Jump to content


Photo

Can Copulation Be Considered Irreducably Complex?


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 June 2010 - 04:27 PM

I think the design of s@x is a real slap in the face of naturalists. The qualities of reproduction, namely the ability to produce offspring with variations, is supposed to be the sign of evolution. Organisms make offspring, generations produce variety, add gajillions of years and POW! Presto Blammo, you've produced irrefutable evidence for biological evolution from a slime pit long ago and far away.

But wait a second. Reproduction as a mechanical exercise comes with a couple different styles, neither of which lends itself to simple beginnings. I know the RNA world is supposed to be the key to molecules mimicking recombination which somehow lead to full blown reproduction but S@xual systems, like those displayed in mammals is not easily washed away, therefore the assertion must be made that, that's just the way it happened in spite of how unbelievable it is.

Let's get real. The evident action of mammalian reproduction starts off with a fable that is a stretch for any self-respecting intellect to justify evolution. Isn't it interesting how the opposite s@x of the same kind, like humans, bears more dissimilarity, then the same s@x in two different species like male humans and male baboons?

Then add the even more profound need to produce these goofy gamete cells which somehow miraculously have the correct attributes to understand how to combine with the opposite s@x's gamete cells and you have a recipe for seeing the greatness of God revealed in the world around us.

Is copulation fairly described as irreducibly complex? Without any evidence to tie the varying means of reproduction together, what is the evolutionary linage of mammalian copulation?

Keep it clean!

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 June 2010 - 04:40 PM

Plant reproduction may even be more fascinating than animal reproduction. I guess the reason we may be embarrassed to talk about s@x in our victorian politeness is because it is viewed as somewhat barbaric. Which is really unbiblical.

However, take a look at a male and female plant which requires the intervention of a bee lured to it's sweet nectar for reproductive assistance and you're talking sheer design elegance. What an Awesome God we serve!

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 06 June 2010 - 06:07 PM

Plant reproduction may even be more fascinating than animal reproduction. I guess the reason we may be embarrassed to talk about s@x in our victorian politeness is because it is viewed as somewhat barbaric. Which is really unbiblical.

However, take a look at a male and female plant which requires the intervention of a bee lured to it's sweet nectar for reproductive assistance and you're talking sheer design elegance. What an Awesome God we serve!

View Post

Hey Adam,

I thought you went to Switzerland or something :rolleyes:. Anyway, welcome back.

Well, copulation. You know what they'll say. Well, bacteria exchange DNA through HGT blah, blah, blah.

But my interest has lately turned to plants. Yeah the bee. Surely they got an answer for this too :rolleyes:. I mean some white coat somewhere has written some story on their proposal on how this symbiotic relationship evolved. The precursor bees flew to the precursor flowers--hey write it down and teach it! ;)

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 June 2010 - 06:13 PM

Hey Adam,

I thought you went to Switzerland or something :rolleyes:.  Anyway, welcome back.

Well, copulation.  You know what they'll say.  Well, bacteria exchange DNA through HGT blah, blah, blah.

But my interest has lately turned to plants. Yeah the bee.  Surely they got an answer for this too.  I mean some white coat somewhere has written some story on their proposal on how this symbiotic relationship evolved.  The precursor bees flew to the precursor flowers--hey write it down and teach it! :D

View Post

;)

Ha Ha! I think they have the internet in Switzerland. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the re-welcome. :)

I think what Darwin did is dumb down scientific explanations to the point that anecdotes and evidence are interchangeable now. Pity.

#5 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 06 June 2010 - 06:33 PM

:rolleyes:

Ha Ha! I think they have the internet in Switzerland.  :rolleyes:

Thanks for the re-welcome.  ;)

I think what Darwin did is dumb down scientific explanations to the point that anecdotes and evidence are interchangeable now. Pity.

View Post


Note the oversimplification techniques of this article:

Advanced angiosperms have four organ types: female organs (carpels), male organs (stamens), petals (typically colorful) and sepals (typically green). Basal angiosperms have three: carpels, stamens and tepals, which are typically petal-like structures. The researchers expected each type of organ found in Persea's flowers would have a unique set of genetic instructions. Instead they found significant overlap among the three organ types.

"Although the organs are developing to ultimately become different things, from a genetic developmental perspective, they share much more than you would expect," Chanderbali said. "As you go back in time, the borders fade to a blur."


What would I expect? This isn't as scientific as 'the common people' would think. It's subjective. What would I expect? Well if I wasn't educated I guess I would n't have a clue.

Well me personally--Although the organs are developing to ultimately become different things--to me that's the bottom line--whatever's in there is producing something diferent. And if that something different doesn't have a bee to pollenate it--it doesn't reproduce.

But me, they want me to look at something else. They want me to look at ATCG--because DNA is the same in bacteria, protist, plants, anteaters and humans. And that proves evolution?

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 June 2010 - 07:00 PM

Hi Adam, welcome back.

Is copulation fairly described as irreducibly complex? Without any evidence to tie the varying means of reproduction together, what is the evolutionary linage of mammalian copulation?


Mammals started out as egg laying reptiles back during the permian era. The prevailing theory is that protecting the young internally and giving live birth would be advantageous. But live birth had already evolved in fish 200 million years before it was predicted, so live birth was already occuring millions of years before the ancestor of mammals.

Posted Image

http://www.physorg.c...s154796016.html


I think AFJ asked about an evolutionary process able to account for meosis and mitosis and got no answer. I'm fairly certain that the process is IC because it would need at least a pair of chromosones.

VGV3fv-uZYI&hl=en_US&fs=1




Enjoy.

#7 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 June 2010 - 06:21 AM

But wait a second. Reproduction as a mechanical exercise comes with a couple different styles, neither of which lends itself to simple beginnings. I know the RNA world is supposed to be the key to molecules mimicking recombination which somehow lead to full blown reproduction but S@xual systems, like those displayed in mammals is not easily washed away, therefore the assertion must be made that, that's just the way it happened in spite of how unbelievable it is.



Interestingly, this is where the dogma of "Random Mutations" which modern responsible science now rejects (even many elvolutionism geneticists), loses as far as credibility. Without arguing here the purposeful guided algorithm genetic manufacturing mechanisms, let's discuss the error correction and mutational deletion systems within DNA. Here's an article about a feature within the infrastructure of living cells which intelligently guards against a just by chance random copying error which would destroy life. It's called Smc5/6 complex and this article from 2006 beautifully illustrates to us just how important this mechanism is to reproducing life and continued existance. RNA World Hypothesis fairytale never had these mechanisms, so how did life start under those conditions. Answer ???? It didn't. It's a grasping at straws to prop up a worldview. Random mutations would have caused massive amounts of birth defects everywhere with nothing to correct or prevent them. Life would have simply failed supposedly millions of years ago.


A protein complex that untangles DNA





Plant reproduction may even be more fascinating than animal reproduction. I guess the reason we may be embarrassed to talk about s@x in our victorian politeness is because it is viewed as somewhat barbaric. Which is really unbiblical.

However, take a look at a male and female plant which requires the intervention of a bee lured to it's sweet nectar for reproductive assistance and you're talking sheer design elegance. What an Awesome God we serve!

View Post



Interestingly, the biblical reference shows plants appearing on the scene in the third creative period before aquatic and flying creatures. I believe even in the evolutionary sense plants would have had to evolve first in order for all the other creatures to be able to have something to feed on. No bees yet, but I guess plants had to evolve the conventional s@x method while waiting for bees, wasps and flies to evolve alone.

On an interesting chronological side note. At the reading of the third creative period, plants are themselve listing in chronological order of appearance just like any ecosystem development. For example after a forest fire, there are what we call pioneer species which come first. This is necessary because some plants condition the soil for larger plants to come. Others simply act as what we call nurse plants. Example: a Mesquite or Paloverde tree is necesary as a first establishment plant in order for a Saguaro Cactus (or most any cactus) to germinate and get a foothold in such a hostile environment. Some places require already existing pine forests for a nuse environment for maple, firs and other delicate young trees to grasp a foothold.

Here's the simple placement mentioned in the Biblical reference. Not overly technical or complicated, but still yet another brilliant key.

Genesis 1:12 (Young's Literal Translation)

12 "And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;"



This is also an interesting side note. When I planted native landscapes in Southern California, I noticed a shrub called California Coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica) which produces some of the most striking berries of variying colors against a beautiful backdrop of evergreen leaves. However, it's flowers are the most inconspicuous unattractive clustered flowers you've ever seen. However, in the springtime, those flower clusters attract millions every type of winged insect creature in the bee, wasp and fly family anywhere. Even several beetle varieties. The bush is loaded with a traffic jam activity with all these different creature climbing all over each other. Obviously no showy display of flower colour for attraction. Therefore it must be the sweet smell or some other chemical attractant to insects because I never really smelled anything. There was a bit of glazy stickiness to them though. Again, how does this unattractive flower display promote it's necessary s@x partners for it's own reproduction ?????? That's right, evolution thought up a chemical attractant instead. But wait a minute, how does blind pointless pitiless indifference without purpose or intent accomplish that ???? Aaaaahh, it uses the old personification fallacy ploy. No wait another minute, I guess that would be the Evolutionist himself that does that. :rolleyes:


Posted Image


Posted Image

#8 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 07 June 2010 - 02:35 PM

I’ve always thought that human reproductive behaviours (ie. the neurological aspects of copulation) are rather inconsistent with religion, but very consistent with evolution. At the Catholic schools I attended as a child, we were taught that s@x has two purposes: as an act of love between a (married) man and woman, and to reproduce. If we were designed in the image of God, superior to the other animals, you’d think that our S@xual behaviours would reflect this... but they don’t.

The urge to reproduce kicks in at puberty. For most of us, this is certainly not accompanied by a sudden desire to get married or become a parent. And for many, s@x is not synonymous with love.

Yet premarital s@x is considered a sin. So why is the human instinct to reproduce so strong, and why is s@x such an addictive act? I use the word addictive because s@x and drugs have a very similar effect on the reward (dopamine) pathways of the brain. If s@x is only for showing love and making babies, why doesn’t the desire kick in when we’re mature adults that are ready to get married and start a family?

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that it would be a blind instinct that we feel compelled to act on. After all, that’s exactly how it works for other animals. More offspring means a more successful population and the stronger the instinct, the better. But from a religious perspective, it makes no sense whatsoever.

#9 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 June 2010 - 04:51 PM

I’ve always thought that human reproductive behaviours (ie. the neurological aspects of copulation) are rather inconsistent with religion, but very consistent with evolution. At the Catholic schools I attended as a child, we were taught that s@x has two purposes: as an act of love between a (married) man and woman, and to reproduce. If we were designed in the image of God, superior to the other animals, you’d think that our S@xual behaviours would reflect this... but they don’t.

The urge to reproduce kicks in at puberty. For most of us, this is certainly not accompanied by a sudden desire to get married or become a parent. And for many, s@x is not synonymous with love.

Yet premarital s@x is considered a sin. So why is the human instinct to reproduce so strong, and why is s@x such an addictive act? I use the word addictive because s@x and drugs have a very similar effect on the reward (dopamine) pathways of the brain. If s@x is only for showing love and making babies, why doesn’t the desire kick in when we’re mature adults that are ready to get married and start a family?

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that it would be a blind instinct that we feel compelled to act on. After all, that’s exactly how it works for other animals. More offspring means a more successful population and the stronger the instinct, the better. But from a religious perspective, it makes no sense whatsoever.

View Post


Generations ago, when life was more rural, most people married much younger, especially women. My mom was 18. Some of my mom's friends were 16 or so. I think my grandma was 16 when she married. The culture encouraged propriety back then. It was also advantageous to have more kids back then. So the traditional family was more predominate.

Now we are surrounded by s@x--it's like pouring gas on a fire. We have education lasting until people are 22 to 25 years old. Even if you stop at HS you've been mature for 6 or 7 years. So yes, s@x happens.

As far as I know Isabella, God never says in the word you can't have passionate s@x. You are just supposed to do it with one covenant partner. Perspective is different when you are both serving the Lord. Your lover is also your best friend,--they turn you on, and you know they'll be there through thick and thin---they got your back. It's also nice to know you don't have to worry about getting something. I know my wife loves God. so I've never had to worry--which makes things alot more free and enjoyable.

Have you ever heard of the Love Triangle. God on top. The man and wife make the two other points. The closer you both are to God, the closer you are to each other. Physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

It's much better than going from one lover to another, leaving kids behind, or raising someone else's kids, etc. Not trying to put a guilt complex on divorcees. Stuff happens, and God always gives another chance--just wants us to do it right the next time.

Just one last thing. The S@xual desire is God given. But this generation has exploited and played with it. God helps us to channel it the right way. If we make a mistake--He still forgives!!!

#10 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:32 PM

Perhaps we can get this thread back on track. Can Copulation Be Considered Irreducably Complex?

Ken Miller has allegedly refuted irreducible complexity. Is this true? Is there no such thing as IC? For instance, if one of the spindle appurati were removed before meiosis, would another legitimate function be found for this? If so what would it be?

If there was only one spindle appuratus, it would only pull to divide the chromosomes on one side--maybe the other chromosomes would get sucked in while the cell was dividing. It seems to me this would mess up your gamete cells. Any comments?

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2010 - 09:18 AM

Perhaps we can get this thread back on track.  Can Copulation Be Considered Irreducably Complex?

View Post

I think Isabella's comments are telling. Let's analyze them...

If we were designed in the image of God, superior to the other animals, you’d think that our S@xual behaviours would reflect this... but they don’t.

View Post

This comment ignores two things. First, it does not give proper representation of what it means to be "designed in the image of God" according to scripture. Second, it ignores the clear narrative in scripture that reveals how our reflected image of our creator is tainted by sin. It's intellectually shallow to get bogged down in concepts that equate our creaturely physical designs of reproduction to what it means to be made in the image of God who does not bear our earthly reproductive qualities because they are created qualities and not creator qualities.

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that it would be a blind instinct that we feel compelled to act on. After all, that’s exactly how it works for other animals. More offspring means a more successful population and the stronger the instinct, the better. But from a religious perspective, it makes no sense whatsoever.

View Post

This is a textbook diversion away from respecting the truly scientific discussion that could come from this thread. This thread has nothing to do with emotions and instincts. It has everything to do with the hard science of mechanical copulation and what it takes to achieve the intricate function we call s@x. The social/instinctual aspects of reproduction are meaningless if the actual act of copulation totally refutes the slow prodding fable we call biological evolution.

#12 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2010 - 09:53 AM

It's just dumb luck that these are the systems "chosen" by natural selection in an aimless universe...

Q6ucKWIIFmg

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:29 AM

I wonder if it's a coincidence that many people have a testimony that revolves around having a child and declaring their inability to further deny the obvious creative marvel that God has set before our eyes?

(I know atheists have kids too. Before somebody decides to get stuck on foolishness.)

#14 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:34 AM

It's just dumb luck that these are the systems "chosen" by natural selection in an aimless universe...

Q6ucKWIIFmg

View Post


Great video! One of the best I've seen.

My questions on the spindle fibers are never answered. How do they know which chromosomes to 'grab?' This can't be explained by anything but intelligence.

The spindle apparatus is very complex--it seems like it should get tangled up rather than find the correct chromosomes.

Posted Image

As far as IC, remove one of them and see what happens.

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:37 AM

Posted Image

As far as IC, remove one of them and see what happens.

View Post

Silly, AFJ! It's all just an illusion... :lol:

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:40 AM

The sad part is that many of these videos are produced by evolutionists and they are ignorant to ask fundamental questions regarding the nature of life because they swallowed evolution like a ham sandwich and based on popular demand refuse to question evolution's purported creative power.

#17 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 14 June 2010 - 12:27 PM

This is a textbook diversion away from respecting the truly scientific discussion that could come from this thread. This thread has nothing to do with emotions and instincts. It has everything to do with the hard science of mechanical copulation and what it takes to achieve the intricate function we call s@x. The social/instinctual aspects of reproduction are meaningless if the actual act of copulation totally refutes the slow prodding fable we call biological evolution.

View Post

I just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject, although I figured I’d be accused of going off topic. However, instincts are genetic rather than learned. In that sense, they are just as physical as any other trait.

I’m not planning to pursue this issue any further so I’ll leave it at that.

My questions on the spindle fibers are never answered. How do they know which chromosomes to 'grab?' This can't be explained by anything but intelligence.

View Post

Spindle fibres are a type of microtubule. They are all identical in terms of composition, so there is no specificity in terms of which fibre attaches to which chromosome. Because they are essentially hollow tubes, they will form in a straight line and attach to the kinetochore of the first chromosome they come into contact with. They don’t tangle because they can’t bend. In order for the cell to move into anaphase, each chromosome must be attached to two microtubules, one from each centrosome.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 June 2010 - 01:47 AM

I’m not planning to pursue this issue any further so I’ll leave it at that.

View Post

It's quite an inconvenient issue, isn't it? I always chuckle a little when I see threads like this, and many others like it, virtually void of evolutionists arguing their evidence. All evolutionists do in threads like this is offer loud ballyhoos proclaiming the "obvious" truthfulness of evolution based on its popularity and decrying creationist beliefs and how gajillions of years plus reproduction are a sure bet for turning anything into anything. ;)

Make copulation the actual topic of concern and the cricket chirps become deafening. Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

#19 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 15 June 2010 - 02:40 AM

It's quite an inconvenient issue, isn't it? I always chuckle a little when I see threads like this, and many others like it, virtually void of evolutionists arguing their evidence. All evolutionists do in threads like this is offer loud ballyhoos proclaiming the "obvious" truthfulness of evolution based on its popularity and decrying creationist beliefs and how gajillions of years plus reproduction are a sure bet for turning anything into anything. ;)

Make copulation the actual topic of concern and the cricket chirps become deafening. Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

View Post


Your position is:

a) macro-evolution cannot occur and did not coccur.
b ) anyone suggesting that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are related will be banned.
c) Copulation is irreducibly complex, in other words, there is no way anyone can suggest that it could have evolved.

Then you are surprised that evolutionists do not wish to discuss things with you?

If I start a debate and discuss reptilian reproduction as a precusor to mammalian reproduction what will your response be?

#20 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 15 June 2010 - 01:23 PM

It's quite an inconvenient issue, isn't it? I always chuckle a little when I see threads like this, and many others like it, virtually void of evolutionists arguing their evidence. All evolutionists do in threads like this is offer loud ballyhoos proclaiming the "obvious" truthfulness of evolution based on its popularity and decrying creationist beliefs and how gajillions of years plus reproduction are a sure bet for turning anything into anything. :blink:

Make copulation the actual topic of concern and the cricket chirps become deafening. Ignorance is bliss, so they say.

View Post


You accused me of derailing the thread when I brought up the issue of reproductive behaviours/instincts. Your exact words were:

This is a textbook diversion away from respecting the truly scientific discussion that could come from this thread. This thread has nothing to do with emotions and instincts.


So I agreed to drop the issue in order to stay on topic, and now you’re claiming that I’m avoiding it because it’s “inconvenient”?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users