Monday, May 18, 2015

The Credulous Evolutionist, an Ongoing View

The question is this: Why are there any men, anyway?
Scientists examine why men even exist
It's actually a good question because it throws the "fittest" element into a tailspin when considering that roughly half of human and sexual creatures do not produce offspring. Why not stick with the prior scheme of having each and every creature try to preserve its own heritable line by producing offspring directly, rather than cutting the likelihood in half?

But this experiment fails in its hypothesis stage. It proposes, and implements experiments to see if NOT having sexual selection would be... bad. And that is what they find: populations (of beetles) with no selection go extinct, while those with selection do not.

But here's the hitch: how would populations get to the point of selection if they are rapidly going extinct? How would they know to split into sexes to protect their futures? And how would they just up and do it, and then get selected for it?

In other words, there is intelligent forward-looking (teleology) involved if the excuse for the existence of sexual reproduction is that the species wanted to protect against build-up of deleterious mutations and consequential extinction, by using the tactic of halving the number of reproducers to induce genetic diversity. So that cannot be the reason for the development of sexual reproduction, at least under the deterministic, materialistic dictates of Darwinian evolution. The incredible simultaneous increase in complexity which necessarily accompanies sexual reproduction and the associated developmental issues with offspring which are not immediately adults, as are the offspring of the dividing species. There might be exceptions, but I can't think of a sexual species which produces an adult immediately upon fertilization.

As for men, the male will be obsolete when the artificial sperm is perfected, and a buffet of perfect DNA is available to seed it. Female orgasms can be produced by other females, of course, as well as machines. But the final necessary hitch will be in the suppression of heterosexual proclivities in women. When that is accomplished, males will be unnecessary and will be bred out of the DNA altogether. And because I have said all this and declared that it is plausible and feasible, that makes it science fact. Thus not believing it is heresy, and mental illness (denial).

The real questions are these: When there are no men, will some women still wear make-up and 9 inch heels? Will some still whine about inequality of pay? Will they fight the wars against the hordes of primitives which still have males? What would an all-female war look like? I'd like to know. (I envision Sigourney Weaver in Alien...)

1 comment:

Phoenix said...

Sexual selection protects against extinction

How do women choose their mates? It's true that many women still prefer men who behave like Richards instead of nice guys.But why? Obviously Richard-heads are aggressive go-getters and are more likely to bring home the whole swine than the nice guy and stands a much better chance of propgating his seeds.But appealing to such "natural" behavior seems intuitvely to be primitive and it pigeonholes women into dependent homemakers/baby-making machines.Once again,it seems metaphysical naturalism is not only primitive but impractical to implement.Thus only theism and its transcendent concepts are truly progressive and civilized