The second question evolutionists can't answer

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Sexual desire is not the primary "propellant" of evolution. Natural selection is. It's not just about shaggability. You've got to survive long enough to shag.

Click to expand...

Come to the Netherlands! We've got some stuff to calm you down And here it's legal!

Colossians said:

Good night all. As apt as I am at debating 27 evolutionists at once, I have energy levels to consider, and in my country, it is night.

Click to expand...

all that ignoring people must consume large amounts of your brainpower.

Colossians said:

Backslider,

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

Click to expand...

That being the case, consider Karl's mannerism to represent that of the of the whole forum... and quite possibly the human race in general.

Colossians wrote:-

Accordingly, the existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of the intellect into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant.

How general is this “rule”?

Isn’t it a bit like arguing that the “existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of anything into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet (anything) to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant”

Thus, if I desire a woman and she agrees to have sex and during the act I sneeze and she suddenly gets turned off, then that stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of an organism that can sneeze to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant?

Or am I missing something here?

Regards, Roland

"If it takes a chicken-and-a-hald a day-and-a-half to lay an egg-and-a-half, then how long would it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle! You don't know!" --Harry "The Hat" Anderson.

Bow down to the superior intellect!

Never mind. I misunderstood Collossians "question".

Basically what Collossians seems to be saying (although it certainly wasn't apparent from the OP) is that since intellect is not necessary for reproduction, intellect couldn't have evolved.

Hogwash.

Any imaginable trait can evolve. Natural selection isn't some thought process that goes "hm, sometime in the future this trait might be a disadvantage, so I'll make sure the trait never shows up."

A trait shows up in an organism.

If that trait confers a reproductive disadvantage, at some point it will probably be bred out.

Intellect has not, at least not yet, conferred a significant reproductive disadvantage to humans. On the contrary, it seems to provide an advantage more often than not.

And "more often than not" is good enough for natural selection.

I find it very desturbing that we're supposed to throw away the theory of evolution based on arguments of incredulity, or arguments of ignorance, or at best because we simply don't know *yet* (this is a rare things though, haven't seen that type of questions on this forum a lot), yet Yecs are not all to scrummy theirself to ignore meteors, ice-cores, volcanos, geology, geneology and what not. Hey kettle: you're black.

I know what the question is: I wrote it.
The question is not about whether intellect automatically invokes sexual dysfunction, but about how intellect can come into being from sexual processes, which are fundamentally and inherently a-intellectual.

Accordingly, the existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of the intellect into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant.

​

Click to expand...

Jet Black said:

I have never suffered that problem before.

Click to expand...

Yea, in fact, generally the opposite is true for me.

1: Brain Res. 2000 Sep 29;878(1-2):98-104. Related Articles, Links
[size=+1]Acute low doses of melatonin restore full sexual activity in impotent male rats.[/size]

Drago F, Busa' L.

Institute of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Catania Medical School, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy. fdrago@tin.it

Evidence exists that repeated injections of melatonin in rather large doses inhibit sexual performance in male rats. In contrast, systemic injection of small doses of this hormone stimulates sexual activity of normal male rats. In these experiments, systemic acute administration of melatonin in small doses (10-100 microg/kg) induced the appearance of ejaculations in impotent Wistar male rats that were selected as showing null sexual approach or showing mounts, intromissions but no ejaculations. This effect was partially abolished by the simultaneous peripheral injection of the non-selective melatonin receptor antagonist, luzindole, or by the acute administration of serotonin or of the 5HT(2A) receptor agonist, 1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenyl)-2-aminopropane (DOI), into the amygdala or the ventral hypothalamus. These results suggest that melatonin may stimulate, in a dose-dependent manner, several copulatory parameters of male sexual behavior and may restore sexual activity in impotent animals by interacting with brain receptors, i. e. melatonin and serotonin receptors.

PMID: 10996140 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Click to expand...

its amazing what crazy things you can learn from wacky anti-evolution arguments

rats suffer from impotence too!

Colossians said:

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".

Click to expand...

I knew that given your past history it would not be long before I caught you in another of your much loved fallacies. What you speak of is not actually common at all, you are claiming it is in the hopes that such a lie will support your argument. As for your earlier comment of asking a GP, must I really remind you that a GP is the jack of all trades of the medical profession and not an expert on any given field. if you want a more accurate answer I suggest a psychologist instead.

Colossians said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no such “test” in the way you imply. The “test” is simply “will the organism reproduce?” if “yes” go to offspring, if “no” go to no offspring. There is no good reason why sexual dysfunction should not arise by the process of random mutation, this only means the individual organism suffering it will meet with reduced reproductive success. As long as this is not the case in the entire population then the “problem” you describe is not a problem for the evolution of the species at all.

Further more, you entire argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human socio-psychology (I must say, given your past history this does not surprise me much). In fact sexual dysfunction is more common in certain societies than others, which tells us that sexual dysfunction is possibly (actually probably) linked to societal norms and not to physical causes in most cases. The more sexually repressed a society is, the higher the incidence of sexual dysfunction. Therefore it is not our intellect but our societal norms that account for many such problems. Your argument therefore is flawed at a base and core level, your hypothesis may be rejected because the core assumptions of your theory is faulty/

Further more, and I am amazed you missed this rather obvious point, we can treat sexual dysfunction, but we can only treat it because of a developed intellect. Sexual dysfunction does actually arise in lower animals as well as Humans, but because they do not have a developed intellect they can do nothing about it. All it means is that particular animal will not reproduce, it has no effect on the species as a whole unless the entire species develops the problem.

Ghost

Colossians said:

The question is not about whether intellect automatically invokes sexual dysfunction, but about how intellect can come into being from sexual processes, which are fundamentally and inherently a-intellectual.

Click to expand...

Well that is simple to answer, and has been answer many, many times in many, many threads. Evolution begins when a trait first occurs, often by random mutation (or the simple miss copying of DNA if that's easier for you to grasp). So anything can arise as a result of sexual reproduction. Now weather or not that something gets passed on to subsequent generations is another question of course.

Colossians said:

Accordingly, the existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of the intellect into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as inductive proof, as I have told you before. Induction can not provide proof. This is what is referred to as the logical flaw of induction and it is why no serious field of human knowledge construction uses induction when trying to learn truth or potential truth. induction is only really still seen in practice amongst philosophers who are using it as an exercise in “What ifs” and any decent philosopher is well aware of the limitations of induction and why it is no use when trying to uncover actual, verifiable and reliable knowledge.

Your insistence on ignoring the logical fault of induction and pretending it is more reliable than deduction when we know it is not is yet another example of fallacy.

Ghost

yossarian said:

its amazing what crazy things you can learn from wacky anti-evolution arguments

rats suffer from impotence too!

Click to expand...

Impotence and reproductive dysfunction can occur in members of almost any animal population. Humans have a larger incidence of it in societies with strong sexual taboos than we would have if we had not evolved the intellect to organise societies the way we do. This points to the idea that there can be a psychological element to sexual dysfunction, how ever it is clear that there are more physical causes, because if this was no the case animals of sub-sentient intellect would never suffer these problems.

The fact that rats and other animals can suffer sexual dysfunction undermines Colossians idea that sexual dysfunction is entirely situated in the intellect. The fact that psychologically caused dysfunction is more common in human societies with high rates of sexual taboos also tells us some rather worrying things about the side effects of the sexual taboos enforced by many religions, but that is a whole new debate and one that is much more complicated than this one.

Ghost

OK, so far I count 7 answers. Still keeping score, Collossians?

Nathan David said:

OK, so far I count 7 answers. Still keeping score, Collossians?

Click to expand...

Well he will probably try to demonstrate, using inductive logic, that no answers exist in this thread. For example. 1 and 1 are both numbers, yet if we subtract one from one we get 0, therefore 0 is a number as well. Since 7 and 0 are both numbers, we can induce from that they mean the same thing. So in fact, whilst there are 7 answers that's the same as there not being any answers so he is winning the debate. You see?



Ghost

DJ_Ghost said:

There is no such thing as inductive proof, as I have told you before. Induction can not provide proof. This is what is referred to as the logical flaw of induction and it is why no serious field of human knowledge construction uses induction when trying to learn truth or potential truth. induction is only really still seen in practice amongst philosophers who are using it as an exercise in “What ifs” and any decent philosopher is well aware of the limitations of induction and why it is no use when trying to uncover actual, verifiable and reliable knowledge.

Click to expand...

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think induction is still used in mathematical proofs. i believe there is a non-inductive proof which proves that inductions works for proofs in math.

Natural selection is supposed to eliminate the undesirable genes from the race (ie diabetes, alzheimers, etc.) but due to modern medicine, we are essentially making ourselves a genetically weaker race.

Nathan David said:

OK, so far I count 7 answers. Still keeping score, Collossians?

Click to expand...

I AM!!!

Reasonable, intellectually honest questions asked by Colossians - 0
Satirical responses to bovine feces OP - 7
Entertainment value of a Colossians thread - Priceless.

caravelair said:

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think induction is still used in mathematical proofs. i believe there is a non-inductive proof which proves that inductions works for proofs in math.

Click to expand...

Induction is used in some math proofs but I think it can be tricky. A small flaw in logic can cause you lots of headache - one of our classes spent a few minutes debunking the professors inductive proof that any size group had all the same age, because it follows the proper inductive pattern:

-Prove true for base case (One person has the same age as himself)
-Assume true for any case n. (cant really argue against that.)
-Show that this implies that it is true for the n+1 case (its hard to do this, but basically he said for any group n+1 you could form some groups of size n which according to the assumption all have the same age, so they all have the same age.)

The logical problem of this occurs between n=1 and n=2, because there's nothing that says a group of two individuals - the induction breaks down there.

So, it works. But you need to be careful

Colossians said:

Good night all. As apt as I am at debating 27 evolutionists at once, I have energy levels to consider, and in my country, it is night.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Nobody said trolling would be easy.