For My Pro-Evolution Friends Out There...?

Question

I really would like to understand your side of the Evolution vs. Creation debate. However, since I come from a dairy farm background, I have always wanted to know something...An instant 10 points to the person who can explain this in a sensible manner and not just blow it off:
A cow uses teats to feed her calf. Now, I am supposed to assume that teats had to "evolve" on cows and other animals just like any other appendage.
Question: Since evolution could not happen overnight, how could offspring survive if they had to stand around and wait for teats to evolve? I can tell you from experience, that would sure put a crimp in animal life on this planet today. Yet here we are in all our glory...with teats! Hello///

Answer 1

There are no pro-evolution friends or anyone who 'believes' in evolution. It's like referring to people as pro-algebra or those who 'believe' in algebra.
Now, keep in mind that there's still so much to learn in science. We use our scientific theories/models for the brain to continue investigating its mechanisms (meaning, there's a great deal yet to learn). And ... just think of all the work that's being done with quantum physics theory to learn about the universe (and how we still only know a small amount). None of this, of course, discounts quantum physics as a scientific model/theory. Similarly, many different specific evolutionary lines for current species are still being investigated. One of the areas is mammary glands (and eventually teats). There is a logical proposal that early mammals were like reptiles - no mammary glands available and they needed to get their nutrients by immediately fending for themselves. Then, there are proposals that suggest a sequence of mutations that resulted in survival advantages, ultimately resulting in mammary glands. But these are not well understood (check out http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec2001/1008253501.An.r.html)

Answer 2

The mistake many people make is presuming that the finished product of evolution had to occur all at once for it to have any usefullness. The eye is the most well known example. It has been argued that the eye is such a complex structure, that it couldn't evolve in gradually. This is wrong. The driving force behind evolution is natural selection. The more beneficial a trait is to helping the organism survive the more likely it is to be kept. The trait is passed through the genes, until yet another mutation makes the structure better. This is what happen to the eye. Take a snapshot in time and you will find the eye at some point in evolution could only pick up light and the absence of light. This in itself would give it advantage, over eyes that did not have this quality.
The same can be applied to a cow teats. Whenever the teats could give ANY nourishment at all it increased the chances that the calf feeding off it would pass on the genes of the cow it was feeding off of. As time went by, this trait got naturally selected for again and again, with mutations making it better each time. If a mutation made it worse, it would decrease the chances of survival. This negative gene mutation would eventually be eliminated from the gene pool, because it was beaten out by more favorable mutations.
The cow's teats as they are today started out small, and gave little milk. The original nourishment might not even have been milk. Over time the teats got bigger, and the substance turned into milk. You see the teats as they are today.

Answer 3

You are starting your premise from the idea that theory of evolution starts with the end result - a cow and then evolves other things onto it.

I do not know the evolutionary history of a cow however the theory means that the cow evolved out of a different species that is no longer around. This species wold not have needed lactation as a youngster and so the teats would not have been present because they would not have been necessary. The lactation and the teats would then have evolved over time because they provided an advantage for survival.

It is similar with the idea that a giraffe would have staved without its long neck. There is no problem with vegetation at a lower level it is just in higher demand. The giraffe would have evolved over a very long period just like the cow . In the giraffes position the ability to eat from a higher food source gave them an advantage - so they ate from lower down until they got to the tree tops. I hope this helps, even if you don't agree with the idea please try to see that the evolutionary starting point is different from your - you start with a fully formed animal whereas evolution is a very slow process with no jumps that starts with primeval soup.

Well done for the question by the way - it doesnt matter whether you agree but a greater understanding of other arguements will either help cement your beliefs or help you find something closer to the truth - you should never be afraid of knowledge you dont agree with.

Answer 4

OK, not a Biologist but I'll give it a shot. You can't just look at cows, all mammals have them so they were there long before the cow. The cow is a human artificially selected creation anyhow and really never existed the way they do now in the wild. How they originally started is what I am guessing that you are asking.

It isn't necessary that the original animal that was able to do this ONLY fed the young that way which is what you are implying. They could have been able to do both and it was at first a supplement, not the entire meal. This gives you lots of time for transitional steps

Since this is soft tissue it doesn't fossilize. There is debate about it on several identified species that were transitional reptile to mammal fossils. You can read a little more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal-like_reptiles

Answer 5

A couple of things here -

Not sure about "overnight" but teats most certainly could have come in one generation. The first cow (or any other mammal) to have teats would be better able to help her calf/offspring survive and therefore be better able to pass along her genes. How would a cow get teats if not from her mother? We are not sure, perhaps some form of lucky accident.

Secondly, many species get along just fine without teats, so teats are not absolutely required to survive and reproduce.

Answer 6

You don't have to assume anything, but to understand evolution I suggest you think about this a little more. Placental mammals all have breasts, right? That's probably the main thing that makes a mammal a mammal.

It's likely that in some area and time before the existence of mammals, it was difficult for a population of organisms to give proper nutrition to the young. Okay? Then a mutation occurs that allows the mother to give off some of her own nutrition when it leaves her body through some type of oriface, possibly even one that already existed on the body. It does not have to be a large change. That genetic mutation is passed on to the offspring which are now able to survive, and, of course, the trait becomes better and better as time moves on.

Offspring that really rely on breast milk have only been around since there was milk. Lizards don't need milk from their mother to survive.

Answer 7

It seems those above have dropped the ball on giving you a serious answer, so I'll give it a shot:

Say the ancient ancestor of the modern cow (and indeed all mamals) was some kind of lizard. It laid eggs. The young fed on proteigns inside the eggs just like the birds of today. Perhaps by some freak genetic mutation, one of these adult female animals was born with a gland that produced proteigns, (the begining of what would become a mamary gland). This allowed the young to feed after hatching without them having to search for food in predator infested surroundings, thus increasing their chance of survival. The genes for this gland, therefor, were favorable (more likely to lead to survival and reproduction) and got passed down and developed over millions of years.

Then there was another mutation that caused certain young to hatch early. These animals were more mobile because they did not have to stay in their eggs, and they could now survive on milk. Eventually there was no external laying of eggs at all. Voila! Millions of years later...the modern mamal, including cows! Hope that helps.

Peace.

Answer 8

It's simple: You're thinking of it as the whole cow evolving and then the teats evolving. Fact is that the entire animal had to evolve almost simultaniously. Also, the teats pre-date the cow since mammals existed before them.

Answer 9

Teats have been around for a long time. They are a defining characteristic of mammals. Udders have been around for a short time. They are the result of evolution with human selection. You slaughter most of the bulls and the cows who don't give as much milk.You also favor cows with extended teats that are easier for a human to milk. You breed the cows who can give you more milk. Eventually you end up with the Golden Guernseys my grandfather raised. If you go to a ranch to look at beef cattle, you will not see anything that comes close to a milk cow's udders.

Answer 10

You know what---I'm pro-evolution, and I think that that is a very good question. That's what science is about, questioning. My thoughts on the subject are that once we evolved from being cells that just mutated to organisms that give birth, the teats would have moved from some sort of internal feeding organ to an outside one. There might be scientists who know more about that in better detail.