NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, I just had a great idea. I know we've had the evolution vs. creation debate many many times before, but please bear with me and try this. First of all, forget the Bible, The Origin of Species' and every other book on the topic as sources or evidence, and proof. However go ahead and bring _ideas_ from them to the table. Now, what I'd like to do is look at consequences of both a creationist society (society if creation was true) and an evolutionary society (society if evolution was true). What I mean to say is, "if such and such were true than why don't we see such and such" or "if such and such weren't true why don't we see such and such" and so on. A question ought to be posed from one side and then debated and once laid to rest a question should be raised from the opposite side. If it's not too much to ask, I would like to ask both parties to criticize and analyze ideas from _both_ sides, try and look objectively, don't begin by assuming something is true unless you can prove it. Finally, please be civilized, let's keep personal attacks to a minimum. To recap, no partisan textual or oral references from either side, alternating questions from each side, objective nonpartisan analysis, keep it civilized. Fair enough? Any questions or about the format or unclear spots go ahead and ask. I'll start us off both with the first question and an example:

Why, in an evolutionary society, isn't rape the greatest good? Isn't a species' single greatest purpose the perpetuation of the species?

Have at it.

Why, in an evolutionary society, isn't rape the greatest good? Isn't a species' single greatest purpose the perpetuation of the species?

Have at it.
Species have actually no purpose at all. They exist just because they exist. It's a grand chain of mutations and accidents without any underlieing cause.

Species have actually no purpose at all. They exist just because they exist. It's a grand chain of mutations and accidents without any underlieing cause.
One can say that. But hasn't the purpose of species evolved to "protect the survival of the species."?

One can say that. But hasn't the purpose of species evolved to "protect the survival of the species."?
No. The individual perhaps. The species or populations of animals and plants simply exist because of reproduction. The species does however not exist for reproduction. There is no reason to exist for reproduction since it is a side effect of sex, which is simply a fun experience and thus organisms strive to experience much of it. Reproduction itself has no meaning, although it helps keep the species alive, there is no need for a species to stay alive. Otherwise, species would never die out since the instinct of survival is greater than the "instinct" to reproduce, if something like this even exists.

On the other hand, I am no expert in this question and the answer might simply be 42 ;)

Species have actually no purpose at all. They exist just because they exist. It's a grand chain of mutations and accidents without any underlieing cause.

You're 100% dead certain about this? What if the Universe generates life wherever it can thrive in an effort to become self-aware? That would explain human self-awareness.

There is no reason to exist for reproduction since it is a side effect of sex, which is simply a fun experience and thus organisms strive to experience much of it.
So, you're saying that organisms have sex because it's fun? That's not exactly square with genetic theory, now is it? Our genes make us do plenty of things, and theories suggest that those include sexual desire as well. Naturally, those animals that are born with more, shall we say agressive(?) sexual behavior are more likely to reproduce than those that have no interest in sex, because they will be seeking it out. So the former trait is passed on. We're hardwired to pass on our genes. Ever heard of the Selfish Gene Theory? It's something along the same lines. Animals in the wild will protect their close relatives, not (the theory maintains) due altruism, but due to a natural desire to have one's own genes (or at least those close to your genes, as relatives have) passed on from generation to generation. Now, conciously you think you want to have sex because it's fun, but that's just your way of rationalizing it. You're really just dancing for DNA puppeteer. (DANCE PUPPET, DANCE! ;) )

So, you're saying that organisms have sex because it's fun? That's not exactly square with genetic theory, now is it? Our genes make us do plenty of things, and theories suggest that those include sexual desire as well. Naturally, those animals that are born with more, shall we say agressive(?) sexual behavior are more likely to reproduce than those that have no interest in sex, because they will be seeking it out. So the former trait is passed on. We're hardwired to pass on our genes. Ever heard of the Selfish Gene Theory? It's something along the same lines. Animals in the wild will protect their close relatives, not (the theory maintains) due altruism, but due to a natural desire to have one's own genes (or at least those close to your genes, as relatives have) passed on from generation to generation. Now, conciously you think you want to have sex because it's fun, but that's just your way of rationalizing it. You're really just dancing for DNA puppeteer. (DANCE PUPPET, DANCE! ;) )
Nope, I'm not. I happen to be gay, so obviously this "reproduction dictator gene" doesnt work in me :p

Nope, I'm not. I happen to be gay, so obviously this "reproduction dictator gene" doesnt work in me :p
My mistake. You clearly have a defect in your genes, and should be purged. ;)
That kinda gets us into the nature vs. nurture argument, though. Is a person gay because the genes happen to say so, or does one develop to become gay? If it merely develops, you wouldn't be able to pass on the trait, so there's only one reasonable solution to this question. Go out and have some children (preferably with a lesbian for a mother), and have them raised in a completely different manner than you were raised. If it's genetic, they should be gay, too. Do it! Science depends on you! :p

Actually, rape is a negative in evolotionary theory. A healthy male is chosen by a healthy female to breed, insuring that the most viable males carry on their genes, and the least desireable ones don't. Undesireable males who have to rape to get lucky are circumventing the natural evolutionary response of condemning them to a lifetime of prostitutes and masturbation. *nod*

Anyway, that question about rape should be reworded. Evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily say there's a "Purpose" to species, but merely that through a process of natural selection and genetic diversity species evolve over time, producing qualities that in the majority of the population that were or are useful for survival (which is why they were passed on).
As for the perpetuation of the species, rape doesn't necessarily benefit us. I mean, humanity doesn't really need to have unintentional pregnancy to maintain our population. Even if you hold the view that humanity should be made to "progress", that would mean selective breeding is benefitial, not a random occurance like rape. I mean, are there necessarily "good" qualities that will be passed on by the rapist? For all we know, some rapists can have a dominant gene that causes a learning disablity! However, rapists could always be screened for "desirable" traits and those who met the proper citeria could be licensed. Hypothetically, of course. That serves the "progress" of humanity, if we desire, not the perpetuation of a species that probably isn't going to die out due to a lack of genetic material anyway.

My mistake. You clearly have a defect in your genes, and should be purged. ;)
That kinda gets us into the nature vs. nurture argument, though. Is a person gay because the genes happen to say so, or does one develop to become gay? If it merely develops, you wouldn't be able to pass on the trait, so there's only one reasonable solution to this question. Go out and have some children (preferably with a lesbian for a mother), and have them raised in a completely different manner than you were raised. If it's genetic, they should be gay, too. Do it! Science depends on you! :p
Homosexuality may or may not be genetic. Chances are, it is. Just like the blood typesthough, it is not neccessarily passed on though since gays can have kids that are not gay.

I'm a little tired so forgive me if I'm rehashing something someone just said. As to one healthy man seeks one healthy woman, supposedly, if the man wanted to spread his gene as much as possible, he should seek out as many women as possible, impregnate them all and bam. This also reduces the chance of two mutant or "bad" genes pairing up and causing defects, another desirable. Also, if it is the desire of each member of the species to perpetuate his own genes, then it is also the species' desire by association. If it is only our desire to survive, how did any living thing last this long? Perhaps sex is pleasurable for a reason? Perhaps it is to perpetuate the species, making the original question relevant.

Homosexuality may or may not be genetic. Chances are, it is. Just like the blood typesthough, it is not neccessarily passed on though since gays can have kids that are not gay.
It's probably a moot point anyway. We're not likely to suffer greatly if gay people don't have children, or if they produce gay children who won't want to have sex with the opposite sex. Maintaining a high enough population isn't really the problem, is it? Research done to prove or disprove the genetic roots of homosexual behavior is silly, I think. Either it's done with the intention of saying "See, they don't have a choice", which suggests that being a homosexual would be wrong if it was a matter of choice, or it's done to say "Look, the gays really are different! We can tell if someone's gay by the genes now, and that just makes it a bit easier for countries that are so inclined to discriminate against them". Bit of a waste of effort.

Homosexuality may or may not be genetic. Chances are, it is. Just like the blood typesthough, it is not neccessarily passed on though since gays can have kids that are not gay.

Doesn't a gene have to be usefull to be passed on? Not to bash homosexuals, but how are they usefull at all? Straight sex serves to make a child, gay sex is simply for pleasure.

Doesn't a gene have to be usefull to be passed on? Not to bash homosexuals, but how are they usefull at all? Straight sex serves to make a child, gay sex is simply for pleasure.
Well... firstly, not all genes are useful ;)
Secondly the purpose of homosexuality is not yet defined. I am sure that it has one and even if it is to care for children of a species that do not have parents anymore or to help raising the offspring of the species without being tied up by own offspring. There are plenty reasons I assume why homosexuality exists or it would not exist (for humans and animals alike).

Straight sex does indeed make a child, however the primary reason why people and higher animals have sex is for pleasure, not to make kids, thus invalidating the clai mthat heterosexual sex is "to make children". The amount of sex done without producing kids (for obvious reasons such as impractibility of having too many kids or overpopulation etc.) is overwhelmingly higher than the sex actually producing offspring. Also visible in primates such as chimpanzees or bonobos who have sex to reduce intergroup stress.

Doesn't a gene have to be usefull to be passed on? Not to bash homosexuals, but how are they usefull at all? Straight sex serves to make a child, gay sex is simply for pleasure.
A gene need not be useful to be passed on. It's passed on through chance when someone who possesses it reproduces. If someone has a gene that causes, oh, Williams Syndrome, that gene is as likely to be passed on as the one that gives a child brown eyes. The reason that useful genes are passed on is that someone with a "useful" genetic trait is more likely to survive, and to reproduce, and therefore have it's traits passed on. A homosexual may fail to pass on his genes beause he doesn't have sex with women, so in that sense his trait is less useful for reproduction, but it is as likely as any other trait to be passed on if he does have a child.

Homosexuals can have children though, never forget that. Our kind is not "impotent" or "infertile". We just do not have the immediate urge to produce our own kids. However most of us would very much like to care for kids in our lives which however is usually not a strong enough urge to overcome the attraction to the same sex only.

Doesn't a gene have to be usefull to be passed on? Not to bash homosexuals, but how are they usefull at all? Straight sex serves to make a child, gay sex is simply for pleasure.

No, a gene merely has to produce a non-harmful trait in order to not be selected against. Even then, it's not an all or nothing system. If the harmful trait is not very critical, it will be passed on many times, just that it is less likely than ones with non-harmful traits.

Excellent points, we should get back to the original question. Is it or is it not the individual's desire to reproduce to create as many of his own children as possible? If it is, then by association it is also the species' since the species as a whole is comprised of those individuals. Is it or is it not beneficial to breed with as many mates as possible thereby reducing the chances of mutation and increasing the speed at which offspring can be produced? If all are true, and if our primary interest is self-preservation, then rape ought to be the greatest good.

Excellent points, we should get back to the original question. Is it or is it not the individual's desire to reproduce to create as many of his own children as possible? If it is, then by association it is also the species' since the species as a whole is comprised of those individuals. Is it or is it not beneficial to breed with as many mates as possible thereby reducing the chances of mutation and increasing the speed at which offspring can be produced? If all are true, and if our primary interest is self-preservation, then rape ought to be the greatest good.
We're currently discussing whether or not species purpose of existence is to reproduce. If it is then homosexuality should not exist at all, if it is not then homosexuality may have a reason and sex does not solely exist to reproduce, which in turn would invalidate the original question whether or not rape is good :)

I think rape is done due to the rapist gaining pleasure from the experience of dominating the rapee (hm weird word) totally, not due to him/her spreading his/her genes.

Excellent points, we should get back to the original question. Is it or is it not the individual's desire to reproduce to create as many of his own children as possible? If it is, then by association it is also the species' since the species as a whole is comprised of those individuals. Is it or is it not beneficial to breed with as many mates as possible thereby reducing the chances of mutation and increasing the speed at which offspring can be produced? If all are true, and if our primary interest is self-preservation, then rape ought to be the greatest good.

Plus, rape would only maximize the spread of genes, not necessarily the continuation of our species. If men just raped women, there would be no incentive for us to take care of the newborn children (since we would have no way of knowing whether or not the children are ours). Without the hunters to feed the newborns, there would be a lower chance of the children surviving (especially if another man rapes the woman again and/ or decides to kill the child). So in a sense, rape would be detrimental to the continuation of our species.

Plus, rape would only maximize the spread of genes, not necessarily the continuation of our species. If men just raped women, there would be no incentive for us to take care of the newborn children (since we would have no way of knowing whether or not the children are ours). Without the hunters to feed the newborns, there would be a lower chance of the children surviving (especially if another man rapes the woman again and/ or decides to kill the child). So in a sense, rape would be detrimental to the continuation of our species.
Also considering that pregnancy for a woman is quite a taxing bodily state to be in.They have weird appetites, can barely walk and the big belly in front does not help with doing anything actually. If the majority of human women were constantly pregnant, society would collapse due to the demands of pregnant women regarding protection & feeding. A few women of society pregnant is ok, all or most of the women pregnant and we'd firstly drown in a flood of babies which demand great care and resources and half the population (about) incapacitated for normal functions like work.

I put it to Creationist: Noah's Ark. Noah, his wife, his kids and their wives. All Arab. Therefore we must all be Arab by decent, right? How come we aren't all one race if Noah's Ark happened? Most people would now say, "Natural Selection". Then I say, 'So that's evolution you're admitting to then?"

Nope, I'm not. I happen to be gay, so obviously this "reproduction dictator gene" doesnt work in me :p
Not necessarily. In an evolutionary period society where there was a great deal of infant mortality, a homosexual male could serve as a protector to nephews and nieces, as well as a food procurer for the group as a whole. The genes would still be passed along in the children of siblings. If you were a homosexual female, you'd still have the chance to act as protector in the home and help with the group survival as well. There's also the very real chance that you would be forced to procreate, unfortunately.

It's not quite the same situation as we see today, but the genetic imperative would still exist, even hundreds of thousands of years later.

Not necessarily. In an evolutionary period society where there was a great deal of infant mortality, a homosexual male could serve as a protector to nephews and nieces, as well as a food procurer for the group as a whole. The genes would still be passed along in the children of siblings. If you were a homosexual female, you'd still have the chance to act as protector in the home and help with the group survival as well. There's also the very real chance that you would be forced to procreate, unfortunately.

It's not quite the same situation as we see today, but the genetic imperative would still exist, even hundreds of thousands of years later.
Protecting other children than my own is not due to my "reproductive dictator gene" though. If I wanted to reproduce myself, I could do so, however my sexual aversion to the opposite sex (women) makes it impossible for me to (naturally) produce children. And I have no urge to make kids, although that is claimed as the sole purpose of existence by some. Adopting and caring for kids is something else though. Those are not my own children, so it is not due to my desire to spread my genes, but due to the desire to pass on my own skills, knowledge, memories etc.

Protecting other children than my own is not due to my "reproductive dictator gene" though. If I wanted to reproduce myself, I could do so, however my sexual aversion to the opposite sex (women) makes it impossible for me to (naturally) produce children. And I have no urge to make kids, although that is claimed as the sole purpose of existence by some. Adopting and caring for kids is something else though. Those are not my own children, so it is not due to my desire to spread my genes, but due to the desire to pass on my own skills, knowledge, memories etc.I understand that--I was merely addressing the question from a genetic point of view and from an early evolutionary perspective. It explains why homosexuality as a genetic predisposition wouldn't be selected against. It was still evolutionarily useful, although not so useful that it would become the dominant selection in the genetic pool.

Also considering that pregnancy for a woman is quite a taxing bodily state to be in.They have weird appetites, can barely walk and the big belly in front does not help with doing anything actually. If the majority of human women were constantly pregnant, society would collapse due to the demands of pregnant women regarding protection & feeding. A few women of society pregnant is ok, all or most of the women pregnant and we'd firstly drown in a flood of babies which demand great care and resources and half the population (about) incapacitated for normal functions like work.

You are addressing a symptom, not a cause. That's not really the man's problem to worry about. If he focused solely on preserving himself first and his children second, society would not collapse. See below


Plus, rape would only maximize the spread of genes, not necessarily the continuation of our species. If men just raped women, there would be no incentive for us to take care of the newborn children (since we would have no way of knowing whether or not the children are ours). Without the hunters to feed the newborns, there would be a lower chance of the children surviving (especially if another man rapes the woman again and/ or decides to kill the child). So in a sense, rape would be detrimental to the continuation of our species.

Good point. Although perhaps he might simply choose the strongest/best/his favorites, and take care of them, letting the weak die, which would make perfect sense.

You are addressing a symptom, not a cause. That's not really the man's problem to worry about. If he focused solely on preserving himself first and his children second, society would not collapse. See below



Good point. Although perhaps he might simply choose the strongest/best/his favorites, and take care of them, letting the weak die, which would make perfect sense.
I already stated that rape itself is not done for reproductive purposes. It is done due to the gain of pleasure from dominating the victim.

Edit: Should add that a woman being raped has very little incentive to make sure the child (if one is made) survives. Pregnancy duration and the relatively small number of children a woman can give birth to in her life, compared to other mammals, require great care for each child and the death of a child is a grand catastrophe for some.

Good point. Although perhaps he might simply choose the strongest/best/his favorites, and take care of them, letting the weak die, which would make perfect sense.


No, that doesn't make much sense; after all, all you care about is your genes. What if you're not the strongest man to have sex with the woman? If you are the strongest, you're probably going around raping as many women as you have. Let's take for example, lions. If a male lion finds a lioness who no longer has a husband (for example, he died), but who has children, the male lion will kill all of the femal lion's children, no matter how strong they are.

It doesn't make sense for men to spend their energy protecting someone else's children if they have no way of knowing that those children are his and his alone. Raising a human child takes a lot of time and energy-- 9 months of pregnancy, and another good 12 years before the child can truly fend for himself.

We're really getting into a discussion on the causes of monogamy. Essentially, there are two conflicting goals (here considering those people attracted to the opposite sex only):
Male: Get a lot of women pregnant and hope they care for the kids.
Female: Get pregnant from a lot of different men, then make them stick around to help care for the kids.
These clearly don't mesh. It turns out the women won, and males stay around to care for the kids. However, with that, the women's polygamy fails. You see, the men who got hoodwinked into caring for their offspring do not want to be raising another man's child (huge waste of resources). Thus, men insist that the women not sleep with anyone else. By contrast, the women don't really care if a man sleeps with someone else as long as he devotes all of his resources to his primary mate.
That is why society is primarily monogamous, but men sleep around some.
Rape is bad because the husband of the victim doesn't want to raise that kid, the rapist surely won't, and the victim needs someone help her raise the kid.

Why, in an evolutionary society, isn't rape the greatest good? Isn't a species' single greatest purpose the perpetuation of the species?

For a species in which the young are not nurtured rape is not a problem, per se, but it is not any better than any other sex. In a species in which the young are nurtured by their parents it is bad because it does not allow for proper selection of mates for genetic and social compatibility and tends not to create a strong environment for the offspring, so, for humans rape is bad from an evolutionary standpoint as well as a social and, if you will, moral standpoint.