corrocamino

Have you read The Origin of Species? Frankly, if that doesn't make sense to you, then I don't see how any rational exposition can make sense to you.

As you may be aware, Darwin was forced into what he considered an early publication of his views; he had never ceased to be self-critical of his emerging theory, which he continually refined in light of new evidence that he himself assiduously sought, over a period of many years. Even after first publication of his Origin, Darwin continued unflaggingly to research the subject on all fronts, and accordingly revised his book several times. Eventually he died, of course, but the science of evolutionary biology since has adduced literally mountains of rationally incontrovertible evidence that organic evolution is real, notwithstanding that refinements of our understanding of the mechanisms involved continue.

Allow me to recommend one of the most lucid and intellectually monumental books ever written, by the humble genius Charles Darwin. It is not in the least arcane or pretentious. Begin with Darwin's last edition, his own last word.

vid

To original topic: You should always check TalkOrigins.org creationist claim index with any anti-evolution argument. Much is collected there. This is what it has to say on your question: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

, of course.

corrocamino

Let me add that Darwin did not work in a vacuum. He sought out the opinions and expertise of people from all sciences and all areas of horticulture and animal husbandry, among others, in additon to his independent researches, which themselves were very extensive and intellectually rigorous.

Rasta

I think the term is properly defined as hogwash.

Edgewaters

At its root, its simply about being able to combine DNA from two organisms rather than simply having every organism endlessly repeat a single code. When an organism can do no more than create exact copies of itself, they all carry the same vulnerabilities. Sexual reproduction allows for lots of variety in an organism's offspring, so that the potential harm of any vulnerability is greatly minimized.

Fitness, in evolution, is the ability to adapt to change. Sexual reproduction means that there is a diversity of genetic compositions among an organism's offspring, instead of exact copies of the parent. This means that there is more potential for one or more individuals to carry adaptations suited to any particular challenge. It's basically the difference between a single book and a library.

Mechanical evolution, same as the ear or any other part. Any physical organ is evolved to interact with the environment in some way.

They actually do not work all that efficiently. If they had been designed for efficiency, there would be no great sweaty effort involved. Instead, they are specifically evolved in a way meant to create a barrier for the less fit.

Same reason it's pleasurable to eat. Just a simple feedback system.

Bismarck

I dont think God can take the credit for that - it is us humans who erected the social barriers around sex.

skizzerflake

God had nothing to do with that. It's a cold matter of gene pools. All species individuals want to pass on their own genes. Both males and females want to pass on their own gene compliment, which is why men want their women to be faithful while the guys can screw around and pass their stuff on to other women. On the other hand, most women only bear one kid at once so the men want a sexual monopoly on their spouse in order to ensure who's genes are being passed on. If you dress that up with good manners, it sounds like "sexual morality".

skizzerflake

Also, Darwin's work dovetails with the development of earth science and the discovery that the earth is much more than 6000 years and has changed significantly.

oshron

actually, parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction by which what is pretty much an exact clone of the mother is created. its currently unknown in humans, but is present in several insects, sharks, and lizards (including the komodo dragon). if Jesus were born through parthenogenesis, he would have been a woman identical to Mary. if you want to go WAAY out there in theories as to the immaculate conception of Jesus, artificial insemination is the most likely (ive contemplated for a while that a virgin birth could occur that way). at the moment, though, the best explanation is this: He's God. He can do whatever teh **** He wants to, including bending the laws of reality. it wouldnt be the first time. pillar of salt, anyone?

and yes, the most likely theory as to why sex is pleasurable is to encourage creatures to reproduce more often and therefore pass on their genes and continue their species. thats actually the ultimate goal of creatures in general. thats why most animals try to reproduce pretty much as soon as they reach sexual maturity, even if it ends up killing them (that meaning theyre killed by a rival or devote so much energy to finding a mate that they dont pay enough attention to their other needs and die, and theres some species of rodent that pretty much goes into a sex frenzy, mating with as many females as he can in a single night of his life, and then his body just gives out and he dies)

sylla1

Thanks a lot for that useful link, Vid .

As suggested by Dr. House, in fact (in practice, it would be almost as miraculous as the direct fertilization by a male deity).