Things You Would Like To See An Evolutionist Explain

Post Reply New Topic

More or less. Apart from laws that put women under male control, as in Saudi Arabia, there are honour killings from Turkey to Pakistan, female genital mutilation in East Africa. Less extreme, until a few decades ago a woman in Britain could only take a job if her husband agreed. Domestic violence was pretty much ignored. The law on rape was extended to sex between spouses only in the last few decades. Before then husbands were seen to have a right to sex. In Afghanistan that is still the case. They recently passed a law that a husband may starve a wife who refuses to have sex with him.


I hope it no longer is. It used to be.


I very much hope not.

I'm sorry if I portrayed your statements incorrectly but I could of sworn that with your other posts, you were promoting Intelligent Design as valid. I also got the impression from your post (the one I replied to), that macroevolution is not well supported. Macroevolution is supported by the fossil record. As for my assumptions, I think it would be informative if you looked up ring species. As I understand it, a simplified explanation is this. Lets say that we have a population of three different kinds of organisms and call them A, B and C. Organism A can interbreed with organism B and thus A and B belong to the same species. Organism B can interbreed with Organism C, hence B and C belong to the same species. However, Organism A cannot interbreed with organism C. Therefore, B belongs to the same species of both A and C while at the same time A and C could otherwise be different species. The only thing that connects A and C via breeding is B. Without organism B, organisms A and C are two different species. This is what is meant by a ring species. The standard definition of a species is that populations of two different species can't interbreed to have reproductive offspring. However, as illustrated, the existence of ring species tend to complicate matters. What this also shows is what happens with enough mutations over time. Instead of three types of organisms living in different populations as illustrated above, lets assume that a similar chain exists (a much longer chain) and that the genetic difference between each organism represents a mutation that occurred as time on. Every organism in the chain with a new mutation would still be able to interbreed with its predecessor before the mutation occurred. However, assuming the original organism did not become extinct (maybe the mutations happened in a population of the original organism because of geographical isolation or whatever), it would not be able to interbreed with the final organism because the genetics have diverged too far. This is why microevolution and macroevolution cannot be delineated. In the above example, there was no specific mutation created a new species. Speciation occurred only because the accumulation of the genetic mutations in the isolated population caused that population to genetically diverge far enough that it could no longer interbreed with the original organism. That's why I said that the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is only a matter of quantity, not quality.

See the following to see that ring species do exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

I believe that Desmond Morris explained this in terms of a means of re-enforcing the pair bond. If I am not mistaken, his argument is that female pleasure would cause the female to be receptive at all times, thereby ensuring that male would stick around to assist with child-rearing... or something on that order.

Because men can do the raping.

Basically, it doesn't matter whether or not the woman enjoys it because she can be raped by a man, that is why it is more important for a man to enjoy sex because he has the sticky out bit not the hole.

Also, this is just evidence that women don't need to enjoy sex that much for there to be survival of our species.

If they did, we just wouldn't be here.

That's not a satisfactory explanation. It doesn't explain why there is female sexual pleasure.

\

Sex isn't just for reproduction, it's also for social bonding. Female esxual pleasure most likely has to do with emotional bonding.

Really?

There were times when I enjoyed sex without the emotional bonding.

Well, Homo sapiens sapiens is a species of great ape. Birds are technically in the same clade as dinosaurs.

I know. I think I said so much earlier on in the thread. I suppose it could also be a lot of fun too. I haven't tried it though.