The question Evolutionsists can't answer

[Intrepid99]

I think Colossions needs to learn a bit more about instincts and neurochemistry.

There is nothing to learn about that if you say that it explains how [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 [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][bless and do not curse] came into existence.

 

[Freodin]

There is nothing to learn about that if you say that it explains how [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 [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][bless and do not curse] came into existence.

Sorry, but how am I to interprete that?

"There is no explanation for the existence [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][bless and do not curse] beyond my explanation, so if you offer a different explanation it must be false".

This is what it sounds to me - but that would be a wierd position to hold in a debate, wouldn´t it?

 

[Cassandra]

And? Humans, with their open-programme intelligence, are able to develope new uses for existing structures. Humans have [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] during sex, or knew the experience through non-intercourse sexual experiences, then they develope ways to stimulate 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] without sex.

I knew the answer would be frighteningly simple XP Actually, I figured this out as I was writing the question, but kept it anyway incase it brought on further discussion.

And enjoyable it is. A perfect incentive to reproduce as often as possible.

I think for this to be true, [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 to only occur during intercourse. Of course, the incentive to have sex (and reproduce) doesn't solely rest on the ability to have a pleasurable [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]

What an odd thing for an Agnostic to say. I would have expected it from a theistic evolutionist such as myself. (Not criticising just observing).

He/she (I don't make assumptions) IS a theistic evolutionist (looked at the profile). I think maybe Cassandra is one of those Christians I've seen before who believe the cross is a "Pagan" symbol and assume the Agnostic icon to avoid such "Paganism."

Well, you're half right. I'm a theistic agnostic who uses the term 'God' to include all possible....er...possibilities of supernatural being/s or forces. But hey-I could be wrong.

Does that make sense?


btw-Ghost- Yes, that is a picture of Mana from Malice Mizer ^^

 

[Intrepid99]

Desire is irrelevant. [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] presents an evolutionary advantage, which is 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] evolved. It's as simple as this: if you don't reproduce, your species die out. So what better incentive is there to start reproducing than [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]?

[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] came 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] came a result 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] having evolved.

Now, Look at your another post,

More wordplay. "Know" is irrelevant. Subjects of the evolutionary process do not have ANY conscience as to what they are evolving into.

In the first post, you said that there is something called incentive in animals that would motivate 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].

In the next post, you say that they dont have any conscience of what they are evolving into. Which also means that they lack the 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] when they are in a process of evolving. Or why they are evolving.

You contradict yourself.

 

[Intrepid99]

Sorry, but how am I to interprete that?

"There is no explanation for the existence [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][bless and do not curse] beyond my explanation, so if you offer a different explanation it must be false".

This is what it sounds to me - but that would be a wierd position to hold in a debate, wouldn´t it?

If you have something that you would explain from the subject that explains the evolution 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] or 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], lemme know.

 

[Arikay]

Well, natural selection selects based on procreation. Thus a desire to have more kids would be a beneficial desire and thus would stick around.

If you have something that you would explain from the subject that explains the evolution 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] or 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], lemme know.

 

[Aggie]

I can't believe this thread has already grown to 17 pages.

I'm having a hard time deciding what's worse: their PRATT lists, or when they post a single PRATT and then ignore any refutations of it for the next 17 pages.

At least with PRATT lists, they're sometimes willing to admit that a couple of the arguments on it aren't any good, since they've still got plenty of others.

 

[Ryal Kane]

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-arguement.html

 

[Inside Edge]

He reasons that an organism can memorize pleasure, and then change itself so that it will get more of the same in generations to come. So he has organisms with perception, who like joy-trips, and wished they'd evolved more of them in their own life-time.
I can just hear these organisms now: "If only we'd known what pleasure we could have had earlier! Now it's too late! But let's pass on what we have learned to our progeny whom we produce without this pleasure! Yeah! Great idea!"

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).

 

[Intrepid99]

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?"

It is important know the fact that evolution and natural selection are not the same. But, they are contrary to each other.

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.

Evolution says that animals with long neck evolved from animals from short necks. But you say that they both existed together. If thats your point, you and I are on the same page that say that God created different animals. But if thats not your point, you got to prove how animals with longer necks evolved.

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.

I agree. (Dosent say anything about evolution 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] or desire yet)

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.

Whats the need to have sex when they did not have pleasure at the time they were not having any pleasure? 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.

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).

Answered in the answer for previous comment.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

It is important know the fact that evolution and natural selection are not the same. But, they are contrary to each other.

Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. How do you think they are contrary to each other? How could they be?

 

[Arikay]

If you think that evolution and natural selection are contrary to each other, then I do have to say, You don't understand the theory of evolution at all.


An example:
If I were to say "Christians think jesus was just some guy, and that he taught lessons that were contrary to christianity."
Would you say that,
A) I knew about and understood christianity.
or
B) I have no clue what christianity is or what it believes.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Whats the need to have sex when they did not have pleasure at the time they were not having any pleasure? 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.

Do you have any idea how other organisms reproduce sexually? Are egg-depositing female fish, and sperm-spreading male fish motivated by [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? You should also look into insect reproduction before making general claims for all animals.

 

[Inside Edge]

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.

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.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

It is important know the fact that evolution and natural selection are not the same. But, they are contrary to each other.

Educate yourself. Making statements like this only indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about, and if you expect people to take you seriously when you make dogmatic statements despite a blatant misunderstanding of what evolution and natural selection are, you are mistaken. People would probably be more understanding if you weren't making arrogant statements from a position of ignorance and rather asking for clarification.

 

[Intrepid99]

Lemme start another thread about evolution and natural selection. It is proved that what INSIDE EDGE dosent hold water. Now, let us not depart from our present topic on the thread.

 

[Intrepid99]

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.

Just answer, where did they get the thought that they need to have sex for their continuity of species.

 

[Inside Edge]

It is proved that what INSIDE EDGE dosent hold water. Now, let us not depart from our present topic on the thread.

Where is it proved? How can you make statements like this without any explanation? What I had to say addressed precisely the topic on hand. I did so honestly, and in expectation of some clarification if what I said is erroneous.

Instead, I get offensive comments that what I said is "proven" to be wrong, with no explanation, and that it's off-topic to boot.

 

[Intrepid99]

Where is it proved? How can you make statements like this without any explanation? What I had to say addressed precisely the topic on hand. I did so honestly, and in expectation of some clarification if what I said is erroneous.

Instead, I get offensive comments that what I said is "proven" to be wrong, with no explanation, and that it's off-topic to boot.

Calm down and think about the question I asked you in previous post.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Just answer, where did they get the thought that they need to have sex for their continuity of species.

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