Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You arrogant little turd! I'll give you "back to basics" you ignorant little streak of arrogance.Colossians said: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.
********. 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 said: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].
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?Colossians said: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.
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.Ampoliros said: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?
Stop playing word games. The whole is the organism. Happy now? Why am I jumping through your hoops?Colossians said:Backslider,
Define when the "whole" becomes the whole.
The whole is the whole organism.
Now do it without redundancy.
You arrogant little turd!
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.Funny how those who espouse an amoral dogma, become very indignant.
This has nothing to do with primordial soup. You're confusing ontological and methodological naturalism, aren't you?All of a sudden the primordial soup has purpose.
You remind me of a lot of Bible verses. Ones about ditches spring to mind. Another about fools and folly is also prominent.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.
Colossians said: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].
Colossians said:You are. But you'll regroup and get on track soon.
Firstly - Yes would suffice next time.Colossians said: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.
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.Colossians said:Backslider,
Consider yourself out of contention by virtue of your mannerism. I will not be responding to you further.
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.Colossians said: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.
Ah, let me have some fun yet.Mistermystery said: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.........!Mistermystery said: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.
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.Colossians said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?