Here’s an interesting one.
Then there is this article which makes the statement:
I will argue that men do not generally have sex for orgasm but for a different kind of pleasure. If men did not have orgasms, I doubt that the species would die out or that men would have much less, if any less, sex or interest in it.
Oh Yeah? LOL... Well, I beg to differ.
Let's think it through...
First of all we have to go back in time to that first little blob that appeared on the earth after the big bang spat out our universe from absolutely nothing. Then we’d have to assume that our little blob eventually evolved some type of asexual reproductive mechanism. God only knows how that occurred! Whoops....no, God wouldn’t have known because Darwinian evolution doesn’t require God to even exist.
So, anyway, this little asexual blob eventually plops out another blob like itself and through time, natural selection, and a whole lot of luck eventually some of these newer generation of blobs start to kinda take a liking to each other and produce more offspring.
Wait right there...
Unless there is some reason for these little blobs to have sex with each other, why the heck would that function ever evolve? Did two of them accidentally slap up against each other one evening and from that happy slapping a new life form appeared?
Did they even realize that the new life form was a result of their happy slapping? And was it really “happy” slapping or was it just a purely accidental slap with no tingly feelings? If it was a happy encounter, how did the happy feel-good thingy that was doing the slapping evolve? If it wasn’t a happy encounter, why do it again?
Furthermore, they couldn’t possibly know what to do with these new blobs they created unless altruism had already evolved in the previously evolving blobs.
Good grief, talk about fairy tales.
But, by all means keep working on this spectacular story that everything evolved from that first spark of life. It means nothing to science whether that actually occurred or not, but please spend billions trying to piece it together for us, because in the end it will provide further support for Intelligent Design.
Science advances due to research of commonality between species and adaptation within a species. The result of this type of research is solidly supported by empirical evidence. The common descent via that first living organism inclusion is irrelevant to science, but let’s not say that too loudly...whispering...the “scientific community” isn't keen on accepting that fact.
