How many species of animals on Earth are born with the umbilical cord still attached to the infant?
Most of the life I have seen born are in a placental sack. Most fish are born right in the water, ready to go within a few seconds, just like gazelles, bears, etc. are born on land and ready to go within a few minutes.
But humans have to be taught how to walk and dont do so right away. If humans had evolved beside apes, then that early human life would have been able to cling to its mothers back, all of the instincts of walking and clinging on, built in and useable within minutes after birth.
Humans have a placental sack that the fetus develops in. But unlike a human, most animals are born with the placental sack still around them. I have seen a calf born and fight its way out of the sack, the second aspect of survival of the fittest, other than the eggs being fertilized.
Is the umbilical cord the key to understanding when and why humans evolved in the manner we did?
I can imagine a group of cells encased in a placental sack, growing into something that could move around and consume nutrients, but not on land as the sack would be vulernable to predators. Someplace that had alot of calcium and other minerals that would have been easy to consume and convert and into bone.
As the cells continued to feed and new generations of larger humans grew inside of the sack via umbilical cords, could the sack organism have re-absorbed life growing inside of the sack that then became a larger human male and female over time until the male and female emerged, at least the size of pygmy humans and then began to reproduce?
Basically the sack would grow humans that went out into the world, consumed foods and then returned to the sack. The sack would then re-absorb the human and then analyze what the brain of the human had recorded to then create a better human.
Studies have shown that human offspring will actually not grow larger if the food supply is not ample enough to promote new growth.
What is also interesting is that early humans consumed each other based on the scent created by human DNA. Unless the human smelled like the humans of the tribe, then human that didnt smell like the tribe were considered food.
The above idea tells me that at some point, the sack or sacks that humans evolved in, probably in a very quiet and remote location, free of larger predators, somehow found their way to different locations on Earth. Could an early human have evolved to be a sack with legs that could eventually move around?
As each sack evolved to consume food and produce new and different humans based on the mineral and nutrient intake variables of the food being consumed which created a new DNA smell in a new group of humans, the base DNA of each new human group however, would have been the same as the original sack, If it doesnt smell like us, eat it.
If you look at a newly born infant still attached to the womb via the umbilical cord, and then reverse the process, where the smaller human gives birth to a human that grows into a six foot tall human, much like a dwarfen woman of three feet tall can get pregnant and carry a human that grows into a six foot tall human, then a pattern of smaller and smaller humans giving birth to larger, evolutionary charged humans, is possible.
I still think that a full sized human male and female came from the sack of cells. Otherwise, humans wouldnt have survived.