Question for the evolutionists...?

Question

When a human baby is born, and the placenta is ripped from the uterus, there are enough open arteries that would drain about 1pint of blood a minute into the women's uterus.

The woman would die in minutes if this continues.

However fortunate though, at the exact moment the placenta is removed, all the blood vessels crimp off their ends to cut off the supply.

I'm wondering from the evolutionists how many thousands of years it took for this crimping action to evolve? Seems to me, this is something you have to get right on the first time, as you don't get a second chance! A dead mother can't feed her baby and it would certainly die!

ev·o·lu·tion·ist /ˌɛvəˈluʃənɪst or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2.a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective Also, ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic.
3.of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4.believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.

Answer 1

Evolution works in mysterious ways.

How'd ya like them apples?

Answer 2

Actually, there are all sorts of biological processes that, when activated, immediately shut down others. The fight or flight response immediately redirects blood away from digestion (and higher cognitive functions, which is not always a good thing) and into the limbs to facilitate a physical response. The body is good at taking care of itself.

In direct response to your question, though, millions of women have hemorrhaged to death following childbirth. It is one of the primary risks of giving birth. The fact that these millions are a minority, supports the theory of evolution. Their offspring did not live long enough to pass on their genes. You have to look at evolution from the perspective of the species, and not the individual.

Answer 3

First off, evolution works on much greater time scales then what you assumed. It wouldn't have taken thousands of years, it would have been millions. Secondly you are incorrectly assuming that there were humans and then different aspects of their biology such as what you mentioned had to evolve after the fact? The evolution of the placenta predates humans. You need to read up more on how evolution works. Here try this http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm/printable for a crash course.

Answer 4

First, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist".

Secondly, I doubt that anyone knows how long it took for this to evolve. What would you define as the starting and ending points?

If you thought this was some kind of challenging question that would count as evidence against evolution, you'd better look at it again - it does no such thing. Oh, and copying things like these from creationist propaganda sites - particularly those that claim that our cells are conscious (LOL) - isn't a very productive way to learn about how these things work. You might try being more honest next time.

Answer 5

It's the anti-evolutionists and their belief in things happening suddenly and right first time that presume this is how evolution works. It doesn't. The qualities of cells to behave in particular ways may evolve millions of years before a particular characteristic emerges that uses them in ways we think are "all about us". You are merely talking about a cell's capacity to self-repair - this evolved with bacteria. It's just the same as the old assumptions about the complexity of the eye - translucent cells and photosensitive cells evolved very early in the history of life; the genetic characteristics we have in our eyes is merely descended, over great periods of time, from them. The movement of our elbow joints is genetically identical to that of a common fly, and unlike articles of religion, these can be experimentally verified by the structure of DNA.

So the answer is, you are right, it didn't just happen first time. It evolved in the usual way by millions of cells in earlier animals rupturing and them dying from it until one of them carried the mutation that enabled what you call crimping. That characteristic enabled them to survive, and breed that characteristic into successive generations. That's how natural selection works. Glad to have educated you a little today.

Answer 6

Because it did not happen abruptly like you say. It was a gradual process. Different women had different amounts of blood loss. The ones that had lots died and had no more kids. The ones that had little blood loss passed on their genes. Continue for millions of years and you get very little blood loss. Simple.

Answer 7

women used to die at childbirth... now that we have grown stronger and have a more reliable medical research system women are less likely to die. Adaptation and Survival... Humans used to be weak. In some ways we are returning to our weaknesses... in otherways wea re growing stronger... this is my interpretation of 'evolution'.

Answer 8

As we have been around for thousands of years, perhaps the clotting factor that's been present for all that time had something to do with us not having our mothers bleed to death. Your question is based on a faulty assumption.

Answer 9

They fail to realize that evolution is just a theory, and unproven guess.

Once a scientific theory is proven, it becomes a LAW.

Example: the Law of Gravity

Answer 10

It took millions of years. If you ever got any situation that the mother and baby would always die, that line wouldn't last too long.

Answer 11

It predates the development of hominids. All mammals have the same response.