- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5,623
- Reaction score
- 605
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
From the evolutionary coign of vantage (following the OP here), what is the point, purpose, reason, etc, behind sexual activity?
Since we all know the answer to this question, the real question is why is the selfsame belief considered enlightened science when espoused by an atheist, but "religious idiocy" when espoused by a churchman? If the religious attitude here is in accordance with the scientific view, why is it called "idiocy"?
Is there a double standard at work here? Or just the absence of critical thought?
So in your apologetics ToE does not adequately account for sexual activity, yes? And your mind-meld with "our primate relatives" seems transparently special pleading. no?Because, many people believe that we don't fully understand the imperative for our sexuality in Evolutionary terms. Many of our primate relatives use sex as a means of social interaction and not just for sexual reproduction. Deconstructing sexuality to simply be a means of exchanging genetic material for preservation of genes does not appear to be the complete story, even if it is the primary purpose for evolving the mechanical reproductive systems. You are simply assuming that anything beyond that is without justification in order to whine about people not being on board with prejudice and bigotry about what is abnormal sexuality from a politicised religious point of view, rather than adopting a truly spiritual one but hey, I figured that you were posting politicised religion under a thin veil some time ago. Busted.
So in your apologetics ToE does not adequately account for sexual activity, yes? And your mind-meld with "our primate relatives" seems transparently special pleading. no?
As for your usual personal polemics, the same could be said of your "politicized" view of ToE. Look to it.
So in your apologetics ToE does not adequately account for sexual activity, yes? And your mind-meld with "our primate relatives" seems transparently special pleading. no?
As for your usual personal polemics, the same could be said of your "politicized" view of ToE. Look to it.
I don't suggest holes, Lursa. Another poster has suggested holes. I'm suggesting that according to ToE reproduction is behind sexual activity.I'm not aware of any holes in ToE for adequately accounting for sexual activity. What are they?
...
I'm not aware of any holes in ToE for adequately accounting for sexual activity. What are they?
Also, some suggested reading:
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Ev...qid=1513965548&sr=1-1&keywords=red+queen+matt
Covers pretty much everything, altho the 2 half of the book is easier reading for those not as interested in the foundation science.
Stuff written *for the layman* by Richard Dawkins and Desmond Morris are helpful too.
I don't suggest holes, Lursa. Another poster has suggested holes. I'm suggesting that according to ToE reproduction is behind sexual activity.
I haven't read his book, but based on the reviews posted below, reproduction is Mr Ridley's starting point as well.
“There are few features of the human psyche and nature that can be understood without reference to reproduction.”
https://theartofcharm.com/podcast-e...sdays-on-the-red-queen-by-matt-ridley-review/
The Birds, the Bees and the Coolidges
The Birds, the Bees and the Coolidges - NYTimes.com
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll surely take a look at it.
Here's what I said...
https://www.debatepolitics.com/reli...-and-convergent-evolution.html#post1067971766
If you want to have a conversation about it, please respond.
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?