AJ, According to your evolutionary selection theory, then only those with a stronger lower back would survive. A wider birth canal would mean more preterm aborted babies during pregnancy.

In your view of evolution all these things will naturally change. Not likely!

We learn to live with who we are, not what some believe we should be. You had better start breeding your preferred humans by natural selection.

It's not just my scientific theory theory, Josephus. It's the scientific theory of scientists. Evolution is a fact whether you like it or not.

<<According to your evolutionary selection theory, then only those with a stronger lower back would survive.>>

Not necessarily.

Over time, however, nature would select for backs that were strong enough to see the next generation in, at least. And indeed it has done that. But adequate does not always equal optimal.

<<A wider birth canal would mean more preterm aborted babies during pregnancy.>>

No, it wouldn't. You just made that up. I'm guessing you're not an obstetrician.

<<In your view of evolution all these things will naturally change.>>

Perhaps. That depends on a lot of variables.

<<Not likely!>>

How did you determine the likelihood?

<<We learn to live with who we are...>>

Indeed we do, Josephus. Indeed we do.

<<You had better start breeding your preferred humans by natural selection.>>

Well, it wouldn't be natural selection then, would it? It would be selective breeding. As is done with domesticated animals.

//AJ, According to your evolutionary selection theory, then only those with a stronger lower back would survive.//

It's not his theory.

And that isn't what the theory says. It says that if there is a selective pressure which favours people with stronger lower backs in terms of their fecundity, then on average those people will have more children and stronger lower backs will become more predominant within the population. If there is no selective pressure, then it doesn't make a difference.

//A wider birth canal would mean more preterm aborted babies during pregnancy.//

Umm... no. You just make this up as you go along, don't you?

//We learn to live with who we are, not what some believe we should be.//

Some of us, anyway. Some of us prefer that to believe that God made us out of clay in some heavenly ceramics workshop and then breathed life into us. Perhaps not in those exact terms, but that's the basic gist of it. And if that's the case, then he's a remarkably poor engineer for somebody who supposed to be omniscient.

Others prefer to believe that we arose as a result of evolution, which gives a much better explanation for quirks of our anatomy that don't really make much sense if you start from the premise that a perfect being attempted to make the best creature he possibly could.

//You had better start breeding your preferred humans by natural selection.//

O.... kay

Breeding programs rely on artificial selection. If they didn't, we wouldn't see the phenomenal growth in agricultural production that we need to feed our ever-growing population. Breeding things by natural selection exactly the same as not making any effort whatsoever to breed them.

Tony said, "Some of us prefer that to believe that God made us out of clay in some heavenly ceramics workshop and then breathed life into us." What you do not understand is that the human body is made of chemistry that is found in the Earth. What is not found in the Earth is life which is defined by breathing. The body comes from the Earth and returns to the Earth. What remains is the influence of your life; character, actions and wisdom or the lack of it. That is the reality of who you are.

Josephus wrote: "What is not found in the Earth is life which is defined by breathing."

Dear Josephus,

Bacteria, fungi and many organisms are alive and don't breathe. Life is not defined by breathing. Your definition of life is very limited since it omits many forms of life. Early forms of life did not take in oxygen, and the early atmosphere of the earth did not contain free oxygen. The waste product of some forms of life was oxygen, Their waste products made it possible for life forms that breathe to exist. Plants produce free oxygen, but plants are a later development in the history of life. They did not exist for most of the time the earth has existed. Life is found in the earth. Bacteria which are alive are found deep in the earth. The earth is teeming with life. Perhaps, you have been using the Bible as a scientific textbook. A course in biology is much more valuable in learning about life than the Bible.

Tony Lavis possibly understands what life better than you since your knowledge of biology which is the study of life appears limited.

//What you do not understand is that the human body is made of chemistry//

The human body is made of the scientific study of matter? O... kay. Is that supposed to be a metaphor or something? Because I don't get it.

Are you trying to say that human body is made of matter? Because I don't think anybody is disputing that.

//that is found in the Earth.//

It may surprise you to learn that matter can be found elsewhere than Earth. Shocking, I know.

//What is not found in the Earth is life//

Incorrect. This planet is crawling with life, and not just on the surface: bacteria get everywhere (don't worry, most of them are harmless). They have been found well over a kilometre down inside the Earth's crust.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827874-800-life-is-found-in-deepest-layer-of-earths-crust/

//which is defined by breathing.//

Incorrect. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Note that respiration is not even mentioned (although it's somewhat implicit), let alone breathing - which can only done by organisms with lungs, i.e. a tiny fraction of all the organisms out there.