If you really think that asserting a fact calmly is the sole criteria for its likely veracity rather you’re an even bigger fool that your already quite impressive attempts to convince on that score have demonstrated. 
Apparently, qpw3141 has conceded that he cannot “prosecute an argument effectively.”
You’re just pretending now, aren’t you.
You really can’t be that stupid - can you?
Are you trying to win a ‘see who can be the most stupid’ bet?
Clue:
Taken over the majority of human evolution - i.e. before such complications as contraception, overall, the more times men had sex with women the more chances they had to pass on their genes.
Anything that increases the number of times men have sex with women increases the chances of their passing on their genes.
Anything that reduces the chances of men doing things other than having sex with women when they might otherwise be having sex with women will tend to increase the number of times men have sex with women which will increase the chances of their passing on their genes.
And yet there are a half a dozen people who seem intent on arguing that fairly self evident fact is invalid.
Funny that no one has yet come up with even one hole that could not be plugged without even trying.
It’s a pity this thread just has a few rather dumb people trying to refute the point.
If only someone with a little logical ability would show up they might be able to show a real failing rather then wallowing about spewing the intellectual flim-flam that is all you and you motley crew have so far manage.
LOL :D:D you think you’re smart…
Oh hi guys! What’s with all the whispering?
This is why you shouldn’t function as your own debate moderator. The majority of people in the thread agree that the holes have been shown. YOU choose to believe you are smarter and more adept than everyone here. You then refuse to provide any credentials whatsoever to back that assertion.
So yeah, don’t worry, you’ll get that driver’s license someday.
Yeah, but a hammer store especially would need to label all of its hammers. Especially ones in a box where you couldn’t immediately see what kind they are. You don’t think a hammer store would carry just one kind of hammer, do you?
No, no, see, I’m making arguments *and *calling you a fucking retard. These things are simply concurrent.
I have no need of eating well prepared, delicious food at good restaurants, either. But I enjoy it.
You can’t have a “sole criteria,” moron, anymore than your parents’ yard could have a “sole trees.” *Criteria *is plural. *Criterion *is the singular.
We’re not arguing with that fact. We’re arguing with your next logical leap–that there’s *any *evidence that revulsion toward the idea of homosexual sex acts is an example of this kind of biological programming. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you’d realize that millions of gay and bi men happily fucking, sucking, and fingering each other without having to keep a vom bucket next to the bed is pretty good evidence that you’re an idiot.
ETA:
You know what else would reduce the chance of men having sex with other men instead of women? If they could only orgasm through PIV sex, and if all other orifices, as well as the palms of our hands, were covered in stinging barbs. So, because this would result in more babies, I posit that men can only orgasm through PIV sex and all of our other orifices, and the palms of our hands, are covered in stinging barbs.
You can’t say I’m wrong! Biology says so! Because we have to make more babies, so anything that leads us to make more babies must be true!
Running up to a hole and shouting HAY GUSY I PULGGED ET!!! really loudly doesn’t actually count for anything, you know. You have to actually *refute *what we’re saying. Which you haven’t.
It should tell you something that on this board, which has quite a few people with advanced science degrees, including in fields related to biology, I see not one person who has any relevant education or work experience agreeing with you.
Nothing mom go away jeeze!
The hole in this ‘logic’ is believing that the majority of people of whom you speak (i.e. in this thread) are anything other than idiots.
Go to a creationist forum and tell them about evolution and you’ll get a quality of response very similar to the quality of response I’m getting in this thread.
Or maybe a bit more intelligent. 
“Everyone is telling me I’m wrong, so I must be right!”
No one could possibly be this dense. I vote troll.
If you were able to both read and comprehend what you’ve read you’d have noticed that Quite some time ago I said (and have repeated since) that those repulsed by sex (of any kind) are at the extreme end of those who find it in any way distasteful.
It’s not only homosexual sex that some people find distasteful. Some (hetro) people find hetro sex distasteful.
Anyone who finds their attraction to whatever sex over weighs their distaste for it will probably indulge at some point. anyone who doesn’t, probably won’t.
These things aren’t black and white.
But you just keep drooling into your keyboard, swearing and ranting, as you evidently enjoy it.
Oh, and calling everyone stupid poopyheads is rational argument? Because that’s all I see from you.
You mean like when you tried to score a point in the GD thread by saying revulsion towards homosexuals was like inbreeding avoidance? And when I provided solid scientific reasons why they are nothing alike, so you just ignored it and pretended it never came up? That *is *annoying when people do that.
I didn’t demand, I just asked. It has nothing to do with ‘achievements’ or appealling to anyone elses authority. Like it or not, a scientific education makes a difference in these discussions. Are you saying you believe everything everyone says regardless of who they are or what you know their background to be? Or that you believe nothing but what comes out of your own tiny head despite what people with way more experience tell you?
You’ve exhibited all these and more. Also, your snide, dismissive attempts and condescension say more about you being out of your comfort zone than anything else.
If it’s not pair bonding for life, then why do you care if someone goes off to play hide the salami with some other guy for a few years? As I explained before, we only *need *to have sex a few times in our lifetime, but most of us do it a lot more than that. So why did you bring up pair bonding at all if you want to say it doesn’t matter now? And by no real evidence, I mean there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. But, unlike your hairbrained ideas, people have studied it - there is just not a concrete conclusion. By naturally meant to, I meant that pairing in humans is more a sociological and religious institution than a biological one. I thought you were smart enough to understand the distinction, but I see know that I was wrong.
When on earth did I use the word ‘intended’? And I’ll let you in on a little secret - next time I’m in a biology class (tomorrow), I’ll *be *the teacher. Dumbass.
Population of world: ~ six billion.
Number of cretins on this thread who want to argue and can’t come up with any irrefutable argument: less than a dozen.
Don’t worry though, you’re only out by a factor of about 500,000,000. :rolleyes:
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn.
Thanks, I try.
Oh, and when you’re arguing with someone who doesn’t understand science? Telling them they don’t understand science and then explaining how you know that is a perfectly valid argument. Which is what everyone here has been doing.
LOL :D:D you think it’s 1999!
Isn’t that, isn’t that, somehting like an argumentum ad verecundiam?
You can’t do that!
Oh, and to bring the logic:
Yes, I noticed that you don’t seem to be capable of reading and understanding whole posts.
Ah, I see, so you’re allowed to ignore any point you find inconvenient but I’m not.
Got it, hypocrite.
Bollocks. You can’t make a good argument you try to turn it into a pissing contest. :rolleyes:
I base my belief on the quality of their arguments.
The quality of the arguments of those arguing this point with me are extremely poor.
This gives me a very clear insight into why you are so poor at providing a decent argument. You really think that experience should override evidence.
If you offer evidence of an ability to make good arguments I’ll likely be persuaded by the good arguments. At the moment you’re nothing more than a pompous buffoon trying to force something down someone’s throat not be clear reasoning but because you suspect you may have more experience.
Pathetic.
Again, you are a hopeless hypocrite. This thread was started here for no other purpose than to allow snide comments and condescension. You enjoy it when it’s you dishing it out but get all antsy when it comes back to you. You get more pathetic by the minute.
If you can’t understand that then you really are even more stupid than I previously thought. I don’t care. But whilst he’s doing that he can’t be passing on his genes.
Clue (since you seem to be way too stupid to work this out for yourself):
You may only need to have sex that leads to progeny a small number of times to pass your genes on but you can’t just have sex twenty times and expect that to give your genes the best chance.
Here’s a worked example for you to make it easier:
Het-Og has sex with one or more women three times a week. On average this results in a birth once a year. He is sexually active for twenty years. So he produces twenty offspring - enough to give his genes a good chance of being passed on.
Bi-Og has sex with one or more women three times a week. But he only does that for six months of the year because the other six months he’s shagging Ho-Ug. He has the same chance of fertilising a woman as Het-Og so his activity results in a birth once every two years. He is sexually active for twenty years. So he produces ten offspring - enough to give his genes a half as good a chance of being passed on as Het-Og.
I said pair bonding for life is not important. I’ve never said it was.
I hope now that you’ve been clued in you can see it for yourself.
So, in your little world, if there’s no proof one way or the other it means that you can claim whichever view suits your argument. :rolleyes:
OK, be pedantic: You said ‘Naturally meant’. Same question: What do you believe is ‘meaning’ anyone to do anything?
Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, criticise.
And those who can’t criticise, teach.
I pity the poor schmucks who have the misfortune to be your students. (and I readily believe that they call you “Teacher. Dumbass.” :D)
LOL :D:D you think you’re cogent
Well, the students who are failing might. It’s not uncommon for young students who lack knowledge (and also lack the humility required to learn) to take their anger and frustration out on the instructor. Fortunately that mostly only happens in my freshman classes - after that they are either weeded out or mature to the point that they realize that experience *is *required in order to interpret and transmit the information available. There’s a reason why we go to experts when we need an expert opinion about something.