The question Evolutionsists can't answer

[Inside Edge]

This was the question Intrepid99 last mentioned:

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.

Here was my reply:

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.

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?

 

[Nathan David]

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

 

[Intrepid99]

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?

This was the question that you did not answer


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

 

[Inside Edge]

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.

 

[Intrepid99]

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

How did instincts evolve?

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

::::::::: screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech :::::::::::::::::::::


goal posts moving

 

[Intrepid99]

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.

My friend,
It should be noted that something that has a begining has a cause. Therefore, even the instinct has a begining and that has a cause. Looking from an evolutionary point of view, this is impossible to explain because it dosent have an answer. Of the fact that God created universe, all beliefs that dosent spring up from him will not have an answer.
You said that it isint the original question. Well, when you say [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, you got to give reasons for it. It just cannot happen on one day BAM as you said. It has got to have a begining and that is what we are questioning the evolutionists. It dosent make off topic or a completely new different question. Therefore it is the orignial question for the origin 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 it.
As you said that others have given reasons 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] came first, look at the answers of Colossions. His answers are not illogical or unsound. Through out the post, there is no single legitimate answer for 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 it.

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.
How does 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? That is what we are asking in the thread. How did first sexual organism had the knowledge of sex to reproduce or for sexual pleasure. It isint a vastly different question. It the question we are asking and an answer that evolutionists dont have.I
Guess, you would recognize the mightiness and creativity of our Creator.

What an splendid person He is!!!

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Xenos Paradox

As has been covered in another thread. If from your perspective the question can never be answered, tell us now. We will save a lot of innocent bandwidth.

 

[JohnR7]

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

You still need the bee and the bee needs to desire the flower.

Some plants clone themselves. Some plants do not reproduce, they simply never stop growing. Even if old parts of the plant die off, new parts are always being generated. That is why you can often grow a new plant from a half inch of root.

 

[Inside Edge]

It just cannot happen on one day BAM as you 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.

 

[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?"

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).

Now, do you see that? You yourself said 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] did not happend in split second 'BAM" when some animal just decided to get pleasure from sex. Dude, stop throwing volleys against people.

Quote:

It just cannot happen on one day BAM as you 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.

Dude, C'mon. Do you see it now.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

So?

 

[Intrepid99]

So? Ask Inside-Edge why I posted that.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

No. What matters if it happened in a split second or not?

 

[Intrepid99]

What matters is that Inside edge was making unnecesary and unjustified comments. Against himself and me. Thats the reason I posted his previous two posts.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

So you edited after I posted. How quaint.


So what was your argument again? Or should we wait?

 

[Intrepid99]

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.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

The original question was:

Which evolved first, 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], or 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]?



Not


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.
Today 11:47 PM




You tell me which you want answered. We'll wait. No need for editing.

 

[Intrepid99]

Allright, tell me what came first, [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]. Anyway, it would reach a point where you would talk about instincts. As you requested, I tried to save your bandwidth but you refused.

 

[pureone]

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.

for the former, wouldn't larger muscle contraction by the male organ force the "seed" over larger area of eggs in that type of reproduction. more ferilization, more offspring, the better the population survives. Did you check NCBI for answers yourself before you asked here?