How does religion explain birth defects?

[Lethe]

What advantages could there be, in the rest of the animal kingdom defective young are eventually discarded for the survival of the social group. The weak and sick are killed out by predators this helps to keep the gene pool strong.

Yet it isn't very often "defective" infants' care impedes on the very survival of it's next of kin. If there are an abundance of resources, the number of surviving members in any group will increase.

Maternal bonds evolutionary speaking seems to be a flaw in the human race that most other species will ignore for the benefit of the group or the parents themselves.

A deep-seeded desire to care for one's own young until they mature in to adulthood is very often vital for a child's survival.

Caring for the defective infant would only bring danger and a corrupt gene pool to a species.

Yet evolution isn't a tyrannical dictator. When a species can thrive, it will thrive.

So where are the obvious advantages to keeping defective babies that eventually become a burden on society, just the financial cost of these individuals amount to unbelievable costs that could go to help feed the starving children that are not genetically inferior.

Stronger bonds are present amongst closely related (whether by blood or interaction) individuals than unrelated individuals.

As I see it evolution has made a terrible mistake in the human race and could endanger the survival of humans.

6,700,000,000 and counting, I'd say they've done fairly well, especially in comparison to the other Great Apes.

Why do you believe that the care for deformed babies has something to do with social cohesion?

The ability to form strong emotional ties is key for both. Evolution isn't about perfecting organisms, it's about adapting organisms' features to their environments.

I agree social cohesion is vital to human survival, just as the wolf, lion, elephants, bees, ants, whales and ect. need social cohesion to survive. None of those groups will let a defective baby come between the group and it's survival. The groups that I have listed have as strong a social responsibility as the human race does, if not stronger. The mammals in that group have extremely strong emotional ties.

But caring for the disabled doesn't affect our survival. And the negative effects of "wasting" resources on those with disabilities is of lesser importance from the view of an individual, as (again) the ties to kin are stronger than to strangers. This stems from a desire to preserve one's own genetic material, and this desire does not necessarily discriminate between the quality of said genetic material.

Mammals do not let the old and defective survive to be a burden to their social groups.

Many do when they have the resources to do so. If wolves had an overabundance of food would they and do they feed their sick and injured? Yes. And in today's society, humans are comparable. I'm more likely to take my dog to the veterinarian than a single mother on welfare with two children to feed because I have the resources to do so, and she does not.

Even elephants will leave young behind if they become a hindrance to the group, they understand that the cost of survival for the one can not outweigh the cost for the survival of the group.

But again, survival isn't threatened when one's own needs are already met.

Until the advent of man, evolutionary speaking, and his misuse of the planet, those animals had no problem with their survival.

Animals have different attributes fine-tuned for their interactions with their environment. Many lineages did indeed die out.

How is it that the compassion for defective children that are a financial burden to society can out weigh the disadvantages to the human race?

"Side effects" of successful traits are common (such as in the example given of the sickle cell), but the ability to exhibit compassion isn't solely applicable to the disabled. The basis for compassion is a connection to others, and this connection can serve to one's own benefit. Humans are interdependent of one another. A disregard for the life of another could result in weakening one's own support, and while a man in a wheel chair might not be able to defend you from a pack of hungry coyotes, he too has a number of valuable contributions to be made.