Evolution falls-short of explaining sexual desire

jamest · #1 by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 2:31 am

The desire to have sex has little to do with wanting to have kids. Indeed, for most of us, the desire to have kids (if we have that desire) has little to do with wanting to reproduce 'something' like ourselves. Further, the sex-drive persists in those that cannot have, or, who do not want kids: gays; lesbians; post-menstrual women; etc.. The sex-drive, then, appears to transcend its physical function.

... The charge then, is that the Darwinian explanation for our sex-drives falls-short. That is, our sex-drive is not primarily grounded in the need/desire to pass on our genes, or to reproduce 'something like ourselves'. Further, as I see it, Darwinism allows for no [prolonged] attributes of a species which do not:

a) Help that species survive amidst its environment.
b) Promote the reproduction of that species.

... Therefore, according to the Theory of Evolution [as I see it], there should not be an abundance of gay/lesbian people, or of any other kind of people who have sex with no hope of reproduction as its yield. An abundance of such individuals, with such desires/attributes, should not exist... since 'evolution' [apparently] selects for the best survivors and the most proficient reproducers. As I see it, gays; lesbians; post-menstrual women; etc., should have been ~phased out~ long ago.

Of course, I'm speaking primarily from a human perspective here. I have no real idea of how my thoughts pan-out with regards to the animal kingdom as a whole. However, I have several memories of dogs trying to shaft my lower leg, which to my mind is an inefficient way of reproducing 'a dog like me'.

Just chewin' the fat, here. Wondering what the experts have to say on the matter. Cheers.

jamest · #2 by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 2:36 am

Whoops, double post. Sorry.

Zwaarddijk · #3 by **Zwaarddijk** » Nov 20, 2011 2:37 am

Why should what we think of or desire out of something and what it has evolved for necessarily have any connection? Those who desire more sex than others would, until recent times, get more offspring in the average case. And other things, of course, are involved than just that - whatever function causes homosexuality, it may very well be a by-effect of some evolved mechanism of some kind. Evolution doesn't even try and predict what it will cause, if a mechanism often enough produces beneficial results, and just on occasion doesn't contribute to getting offspring, it will be favoured.
(But compare, e.g. eusocial species where a minority of individuals produce offspring. In your understanding of evolution, ants should be phased out!)

There's also traits that have survived despite being contrary to the efficiency of survival - e.g. the huge feathers of peacocks, and various similar traits, seem to be a kind of signal of excessive fitness: basically "I am so fit, I can carry these needless feathers around and it doesn't bother me whatsoever", altho' not consciously so, of course.

Post-menstrual women may very well have benefits for communal survival as well - as experienced individuals, they have knowledge that can contribute to tribal survival, and as females, they can in a society with some kind of gender separation, keep traditions relevant for female survival and efficiency running in a better way than just having old men around.

I don't see why this would be difficult to understand.

jamest · #4 by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 2:51 am

Zwaarddijk wrote:Why should what we think of or desire out of something and what it has evolved for necessarily have any connection?

One would think that sexual desire should be related to the need to pass on genes, given Darwinism. Therefore, sexual desire should be all about wanting to reproduce 'something like me'. Of course, the sex-drive is nothing like that.

Those who desire more sex than others would, until recent times, get more offspring in the average case.

Yes, but this is not the case for those with a sex-drive whose particular desires/activities will not reproduce offspring.

And other things, of course, are involved than just that - whatever function causes homosexuality, it may very well be a by-effect of some evolved mechanism of some kind.

What?

... You can't make stuff up like that without some sort of justification.

Evolution doesn't even try and predict what it will cause,

Explicit within the ToEvolution is that attributes not best-served for survival or reproduction will be weeded-out.

Post-menstrual women may very well have benefits as well - as experienced individuals, they have knowledge that can contribute to tribal survival, and as females, they can in a society with some kind of gender separation, keep traditions relevant for female survival and efficiency running in a better way than just having old men around.

Perhaps. Yet again, if they could do all that and still produce babies...

jamest · #5 by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 2:59 am

I guess I'm trying to say that the Theory of Evolution seems to be at-odds with a sexuality which is complex and diverse.

jamest · #6 by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 3:10 am

Just to be clear, there are two distinct charges here:

1) That evolution shouldn't be producing an abundance of individuals who want to have non-reproductive sex.

2) That sexual desire should not transcend its physical function (to reproduce), as it evidently does.

... Therefore, the ToE, does not suffice to explain sexual desire.

Fenrir · #7 by **Fenrir** » Nov 20, 2011 3:25 am

jamest wrote:Just to be clear, there are two distinct charges here:

1) That evolution shouldn't be producing an abundance of individuals who want to have non-reproductive sex.

Why not? Sex is sex, the occurrence of sex surely increases the occurrence of sex with reproductive potential. In a social (and altruistic) society the existence of individuals who have not reproduced decreases the mortality rate of infants as those individuals are available to provide support for offspring of others, starting with the offspring of closely related individuals. The success of your sibling in passing on their genes is also a success in passing on yours as you share some. Why would the development of altruistic behaviour and the availability of individuals who have not bred not lead to increased survival of infants if they have a role to play in nurturing them? Why would the inheritance of some of your own genes through closely related individuals not be an increase in fitness in evolutionary terms.

As an aside, why would the presence of individuals with different wiring for mate selection not increase the variability in a population thereby increasing the material available for selection to act on?

2) That sexual desire should not transcend its physical function (to reproduce), as it evidently does.

Does it? How?

... Therefore, the ToE, does not suffice to explain sexual desire.

Evolution can provide rational explanations for all this behaviour, and it has (though it's early days yet so the models will probably become more refined as more data becomes available).

Shagz · #8 by **Shagz** » Nov 20, 2011 3:57 am

A high sex drive makes you want to have sex. If you want to have sex, you'll likely have more sex. If you have more sex, you'll probably have more children, who'll have a chance of inheriting your high sex drive. It's simple.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not so easy to explain.

Spearthrower · #9 by **Spearthrower** » Nov 20, 2011 5:19 am

jamest wrote:Just to be clear, there are two distinct charges here:

1) That evolution shouldn't be producing an abundance of individuals who want to have non-reproductive sex.

Evolution shouldn't be producing an abundance of individuals who want to play the flute either. You might want to go and check out various monkey and ape groups that also engage in non-reproductive sex - they do it for pleasure, dominance, and sociality. The charge is circular reasoning.

jamest wrote:2) That sexual desire should not transcend its physical function (to reproduce), as it evidently does.

And eating shouldn't be pleasurable when its only function is to provide nutrition?

jamest wrote:... Therefore, the ToE, does not suffice to explain sexual desire.

It appears rather that there's a critical misunderstanding in the underlying thinking that produces such a conclusions.

epepke · **#10** by **epepke** » Nov 20, 2011 5:55 am

jamest wrote:... The charge then, is that the Darwinian explanation for our sex-drives falls-short. That is, our sex-drive is not primarily grounded in the need/desire to pass on our genes, or to reproduce 'something like ourselves'. Further, as I see it, Darwinism allows for no [prolonged] attributes of a species which do not:.

That's a mind-bogglingly idiotic statement. Evolution does not care about desire, except inasmuch as desire is one of hundreds of thousands of mechanisms that can, in some cases, improve survival and reproduction.

surreptitious57 · **#11** by **surreptitious57** » Nov 20, 2011 6:36 am

Evolution cannot explain sexual desire beyond the
pro creative since it is exclusively concerned with the
propagation of the species. However it could be that non
pro creative sex may be practised because of other benefits
instead. Sex results in orgasm. Orgasm activates endorphins in
the brain and also increases the heart rate both of which enhance
the immune system. Also regular sexual activity leads to an increase
in physical stamina which means healthier genes are going to be passed
on when pro creative sex takes place. Sexual desire and sexual activity are
not the same of course. But one however is a natural consequence of the other

MrFungus420 · **#12** by **MrFungus420** » Nov 20, 2011 10:59 am

jamest wrote:Just to be clear, there are two distinct charges here:

1) That evolution shouldn't be producing an abundance of individuals who want to have non-reproductive sex.

2) That sexual desire should not transcend its physical function (to reproduce), as it evidently does.

... Therefore, the ToE, does not suffice to explain sexual desire.

No, those are two distinct arguments from ignorance.

Tell me, are you up on the latest research on the subject? If not, how do you know that this even is a problem?

jamest · **#13** by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 11:03 am

epepke wrote:
jamest wrote:... The charge then, is that the Darwinian explanation for our sex-drives falls-short. That is, our sex-drive is not primarily grounded in the need/desire to pass on our genes, or to reproduce 'something like ourselves'. Further, as I see it, Darwinism allows for no [prolonged] attributes of a species which do not:.

That's a mind-bogglingly idiotic statement. Evolution does not care about desire, except inasmuch as desire is one of hundreds of thousands of mechanisms that can, in some cases, improve survival and reproduction.

You've misread me. We, who have sex, do so because of the desire to do so. However, that desire has almost nothing to do with passing on our genes. This is reflected in our diverse choice of sexual partners (some which are even inanimate, apparently!). What I'm saying is that this seems to be at-odds with a theory which promotes the idea that only those attributes best-geared for survival and reproduction, will be selected for.

jamest · **#14** by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 11:13 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Evolution cannot explain sexual desire beyond the
pro creative since it is exclusively concerned with the
propagation of the species. However it could be that non
pro creative sex may be practised because of other benefits
instead. Sex results in orgasm. Orgasm activates endorphins in
the brain and also increases the heart rate both of which enhance
the immune system. Also regular sexual activity leads to an increase
in physical stamina which means healthier genes are going to be passed
on when pro creative sex takes place. Sexual desire and sexual activity are
not the same of course. But one however is a natural consequence of the other

It could be argued that non-procreative sex is a waste of time and energy. If one is actively seeking partners and then using energy to have non-productive sex, this comes at the detriment to one's hope for survival. It's a superfluous endeavour which should not be selected for.

Spearthrower · **#15** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 20, 2011 11:22 am

jamest wrote:
epepke wrote:
jamest wrote:... The charge then, is that the Darwinian explanation for our sex-drives falls-short. That is, our sex-drive is not primarily grounded in the need/desire to pass on our genes, or to reproduce 'something like ourselves'. Further, as I see it, Darwinism allows for no [prolonged] attributes of a species which do not:.

That's a mind-bogglingly idiotic statement. Evolution does not care about desire, except inasmuch as desire is one of hundreds of thousands of mechanisms that can, in some cases, improve survival and reproduction.

You've misread me. We, who have sex, do so because of the desire to do so. However, that desire has almost nothing to do with passing on our genes.

Hunger is nothing to do with eating.

jamest wrote:This is reflected in our diverse choice of sexual partners (some which are even inanimate, apparently!). What I'm saying is that this seems to be at-odds with a theory which promotes the idea that only those attributes best-geared for survival and reproduction, will be selected for.

You seem to be constructing a notion that evolution has produced perfect outcomes, and thereby suggesting its wrong. This is not an accusatory attempt to incite an argument with you, but you have to be aware that this is simply a strawman?

Evolution is trial and error. Unselected baggage can come along for the ride, just so long as it's not detrimental. Sexual drive induces organisms to reproduce. Even if they occasionally fuck inanimate objects, the net outcome is better than having no sexual drive.

jamest · **#16** by **jamest** » Nov 20, 2011 11:29 am

Fenrir wrote:
jamest wrote:Just to be clear, there are two distinct charges here:

1) That evolution shouldn't be producing an abundance of individuals who want to have non-reproductive sex.

Why not? Sex is sex, the occurrence of sex surely increases the occurrence of sex with reproductive potential.

True, but only the genes of those individuals who want to have sex with partners of a different gender, will be passed on. Therefore, one would expect desire for non-productive sex to be weeded-out.

As an aside, why would the presence of individuals with different wiring for mate selection not increase the variability in a population thereby increasing the material available for selection to act on?

I would say that those with a 'different wiring for mate selection', will not be contributing to the reproduction process. Therefore, their genes should not be selected for, as they won't be reproduced.

Evolution can provide rational explanations for all this behaviour, and it has (though it's early days yet so the models will probably become more refined as more data becomes available).

Well, I'd like to hear those theories.

Zwaarddijk · **#17** by **Zwaarddijk** » Nov 20, 2011 11:30 am

jamest wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:Why should what we think of or desire out of something and what it has evolved for necessarily have any connection?

One would think that sexual desire should be related to the need to pass on genes, given Darwinism. Therefore, sexual desire should be all about wanting to reproduce 'something like me'. Of course, the sex-drive is nothing like that.

Fallacy! What we think about something and the results obtained may not be the same. Evolution needs results, and therefore anything that leads to those results will do, EDIT: if it does so more successfully than other solution/EDIT. Most species on this world probably don't even have a complex enough understanding of causality to realize that sex leads to offspring. And why should evolution create such a complex mental machinery in order to make it obvious why everyone's having sex, when it can do it more easily by making sex pleasurable?

Those who desire more sex than others would, until recent times, get more offspring in the average case.

Yes, but this is not the case for those with a sex-drive whose particular desires/activities will not reproduce offspring.

Which already was explained in my response to you: And other things, of course, are involved than just that - whatever function causes homosexuality, it may very well be a by-effect of some evolved mechanism of some kind.

And other things, of course, are involved than just that - whatever function causes homosexuality, it may very well be a by-effect of some evolved mechanism of some kind.

What?

... You can't make stuff up like that without some sort of justification.

Did you know that evolution has made humans more likely to die from suffocation than our ancestors? Isn't this maladaptive?

EDIT: anyways, the functions involved in sex are also involved in other aspects of human existence; these things can combine to create unselected-for results. Also, since sex is pleasurable and humans are fertile more or less constantly, this does cause a risk for the tribe - too many mouths to feed isn't a good situation either, hence sex that doesn't produce offspring balances this - the neural network gets satisfied by the sex, and the tribe isn't burdened with yet another mouth to feed + a woman with slightly diminished abilities (and increased risk of dying) for a few months.

Evolution doesn't even try and predict what it will cause,

Explicit within the ToEvolution is that attributes not best-served for survival or reproduction will be weeded-out.

Our larynx. Case closed.

Post-menstrual women may very well have benefits as well - as experienced individuals, they have knowledge that can contribute to tribal survival, and as females, they can in a society with some kind of gender separation, keep traditions relevant for female survival and efficiency running in a better way than just having old men around.

Perhaps. Yet again, if they could do all that and still produce babies...

[/quote]
Evolution doesn't pick what mutations occur - evolution picks which mutations that have occurred survive.

I think you're expecting too much of a human behaviour out of evolution - as though it was a reasoning agent in the universe. It's not. The entire idea that evolution should cause sexual desire to be all about wanting to reproduce 'something like me' is actually not just misguided, it's stupid.

Ihavenofingerprints · **#18** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Nov 20, 2011 11:58 am

jamest wrote:
... Therefore, according to the Theory of Evolution [as I see it], there should not be an abundance of gay/lesbian people, or of any other kind of people who have sex with no hope of reproduction as its yield. An abundance of such individuals, with such desires/attributes, should not exist... since 'evolution' [apparently] selects for the best survivors and the most proficient reproducers. As I see it, gays; lesbians; post-menstrual women; etc., should have been ~phased out~ long ago.

This is an extremely one dimensional view of evolutionary theory. I'm sure there are no shortage of explanations for the existence of gay people in the scientific literature, if only you bothered to look.

Natural selection can favor a certain trait that alters the genetic makeup in a way that may cause other changes in behavior.

For example if natural selection favors bigger brains/smarter humans. And smarter humans generally find a wider range of other humans attractive - ie: they find personality more attractive than psychical attributes. Evolutionary theory would probably predict a small rise in the gay population as a result.

Time after time - examples (like this) disproving evolution are actually evidence of evolution in action. It's all well and good to ask questions to the experts on this forum (I enjoy reading what they have to say). But every thread I've seen on here posing an argument against evolution is just a massive case of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Scar · **#19** by **Scar** » Nov 20, 2011 12:04 pm

Jamest, please either study some science or stick to philosophy. All this thread shows is your ignorance.

Fenrir · **#20** by **Fenrir** » Nov 20, 2011 12:51 pm

jamest wrote:
Fenrir wrote:

Evolution can provide rational explanations for all this behaviour, and it has (though it's early days yet so the models will probably become more refined as more data becomes available).

Well, I'd like to hear those theories.

No need, you can read about them yourself. Look up Kin Selection and Group Selection, whole branches of evolutionary science dealing with this very topic.