Seriously ... how do these kooks come up with these sorts of questions?

Creationists, as a general rule, have always had the amazing knack for attacking evolution and us nasty "darwinists" with some of the most lop-sided, nonsensical, or just plain weird questions ever heard. And now, as further evidence to demonstrate that there are indeed such a thing as "stupid questions", here's a creationist who asks, basically: why do animal mothers bother to protect their young instead of leaving them alone, or eating them?

You really just can't make this stuff up.

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.

----

and now, two more bonus questions:

1) Evos say humans are more intelligent than chimps because of our big brains. Well if that is true, then why aren't Labrador retrievers twice as smart as chihuahuas?

2) Wouldn't it be "advantageous" for all animals to be intelligent like humans are? So why aren't they?

Oh, dear God. The mental gymnastics needed to warp your average mind into the dysfunctionality and insanity needed to ask these sorts of questions with a straight (or even smug) face ... This stuff is like torture à la Abu Ghraib to my poor brain. Creationists do seem to have a knack of answering their own stupid questions, don't they?

What's the evolutionary advantage to mothers taking care of their young and protecting them from harm instead of just spending their energy finding mates? I would guess it would be advantageous because, in that scenario, the young can actually ... you know ... survive. To grow. And mate. And so on.

Secondly, I can address his entire second point with my answer to this single quote:

But wouldn't an animal be more likely to breed if it didn't starve?

Um ... It would kinda defeat the point of breeding if the animal kept eating all its young. Like, you know.

The wacko then asks, "Where does this "love" or devotion for child come from?". Well, I – and anyone else who had more than two or three firing neurons in their brains – would say that's probably due to life's need of preservation. You know, like, if you help a baby live, it will grow up to make new babies. And such.

And because I feel like it, the two "bonus questions" (and thank God there aren't any more for my SIWOTI Syndrome to salivate over):

1) It apparently takes a fool like this guy – or perhaps just a creationist in general – to miscomprehend a simple joke about size. Or a simple joke, period.

Or anything else that's simple.

I digress.

And finally, 2) if it's advantageous for animals to be intelligent, why aren't they all as smart or smarter than humans? First, because we still have no exact idea what happened to accelerate human intelligence growth like it did. It's more than likely we're simply a freak accident, the result of random mixtures and coincidences that somehow added up into providing the perfect sort of framework to allow for an "extreme" intelligence over other creatures.

And second, why doesn't Nature "elevate" other animals' intelligences to meet our own? Because Nature isn't self-aware, quite simply. It doesn't "know" that humans are ultra-smart and rule over (most of) everything. Nature would have to think along the lines of "Hey, if humans are so smart, well I'll make other animals that smart, too! It's only fair", and seeing as Nature a) doesn't "think" and b) doesn't give the slightest shit about being "fair", it cannot happen that way.

(via Pharyngula)