• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sex and Convergent Evolution

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It is a big Universe out there. Someday we might encounter an intelligent alien species that looks very human-like, despite very different origins (for a well-known fictional example, see Superman's homeworld of Krypton). Such a thing is very possible, thanks to a known phenomenon called "convergent evolution". On Earth, quite a few species of marsupials in Australia look quite similar to various placental-mammals (dingoes and dogs, for example). The thing I want to point out here is that while superficially similar, two such species can still be very different genetically, with no chance of yielding offspring, should they happen to sexually interact.

We have evidence that no matter how ugly Neanderthals might have appeared to be, when viewed by Homo Sapiens, that didn't stop Homo Sapiens from both sexually interacting and interbreeding with Neanderthals. We can be quite sure that should we someday meet highly humanoid aliens, sexual interactions will take place. But as mentioned above, due to different genetics, we cannot expect any offspring to result.

Relevant to this Forum is the fact that for quite a few centuries, various Churches on Earth have severely frowned-upon any sort of sexual activity that could not yield offspring. I would not be a bit surprised if they idiotically denounced human/alien sexual interactions, simply because offspring could not result, no matter how human the appearance (or the humane-ness, or the intelligence) of those aliens. The purpose of this Thread is to discuss that aspect of religious idiocy. Have fun!
 
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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'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.
 
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.

Cry me a river.
 
I'm not aware of any holes in ToE for adequately accounting for sexual activity. What are they?
...
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

It's an excellent read. If you get bogged down in the first half, just go to the second half, it provides references as needed.

When I got the link I saw that I've got it on my Kindle now too, so I just may re-read it.
 
Back
Top Bottom