Posted by: Rob Lester | October 13, 2010

A Milky Problem

Single-cell bacteria do not produce milk. So, mammals who nurse their young had to evolve these organs at some point.  The question is: what did their young survive on until those glands were fully developed? Ph.D scientist Jerry Bergman observed, “Mammary glands are complex organs which will not produce milk until the whole complex system is complete. This [also] involves…many supporting structures such as the pituitary gland.”  The young mammals obviously survived by some other method until the mammary glands were fully developed.  The question then becomes why did mammary glands continue to evolve if the young were being adequately fed?  There was an effective, functional system already in place, so why keep evolving another more complicated system to do the same job?  A halfway developed mammary gland is not a beneficial mutation so Darwinists cannot simply invoke natural selection.  Nature cannot select the system until it’s complete and functioning. Well, how did it get that far, and why? Virtually every OB/GYN recognizes that mother’s milk is superior to anything our most brilliant scientists can create in a laboratory as a substitute. Is this not an indicator that the incredible design of this system and its byproduct came from the hands of a Grand Designer? 

Bergman, Jerry. Creation 13(2):39, March 1991.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. The notion that mammals existed before their mammary glands is an intriguing one. However, this is one that is evolutionarily untenable… What did the young of animals without mammary glands eat? Look at birds, for instance, to find an answer. Animals existed prior to mammary glands, though they would not have been called mammals (by definition.) Secondly, there is nothing preventing a lesser form of mammary gland from existing. Only mammary glands in their current form would not function without their “subcomponents.” Simpler, less effective gland systems could have easily (and in all evolutionary likelihood) existed in the past. The ‘superiority’ of milk has two potential implications – either indicating the hands of a designer, or indicating the effectiveness of the natural laboratory that is the immense span of time available to ‘trial and error’ in our evolutionary past.

    • Thanks for taking the time to comment. I am not being dogmatic that the existence of mammary glands alone demands a Designer. But, when taken with the mountain of examples of apparent design in nature, it makes a very weighty case, doesn’t it? And is there any evidence whatsoever of “simpler, less effective gland systems?” I’ve never seen any evidence of these. It is completely theoretical. Your argument is based on a logical fallacy known as ‘argument from negative evidence,’ which evolutionists accuse creationists of frequently. I am glad the post made you think. Again, I appreciate very much your comment and participating in the debate. God bless!

      • Rob,
        Much-delayed, but figured I’d reply. Far beyond the so-called “mountain” of examples for apparent design, I strongly urge you to check out the last century of development in Paleontology, and specifically, Lineagean Cladistics. Here, entire phylogenetic kingdoms of life are traced from simpler biological structures to more advanced ones, as revealed by the fossil record. This will lead you to the hundreds of thousands of “transitional” fossils that, perplexingly, Creationists often insist don’t exist at all.
        Two cents.
        Ben

      • Thanks. I’ll research it when I have some time to go over it. I appreciate you not forgetting about the blog!

      • Rob,
        No problem. Just trying to help highlight the reality that there are very compelling reasons that the concept of evolving life came to become scientifically dominant. Starting from the beginning and looking at the evidence that created a field (e.g., paleontology), you’ll be able to see *why* scientists accept these models of life – the idea that life evolves didn’t really come first, and Darwin wasn’t really on the radar for paleontologists – meticulously recording relationships between fossils was. The two modes of research just happened to powerfully intersect. This often reveals the truth of a natural process – when evidence from compeltely different directions wind up at the same conclusion. In any event, take care.
        Cheers,
        Ben

  2. I can take that comment a step further then, in the body there are a number of organs such as the heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. It would be a huge guess to say all of these parts of the body to slowly evolve from things like single celled organism into these parts. Even if you were looking at the parts of something considered to be a more simpler life form, like a mosquito.. All of these organs need to be in place to work together otherwise none of them will work. For example, you need to have vanes, and blood, plus source to feed energy to the heart before it will pump, cut something like that off and it dies. You also need to to have something to clean the blood, put oxygen in it, and you need some sort of “control center” (brain) to manage all of these organs so they don’t just go at it randomly. We have to remember when these things where still forming they had no DNA information at all and yet we’d somehow believe it just generated information randomly. So when a more complex organism began to form all of the parts that work together had to evolve at the same time once it was developed otherwise it would fail, die and be worthless.

    And then lets say the animal out of some BIG chance did evolve all at once. Once “evolved” then plants would have to been evolved at the exact same pace, because once the animal was made and mobile it has to find a source of food. And it’s not like that thousands of these animals evolved instantly so they could start killing each other, after all, it was all random chance up to this point when it was made.

    I could go on and on but I think I’m pushing here that the complexity of life is too complex to just “happen”, everything works together. So then it would suggest that there was an intelligent design somewhere in the process.

    Question is who is this intelligence and where did “it” come from. The bible says at Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” He always was and always will be. So according to this, He has always existed. Since he has always existed, there’s no need to put Him together.

    I could try to go more in depth with this but I think I made my point. The situation though is so complex since we’re talking about life I could go on and on 😛

    Anyway hope this made sense 😛
    -Jonah

    • Jonah,

      This is a common misconception of the reasons proponents of evolved life came to accept what they do. Complex life evolving spontaneously in its current complexity, as you say, is ridiculous. However, no scientist proposes such a thing. Saying that all complex organs just *had* to work right is a backwards statement. If you follow both current and fossilized life backwards through time, you do find simpler and simpler versions of organs, vestigial structures that no longer exist, and new ones that came to be in later time. So, de facto, simpler biological structures *did* exist in the past, which continued (in some cases) to gain in complexity to the modern era. Your statement about co-evolution (plants and animals) is spot on, too. I advise you to research “banded iron formations” and what early geology has to say about mehcanisms for metabolism and respiration (aerobic vs anaerobic) on early Earth. Basically, it was because of the oxygen pollution of early plant cells that made the evolution of animal cells possible – the sudden presence of oxygen allowed a different chemical pathway for respiration that hadn’t been available, and thus the first “animal” life was born.
      Anyway, I just wanted to point out that you’re right, in princple. “Evolution” as you’ve described it as a completely spontaneous process (to fully-formed, modern multicellular organisms) is ridiculous. Indeed, no one believes in such a thing.
      Cheers,
      Ben

      • Ben,
        Thanks again for your input. I’m very glad we can disagree but still be courteous and open to other perspectives. I’ll have to look into the banded iron formations. I am puzzled, though, about a seeming shift in broad evolutionary theory. The slow, gradual model is losing favor to a more “punctuated” type of evolution. The time frame seems to be shrinking and I think that is significant. Just as “missing links” like Neanderthal keep being proven to be more and more modern and well within the genomic range of human variation. “Modern” human remains and tools continue to be found “younger” than they are supposed to be. They are constantly being pushed closer and closer to the beginning. Perhaps one day we will get all the way back to Adam? 🙂 And, sadly, there are still many people still who DO believe in a completely spontaneous, godless process with no purpose whatsoever because it is still being put forward as such in science textbooks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: