Another edition of stupid creationist questions

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?