The second question evolutionists can't answer

[Colossians]

Backslider (soon to be re-labelled "back to basics"),

Reproduction and selection takes places at the level of the whole organism, not any individual part of it.
Let's dum it down a bit for you. Define when the "whole" becomes the whole.
Good luck.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Backslider (soon to be re-labelled "back to basics"),

Reproduction and selection takes places at the level of the whole organism, not any individual part of it.
Let's dum it down a bit for you. Define when the "whole" becomes the whole.
Good luck.

You arrogant little turd! I'll give you "back to basics" you ignorant little streak of arrogance.

The whole is the whole organism. That is the level at which selection takes place. Now go away, take your ridiculous questions with you and stop annoying people who can think sensibly. You're not fooling anyone, monkey-boy.

 

[Colossians]

Magnus,

Humans, having reached a point wherethey are capable of distinguishing themselves from their surroundings, are removed from their surroundings, the interactions that, among other species, are based on a physical attribute, (pheromones, seem to be popular) take place, entirely, inside the mind of the male human. If that mind is damaged, in some way, or malfunctioning, then that connection can be circumvented.
You seem to not understand the dysfunction referred to.
Let's spell it out for all you bluffers trying to buy time to get a handle on things:
When a man is cohabiting with a woman, if he thinks about what he is doing, he aborts his rise to [bless 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].

I could be way off,
You are. But you'll regroup and get on track soon.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

When a man is cohabiting with a woman, if he thinks about what he is doing, he aborts his rise to [bless 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].

********. I though a great deal about what I was doing, and the kid was born in August. You are a blowhard. You have no substance, but fortunately are too stupid to be able to comprehend your lack of either intelligence or knowledge. You think that couching ridiculous questions in obscure language makes you clever, but actually it makes you a dirtwad. Now, again, go away little boy. You are of no more use to this debate than a mosquito.

 

[Colossians]

Backslider,

Define when the "whole" becomes the whole.
The whole is the whole organism.
Now do it without redundancy.

You arrogant little turd!
Funny how those who espouse an amoral dogma, become very indignant. All of a sudden the primordial soup has purpose.
Reminds me of the bible verse which speaks of men who look in the mirror, and then after walking away from it, forget what they look like.

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, let's try whether you get this. Evolution takes place on the level of populations. If a mutation is beneficial it gives organisms a bigger advantage and spreads throughout the population.
Now, if everyone has it, and one or two are going to get some problems because of that mutations, it isn't going to effect the survival capabilities of the rest of the population.
A greater intellect is beneficial for the survival of mankind. However, some people in the population get sexual problems because of this before they have reproduced. This is not a big number, and in primitive societies it is (as far as I know) even smaller. So the sexual problems of the few individuals do not limit the survival of the species as a whole. Hence, your 'problem' is no problem at all.
Definition of terms:
few individuals: a small part of the population
species as a whole: the population in total

Example: We have a group of 1000 individuals have a higher intellect and this gives them a benefit for survival. However, this benefit has a disadvantage, in that 10 of these have problems sexually, which prevents them from reproducing. This still gives us 990 people who can reproduce and have the advantage of a greater intellect. Since the 10 won't reproduce due to certain sexual problems, they do not spread there disadvantage.

 

[Mistermystery]

Collosian clearly does not come here to learn. I suggest you all stop replying to him because his ego needs attention in order to survive. Kill that atention and the rest will go away as well.

 

[Ampoliros]

Magnus,

Humans, having reached a point wherethey are capable of distinguishing themselves from their surroundings, are removed from their surroundings, the interactions that, among other species, are based on a physical attribute, (pheromones, seem to be popular) take place, entirely, inside the mind of the male human. If that mind is damaged, in some way, or malfunctioning, then that connection can be circumvented.
You seem to not understand the dysfunction referred to.
Let's spell it out for all you bluffers trying to buy time to get a handle on things:
When a man is cohabiting with a woman, if he thinks about what he is doing, he aborts his rise to [bless 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].

I could be way off,
You are. But you'll regroup and get on track soon.

So you're simply saying that because a few males cant impregnate a few females because he <is worried about it?> because his higher reasoning is allowing him to worry, its not an evolutionary advantage for him to have a bigger brain and is 'better' for him to be a dumb sperm-donator?

 

[Tomk80]

So you're simply saying that because a few males cant impregnate a few females because he <is worried about it?> because his higher reasoning is allowing him to worry, its not an evolutionary advantage for him to have a bigger brain and is 'better' for him to be a dumb sperm-donator?

You know what comes to mind. Actually, this 'thinking about what he is doing' would probably mostly occur in fundamentalist christian environments, because of their taboo on sex. Reasoning just a little bit further 'Colossians style' (I'll let that up to you) I can only consider that a good thing.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Backslider,

Define when the "whole" becomes the whole.
The whole is the whole organism.
Now do it without redundancy.

Stop playing word games. The whole is the organism. Happy now? Why am I jumping through your hoops?

You arrogant little turd!

Funny how those who espouse an amoral dogma, become very indignant.

Stop being an arrogant little turd, and, amazingly, I will stop calling you one. And stop misrepresenting, unless you want also to be a dishonest arrogant little turd. The dogma I espouse is orthodox Christianity.

All of a sudden the primordial soup has purpose.

This has nothing to do with primordial soup. You're confusing ontological and methodological naturalism, aren't you?

Reminds me of the bible verse which speaks of men who look in the mirror, and then after walking away from it, forget what they look like.

You remind me of a lot of Bible verses. Ones about ditches spring to mind. Another about fools and folly is also prominent.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Magnus,
You seem to not understand the dysfunction referred to.
Let's spell it out for all you bluffers trying to buy time to get a handle on things:
When a man is cohabiting with a woman, if he thinks about what he is doing, he aborts his rise to [bless 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].

He does? Only if he's malfunctioning, which then falls into the area I mentioned. Unless you are addressing a male managing to delay [bless 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], in which case it's another trick entirely and not a disfunction but t trained response. So, I think I'll stick with my answer, which, if incorrect at least has the benefit of being falsifiable. Human brains are complex and can malfunction, this can lead to failures in other areas. That complexity, however, is still a viable survival tactic for a species. Oddly, I fail entirely to see how the failure of some males to [bless 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] = god, or at least, creation.

You are. But you'll regroup and get on track soon.

Ah, so my analysis of the OP's title was correct then?

 

[Colossians]

So you're simply saying that because a few males cant impregnate a few females because he <is worried about it?> because his higher reasoning is allowing him to worry, its not an evolutionary advantage for him to have a bigger brain and is 'better' for him to be a dumb sperm-donator?
It has nothing to do with worry. So don't worry.
Sexual reproduction is the primary purpose of evolution. Since it is primary, the means by which this is achieved may not be militated against by any supposed evolutionary product.
The intellect has no bearing on the instinct of sexual desire, except to cause it to abort, a common occurrence, which if common in one person, is labelled "sexual dysfunction". Such intellect then cannot be validly said to have arisen through a mechanism of evolution, for it would not pass the initial test of supporting sexuality.

Your doctrine simply pushes aside the path for an undefined end.

 

[Colossians]

Backslider,

Consider yourself out of contention by virtue of your mannerism. I will not be responding to you further.

 

[Colossians]

Tomk80,

Actually, this 'thinking about what he is doing' would probably mostly occur in fundamentalist christian environments, because of their taboo on sex.
Don't clutter up my thread with your opinions.

 

[Ampoliros]

So you're simply saying that because a few males cant impregnate a few females because he <is worried about it?> because his higher reasoning is allowing him to worry, its not an evolutionary advantage for him to have a bigger brain and is 'better' for him to be a dumb sperm-donator?
It has nothing to do with worry. So don't worry.
Sexual reproduction is the primary purpose of evolution. Since it is primary, the means by which this is achieved may not be militated against by any supposed evolutionary product.
The intellect has no bearing on the instinct of sexual desire, except to cause it to abort, a common occurrence, which if common in one person, is labelled "sexual dysfunction". Such intellect then cannot be validly said to have arisen through a mechanism of evolution, for it would not pass the initial test of supporting sexuality.

Your doctrine simply pushes aside the path for an undefined end.

Firstly - Yes would suffice next time.

Secondly, your reasoning is flawed simply because for most of human history I would bet such dysfunction has been a non-issue. Until recently in human history, people did not live out long lives and the percentage of humans suffering from such symptoms would probably be lower - for example, you can read this site and if you notice, the rates for such dysfunction among 18-24 year olds is a grand whopping 0 percent. This would be the primary breeding age I would assume among earlier humans (average life expectancy of 30-40?) , so no problems there. Even among slightly older adults the rates are low enough that I doubt there would be a problem for any population.

Ampoliros

 

[Mistermystery]

Backslider,

Consider yourself out of contention by virtue of your mannerism. I will not be responding to you further.

Consider yourself. You started out by calling him basic and that you would be "dumbing down" because you imply that he is dumb. See karl normally is a rational guy, but people like you make rational men go overboard, because you place your ego and arrogance above mannerisms.


Everyone Stop posting to Colossian.

 

[Tomk80]

So you're simply saying that because a few males cant impregnate a few females because he <is worried about it?> because his higher reasoning is allowing him to worry, its not an evolutionary advantage for him to have a bigger brain and is 'better' for him to be a dumb sperm-donator?
It has nothing to do with worry. So don't worry.
Sexual reproduction is the primary purpose of evolution. Since it is primary, the means by which this is achieved may not be militated against by any supposed evolutionary product.
The intellect has no bearing on the instinct of sexual desire, except to cause it to abort, a common occurrence, which if common in one person, is labelled "sexual dysfunction". Such intellect then cannot be validly said to have arisen through a mechanism of evolution, for it would not pass the initial test of supporting sexuality.

Your doctrine simply pushes aside the path for an undefined end.

Well, collossians. Maybe we'll try this. Why don't you give an estimate of how much this occurs in males between 16 and 40 (the time when most people get children). I have some information, but this is all research on males 40 onward. Since they don't get that many children anyway, we can ignore them. So, why don't you give me the prevalence of serious psychological sexual problems which hinder procreation for males of 'child-making' age.

 

[Tomk80]

Consider yourself. You started out by calling him basic and that you would be "dumbing down" because you imply that he is dumb. See karl normally is a rational guy, but people like you make rational men go overboard, because you place your ego and arrogance above mannerisms.


Everyone Stop posting to Colossian.

Ah, let me have some fun yet.

 

[Ampoliros]

Consider yourself. You started out by calling him basic and that you would be "dumbing down" because you imply that he is dumb. See karl normally is a rational guy, but people like you make rational men go overboard, because you place your ego and arrogance above mannerisms.


Everyone Stop posting to Colossian.

Doh...must...battle....false...claims.........!

Ah ok.

 

[Jet Black]

It has nothing to do with worry. So don't worry.
Sexual reproduction is the primary purpose of evolution. Since it is primary, the means by which this is achieved may not be militated against by any supposed evolutionary product.
The intellect has no bearing on the instinct of sexual desire, except to cause it to abort, a common occurrence, which if common in one person, is labelled "sexual dysfunction". Such intellect then cannot be validly said to have arisen through a mechanism of evolution, for it would not pass the initial test of supporting sexuality.

Your doctrine simply pushes aside the path for an undefined end.

This is a rather flawed nad primitive view of evolution. As has been explained to you already the issue at hand is differential reproductive success, and in this case the differential in reproductive ability is based on brains. If those with larger intellects breed more for whatever reason than those with lesser intellects, then the genes that code for the larger intellects will be passed onto the next generation, even if there is some side effect which affects some of those with larger intellects. Provided there is a reprodictive bias in favour of larger intellects, larger intellects will spread, and this is the case with humans. Those with the larger intellects were better hunters and survivors than those without, so even though some could not please the Missuss as much as she would like the genes spread.