The question Evolutionsists can't answer

[Colossians]

Well we are going to have some fun pointing out a tonne redundant argument today.



(From the desk of Nathan David)
Animals do not desire [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], they desire sex
And why do they desire sex? (I love catching evolutionists in their circles.)


"Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent".
"Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent".
OK, no problem.
Volition: animals desire sex, and make a conscious decision (volition) to pursue sexual relations.
You have a problem: presumption. No-one on this side of the fence ever declared that volition only resides in humans. (You should control that knee of yours).

Perception: animals perceive that they enjoy sex.
Ditto.

Now tells us the answer to the OP.








(From The gloaming,) (Watch this one.. I recommend it for the oxymoron of the year!)
a creature can either CHOOSE to eat food or not eat food…. As long as you realise the CHOICE is NOT a conscious DECISION,
Obviously Mr Nathan has a dog at home who eats while in a coma.

Equally obvious is Mr Nathan's shopping-spree dilemma: when he goes looking for a new pair of jeans, he must first of all eliminate any options, in order for him to make a decision. And so he decides on the pair of jeans on the left, in preference to the pair of jeans on the left.

1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent
Sure, but perception of something is not the same as making a conscious decision,
(Probably why I put it as point 2 instead of point 1. But thanks for pointing it out again!)

if you define perception (from perceive at dictionary.com) as "1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing".
Yes that will do. Now tell us how it is that a sexual [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] can be perceived as pleasure when perception is absent.







(From the pen of Casper the DJ Ghost,)
Not more NECESSARY more EFFECTIVE. To use an analogy, a bow and arrow will kill, but a gun is far more efficient.
You are comparing apples with oranges: evolution has no perception or intelligence. You analogy is moot.
I am not comparing anything I am using an analogy to illustrate the difference between the words "Necessary" and "effective" in the hope you will grasp it. Evidently not.
The inability to grasp lies with you: you may not use an analogy which contains within it a different domain of causality than that which you are trying to represent.
Further, your ‘logic’ is ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’: you are appropriating advantages as viewed through the eye of cognition, to a system void of such cognition. You may not define the cart by the kind of horse in front of it. Your point is invalid, and dismissed.

.. we are discussing something which increases efficiency here not something which is necessary.
False dichotomy: it is “necessary” that your “efficiency” be upheld in order for your argument to remain plausible. Thus your “efficiency” and “necessary” are not mutually exclusive as you maintain, but the latter is inclusive of the former.









And from Mr Megaman, (Those who wish to not learn about the birds and the bees here should skip this section).
If [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] were the only reason for sex, then how would one know to sexually experiment?
You bury yourself here:
If [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] were not the reason for sex, no experimentation would take place. The incentive to experiment lies in the delay of fulfillment, which is increased by virtue of its filling a need artificially delayed.
But this is for your Dad to tell you (or at least to give you a good book about). Your part is simply to tell us why sexual [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 evolve without the a-priori desire for it, or conversely, how the desire for sexual [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] can evolve without the a-priori existence of [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].








Sophorus, (Sophorus likes to cite the touted line on ‘Natural Selection’. She has it down pat.)
"Perception of need" is irrelevant. If a population don't develope an incentive to reproduce, it dies out, simple is that.
I almost have a heart attack when I read oxymorons like this. (Would someone kindly explain to the lady just what is wrong with her logic.)

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] makes up …a …very effective incentive to reproduce,
Profound.
Now tell us how it is that [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] can evolve without the desire for it. (Try to avoid telling us that it is because there was a non-perceived need to reproduce, which reproduction came into being anyway just as effectively as if it had been perceived as a need.)

In evolution, perception is irrelevant, and I've repeatedly demonstrated why.
So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it. So evolution actually evolves things that have no part in it, and militates against itself.
Nay but oh little one hood-winked by the pseudo-science of the atheist in scientific garb: you must tell us how it is that sexual [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] got off the ground in the first place.








And to those like Jet Black (who has notably opted out of the conversation when presented with a little philosophy):
You think that [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 simply an accumulation of passively retained stimuli (retained by virtue of its being resident in ever increasing proportions of a population owing to the greater incentive for those with such stimuli to reproduce).

You have 3 very fundamental problems:
1. The absence of perception: Your thinking is like one who believes that forests whose trees fall with no-one present to hear the crash to the floor, will become less full of such weak trees by virtue of necessarily non-attending tree-surgeons.
In other words, you must tell us how it is that stimuli (a necessarily relative term) is indeed stimuli when it is not perceived as such.
2. Selective association: You must show how it is that stimuli was associated with reproduction, and not with something like reading the paper.
3. Confusion of degree with quality: your premise that [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 simply a level (accumulation/aggregation) of stimuli, is false: sexual [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 qualitatively different than any other stimuli:
ai) It is cognitively based.
aii) Does not occur via increases to stimulation of any part of the body (including the genitals), unless cognisance is taken of sexual motive.
b) Produces a non-rationalisable synergy: the effect subordinates the participator to it.

 

[Jet Black]

And to those like Jet Black (who has notably opted out of the conversation when presented with a little philosophy):

I find philosophy rather irrelevant when discussion the functional evolution of some phenomenon.

You think that [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 simply an accumulation of passively retained stimuli (retained by virtue of its being resident in ever increasingly higher proportions of a population owing to the greater incentive for those with such stimuli to reproduce).

see you are chucking in incentive again, go back to the basics. An organism does something, and this elicits a chemical response in the organism which compels the organism to do it again, or not do it again as the case may be. Often this response is unconscious as we can see with pavlovian conditioning, or if you touch the eye of a snail repeatedly, you see a feedback loop changing the response to the stimulus from a strong response to a weak one. the converse can be also true.

You have 3 very fundamental problems:
1. The absence of perception: Your thinking is like one who believes that forests whose trees fall with no-one present to hear the crash to the floor, will become less full of such weak trees by virtue of necessarily non-attending tree-surgeons.

rubbish, don'T misrepresent me.

In other words, you must tell us how it is that stimuli (a necessarily relative term) is indeed stimuli when it is not perceived as such.

a stimuli can be something as simple as the firing of neurons, do you have to percieve being knocked on the knee in order to carry out the reflex action of kicking? no, but there is a stimulus.

2. Selective association: You must show how it is that stimuli was associated with reproduction, and not with something like reading the paper.

it does not have to be directly linked to reproduction. the animal cares not about the future of it's species. all that we need is for a response in the animal to certain stimuli (which may be external or as in the case of puberty, internal). If these stimuli and their responses result in differential reprodictive success then that allelic combination will either be reinforced or destroyed.

3. Confusion of degree with quality: your premise that [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 simply a level (accumulation/aggregation) of stimuli, is false: sexual [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 qualitatively different than any other stimuli:

You don't understand, my point is that the development of this feature is an aggregation of prior responses meaning that we never require the simultaneous appearance of a 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] and an [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] from nothing. 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] repsponse can be built up on already present responses which have a similar, but weaker effect. Initially we can start off with nothing more than a pleasure response, which results in the feedback loop in which the organism does what it can to get more sex. 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] can come as an addition to this in the development of an even more powerful internal response to sex. so the response is still there, and the issue of pleasure is still there.

 

[Mistermystery]

Animals do not desire [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], they desire sex
And why do they desire sex? (I love catching evolutionists in their circles.)

So far I don't see you catch anyoneone. He said he subscribed himself to his quoted fellow poster:

How do you evolve desire? By reproductive success.

Take the desire to eat, fueled by an empty stomach. Those organisms that are not impelled to eat die of starvation. Same thing with sex, those that are not impelled to have sex do not pass down their genes to the next generation, and so the lineage of sexually apathetic individuals are bred out.

He awnsered your query before you even asked it.

All I can say for the rest of your replies: Good for you buddy. Good for you.

 

[the_gloaming]

(From The gloaming,) (Watch this one.. I recommend it for the oxymoron of the year!)
a creature can either CHOOSE to eat food or not eat food…. As long as you realise the CHOICE is NOT a conscious DECISION,

urgh.

Your inability to read each word i have written is not my problem. The correct word to underline and emphasise is CONSCIOUS. Define conscious then tell me how many animals are capable of it.

1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent
Sure, but perception of something is not the same as making a conscious decision,
(Probably why I put it as point 2 instead of point 1. But thanks for pointing it out again!)

if you define perception (from perceive at dictionary.com) as "1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing".
Yes that will do. Now tell us how it is that a sexual [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] can be perceived as pleasure when perception is absent.

I never said PERCEPTION was absent. I said a CONSCIOUS awareness and decision making ability was. So. Read. Properly. Please ?

 

[Nathan David]

Well we are going to have some fun pointing out a tonne redundant argument today.



(From the desk of Nathan David)
Animals do not desire [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], they desire sex
And why do they desire sex? (I love catching evolutionists in their circles.)

Because the desire for sex evolved long, long ago, as has been explained to you several times. Animals with no desire for sex do not reproduce.

"Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent".
"Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent".
OK, no problem.
Volition: animals desire sex, and make a conscious decision (volition) to pursue sexual relations.
You have a problem: presumption. No-one on this side of the fence ever declared that volition only resides in humans.

Where did ever say volition only resides in humans? What "presumption" did I make?

Perception: animals perceive that they enjoy sex.
Ditto.

Now tells us the answer to the OP.

Again? I'm tired of repeating myself.

(From The gloaming,) (Watch this one.. I recommend it for the oxymoron of the year!)
a creature can either CHOOSE to eat food or not eat food…. As long as you realise the CHOICE is NOT a conscious DECISION,
Obviously Mr Nathan has a dog at home who eats while in a coma.

Do you really think dogs make conscious decisions? Dogs eat when they are hungry and there is food in front of them. When they are not hungry (rare for most dogs) or they do not have access to food they do not eat.

Equally obvious is Mr Nathan's shopping-spree dilemma: when he goes looking for a new pair of jeans, he must first of all eliminate any options, in order for him to make a decision. And so he decides on the pair of jeans on the left, in preference to the pair of jeans on the left.

What are you saying here?

1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent
Sure, but perception of something is not the same as making a conscious decision,
(Probably why I put it as point 2 instead of point 1. But thanks for pointing it out again!)

if you define perception (from perceive at dictionary.com) as "1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing".
Yes that will do. Now tell us how it is that a sexual [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] can be perceived as pleasure when perception is absent.

It can't. What's your point?

Your part is simply to tell us why sexual [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 evolve without the a-priori desire for it, or conversely, how the desire for sexual [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] can evolve without the a-priori existence of [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].

It can't. As we have told you repeatedly, 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] evolved first. 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] is not necessary for reproduction. Only the desire for sex is necessary for reproduction.

Sophorus, (Sophorus likes to cite the touted line on ‘Natural Selection’. She has it down pat.)
"Perception of need" is irrelevant. If a population don't develope an incentive to reproduce, it dies out, simple is that.
I almost have a heart attack when I read oxymorons like this. (Would someone kindly explain to the lady just what is wrong with her logic.)

There is nothing wrong with her logic. And I don't think you know what oxymoron means, because there is none there.

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] makes up …a …very effective incentive to reproduce,
Profound.
Now tell us how it is that [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] can evolve without the desire for it.

Chance mutation, the same way everything evolves.

In evolution, perception is irrelevant, and I've repeatedly demonstrated why.
So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it.

That's right. Evolution happened for billions of years before there was anyone capable of perceiving it was happening.

 

[Colossians]

Jet Black,


I find philosophy rather irrelevant when discussion the functional evolution of some phenomenon.
That is your problem: you divorce the generic from the specific. Philosophy is the foundation of all. Frankly I find your kind of reasoning austere. You need to learn to think inductively.


An organism does something, and this elicits a chemical response in the organism which compels the organism to do it again, or not do it again as the case may be.
You seem to have a problem in comprehension. And your shifty substitution of “compel” for something more cognitive, is noted. No no Mr Black, it is you who are compelled now to tell us just of what nature is this “compel” when it comes to the supposed evolution of sexual [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]. Citing the gradual decrease in response of a snail’s eye to touch is not sufficient, and you and I both know it. What is on the table before us, is the peculiar cognitive quality necessary to deem pleasure as indeed, pleasure.
You are running out of time here, and I of patience.


You have 3 very fundamental problems:
1. The absence of perception: Your thinking is like one who believes that forests whose trees fall with no-one present to hear the crash to the floor, will become less full of such weak trees by virtue of necessarily non-attending tree-surgeons.
rubbish, don'T misrepresent me.
The representation is accurate: your arguments are circular and redundant from all logical aspects. It is simply that such is illumined, that causes you angst.
Your whole platform is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Which is to say “after the fact, therefore before the fact”. You confuse the utility of the current, with the mechanism for its coming into being. This is a redundancy.


In other words, you must tell us how it is that stimuli (a necessarily relative term) is indeed stimuli when it is not perceived as such
a stimuli can be something as simple as the firing of neurons, do you have to perceive being knocked on the knee in order to carry out the reflex action of kicking? no, but there is a stimulus..
This is invalid argument: you equate a current schema which incorporates a response, to that in which no response has yet come into being. You simply beg the question. We are not considering existing ‘perceptions’, but the coming into being of one from first principles, at the fundamental level. This is where your lack of philosophical thinking, brings you down.
You need to tells us the sexual [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] equivalent of just why it is that the knee developed a reflex response in the first place.


2. Selective association: You must show how it is that stimuli was associated with reproduction, and not with something like reading the paper.
it does not have to be directly linked to reproduction. the animal cares not about the future of it's species.
Neither is it able to: it cannot perceive. And I would ask you to be a little less sloppy in your selection of examples: animals are not part of the primordial picture we are discussing.

all that we need is for a response in the animal to certain stimuli
Again you beg the question. It is not possible for a response to pleasure to occur, if such is contingent upon recognition of pleasure. Pleasure is not perceivable, therefore no increased activity will result.


(which may be external or as in the case of puberty, internal)
You may not use an example which already contains both sides of a balanced ‘ledger’, as supporting evidence for the independent evolution of each side of a ledger.

Initially we can start off with nothing more than a pleasure response,
And tells us how it is perceived as pleasure? (Love your circular answers).

And while you are at it, you can tell us why you overlooked the 3 subpoints below.
“Confusion of degree with quality: your premise that [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 simply a level (accumulation/aggregation) of stimuli, is false: sexual [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 qualitatively different than any other stimuli:
ai) It is cognitively based.
aii) Does not occur via increases to stimulation of any part of the body (including the genitals), unless cognisance is taken of sexual motive.
b) Produces a non-rationalisable synergy: the effect subordinates the participator to it.”

 

[Colossians]

QUOTE OF THE MONTH FOR EVERYONE’S DESKTOP CALENDAR.


The question was asked of Nathan David: “Why do animals desire sex?”

Wait for it (drum roll….) here’s the response:

“Because the desire for sex evolved long, long ago”

(And round and round we go…..)

 

[Colossians]

COROLLARY PUZZLE FOR THE THREAD:

“If it were in fact the case that intelligence was involved in the formulation of life, how would the result be any different?”

If your answer is: “There would be no difference”, then by comparison with what ‘substance’ can intelligence be recognised?

 

[Colossians]

Good night all.

 

[Mistermystery]

QUOTE OF THE MONTH FOR EVERYONE’S DESKTOP CALENDAR.


The question was asked of Nathan David: “Why do animals desire sex?”

Wait for it (drum roll….) here’s the response:

“Animals with no desire for sex do not reproduce"

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Nathan David]

Isn't bearing false witness a sin, Collossians?

 

[Mistermystery]

Isn't bearing false witness a sin, Collossians?

Common creationist tactics.

 

[Intrepid99]

You guys still refuse to wash the dust of your eyes?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You guys still refuse to wash the dust of your eyes?

Wash it with what? All you have to offer is mud.

 

[Osiris]

You guys still refuse to wash the dust of your eyes?

How can you tell that we have dust in our eyes when there is dust in your eyes?

 

[Aggie]

Nothing like YEC stupidity to cheer me up after a week of work to figure out who's been hacking into my accounts all over the place. (Which is where I've been all this time, but I caught the person who did it and it should stop now.)

I think what Colossians may have been asking is how animals first started mating when they hadn't yet evolved the desire to do so. Here's something that may help make it clearer:

Mating first evolved as a variation on a much older tactic, which was for the male to fertilize the female's eggs after she had already laid them. At some point there was an animal (probably some sort of primitive reptile) whose instincts in this area were a bit different from the norm because he wanted to fertilize the female's eggs before she laid them, which enabled him to fertilize them more efficiently than waiting until she had already laid them.

This also enabled eggs to develop tough eggshells. Initially the eggshells had to be permeable enough for the male's sperm to get into them, but once the male was fertilizing them while they were still inside the female, her body could add the hard eggshells to them after they had been fertilized. That wasn't something she could do when the eggs were being fertilized after they had already left her body.

This was an important step in the evolution of land animals. The origin of hard eggshells enabled animals to lay their eggs in dry environments without the risk of them drying out from evaporation.

If anyone's interested in learning more about the natural history of sex there's a Yahoo! group about it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_erotica/ . If you're wondering why I'm bothering to mention that, it's because I founded the group earlier this week.

 

[Nathan David]

At some point there was an animal (probably some sort of primitive reptile) whose instincts in this area were a bit different from the norm because he wanted to fertilize the female's eggs before she laid them, which enabled him to fertilize them more efficiently than waiting until she had already laid them.

I think using "wanted" there is going to increase rather than decrease confusion for people new to evolutionary biology. It's not that that animal wanted to fertilize the eggs before they were laid, but that his instincts told him to do so (and his biology allowed it). This trait emerged by chance, not desire. It was passed on because it allowed more offspring to be sired.

 

[Sopharos]

I almost have a heart attack when I read oxymorons like this. (Would someone kindly explain to the lady just what is wrong with her logic.)

Ah, gotcha.

Profound.
Now tell us how it is that [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] can evolve without the desire for it. (Try to avoid telling us that it is because there was a non-perceived need to reproduce, which reproduction came into being anyway just as effectively as if it had been perceived as a need.)

Time for Kindergarten Evolution.

[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 a mutation, a mutation which is and evolutionary advantage, that is, it allows the organism possessing this mutation to be on the favorable side of natural selection, that is, the simple process which is rather like when one rock is harder than another, and so the harder rock survives a flood, while the softer rock crumbles.

So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it. So evolution actually evolves things that have no part in it, and militates against itself.
Nay but oh little one hood-winked by the pseudo-science of the atheist in scientific garb: you must tell us how it is that sexual [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] got off the ground in the first place.

Started as a mutation, a mutation that turned out to be beneficial to the organism that possess it. Beneficial mutations allow organisms that possess the the mutation to out-compete those that don't. Therefore, those that don't possess this mutation died out, and those that do survives. Simple.

 

[Sopharos]

You guys still refuse to wash the dust of your eyes?

Oh, the irony is so so strong in this one, young Padawan.

 

[Colossians]

(From the pen of Aggie)
I think what Colossians may have been asking is how animals first started mating when they hadn't yet evolved the desire to do so.
Not quite, but you have preserved the conundrum, so I will let this one through.

Mating first evolved as a variation on a much older tactic, which was for the male to fertilize the female's eggs after she had already laid them. At some point there was an animal (probably some sort of primitive reptile) whose instincts in this area were a bit different from the norm because he WANTED to fertilize the female's eggs BEFORE she laid them,
At this point we will stop you: you have simply begged the question.

And you are also using an invalid example: one in which the participant is male, and therefore one in which such participant has come into existence by the very mechanism you are trying to evolve: sexual urge for pleasure. Once again, evolutionism is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.





(From the pen of Nathan David)
It's not that that animal wanted to fertilize the eggs before they were laid, but that his instincts told him to do so
For the purposes of this thread, “wanted” and “instincts” are synonymic. You have simply begged the question.

This trait emerged by chance, not desire.
Attempting to bury a very motive force of desire under the inanimate “trait” is not permitted. You are simply concealing and diffusing, not answering.
And this "trait" being itself desire, it is contradictory to declare its emergence as exclusive of desire.

It was passed on because it allowed more offspring to be sired.
Redundant: you have the ends producing the path to it. You posit current utility as the path to current utility. We ask you how it got there, and you tell us why what is here is useful. You simply beg the question.
You should study some logic at tertiary level.






(From the pen of Sophorus)
Now tell us how it is that [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] can evolve without the desire for it. (Try to avoid telling us that it is because there was a non-perceived need to reproduce, which reproduction came into being anyway just as effectively as if it had been perceived as a need.)
Time for Kindergarten Evolution.
[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 a mutation, a mutation which is and evolutionary advantage, that is, it allows the organism possessing this mutation to be on the favorable side of natural selection
You have simply begged the question. Time for you to go back to kindergarten.

So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it. So evolution actually evolves things that have no part in it, and militates against itself.
Started as a mutation,
Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?


Therefore, those that don't possess this mutation died out, and those that do survives. Simple.
Not simple: simplistic.
You have failed to address the issue of the thread at any stage during all your posts. Your parroting of the concept of natural selection is totally redundant from both the scientific aspect (natural selection cannot be applied to entities that do no reproduce – the most high-profile evolutionists admit to this), and from the logical aspect: you have rain falling because people are wearing rain-coats.