The question Evolutionsists can't answer

You know, I have to say, after 29 pages, no answer. I like this question . You're right, it's funny to watch.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

__________________
April 1rst: National Evolutionist Day!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The trouble with the world is the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." ~ Bertrand Russell

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." ~ Dr. Seuss

"The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work." ~ Salvador Dali

Those strange symbols you see on these pages form words, if decoded correctly. You should try it. I saw his question answered a number of times. Maybe you were focusing on those posts with your blind spot- it's an unfortunate consequent of suboptimal design.

__________________

OK, the orgasm came first. Or rather, the pleasure associated with sex came first. Those individuals that had the first variation such that sex was pleasurable would seek sex out more, or at least not avoid it. Thus, they would have more sex than those to whom sex was painful. Thus, more kids. Which would inherit the variation that sex is pleasurable.

Now, the desire to have sex is not necessarily tied to orgasms. Those individuals who seek out sex more often have a better chance of having kids -- more times at bat. Whether or not they feel pleasure from orgasms.

Originally Posted by Intrepid99

Can you take that onto an extention? How did orgasm arrive when they had not seen such a thing before? Everything that has a begining has a cause, what is the cause forthe orgasm when organisms were asexually reproducing? It could have been going on forever without a need for orgasm.

THere wasn't. And there wasn't orgasm among the first sexualy reproducing organisms either. Vertebrate orgasm is a very complicated thing depending on hormones, the sexual organs themselves, and chemicals in the brain. The first unicellular organisms to exchange DNA sexually didn't have any of those. It was just that individuals that did this had greater genetic variability in their offspring, making it more likely that one or more of the offspring could cope with the environment.

Sexual organs evolved later.

Orgasm in males is release of sperm. Do fish who simply spray sperm over exposed eggs have orgasms in terms of pleasure in the brain? I don't know. But a pleasurable orgasm would not be necessary, just the wiring such that when the visual and chemical signals of exposed eggs hits the body, sperm is released.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Originally Posted by tkster

You know, I have to say, after 29 pages, no answer. I like this question . You're right, it's funny to watch.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

Fragments is right. There were several proposed answers. I have a question for you:

Do you agree or disagree with the answers? If so, why? If not, why not?

Another question: if people are only supposed to be fruitful and multiply, why would God create either orgasms or desire for them? After all, there would be far fewer sins around if sex were simply somthing commanded to be done but which gave no pleasure. Did God set a trap so that people would get in trouble with Him? And what would that say about the god you worship?

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Not only was post 4 an answer to the question, it was a clear and concise one. More complex answers are scattered around the thread, but they all come to the same conclusion. Now if you don't accept the answer thats one thing, but pretending they are not there is dishonest.

Ghost

I just found the ultimate proof against God.

I post the question "Why should I believe in God" - put all Christians on ignore, and thus can truthfully say that I did not see any answer to my question.

__________________
Hier sitz´ich, forme Menschen
Nach meinem Bilde,
Ein Geschlecht, das mir gleich sei,
Zu leiden, zu weinen,
Zu genießen und zu freuen sich
Und dein nicht zu achten,
Wie ich!

(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Prometheus)

Think of it this way: Lesser organisms just live. They don't invent, write, develop unique cultures in the manner that we as humans do. Therefore, one might say, the organisms which do not have sex for pleasure, generally the more ancient species, do not need pleasure because their behaviour is so inherent.

More advanced beings such as humans, dolphins, monkeys, etc. have a lot more intellectual potential. Therefore, as beings of choice, it is also necessary to steer us towards necessities like food and sex with positive incentive.

A species with no desire to reproduce is a short lived one indeed.

One analogy I like is thus:

If you drink alcohol then it causes a chemical reaction in your brain that brings about various effects such as loss of co-ordination etc.

In the same sense sexual activity in a lot of creatures is governed by a simple chemical reflex. The creature detects the chemical stimulus and by reflex action releases sperm (or ovulates etc), there is no concious effort it is just the way that creature is wired.

Now lets say that a random mutation also causes a release of pleasure when the chemical response occurs then that creature is likely to want to seek out that particular chemical and thus more breeding will occur.

In reality the whole system is more complicated, especially amongst higher order organisms where multiple stimuli are required, but hopefully you get the picture.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity"