There is no real evidence whatsoever that humans are naturally meant to form lifelong pair bonds with their partner. Most of our close relatives (primates) don’t, and even those that do pair up are usually pretty promiscuous on the side.
Also, humans are what are called K-strategists - we produce only a few large, healthy offspring and provide parental care rather than making tons and tons of little guys and just sending them out into the world. We put a lot of resources into each kid, and so actual production of the offspring is time limited by the female - let’s say a really sexually active female could produce 20 kids in her fertile life. Do you really think most couples only have sex 20 times? What are the other times for then, if non-productive sex is so terrible? If the female is the limiting factor, why doesn’t the male just go off and inseminate everyone else he can find while his first partner is pregnant? If pair bonding is important, then what’s in it for the male to stick around when he could be making lots more children? If pair bonding isn’t important, what’s the problem with a little same-sex action in between or before or after inseminating females?
Also, if passing on genes is important, then you have to make sure the kid makes it to adulthood. And with so (relatively) few kids child rearing because as important or moreso than just the act of makin’ bacon. So really the evolutionary push should be to encourage fathers to actively raise their kids. So why isn’t anyone repulsed by the idea of a childless single male? Why do we tend to leave children with their mothers upon divorce (if the males raised the kids, the women would be free to put her energy into making even more kids)? Why do many object to a gay male couple adopting and raising an orphaned or unwanted child?
Nah, I think he’s some high school kid who read a couple of books, had a sudden flash of “What if!!!” and then has neither the intelligence or the maturity to deal with people ripping his omg u guyz rilly kewl idea to tiny, tiny shreds.
That is what you are deluding yourself you are doing.
In reality you’re just pissing in the wind and haven’t the wit to realise you are covering yourself with piss.
Yet another vacuous piece of arm waving standing in for intelligent debate. :rolleyes:
You obviously live in a very simple world where everything is black and white.
It seems to have escaped your notice that people can be, at one and the same time, sexually attracted and dis-attracted to one and the same person.
If the attraction outweighs the dis-attraction they may try for sex with that person if it doesn’t they won’t.
A person who is attracted to both sexes if called bisexual but the greater their disinclination to have sex with a person of the same sex (whether innate or learned) the less likely they are to do it and the more likely they are to be doing it with someone of their own sex and passing on their genes.
You really are getting desperate and clutching at straws.
No need because all you’re doing is putting up a massive, obfuscating, smoke screen and clutching at ever more ephemeral and insubstantial straws.
You are trying to argue that a bisexual who spends some periods of his/her time being monogamous with someone of the same sex is as likely to pass on their genes as someone who spends all periods of her/his time being monogamous with someone of the opposite sex.
And that’s beyond stupid!
You can desperately try and hide behind mealy mouthed irrelevances such as that ‘there no real evidence that humans are meant to pair bond’ (when, hey, Sherlock, haven’t you noticed that, evidence or not, that what a hell of a lot of them do ;)) and flail about talking about infidelity - as if someone who is in a same sex relationship and has a quick poke with someone of the opposite sex is as likely to have a child with them as someone who is in a long term different sex relationship with that person.
But it’s all just desperation to try and make a point when you don’t really have any ammunition.
Ah, so now you’re dropping down a step further and trying an argumentum ad verecundiam?
If you can’t come up with sensible, valid, counters to my points, trying to get an edge by by trumping educational achievements (even if you could :rolleyes:) takes you to even greater depths of pathetic desperation.
I just want to know what makes you qualified to insult everyone else’s ‘intellectual equipment’. I never said a single thing about my own education or lack thereof. This isn’t about me, it’s about you.
If you’re not willing to back your ideas up with cites or even any actual experience beyond “I read every Richard Dawkins book evar!!!11!!!”, then that says a lot more about your argument than mine.
Why? My wife and I have been having a lot of sex for six years and we have one kid, the sex I was having in the ten years before that produced zero kids, which is more significant from an evolutionary standpoint?
Evolution expressly does NOT shoot for perfection, it shoots for “good enough and otherwise random”.
Anecdotes are not data, Sherlock. Lots of kids born due to infidelity (as many as 25% of kids with married parents, IIRC). Scientific studies peg human pair bonding at 12-28 months and renewable, not lifelong.
Man, you are dumb as a box of hammers. Go ahead and whine about ad-hominem some more–the fact is, your just-so story has about nine quadrillion holes and every time someone rips it a new one, you whine about how we’re not debating honestly.
Of *course *we’re not! He’s right, so anyone who disagrees with him must just be missing the point and covering our stupidity with *ad hom *attacks. Clearly.
Personally, I would have gone with “*sack *of hammers.” Much dumber.
And that, to me, smacks of efficiency, which isn’t dumb at all. Wheras a sack of hammers is clunky and unweildy and likely to be dropped onto and/or accidentally swung into something fragile. Or just tear out its bottom and dump all over one’s foot.
No response to the educational attainment question means my three-high claim is probably pretty accurate. Good job on kindergarten, buddy! How many of those carpet sample squares does the teacher have to give you for naptime these days?
Eh, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and guess he’s in high school. Still, I agree that dodging the question means he probably has no special skills or training in biology (surprise, surprise).
The implication is that they need to be labeled because they are so bad, they even fail at being hammers and wouldn’t be recognized as such without markings even in a hammer store.
As long as you continue to argue and won’t stick to the point but start making vague noises such as ‘you just don’t understand’, or ‘what is your education’, it’s about you.
Another intellectually bankrupt debating trick beloved of schoolchildren everywhere. Trying to pretend that because someone says they’ve read something that is the limit of their experience. And as for the slimeball trick of adding “evar!!!11!!!” to try and make out that it was presented as some sort of major feat … well, just further evidence of your inability to argue either intelligently or honestly.
But then you’ll do anything rather than intelligently argue the point, won’t you.
That might be true if you would actually stick too the argument and not keep running off on tangents asserting general lack of understanding or querying education.
There are several pieces of evidence that someone attempting to debate way out of their comfort zone:
Telling their opponent they ‘don’t know about science’ instead of arguing the point rationally.
Clutching at irrelevant straws and immediately abandoning them when challenged.
Demanding to know someone’s educational achievements - closely related to an argumentum ad verecundiam.
You’ve exhibited every one of these behaviours in this thread.
Probably the best example of your utter ineptitude and something that betrays your own paucity of understanding is this gem:
“There is no real evidence whatsoever that humans are naturally meant to form lifelong pair bonds with their partner.”
Leaving aside yet another straw man in that I never said anything about pair bonding for life. What do you mean by ‘real’ evidence? No evidence? Or was it that someone presented evidence but you haven’t personally examined their PhD certificate? :rolleyes:
You really need to make up your mind and then learn to say what you mean rather than coming up the the sort of mealy mouthed nonsense that I’d expect from someone trying to defend some stance for the KKK.
Then we come to that word ‘intended’. WTF? What are you thinking here? Are you a closet intelligent creationist? Or is your understanding of evolution so poor you think that it harbours an ‘intent’ somewhere. Next time you have a biology class, ask your teacher where about ‘intent’ lies in evolution. You may be surprised at his answer.
The indication that you are almost frighteningly stupid comes from your habit of trying to make a point and then, when that point is logically countered, flying into a tizz, swearing, and throwing out ad hominems.
Those with the intellectual capacity to prosecute an argument effectively have no need of such tantrums.
