Seve 420

You are right- the pelvis is also a leading cause of mother mortality. If I can clearly remember, Alan Alford, this author of the book that I used to read has this argument against evolution and I believe he states that it's both the size of the pelvis and the huge head in babies.

Reading your post, you said that "a large head doesn't stop someone from being able to survive and have children (unless of course they may be seen as less attractive, but there is usually someone who would sleep with them)."- but you seem to miss an explanation explaining how a large head doesnt stop someone from being able to survive. All you did was progress into the statement "'Good' traits that allow them to adapt well to their environment gives them a better chance of surviving and producing offspring, that is how 'good' traits become more frequent." Hence, I have no idea how you've come up with the idea that "a large head is a good trait" because you didn't explained it. You just said it was good. Here is what I have to say. Since a child's big head and the mother's small pelvis is one of the major causes of mothers and baby's death, i don't see how- in evolutionary terms, these characteristics can be classified as good traits because it doesn't help them adapt to the environment- it kills them! How can dead mothers and dead babies reproduce and pass on traits if they're dead? Hence, it cannot be a "good trait." It must be a bad trait that must disappear in the evolutionary process to increase the chances of both the mother and child's survival. Now, all I'm asking- just as Allan Alford proposes is that, if evolution is right, why didn't we just change or evoloved into something with small heads and and bigger pelvises (for the women) when these traits seem to give us more success for survival.