How does evolution explain sex? - Page 3 - Historum

**Edgewaters** · June 8th, 2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oshron

if you want to go WAAY out there in theories as to the immaculate conception of Jesus, artificial insemination is the most likely

Oh you don't have to go quite so far. It could be much more mundane.

Like ... maybe three wealthy merchants from abroad who had a hand in it, visited Mary and gave her a baby shower

Poor Joe, so naieve.

vid · June 8th, 2010, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edgewaters

Oh you don't have to go quite so far. It could be much more mundane.

Like ... maybe three wealthy merchants from abroad who had a hand in it, visited Mary and gave her a baby shower

Poor Joe, so naieve.

And before that, they even warned local ruler that virgin will concieve a child who will be a threat to him... Now I finally understand why people cannot agree whether to call them "wise men" or "magicians"

BTW, same attack on "immaculate conception", eg. that Jesus was illegitimate son, is already recorded in earliest criticisms of Christianity we have (Celsus, Mishnah). Not to forget the (historically surprisingly well researched) Life of Brian.

vid · June 8th, 2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Not so fully, according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Mammals

**Edgewaters** · June 9th, 2010, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

And before that, they even warned local ruler that virgin will concieve a child who will be a threat to him... Now I finally understand why people cannot agree whether to call them "wise men" or "magicians"

**oshron** · June 9th, 2010, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Not so fully, according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Mammals

ill concede to you the victory here, but ill also rephrase what i said before: it is currently not known to NATURALLY occur in humans

**larkin** · June 9th, 2010, 04:21 AM

One of the most primitive forms of non-asexual behavior is conjugation. This is when two cells drive up along side of each other and exchange genetic material through their cell walls.

Oral sex is in principal also the exchange of genetic material and like kissing, is a variation of human sexual behavior. It does not result in reproduction but it is acting out the germ of the idea.

Humans and other higher mammals are not born knowing exactly how to do it so they learn through impulses and experimentation. Eventually, they will get it right or the group or the tribe will inform them that they are doing it wrong as if the only reason humans are physically close or intimate is to reproduce...

corrocamino · June 9th, 2010, 05:58 AM

Meanwhile, presumably Salah ad-Din, who posed the question, is taking the time to read Origin of Species. If that doesn't satisfy him, there is quite a voluminous literature bearing on the evolutionary origins of sex, accumulated over the past 1.3 centuries, for further reading, if you're interested.

Pine trees also reproduce sexually, by the way.

skizzerflake · June 9th, 2010, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larkin

One of the most primitive forms of non-asexual behavior is conjugation. This is when two cells drive up along side of each other and exchange genetic material through their cell walls.

Oral sex is in principal also the exchange of genetic material and like kissing, is a variation of human sexual behavior. It does not result in reproduction but it is acting out the germ of the idea.

Humans and other higher mammals are not born knowing exactly how to do it so they learn through impulses and experimentation. Eventually, they will get it right or the group or the tribe will inform them that they are doing it wrong as if the only reason humans are physically close or intimate is to reproduce...

In humans, especially sexual practices not specifically aimed at reproduction are part of the glue that binds couples together so they can care for our partially developed, extremely dependent infants.

Bobby · June 9th, 2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorian

If God designed Sex, why did it make it fundamental to the cycle of life, and then smother it in taboos and sin to make his children all neurotic and confused?

It's a really nasty trick to play on your creations.

Not when you consider all the damage that can be done by promiscuous or adulterous behavior. You wanna get shot in bed, sleep with your neighbors wife. You want to get a sexuallytransmitted disease? Screw everything in site. My point is that 'taboos' and 'sin' are mere conventions to warn the individual of the consequences of irresponsible sexual attitudes.

**Rasta** · June 9th, 2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby

Not when you consider all the damage that can be done by promiscuous or adulterous behavior. You wanna get shot in bed, sleep with your neighbors wife. You want to get a sexuallytransmitted disease? Screw everything in site. My point is that 'taboos' and 'sin' are mere conventions to warn the individual of the consequences of irresponsible sexual attitudes.

Yes, this is most likely true. The same with prohibitions of eating pork or shell fish.