:07 AM
I frankly cannot understand these people at all (and there seem to be so many of them.)
It's like someone maintaining that 2+3 does not equal 5. Even if they had very strong psychological reasons for doing so, how the hell can they convince themselves of this?
Posted by: Die Anyway | May 31, 2009 12:24 AM
Poe or not, it really was dull and stupid but cuttlefish made it FUN. Now I can go to bed with a smile on my face.
Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 12:28 AM
It's absolutely stunning. This is a question even stupider than "how do animals know what they're supposed to evolve into?" Supersport goes on to say:
Okay, we've ruled out "family planning." But what do these people think is happening instead? Are guardian angels actively guiding every mother animal to bring food back to her babies?
Presumably their answer will be some 17th century essentialism, "a drive" vaguely defined, imbued by God's hand. Well, how does the drive occur? Might God have written it into the genes? But then why couldn't those genes have evolved? Earlier amphibian mothers did not care for their young. Mightn't a genetic mutation that causes just a tiny bit more care be adaptive?
It's pathetic how emotionally desperate they are to arrive at "God did it." That's all they want. They never go on to think, how did God do it? And if God could do it that way, why couldn't incremental adaptive mutations accomplish the same thing? There's no intellectual curiosity in these people, only fear and insecurity.
Posted by: RobertDW | May 31, 2009 12:36 AM
Mmmm... I was thinking "maybe it's not such a stupid question", then I realised that yes, it is.
You see, there are animals that eat their own children. A lot of carnivores do it - a starving lioness for example will eat her cubs if she has too, and most female mammals will shut down milk production if they are too malnourished themselves, thus allowing their children to starve. Male carnivores will eat their young even without starvation - a good reason why the big cats kick all of their adult males out of the pride.
So, it's a completely stupid question because it assumes that the described behaviour doesn't occur. Which of course it does. The real question is: Why is it an evolutionary advantage to be eat your children?
The simple answer to this is that if the mother starves to death, odds are the children will as well. So if a parent is too self-sacrificing, they die and the children die - no successful reproduction. And if a parent is too selfish, the children don't get support that they need, and the children die - no successful reproduction. Also, you don't need every child to survive - an average of 2 is adequate for stability, and in fact any average greater than 2 (in the long run) will cause its own problems.
The real answer is that there's a balance (or actually several balances, depending on how long the children need support for) and species that succeed are the ones that have struck a suitable balance for their environment.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 31, 2009 12:38 AM
Evolution says we should eat babies. And because they worship evolution, that's why atheists eat babies! Ben Stein was right, science does lead to killing people!
Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 12:40 AM
#86
damn, that's the funniest thing on this thread! good try ;)
Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 12:44 AM
p.s.
i meant good try -with the humor....
Posted by: bastion of sass | May 31, 2009 12:52 AM
What's the point of atheists roasting babies if we're not going to eat them? That's simply wasteful.
What?
OOOOH.
I see.
We're supposed to eat only Christian babies, not our own.
Nevermind.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | May 31, 2009 1:06 AM
For Josh BA:
Classic Gumby sketch
Posted by: Nominal Egg | May 31, 2009 1:09 AM
Wow.
Total link FAIL.
My apologies.
Posted by: RBH | May 31, 2009 1:19 AM
Ah, yes. Supersport. He of butterfly wombs fame on the late lamented IIDB. The only cretinist who even approaches his level of dumbhooditude is Dave Hawkins.
Posted by: Graham | May 31, 2009 1:20 AM
Oh yes, neglecting and eating your own children is a GREAT way to pass on your genes to future generations. Take that evil-ution! *sarcasm*
Posted by: AgnosticTheocrat | May 31, 2009 1:36 AM
WHY DON'T MOMS EAT THEY'RE BABIES TO PASS ON THEY'RE GENES! ANSWER THAT EVILUTIONISTS!!!
I like this guy's style. It takes a pair of balls to fight logic with this kind of tenacity.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 31, 2009 1:40 AM
[vent]It's a pity web scripts don't reproduce, and hence don't evolve. An error message that has the "PLEASE DO NOT RESUBMIT YOUR COMMENT" line in 72 point font would have definite enhanced fitness. One with the line in bold, italics, and underlined would be even fitter. Eventually, with enough selection and generations, we would see a 72-point form of "WHAT FUCKING PART OF 'PLEASE DO NOT RESUBMIT YOUR COMMENT' IS SO FUCKING HARD TO GRASP YOU DUMB SHIT?!"[/vent]
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
May 31, 2009 1:41 AM
Creationists take that phrase in the bible about being like little children way, way too seriously. The problem is they keep getting “childlike” all mixed up with “real stupid,” and then when they attack evolution—usually by “childishly” trying to turn it into the exact opposite of what it is, like a little kid would—they’re actually just being real-stupid for jesus. And the further problem is that there are a whole lot of them, and they’re all patting themselves on the back for being real-stupid for jesus. It’s like a contest!
Man, I sure would like to think this one’s a joke, but I’ve seen too many people being just as real-stupid for jesus to have much hope for that.
Posted by: Graham | May 31, 2009 1:42 AM
Oh yes, neglecting and eating your own children is a GREAT way to pass on your genes to future generations. Take that evil-ution! *sarcasm*
Posted by: AgnosticTheocrat | May 31, 2009 1:45 AM
@95
It does, in a way, you just have to wait awhile to see it. Although there does seem to be an awful lot of double-posting going on in this thread...
Posted by: Penguin_Factory | May 31, 2009 1:53 AM
I am unfortuntely deeply familiar with this particular persons brand of stupid. I post on that forum regularly.
Posted by: Clemens | May 31, 2009 2:02 AM
It is not a Poe because it doesn't contain at least a tiny hint to it being satirical.
You know that at www.ftsdt.com there was someone quoted saying: "So evolution takes a million years to turn apes into men? Check this: Apes don't live a million years".
Now how is this any less stupid than the quesiton in the post?
What really annoys me is that these are legitimate questions - for little children beginning to learn about evolution. Of course a third grader might ask: "So why are there still monkeys?". But the creotards think of this more as rethorical questions that bring down the whole theory of evolution.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 31, 2009 2:16 AM
It shows that message. It needs to show it bigger, apparently.
Posted by: Tom Nowitzky | May 31, 2009 2:31 AM
The creationist would do better to ask what possible evolutionary advantage is there for someone to survive long enough to ask such stupid questions. I think that question would stump PZ!
Posted by: Tom Nowitzky | May 31, 2009 2:35 AM
The creationist would do better to ask what possible evolutionary advantage is there for someone to survive long enough to ask such stupid questions. I think that question would stump PZ!
Posted by: Brain Hertz | May 31, 2009 3:44 AM
I was just thinking about who could possibly be that stupid when I clicked on the link to the source, and discovered that it was posted by... supersport.
Never mind, then.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 31, 2009 4:08 AM
mayhempix @ #11 said:
That it keeps them from being burned at the stake by their fellow fanatics?
;-)
Posted by: rrt | May 31, 2009 4:29 AM
Others here clearly know supersport better than me, but I get the impression he has a habit of deliberately oversimplifying his statements...I think he more or less believes what he's saying. Digging through the thread you can see his initial record-setting stupidity give way to an embarrassing effort to offer more detailed objections. He never actually gets there, but he seems to be fumbling for questions like "do genes actually influence behaviorbsuch as mothering instincts?" and "how does a non-sentient, unthinking gene direct behavior?" The latter seems especially tough for him...he seems to view everything as having intent. At least, he can't seem to get past the concept that a gene must somehow "know" what it's doing if it influences thought and behavior.
Azkyroth: I'm sure many do get the "don't try to resubmit" screen, but not all of us are. Sometimes we're getting other error messages, timeouts, etc. PZ has pointed out recently that the recent improvements to the SB system have turned out to be buggy. Lately the only kind of subissiom errors I get at Pharyngula (though not other SB sites, oddly) are of the non-"please don't resubmit" variety. So Now I just assume ANY error probably went through.
Posted by: LH | May 31, 2009 4:34 AM
I read supersport's responses in that forum and I think I know what's going on.
To understand why supersport could ask such a ridiculous question, one must examine their peculiar worldview - a view where people never really "die" but their immortal souls are headed toward either eternal bliss or eternal torment.
Thus, "survival" to supersport is not about the propagation of a population, but rather the persistence of a single individual. So he wonders why mothers would not automatically place their own interests ahead of the interests of the offspring.
Here are three answers, which I hope have not been mentioned by others yet:
1. The interests of the mother and the offspring are not necessarily in opposition.
2. Living organisms can plan ahead even though the evolutionary process can't.
3. Living organisms are not immortal. Being "selfish" won't make anyone immortal.
Posted by: Shel | May 31, 2009 5:08 AM
Please tell me this is a Poe.
Posted by: davem | May 31, 2009 5:11 AM
Given that supersport has had so many answers to his questions over the years, and has put in tremendous energy in asking them, I am coming to the conclusion that he is either that stupid, or he is a really, really good poe. And I really haven't a clue which.
Posted by: Timothy | May 31, 2009 5:12 AM
#16: Then count yourself lucky, you're now the smartest person who reads this site because we all lost half our intelligence just reading it. I don't think it's going too far to say that this is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
Posted by: Beige | May 31, 2009 5:36 AM
Oh....dear. I like his extra two little bonus points, not as good as the rest but still rather amusing. :)
Posted by: shyster | May 31, 2009 6:10 AM
Before you smug science types get too full of yourselves have you considered the fact that some species do, as a matter of course, eat their young as a dietary supplement?
When was the last time any of you have seen a unicorn?
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 31, 2009 7:00 AM
To everyone that thinks that this has to be a poe... you really should read the stuff by Alan Clark and RogerS. Yes, they can in fact be that dense. :-/
Check out the following link where he uses an argument from Ray Comfort to argue in favor of biblical literalism!
RogerS: "Macro-Evolution occurs introducing new genetic information to create a new species. At the relative same location and time another interfertile species of opposite sex appears."
Posted by: Aquaria | May 31, 2009 7:19 AM
While certainly a huge chunk of the blame for his difficulty with the basic concepts of evolution, and basic logic, come from his religious background whatever education he had also failed him.
Funny, one of my new tactics with fundies spouting the crazy-stupid is telling them that I pity how the educational system failed them. So far, they don't know how to respond to it, besides saying something that proves my point, like how they went to X bible college. I guess it's awful of me that I can't control my shrieks of laughter at that one. And they seem really miffed when I repeat that I pity how their education failed them.
Anyhow, I'm sure they'll learn a painfully stupid retort from their shamans soon enough, and I await it with glee.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | May 31, 2009 8:44 AM
It's because of things like this that I have long admitted myself utterly incapable of discerning parody from the real thing.
Posted by: TomDunlap
|
May 31, 2009 8:54 AM
Sign on a fundie church in TN:
"If Evolution is true, why do Mothers only have two hands?"
FAIL!
Posted by: Beaver | May 31, 2009 8:56 AM
I'm having a very difficult time washing away the stupid. Wait... watz going on guys?
Posted by: Theodore
|
May 31, 2009 9:02 AM
At the risk of pandering to the stupid, I'll play devil's advocate and say the PR part science has done a poor job of explaining that "Survival of the Fitness" applies more to species as a whole than to species as individuals.
Posted by: Dysturbed | May 31, 2009 9:03 AM
"Wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it ate its own babies?"
If only creationist followed this rule the rest of the world would be so much better off!
Posted by: GMacs | May 31, 2009 9:10 AM
I would guess that fallout from some sort of religious radiation has spurred on cognitive decay, then isolation led to extreme fusion, creating concentrations of heavy isotopes of Stoopid.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 31, 2009 9:14 AM
I expect that it'll be obvious to everyone reading this that the goggles, they do nothing, even without me shrieking and writhing about in agony.
Posted by: Escuerd | May 31, 2009 9:21 AM
Well, he has a point in an ironic sort of way.
If I gave birth to a creature that fucking stupid, rather than expending all that energy by trying to raise it on the off chance that it would survive to adulthood (assuming it wasn't living in a largely idiot-proof world), I'd probably just cut my losses and eat it.
Posted by: Escuerd | May 31, 2009 9:34 AM
Reading some of that thread is painful. I hope this man is sterile.
Posted by: nick nick bobick | May 31, 2009 9:38 AM
The originator of this question, one SuperSport as you all know by now has been a font of stupidity for a long time. What is very odd is that he can actually put together a coherent sentence but somehow only come up with incoherently stupid arguments...but he is never wrong (yeah, right).
He does not accept ANY science: my favorite was his argument that if his daughter (yeah, sad I know - he has reproduced) stood on the moon and waved at him, if his eyesight was good enough, he would see the wave exactly when she waved; then he expanded it to the sun, and would never (if I recall) admit that it would take 8+ minutes for him to see her initial wave.
This is the level of stupidity we are dealing with here.
Posted by: IainW | May 31, 2009 9:44 AM
Theodore (#118):
Actually, "survival of the fittest" does apply more to individual members of the species than to the species as a whole.
The key misunderstanding here is the failure to understand that "survival" means "reproductive survival".
Posted by: Bill | May 31, 2009 9:53 AM
I don't think this is a stupid question. It is a question created out of ignorance of the fundamentals of evolution. Everyone who asks a question is ignorant about something, thus comes the question.
This person was just trying to jump ahead and ask a more advanced question when they should be asking more to understand evolution itself.
Please, please don't insult someone when there is an eagerness to learn and actually correct a misconception of how evolution works. We need to post more of these questions and their replies for the benefit of Christians.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 31, 2009 10:02 AM
SuperSport? Oh, my.
Bill @ 126, you raise a good point, but SuperSport is well known for his intransigent and willful ignorance. In his case, there is no eagerness to learn.
However, as you say, it's a good idea to address the question for the benefit of interested readers who are not named SuperSport.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 31, 2009 10:06 AM
Azkyroth @95
Maybe a MORE BETTER warning sign?
http://www.warningsigngenerator.com/download.php
I created this one but it could be made even more explicit!
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Fmagyar/warningsign.jpg
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 10:09 AM
128 comments? get a job
Posted by: Meagan | May 31, 2009 10:21 AM
Ok, obviously, this is written by a (really really stupid) guy. Even the most staunchly anti-evolution woman (not even mother) knows that if the baby makes it to a time when they can get by on their own, screw what happens to mom. Any human mother would gladly give up her own life for that of her baby, so why wouldn't any other animal? I am embarrassed to be in the same species as this guy.
Posted by: sailor1031 | May 31, 2009 10:22 AM
If only FSTDT hadn't gone read only this could be posted alongside this other anti-evolution gem (which did give me a lift when i read it!)
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."
The defence rests your honor
Posted by: James Sweet | May 31, 2009 10:22 AM
Wow. The stupidity is just towering.
@Anonynmous #129, if 128 people spend 30 seconds leaving a comment, does that meant that they all don't have jobs? Fucking retard...
Posted by: Meagan | May 31, 2009 10:24 AM
Ok, obviously, this is written by a (really really stupid) guy. Even the most staunchly anti-evolution woman (not even mother) knows that if the baby makes it to a time when they can get by on their own, screw what happens to mom. Any human mother would gladly give up her own life for that of her baby, so why wouldn't any other animal? I am embarrassed to be in the same species as this guy.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 31, 2009 10:27 AM
@Anonynmous #129
Today is church day, why aren't you there?
Posted by: Quidam
|
May 31, 2009 10:31 AM
Why do you have the font installed if it offends your religion? Uninstall the font and you won't see it again. You can chant 'Death to Comic sans' while you do it it it makes you feel better.
"And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head," Terry Pratchett, Maskerade
Posted by: blockhead | May 31, 2009 10:31 AM
I skimmed 60-70 posts on this thread. Whats the point? The guy is either too stupid to breath or is just screwing with our heads (and wasting our time and energy). Every hour or two, he justs checks back in and posts a couple more ridiculous (and repetitive) comments. He probably gets paid based on the number of comments he gets....
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 31, 2009 10:36 AM
The tragedy is that these religious slime are allowed to reproduce, either by evolution or human action. Evolution is unaware of this situation, but if it were humanly possible to prevent the reproduction of civilization-regressive progeny, then human intervention might just lend evolution a hand in perpetuating sound minds. Only a thought to a dire situation.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 31, 2009 10:40 AM
Anonymous @ 129
Get a mental life.
Posted by: Svlad Cjelli | May 31, 2009 10:53 AM
More likely to breed by killing own off-spring?
That is the awesomest thing I've heard today.
Posted by: Diego
|
May 31, 2009 11:06 AM
Is this a Poe? I mean, c'mon!!
Posted by: Diego
|
May 31, 2009 11:12 AM
Is this a Poe? I mean, c'mon!!
Posted by: Donnie B. | May 31, 2009 11:13 AM
So then, why don't PYGMIES eat DWARFS? Huh? Huh?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 11:33 AM
Wait, I'm confused... Is this man retarded?
Posted by: Michelle | May 31, 2009 11:35 AM
This is why evolution needs to be taught in schools.
Posted by: amphiox | May 31, 2009 11:42 AM
One can readily see why Darwin didn't like the "survival of the fittest" description of his theory.
"Fittest" of course means only one thing - producing the most offspring that survive to the point of producing offspring of their own (it's not the number of kids you have that is the best indicator of your evolutionary fitness, it is the number of grandkids you have).
But among r-strategy organisms, there are some who do eat (or at least have very little instinct not to eat) a portion of their offspring. Removing a few of the least fit of a large brood early reduces the competition that the most fit of your progeny must face, and if those you gobble up would most likely not have made it to grandkid producing status anyways (common in r-strategies), then you lose nothing, selection-wise.
Posted by: John Frum | May 31, 2009 11:51 AM
There are no stupid questions but there are lots of inquisitive idiots.
Posted by: stfudonny | May 31, 2009 12:02 PM
Poe's law
Posted by: stfudonny | May 31, 2009 12:05 PM
Poe's law
Posted by: JE | May 31, 2009 12:07 PM
I still think this kind of shocking (and hilarious) idiocy is mostly our fault for not teaching basic principles of natural selection well. Technical jargon, great for researchers, doesn't help non-researchers at all. Letters (e.g., r/k) are about as bad as technical jargon gets. And treating technical jargon as if it were intuitive and not technical is intellectually and pedagogically dishonest.
Anyway, why should this person pay any attention to our evidence, when we so openly think he's stupid? The clarity and simplicity of the argument, and the easy availability of the evidence, is compelling only to an actual investigator, not to a student-qua-student. In my experience with undergrads, students in inverse proportion to their age can always gauge the teacher's opinion of their intelligence, and, in direct proportion to the teacher's contempt, resist accordingly.
Posted by: Henry | May 31, 2009 12:23 PM
Just goes to show you that in some cases... mothers SHOULD have eaten their offspring.
Posted by: Mafoo | May 31, 2009 12:29 PM
Wouldn't it have been more productive to just answer the question than to ridicule it and call it "stupid"? It's actually not that stupid of a question, it's just pretty silly that the asker assumes there is no answer in science. Scrolling down the page and reading the echo chamber chorus of "stupid"s and "dumb"s I can see why creationists are even more willing to close their minds to this scene.
Posted by: Chris S | May 31, 2009 12:32 PM
That has to be real. There isn't a troll in the world clever enough to think up something that idiotic.
Posted by: Dave C | May 31, 2009 1:01 PM
Ah, supersport. Having spent many, many hours reading threads in the E/C forum at the late IIDB, I am all too familiar with his antics. RBH is right--among creationist internet trolls, only DaveH can compare for shear level of denseness.
Posted by: faux mulder | May 31, 2009 1:12 PM
this person has been reading way too much ayn rand, they're actually beginning to believe that selfishness is the only real good.
find a mate? gee, shouldn't they eat any mates? just consume everything, like "taz" in a bugs bunny cartoon?
send them to live with the inuit for a couple of years, they'll soon discover that sharing is an achievement of biology. this idiot just wants to eat their children rather than going through all the fuss and bother of raising and caring.
dibs on the placenta.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | May 31, 2009 1:13 PM
I have seen people on this site mocked for falling for an "obvious" POE. Sorry, but after watching Comfort & Cameron do their schtick, there is no way that the STUPIDITY of a comment can reveal it as a POE.
The banana thing, while dumb & uninformed, at least can be seen as a creationist parable - God designed a world for our comfort & convenience.
But that crocoduck..........Great FSM! And not only was that put out in videos aimed at the credulous believers, but Cameron actually talked about it on O'Leilly's show. (I know, it was O'Lielly - but it is a news/commentary program aimed at the general public.)
There are people that dumb who will write things that stupid - and BELIEVE them.
STUPIDITY cannot be used as a POE litmus test.
Posted by: Badger3k | May 31, 2009 1:39 PM
Did this individual's mother have any children that lived? I am doubtful.
Posted by: JMG | May 31, 2009 1:40 PM
Ok, so maybe the first question is valid. After all, the evolution of cooperation and parental investment are definitely interesting/active areas of research.
But the second one...
*facepalm*
Posted by: Badger3k | May 31, 2009 2:07 PM
The closest this comes to actual science is when we look at the behavior of creatures that do eat their young, and we try to explain possible advantages to that (nevermind that there may in fact be no advantage to that, just that the negatives are outweighed by other factors). The obvious ones were already answered (lack of food, stunted offspring that would not survive/be a drain on others/eaten to replace nourishment lost by parent), but we've also left out the obvious - lions who eat offspring are normally not the fathers. They eat the offspring of others (or in the case of chimps, kill the offspring of females) which triggers/releases hormones (in a round-a-bout way, obviously) that make the females able to breed again, thus giving the male better chances of his own reproductive success.
There are a lot of strategies that have evolved to deal with the many situations such as this, it's no wonder that deliberately obtuse individuals fail to understand the complex explanations that we make (even if, at heart, the simple answer is that it promotes the reproduction of the genes embodied in the animal).
Doesn't excuse the stupidity, but I'm sure that there are other not-so-extreme individuals out there who might be encouraged to learn from this. Whether they will....
Posted by: zartan | May 31, 2009 2:10 PM
Uhh, no you idiot. Mothers eat other babies not their own.
Even dinosaurs did this and animals do today. No much has changed.
Posted by: zartan | May 31, 2009 2:13 PM
Uhh, no you idiot. Mothers eat other babies not their own.
Even dinosaurs did this and animals do today. No much has changed.
Posted by: Jordan Lund | May 31, 2009 2:38 PM
Everyone seems to be focusing on question #2 and ignoring the (equally stupid) question #1.
"1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young?"
There is none. In fact, there are many species of animals that lay eggs and leave their off-spring to fend for themselves. Sea turtles being the prime example that leaps to mind. There is no maternal instinct in that species.
Most fish species behave the same way.
Posted by: JE | May 31, 2009 3:14 PM
Ditto Mafoo@151. It's easy to get frustrated by repeated encounters with this sort of ignorance, but a good teacher will be able to abstract from personal experience. Anyone else will not successfully teach.
Posted by: Lee | May 31, 2009 3:32 PM
The man who taught me to teach well, when I was teaching in grad school, told me that there is one and only one lie that every good teacher tells his/her students in some form or other.
That lie is "There are no stupid questions."
Posted by: Douglas McClean | May 31, 2009 3:33 PM
This person is giving Barb and her "hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source" a run for her money in the department of moronic rhetorical questions.
Posted by: Phaedron
|
May 31, 2009 4:13 PM
For the sake of our gene pool, I sincerely hope this creationist will eat his own young.
Posted by: Dude | May 31, 2009 4:15 PM
Instead of ridiculing the question and the questioner, why don't you actually answer the question, point out any misconceptions the questioner might have, and explain things in a clear logical way?
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | May 31, 2009 4:30 PM
No question is stupid if you are willing to learn from the answer.
Cameron's "Why hasn't a crocoduck evolved?" or Coulter's "Why didn't humans evolve wings because they would have been very useful sometimes?" are stupid because they not only display ignorance of a subject they are choosing to address, but because they will ignore any answer you give them.
They ask the question not to be informed, but to pander to their audience.
I don't know enough about SuperSport to know his motivation...
Posted by: secularguy | May 31, 2009 4:44 PM
I thought I recognized the name supersport from somewhere ...
http://www.atheistforums.com/more-fundies-say-the-darndest-things-t6007.html#131080
There was a hilarious post at biology-online, reposting a series of supersport's posts defending his insights in physics from educated criticism, which unfortunately isn't available anymore. (The original posts at CARM had by then already been deleted, likely because the praise supersport received from other Christians was too embarrassing, as I recall it.)
Posted by: Joe | May 31, 2009 4:53 PM
Was the question really asked in comic sans? That's like if Feynman recorded his lectures while inhaling helium after being kicked in the head by a donkey.
Posted by: Homesick Alien | May 31, 2009 5:05 PM
#166
Click the link to visit the actual forum where this was posted. There are plenty of replies that address the questions more than adequately. The reason not many people here have bothered is because the questions are so absurd.
Posted by: blf
|
May 31, 2009 5:16 PM
I strongly suspect that even if Dr Feynman was kicked in the head by a donkey, inhaled helium, and delivered his lectures in Swahili (which he didn't know, as far as I know), he'd still make more sense than this nutter. (To answer your question, the stupid numskull font is Pee Zed's style for quoting stupidity. General option is, I think, it's highly appropriate albeit unreadable. Of course the quoted material is "unreadable" in a sense as well….)
Posted by: Tully
|
May 31, 2009 5:26 PM
As Bender would put it, "Oh. Your. God."
This is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. What a moron.
Posted by: Brian12 | May 31, 2009 5:36 PM
No parody, this insanely stupid creationist propaganda was drilled into my head from the age of 5-16, and believe me I've heard worse. What's worse is I believed it until I grew a brain. Thanks to truth for curing my ignorance. Though just reading that again does drop your iq.
Posted by: Bench | May 31, 2009 6:00 PM
I obviously haven't been reading this blog long or often enough. Will someone please explain what it means to "call Poe"? I tried figuring it out for myself, with no luck.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 6:30 PM
Instead of ridiculing the question and the questioner, why don't you actually answer the question, point out any misconceptions the questioner might have, and explain things in a clear logical way?
Because he isn't addressing people so doltish that it would be necessary. If you want to do that, go ahead.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 6:36 PM
"1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young?"
There is none.
Sigh. Yeah, sure, that's why mammals don't.
Look, it depends on the investment per offspring. Fish and turtles, instead of tending their eggs, produce large quantities of them.
Posted by: JE | May 31, 2009 6:44 PM
@Lee#163: Sure, there are stupid questions, but this doesn't mean that there are stupid people. And students know the difference: most are happy, in everyday conversation, to call their own friends' questions stupid, while meaning no disrespect to their friends' intelligence.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 6:53 PM
Actually, "survival of the fittest" does apply more to individual members of the species than to the species as a whole.
No, it doesn't, not as used by Darwin: http://www.bartleby.com/11/4011.html
But really, all this talk of teaching the fundamentals of evolution misses the point of just how self-contradictory it is to talk of a mother eating her offspring so as to be better able to breed.
Posted by: SpamBot | May 31, 2009 6:57 PM
If you read the thread this came from, last post reveals that this was a deliberate troll to ensnare another forum member - in other words, this wasn't serious.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 31, 2009 7:58 PM
A graphic description of Supersport.
Posted by: cliff | May 31, 2009 8:05 PM
Poe's Law states:
“ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1962980-6/#post17606580
Posted by: James | May 31, 2009 8:13 PM
where does babby come from??
Posted by: irobot | May 31, 2009 8:23 PM
My brain crashed reading the first sentence.
Posted by: timmay | May 31, 2009 9:41 PM
Post #2 had it right.
Remember, 30% of American Conservatives think
'The Colbert Report' is actually a REAL
pro-conservative show!
You cannot argue with
someone like that. Dont even try.
We must fight the Devo's.
Its all we can do.
Posted by: Mike | May 31, 2009 10:04 PM
Hmmm, as a confirmed evolutionist, I don't think it is stupid to ask why, when and if mothers eat their young. First of all, they do sometimes, as anyone who has owned Hamsters can tell you. This may be a stress issue, and in some circumstances (extreme malnutrition) we might speculate that it would enable a mother to live long enough to produce more litters in the future.
In general the energy return on energy invested in eating one's offspring must be quite low, but surely we can imagine circumstances where it is a potential strategy to optimize reproductive success. The point is that it is likely a very rare circumstance when this is the case... but not one that we cannot imagine.
So, really, the question is NOT a stupid question, but rather one that deserves to be framed correctly and answered seriously.
As for the first question, there too, important issues are raised, but they are fully addressable in a scientific framework. Do mothers ever neglect an existing offspring because they judge that potential future offspring (say with a more fit male) may offer better future reproductive success? It's an interesting and reasonable question, worthy of research. It's surely rare, but it is also not unimaginable, and BOTH cases fit within an evolutionary theory context.
Posted by: Ben | May 31, 2009 10:25 PM
I honestly do not think this was "stupid question", rather an honest question from an ignorant (at least in terms of evolution theory) individual. It is rather clear from the question that this person does not understand some of the basic premises of evolution. I would hope that this person is open-minded enough to consider any reply seriously and perhaps even endeavor to gain some knowledge independently.
In addition, treating an honest (though ignorant) question with disdain and condescension like this only makes the atheist community look bad. Next time someone asks a "stupid question" try giving a straight forward and humble answer. You may find it more productive.
Posted by: Jim | May 31, 2009 11:03 PM
Shockingly stupid. Evolution really is the enemy of creationists. They are doomed in the next 6000 years.
Posted by: mike | May 31, 2009 11:16 PM
just curious. why is this classified as a "creationist question?" i've heard many similar "evolutionists" questions. yet it's not labeled as so, but as stupid question. why not simply smack the person upside the head? and point out that breeding is to "breed" and not for food. otherwise what would be the point in breeding? is hunting for food not already in the equation prior to giving birth?
Posted by: Mark | May 31, 2009 11:34 PM
I would encourage PZ Myers to not go after the low hanging fruit. Pick something worthy of debate.
Posted by: Mark | May 31, 2009 11:39 PM
I would encourage PZ Myers to not go after the low hanging fruit. Pick something worthy of debate.
Posted by: Mike | June 1, 2009 12:35 AM
Hmmm, as a confirmed evolutionist, I don't think it is stupid to ask why, when and if mothers eat their young. First of all, they do sometimes, as anyone who has owned Hamsters can tell you. This may be a stress issue, and in some circumstances (extreme malnutrition) we might speculate that it would enable a mother to live long enough to produce more litters in the future.
In general the energy return on energy invested in eating one's offspring must be quite low, but surely we can imagine circumstances where it is a potential strategy to optimize reproductive success. The point is that it is likely a very rare circumstance when this is the case... but not one that we cannot imagine.
So, really, the question is NOT a stupid question, but rather one that deserves to be framed correctly and answered seriously.
As for the first question, there too, important issues are raised, but they are fully addressable in a scientific framework. Do mothers ever neglect an existing offspring because they judge that potential future offspring (say with a more fit male) may offer better future reproductive success? It's an interesting and reasonable question, worthy of research. It's surely rare, but it is also not unimaginable, and BOTH cases fit within an evolutionary theory context.
Posted by: Cowcakes | June 1, 2009 12:36 AM
OK after that I've just had to reset and massively upgrade my stupidity circuit breaker. WTF doesn't even begin to cover it.
Posted by: Barry Desborough | June 1, 2009 1:18 AM
The person, 'supersport', who asked these stupid questions is an extreme case of a phenomenon which is familiar to all who engage in 'debate' with creationists. The questions are not sincere. They are the product of a carefully nurtured, deliberate ignorance. They are asked over and over and over and over again on multiple discussion boards over periods of years. There is no interest in the responses, save as a springboard from which to ask further stupid questions over and over and over and over and over again.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 3:04 AM
An adult of sound mind who has not been subject to physical imprisonment and isolation for the entirety of his or her life cannot be that ignorant "honestly."
Posted by: Marty in Boise | June 1, 2009 3:22 AM
"I thought evolution was all about being selfish..."
Clearly, our creationist has confused evolution with Objectivism...
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | June 1, 2009 3:35 AM
This would be one of those crationists who thinks that Newton's Law of Gravity is:
What goes up
Must come down
...but still thinks there are important exceptions that Science cannot explain.
Posted by: MB | June 1, 2009 3:42 AM
Judging by the tone of the questions posed, I would assume that the person who crafted those questions is probably about 11 or 12 years old.
So let's not be too unfair. If anything the finger is pointed squarely at the parents, who should have explained to the child the reason that they didn't eat him as an infant, or indeed, why Mummy and Daddy had to go to work every day to make money to come home and feed him.
Still, a hilariously ridiculous set of questions and ones that truly typify the blind ignorance and specious reasoning of Religious lunatics who denounce evolution.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 3:55 AM
No teacher, no matter how good, will successfully teach someone who does not wish to learn.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 4:01 AM
...such as?
Posted by: Anthony North | June 1, 2009 4:06 AM
The theory of evolution is neat and rational, but whilst some form of evolution is definitely correct, there are many problems with the theory as it stands. For instance, it requires slow change, whereas evidence suggests something different.
There appear to be periods of fast change interspersed by periods of no change at all. If this could be tied with periods of fast change and no change at all in the environment, all well and good, but science cannot prove this.
Similar problems arise with the evidence to prove evolution. For instance, only 10% of the fossil record has been found, leaving huge gaps in the evidence. Hence, science’s evangelical approach to the ‘truth’ of evolution is misplaced.
Of course, evolution was much more than a theory of life. The idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’ was a perfect philosophy and for the strongest to prosper. As such, Nazism and modern capitalism are based on the premise.
Opposing evolution is Creationism and the idea of ‘intelligent design’ within life. The two stances seem so contradictory that there is no possibility of tying the two ideas together. However, this is not the case.
Computer programs have now been devised on the concepts of evolution. Over many ‘generations’, the programs evolve to be better programs, adapting through natural selection. However, this is not the whole picture.
In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution. It is not inconceivable that a similar process could lie in evolution proper. It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 4:34 AM
Evolutionary theory has no relationship to Nazism or modern capitalism.
The rest of your criticisms are a spectacular display of ignorance. Worse, they are unoriginal. These facile claims have been refuted multiple times and at great length. See, for instance, various entries here and specifically here. Go learn.
Posted by: itwasntme | June 1, 2009 4:54 AM
On another note entirely, when I had my son many moons ago, I remember feeling that a piece of my own body had somehow gotten detached, and I had to make sure to take good care of it, just as I tended the rest of my body. I'm not kidding either.
This is only one of the bizarre feelings a woman gets after childbirth, which actually changes your brains in many interesting and enlightening ways.
Posted by: Kyle the Recession Guy | June 1, 2009 8:21 AM
Evolutionary advantage of eating their offspring? I call Poe!
Aren't Creationists always blaming evilutionists for advocating procreation? Now they say we should advocate cannibalism for survival?
Posted by: JE | June 1, 2009 9:10 AM
@Azkyroth#198: Good teachers make students wish to learn. (Okay, maybe the rest of my students drop out after the first midterm...)
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 1, 2009 10:02 AM
@200: everything you think you know is wrong. Learn science from scientists, not creationists; the people you trust have been lying to you.
Posted by: Alex | June 1, 2009 11:00 AM
The saddest thing of all is the population of educated people is shrinking, and the imbeciles are growing. The tide needs to turn now before we are more overrun by people of this ilk.
"Stupid is as stupid does."
Forrest, Forrest Gump
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 11:38 AM
The people who ask such questions do not do so for information, but rather to create in the gullible the impression that these are important, legitimate questions (they aren't) that science cannot answer (it can).
Posted by: juliana | June 1, 2009 1:02 PM
ahhaha
the funny thing is, even the stupidest person attacking evolution theories knows they deal with species survival. This one doesn't even bother to think.
Posted by: Mark | June 1, 2009 3:55 PM
I would encourage PZ Myers to not go after the low hanging fruit. Pick something worthy of debate.
...such as?
such as something not so blatantly stupid.
Posted by: Chose | June 1, 2009 4:10 PM
What the... how can people be so idiotic... evolution isnt about the survival of an individual its about the survival of the whole species... how do they even remember to breath?!?!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 1, 2009 4:18 PM
Low hanging fruit yes. And treated as such.
This is a point and laugh situation.
Posted by: Bench | June 1, 2009 6:06 PM
@181 re. Poe's Law
Ahh, it's all clear now. Bless you, cliff.
Posted by: Timeoftheowlwordisnow | June 1, 2009 6:32 PM
For some reason, I highly doubt it. Creationists are inherently retarded, not much we can do, other then eat their babies...arghhg, i'm feeling dumber by the second just being here. "NARF"
Can we put all the creationists in a cage and see if they start eating each other after a few weeks of starvation? Kill two birds with one stone... so to speak.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 6:46 PM
The saddest thing of all is the population of educated people is shrinking, and the imbeciles are growing. The tide needs to turn now before we are more overrun by people of this ilk.
Idiocracy.
Posted by: Nick | June 1, 2009 10:03 PM
I'm sure someone has mentioned this but the statement "survival of the fittest" is not talking about physical fitness but reproductive fitness (high fitness=lots of living babies breeding).
Posted by: jeff | June 2, 2009 12:11 AM
i bet anything a woman wrote that
Posted by: Matt Silb | June 2, 2009 12:30 AM
They asked it stupid, but it is not a stupid question. Try this: some organism give no support, post "birth" to offspring, some do. How does that difference relation to selection?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 2, 2009 12:56 AM
How does that difference relation to selection?
Read Trivers on the evolution of parental care.
http://books.google.com/books?id=By3I9jsoBQkC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=robert+trivers+evolution+of+parental+care&source=bl&ots=WabSypD9G6&sig=iD7T0_iMgOPK81HKo5ABmPQ05Nk&hl=en&ei=o68kStDlBJPoMJ_d9Y8F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PPA98,M1
particularly the chapters on Parental Investment and Reproductive Success, which of course became parental investment theory (check the wiki for a rundown).
...that was back in 1972.
then try something more recent, say:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-4DPGXJ6-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7d72692b1230453e796950cb6f29b42c
to see more of what questions are being asked these days.
Posted by: Rossato | June 2, 2009 11:13 AM
Holy pasta, this can't be true.
Posted by: Dalziel | June 2, 2009 12:24 PM
On the upside, perhaps ID is a viral meme that's weeding out stupidity from the human race. I mean, would you reproduce with someone who asked a question like that?
Posted by: S | June 2, 2009 1:53 PM
How the do you answer these questions to a person that already made up there mined? And is just trying to hard to prove them selves right.
In fact Its very child like; if you were never shown how to read when you were young, you wont be able to.. So as you grow up and you cant read so to you all the Books Evil just because you cant read. Then these people who cant read create a Group that cant read and the 1st conflicts are born..
why? because everyone wants to be right, simple actually.
Now imagine doing this for many many many generations, it becomes in bread. And it takes a strong person to brake off from this "way of life" or belief.
I think its a lazy way out to say god mad it, or did it.. etc. Because it takes some brain power to actually LOGICALLY think about it, and answer. Wait i sent that the a huge part of life? To gather knowledge.
Say you do go to heven.. what are you going to talk about to everyone there? Talking about cookies and relatives can only go so far.. then what? You need an open mined to be able to talk and carry on a conversation for eternity..
If u cant sounds more like hell to me..
think about it if u haven't dismissed it already.
Scary huh? did ur life just flash before your eyes?
WAit why did i write this..? People who i wrote this for think computers are Evil! (ill get some stamps)
Posted by: S | June 2, 2009 1:55 PM
How the do you answer these questions to a person that already made up there mined? And is just trying to hard to prove them selves right.
In fact Its very child like; if you were never shown how to read when you were young, you wont be able to.. So as you grow up and you cant read so to you all the Books Evil just because you cant read. Then these people who cant read create a Group that cant read and the 1st conflicts are born..
why? because everyone wants to be right, simple actually.
Now imagine doing this for many many many generations, it becomes in bread. And it takes a strong person to brake off from this "way of life" or belief.
I think its a lazy way out to say god mad it, or did it.. etc. Because it takes some brain power to actually LOGICALLY think about it, and answer. Wait i sent that the a huge part of life? To gather knowledge.
Say you do go to heven.. what are you going to talk about to everyone there? Talking about cookies and relatives can only go so far.. then what? You need an open mined to be able to talk and carry on a conversation for eternity..
If u cant sounds more like hell to me..
think about it if u haven't dismissed it already.
Scary huh? did ur life just flash before your eyes?
WAit why did i write this..? People who i wrote this for think computers are Evil! (ill get some stamps)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 1:57 PM
yikes
I may need to relinquish my crown, though I'm not sure it fits that.
Posted by: ritebrother | June 2, 2009 4:09 PM
When breeding transgenic mice, it's pretty common for me to come accross females to eat the newborns right after they're born. The mother was ready to burst with 10-12 pups one day, and all that's left in the cage the next morning is a much skinnier female and some "bits". Sometimes a given breeder will always do it, to the point that you have to use another mouse. Pain in the a**, it is. However, it certainly does not increase the fitness of the famale. Right into the CO2 with her.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 4:21 PM
The theory of evolution is neat and rational, but whilst some form of evolution is definitely correct, there are many problems with the theory as it stands. For instance, it requires slow change - Anthony North
Crap. Go away and learn something about evolutionary theory.
Posted by: ritebrother | June 2, 2009 4:29 PM
After my snarky comment, I felt compelled to write something sincere. This my have been covered (I haven't read every comment), but I'm sure someone else mentioned the conservation of energy/resources aspect of an individual eating their offspring. It's obviously well-documented in many animals. This may have already been covered, but the disconnect for the original questioner that leads to the false paradox is the conflation of individual fitness with the fitness of a population. Many of the discussions I get into with lay folks about evolution always seem to present some flavor of this misunderstanding of fitness, advantage, and selection. Usually, these discussions are related to the evolutiionary advantage of selfless/self-secrificial behavior, in the context of a theistic vs. naturalistic basis for morality. Once you explain that what is good for the fitness of a breeding population (which is ultimately the relevant context of selective force) does not necessarily comport with what is advantageous for the individual, things usually clear up.
Posted by: Wedge | June 2, 2009 5:28 PM
I must say that as a creationist I am even scratching my head at those questions. They make no sense and do nothing but make the person asking the questions sound ignorant. I do not see how mothers not eating their young has anything to do with the creation/evolution debate at all. I would like to say to the person that asked those questions to please stay out of it. You are doing nothing for your cause except making others think that all creationist are ignorant. Thanks and God bless.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 5:37 PM
I would like to say to the person that asked those questions to please stay out of it. You are doing nothing for your cause except making others think that all creationist are ignorant. - Wedge
Whereas in fact some are simply lying scumbags exploiting the ignorant ones (and of course many are both ignorant and liars).
Posted by: CJO | June 2, 2009 6:02 PM
what is good for the fitness of a breeding population (which is ultimately the relevant context of selective force)
Um, no. No, it's not. Group selection has a troubled history, at best, in the history of evolutionary theory. The problem is that, except possibly in very rare circumstances, an ESS (Evolutionarily Sustainable Strategy) will arise that favors a middle way between the "cooperator" and the "freeloader" variant that bucks the group survival trend for its own fitness advantage. This isn't a result of "group fitness," though. Just ordinary old individual fitness, with the added complication that an individual's conspecifics are a salient feature of the environment. This is all pretty well worked out mathematically. See Game Theory.
You may be thinking of kin selection, but, if so, then it's ironic that the way to understand fitness in kin selection is not to broaden the concept of fitness to the population, but to narrow it, to the level of the gene, since a gene doesn't care whether it gets copied into the next generation via your gametes or your siblings' and cousins'.
Posted by: Jake | June 2, 2009 7:08 PM
I didn't think it was possible to be that stupid.
Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | June 2, 2009 7:18 PM
Wedge, as ridiculous as this sounds to you, that is essentially how all you creationist sound to us.
Ridiculous and basing your belief on willful ignorance and blind faith.
Posted by: hannah | June 3, 2009 7:51 AM
Hmmm, okay. Since you are collecting stupid questions asked by creationists, here's a 2-part stupid question from me.
But so as not to impose on your hospitality, I will provide the answer to one of them.
Q: Why did evolutionist Dr. Michael Ruse say at a conference held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) that the myth of evolution as "science" should be laid to rest, and that "evolution has functioned as something [like] a secular religion"?
A: In his words, evolution "involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically."
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm
Q: And why have evolutionists been insisting ever since that Ruse was misquoted, when the transcript is available on-line?
(I assume there is a self-evident answer out there that will confirm my stupidity. I apologize ahead of time for my cluelessness about the laws governing scientific double-standards.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 8:14 AM
hannah
Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science and his opinion is just that, his opinion. He put forth some seriously wacked ideas about teaching that if really pursued would make it tough to teach almost anything in schools.
SO in other words, his little tirade doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 3, 2009 8:21 AM
Hannah,
All you have there is an argument from authority. We know you godbotherers like those, but they are irrelevant in science, and indeed in the whole project of rational enquiry. Having read your link, I'd say Ruse is plain wrong about "metaphysical assumptions", if he is referring to more than the assumption that there is a real world with properties consistent enough for science to work. That assumption itself could conceivably turn out to be wrong; but it is one shared, in practice, by everyone who is not clinically insane. Contrary to Ruse, I would say science does not (for example) exclude a priori miracles, non-material gods, or spirits; it is simply that centuries of investigation have failed to turn up any good evidence for such things whatsoever. Similarly, the accuracy of the Genesis account of creation was not excluded a priori: it was investigated in the early 19th century, by creationists who were, unlike their modern counterparts, interested in the evidence, and honest enough to admit, after investigation, that it did not support the hypotheses that the world was only 6000 years old, that there had been a global flood, etc.
And why have evolutionists been insisting ever since that Ruse was misquoted, when the transcript is available on-line?
Give specific examples.
Posted by: Kel | June 3, 2009 8:44 AM
Forget all the evidence for evolution, Michael Ruse says it can't be proven empirically. Guess we need to hide ol' archaeopteryx. The dinobird, like the fishapod doesn't meet what evolutionist Michael Ruse says.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 8:48 AM
I wonder if hannah will be back?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 4, 2009 6:53 PM
Is this the same Hannah from the ID class at Cornell?
just curious.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 4, 2009 6:55 PM
Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science and his opinion is just that, his opinion.
actually, I smell a quotemine.
anyone bother to check the original source?
Ruse is not one who actually sides with the IDiots; indeed he used to do a lecture circuit to shoot down ID.
Are we sure he wasn't really addressing the ultraselectionists?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 4, 2009 6:59 PM
@Hannah:
In that same interview, Ruse also said:
and that was in DIRECT reference to Johnson's conceptualization of metaphysics.
Ruse gave it all the due it deserved, and his conclusion, as a philosopher?
time to move on.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 4, 2009 7:09 PM
Once you explain that what is good for the fitness of a breeding population (which is ultimately the relevant context of selective force) does not necessarily comport with what is advantageous for the individual, things usually clear up.
ugh.
too bad that didn't clear ANYTHING up.
selection acts at the level of the individual, it doesn't matter what is "good" for the fitness of a population (unless their eusocial or clones). It really DOES matter what increases fitness for an individual.
I think you might be confusing what happens to a population AFTER selection acts on an individual. We see evolution within populations, as traits exhibited by individuals become selected and thereby more frequent within a population.
Hope that helps a bit.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 5, 2009 1:52 PM
Ichthyic@238,
Yes, I followed Hannah's link. Ruse does seem to have caught a dose of social constructivist relativism.
Posted by: MTGAP | June 6, 2009 12:42 PM
"What is the evolutionary advantage of creationists being so obtusely stupid?"
In times of sadness, it gives the rest of the population someone to laugh at.
Posted by: Alvin | January 3, 2010 10:49 AM
I thnk ts lzy wy t t sy gd md t, r dd t
Posted by: Triton
|
March 18, 2010 12:16 PM
Hmm. If I speak gibberish in the forest can I hear myself.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ZyDU9tRwjdYxs1E6KDIi8HEequ1B0UzklwcQ#64549
|
May 14, 2011 1:37 AM
Because mother feels that young is her own. So it is not eating their young.
Watch Arthur Online