The question Evolutionsists can't answer

Their needs to be some desire for sex that would motivate them to have sex. And that motivation is nothing but [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and pleasure. If that did not exist when having sex, no animal would have sex.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. So long as sexual reproduction isn't self-destructive, pleasure and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] do not need to be present to provide motivation. However, for those creatures (in general or specific sets within a given species) that do experience pleasure will have it more often and reproduce more often (and passing on the 'pleasurable sex gene'). While those within the species who did not experience as much pleasure will not have as much sex, and will not pass on their genes to the same degree. What you will be left with is successive generations in which a greater proportion of that species have the "pleasurable sex" genes.

If a creature gets absolutely ZERO pleasure from sex, but knows that sex is necessary for procreation (survival of the species), then it will likely have sex regardless of pleasure. It just won't be as efficient at procreation as others who do experience pleasure.

Click to expand...

Inside Edge said:

This was the question Intrepid99 last mentioned:
Here was my reply:
Now, my reply is specific to desire in the biological evolutionary process (insofar as it has little effect).

So, in what way is it proven to "not hold water," and how exactly is it off-topic?

Click to expand...

Ishmael Borg said:

Not thoughts, motivations maybe. Where do they get these motivations? Instinct.

Click to expand...

Inside Edge said:

I don't know.

But that isn't the original question. The original topic of this thread asserted that pleasure and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are the reasons organisms have sex, and that this created a quandry as to which came first. I think including my own comments, many others have done a good job at providing reasoning as to why desire, pleasure, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are not at issue when it comes to "which came first." Furthermore, I think others have done an excellent job at explaining why "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" would have come first.

The question was NOT, "how did the first sexual organisms know to have sex in order to reproduce." This, to me, is a vastly different question. I will say, with a good degree of certainty, that pleasure and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] had little to do with this process.

Just because you are now asking a different question, doesn't mean what was said before "does not hold water." You said very clearly that in order to answer why organisms first began sexual reproduction one had to accept that pleasure and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are the root of the motivation for intercourse - the desire to experience those things.

It's clearly not the case, and now you're asking a different question: "Why did they have sex in the first place, for reproductive survival." To this specific question I say again - I don't know.

Click to expand...

Nathan David said:

I'd like to point out, again, that plants reproduce sexually, so motivation or desire is definitely not needed for sexual reproduction.

Click to expand...

It just cannot happen on one day BAM as you said.

Click to expand...

Inside Edge said:

This is what I would say is a classic example of misunderstanding one of the basic concepts of natural selection or evolution. When I was 12, I heard the example of a creature evolving a long neck to reach food higher up being explained. My big question: "How could evolution or 'nature' have known to suddenly mutate a gene and give the successive generations of creatures longr necks in order to reach the food?"

My confusion lasted about 10 minutes. In a very simple example: "Evolution," "nature," or even a given member of this species didn't "know to do anything." The creatures with longer necks were able to reach the food, so they ate and lived to pass on their gene to their offspring. Long-neck genes and all. Meanwhile, the ones with the shorter necks died off, not being able to feed themselves. "Nature" didn't need to "know" or "desire" anything at all. The "long-neck" gene continued to be passed on and evolve because that trait allowed them to reach food.

So, sex being the act of reproduction, the creatures that have more sex will reproduce more successfully. Animals (in general or those within a given species) that enjoy sex more will inevitably have more sex and reproduce more. Those that enjoy it less will have it less, and reproduce less.

Now specific to the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]: the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is just a pleasurable reaction to a specific type of stimulation. It's not as if some generation of humans (or whatever) suddenly said, "if only we could enjoy sex even more..." and bam, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolves. Rather, as those organisms who enjoyed sex more, had more sex and reproduced more, the successive generations were made up increasingly of creatures/animals that enjoyed sex moreso than their evolutionary ancestors. As the "sex results in pleasureable nerve response" genes get passed on and evolve, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolves as a logical extension of this process - this process being natural selection. Those creatures that experience [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] more, have more sex due to a heightened enjoyment of sex.

As for desire, it has little to do with evolution, near as I can tell. In fact, the question: Which came first, the desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? doesn't even make much sense to me, because desire isn't really a part of the evolutionary process (not at the biological level, anyway).

Click to expand...

Inside Edge said:

I never said that. I'm afraid I'll have to agree with many of the other posters...you just don't seem to understand or read clearly many of the posts counter to your opinion.

Click to expand...

Intrepid99 said:

If you are so eager, take it on.
Where did instinct for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire for it come from.

Click to expand...