does the fact that humans have a gestation period of 9 months, and only produce one child be against evolution

Question

Wouldnt evolution favor a race that can produce more rapidly with more offspring. I believe so, but this seems to be going against what evolution has done for the human race, as well as others like the sperm whale.

Answer 1

Actually, it supports evolutionary theory. Think of a bacteria can reproduce every 20 minutes under ideal lab conditions. After 36 hours, there would be enough bacteria to form a layer 12 inches deep over the entire Earth. Now consider an elephant, which may only produce six young in a 100 year lifespan. It would only take 750 years for a single mating pair to produce a population of 19 million.

Obviously, neither scenario happens in the lab or in real life, but the point is that a population that begins at a low level in a favorable environment may increase rapidly for a while, but eventually the numbers must (as a result of limited resources and other factors) stop growing. Why would the reproductive rate of a species be quicker than what the environment could support? The answer is, it wouldn't because otherwise the species would face starvation or nutrient depletion, and would quickly become extinct. Saying that humans have a gestation period of nine months does not go "against evolution." Instead, it shows how populations have adapted to survive in a given environment. Sounds like evolution to me.

Answer 2

No. It's not against evolution at all.

Most primates and all apes only produce one child at a time (with occasional twins, triplets, etc.). So if anything it is yet more evidence of commonality with the other apes and primates.

The reason it is not against evolution is that it has an advantage. It allows the parents to invest more in the survival of that single offspring.

It is always a tradeoff: An animal can have *lots* of offspring (e.g. by laying many eggs) and invest no time in theirs survival ... in which case, the odds are that most of them will die, but a few survive. Or, it can have a few offspring, and invest some time in caring for their survival. Or it can have a single offspring, and invest a *lot* of time caring for their survival.

In the case of apes, and especially humans, there is an additional advantage. Ape babies (especially humans) are particularly helpless at birth. Why? For one reason, it takes a long time after birth for the large brain of apes (especially humans) to be fully functional. This means that the babies are a much larger investment for the parents. So having only one at a time is an advantage.

Whales have a completely different reason. A whale calf has to nurse in the water, often while the mother is on the move. So the let down of milk is very rapid. It would be a disadvantage to have multiple calfs to have to care for in this way.

Answer 3

The fact that humans have survived and dominate the world would tend to prove that we have got it right with regard to reproduction. Reproducing only one offspring at a time is irrelevant, when considering that the reproductive life of a human female is about twenty years or more. Having a gestation period of nine months allows for breast feeding to have been nearly completed and for solid and semi-solid food to have taken over for any offspring. This would have increased the survival chances of offspring and the species as a whole.
Evolution does favour races that can produce more viable offspring, that is why insects are so successful, and if we were directly competing with, say, ants, we would no doubt lose out.

But we have survived, and that is proof that we are successful. In fact, it is the only proof, in evolutionary terms.

Answer 4

well, i think that there is nothing going against the evolution because humans are a very advanced species and our body mechanism is far more complex than the other organisms, so it takes appropriate amount of time to form one. where as in case of other beings, the mechanism is far more easy and not as complex as the human body. and as far producing only one child is concerned, there r twins and triplets in this world. infact this applies not only for the human beings but for all the mammals, and the gestation period depends on the type of mammal. evolution woudn't favor anything like that because according to darwin's theory, even though an organism may produce many offsprings, only the fittest and the strongest of them is able to survive the environment. so as evolution wud favor only the strongest surviver, there is no use producing a million children and let half of them die.

Answer 5

This is called "the reproductive handicap"

More quantitatively, organisms reproducing asexually can outproduce those reproducing sexually

Evolution does not favor a race that reproduces more it favors a population that has the alleles that can adapt to the environment. And more people doesn't mean there will be more diversity and different alleles, these are constant because there are very few mutations in humans.
As a result of the lack of mutations and stable environment, Harvey-Weinberg equilibrium exists in human populations.

In mammals diversity and distribution of alleles via sexual reproduction is the main form of diversity

In asexual reproducers bacteria and viruses mutation is
main form of diversity

Answer 6

some people will by no ability learn with regards to the information of evolution, they are going to easily bypass directly to have self assurance that a spirit summoning elephants out of no longer something in an unexplained way is, for some obscure reason, greater advantageous than the organic factors. "quicker or later anybody dies" Wow, how ought to people comprehend that devoid of the bible? Ahum, wait a minute. I did.

Answer 7

I'm looking at all the great explanations with the negative ratings, so I've got a better question. Why do people post questions on evolution when they really aren't looking for an answer?

Answer 8

according to me its favoring how???/
cos 9 months period is giving a succusful developed species
but where as others its the other way round