Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sex and the Sex drive
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 16 of 36 (4770)
02-16-2002 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 4:06 PM


Quote: Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"--Nipples ... are a sexual stimulant..."
Only if you rub them against your chest.
Quote from AiG link:
"Human embryos are sexually dimorphic at first (i.e. contain characteristics of both sexes), because they all have basically the same genetic information..."
Nonsense. They do NOT contain SEXUAL characteristics of both sexes. They contain characteristics of the x chromosome. Only when the y chromosome comes into play do they begin to show male characteristics.
The embryo is "remodeled" upon influence of the y chromosome. The proto vagina withers to become a ligament. The proto clitoris wraps around the eurethra to become a penis. The proto ovaries are converted to testes.
Consider this: Mammary glands are present in the adult male, but do not "normally" develop to their full potential. During puberty, when the hormone producing glands are kicking in, hormonal balance between estrogen and testosterone is sometimes a bit off. When this happens, the male nipple may be observed to exude a milky substance. There are a few unlucky males whose mammaries fully develop. I know one young fellow who has had breast-reduction surgery, twice!
Without influence of the y chromosome, all mammals would develop into females.
Quote: Dr. Safarti
"... this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’."
Hardly!
Please Note:
AIG is not a scientific source, and Dr. Sarfati is a chess champion with degrees in Chemistry. He is out of his element here.
------------------
If God wanted nudists,
We'd be born naked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 4:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 8:38 PM doctrbill has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 36 (4784)
02-16-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by doctrbill
02-16-2002 7:46 PM


"Only if you rub them against your chest."
--Exactly, its a sexual stimulant, your not going to reach sexual climax by just standing there are you? (atleast for most people)
"Nonsense. They do NOT contain SEXUAL characteristics of both sexes. They contain characteristics of the x chromosome. Only when the y chromosome comes into play do they begin to show male characteristics.
The embryo is "remodeled" upon influence of the y chromosome. The proto vagina withers to become a ligament. The proto clitoris wraps around the eurethra to become a penis. The proto ovaries are converted to testes."
--Yes, you attain sexual characteristics of both the male and the female at about week 5 when most human characteristics begin taking form. Not untill about the 8th week can gender be detected. As is stated in any Human anatomy and physiology textbook.
"Consider this: Mammary glands are present in the adult male, but do not "normally" develop to their full potential. During puberty, when the hormone producing glands are kicking in, hormonal balance between estrogen and testosterone is sometimes a bit off. When this happens, the male nipple may be observed to exude a milky substance. There are a few unlucky males whose mammaries fully develop. I know one young fellow who has had breast-reduction surgery, twice!"
--Thats unfortunate, and I am well aware of these implications. It was an interesting topic in Biology. If you were to stimulate the male mammary glands for about a week you would get approx 1 tbsp of 'milk'. I thought that was pretty nuts when I heard that one.
"Without influence of the y chromosome, all mammals would develop into females."
--G-whiz, wouldn't that suck.
"Hardly!"
--I was never aware of the 'urban myth that human embryos 'start off female'', but I know it isn't true, you attain no detectable gender related anatomistic characteristics untill about the 5th week of embryonic development.
"Please Note:
AIG is not a scientific source, and Dr. Sarfati is a chess champion with degrees in Chemistry. He is out of his element here."
--'Hardly!', see above.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by doctrbill, posted 02-16-2002 7:46 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 02-16-2002 11:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 18 of 36 (4796)
02-16-2002 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 8:38 PM


TC - "Nipples are a sexual stimulant"
db - "Only if you rub them against your chest."
TC --"Exactly, its a sexual stimulant"
Son, Is your vocabularly really that limited, or do you fail to understand the relationship of cause and effect?
TC - "you attain sexual characteristics of both the male and the female at about week 5 ..."
Male characteristics are modified from female ones.
"... As is stated in any Human anatomy and physiology textbook."
Cite any.
db - "Without influence of the y chromosome, all mammals would develop into females."
TC --G-whiz, wouldn't that suck. --I was never aware of the 'urban myth that human embryos 'start off female'', but I know it isn't true.
This is the first time you have considered this question isn't it? Use your reasoning capacity TC. If all mammals would be female, without the influence of the y chromosome, then how can you have male characteristics BEFORE the y chromosome is expressed? You can't.
Remember, AIG is not a scientific source, it is a Religious one, And Dr. Sarfati is out of his element.
I suspect that you, Safarti and AIG are concerned that the facts of the matter run contrary to holy scripture. Yes? If so, answer me this:
According to Genesis chapter one, which human was created first, male or female?
Welcome to the real world, where everything is not as you thought, and nothing is the same as it was in your childhood.
-----------------
db
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College
[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 8:38 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 02-17-2002 1:33 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 02-17-2002 10:35 PM doctrbill has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 36 (4830)
02-17-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by redstang281
02-16-2002 6:27 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] In nature there is a strong desire to want sex. Why would anything have sex without first having the desire for sex?[/QUOTE]
Um, plants reproduce sexually, but have no sex drive.
You are conflating the type of reproduction with theact of reproduction.
quote:
Also, reproducing creates more competition for food. Why not just evolve to live forever?
Natural systems wear out, or you get eaten.
An individual's "job", in an evolutionary sense, is to pass on it's genes. After it's done that, there is not much reason to stick around.
From a genetic standpoint, IOW, your children aren't competition, they're you.
quote:
I could possibly see this question being answered with "that is something we are still evolving towards." If that is the answer from an evolutionist standpoint then why would the earliest life forms live shorter life spans? What sets that limitation of life to begin with?
Nobody prposes that we should live forever.
[/b][/QUOTE]
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by redstang281, posted 02-16-2002 6:27 PM redstang281 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 36 (4831)
02-17-2002 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by doctrbill
02-16-2002 11:20 PM


[QUOTE] Welcome to the real world, where everything is not as you thought, and nothing is the same as it was in your childhood.
-----------------
db
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College
[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-16-2002]
[/B][/QUOTE]
Dr Bill, first I'd like to say HI!!!
Second, I'd like you to realize that TC is still in their childhood, as they are only 15 years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 02-16-2002 11:20 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 02-17-2002 3:24 PM nator has not replied
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-17-2002 3:28 PM nator has not replied
 Message 24 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2002 5:45 PM nator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 36 (4837)
02-17-2002 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
02-17-2002 1:33 PM


z
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Dr Bill, first I'd like to say HI!!!
Second, I'd like you to realize that TC is still in their childhood, as they are only 15 years old.

TC plural?
Is there more than 1?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 02-17-2002 1:33 PM nator has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 22 of 36 (4838)
02-17-2002 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
02-17-2002 1:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Second, I'd like you to realize that TC is still in their childhood, as they are only 15 years old.

If TC is anything like I was at 15 years old - he/she is better qualified to talk about the sex drive than most anyone on the forum!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 02-17-2002 1:33 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by KingPenguin, posted 02-17-2002 5:32 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 25 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2002 5:58 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 02-17-2002 10:37 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 23 of 36 (4848)
02-17-2002 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mister Pamboli
02-17-2002 3:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
If TC is anything like I was at 15 years old - he/she is better qualified to talk about the sex drive than most anyone on the forum!
hehehehehehehehe damn straight. i think schraf forgot to put me and cobra with tc in his statement before
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-17-2002 3:28 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 24 of 36 (4850)
02-17-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
02-17-2002 1:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Second, I'd like you to realize that TC is ... only 15 years old.

Hi Schraff,
Thanks for the heads up. It explains a lot!
------------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 02-17-2002 1:33 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 02-17-2002 10:40 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 25 of 36 (4852)
02-17-2002 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mister Pamboli
02-17-2002 3:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
"If TC is anything like I was at 15 years old - he/she is better qualified to talk about the sex drive than most anyone on the forum!"
Feeling the sex drive is one thing. Dealing with it, learning to live with it, and understanding it well enough to talk about it, are something else.
I studied science to understand why I have the drive; and religion to find a loophole in the law.
----------------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-17-2002 3:28 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 36 (4884)
02-17-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by doctrbill
02-16-2002 11:20 PM


"Son, Is your vocabularly really that limited, or do you fail to understand the relationship of cause and effect?"
--Your not arroused by this action? I think there is a defect in understanding here.
"Male characteristics are modified from female ones."
--Quote - Human Anatomy and Physiology Second Edition - Elaine N. Marieb Page 967.
quote:
The external reproductive organs are undifferentiated until about the eighth week of gestation. During the indifferent stage, all embryos have a conical elevation called the genital tubercle, which has a ventrical opening called the urethral groove. the groove is surrounded by urethral folds, which in turn are bounded by the libioscrotal swellings.
"Cite any."
--See above.
"This is the first time you have considered this question isn't it? Use your reasoning capacity TC. If all mammals would be female, without the influence of the y chromosome, then how can you have male characteristics BEFORE the y chromosome is expressed? You can't."
--Exactly, their indifferent, see above. On a genetic level you can postulate gender, but they are anatomically indifferent untill the 5th week.
"I suspect that you, Safarti and AIG are concerned that the facts of the matter run contrary to holy scripture. Yes? If so, answer me this:
According to Genesis chapter one, which human was created first, male or female?"
--Thats a toughy! The Male, the order of creation has nothing to do with embryonic developmental structure.
"Welcome to the real world, where everything is not as you thought, and nothing is the same as it was in your childhood."
--'Welcomes himself to the real world', hows come its not any different, mabye cause I was in the real world...
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 02-16-2002 11:20 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 02-18-2002 1:07 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 36 (4885)
02-17-2002 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mister Pamboli
02-17-2002 3:28 PM


"If TC is anything like I was at 15 years old - he/she is better qualified to talk about the sex drive than most anyone on the forum! "
--lol, this is where you make great use of the smileys
, I've made my mistakes in the past.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-17-2002 3:28 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 36 (4887)
02-17-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by doctrbill
02-17-2002 5:45 PM


"Thanks for the heads up. It explains a lot!"
--Yes it does doesn't it? Now what would that be to explain now? I think it is evident I am much less ignorant than some in the forum (not to mention names), such is the debate, you will find your duds, and you will find your intelligent conversations.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2002 5:45 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 29 of 36 (4899)
02-18-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by TrueCreation
02-17-2002 10:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill
"According to Genesis chapter one, which human was created first, male or female?"

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation
"... The Male, the order of creation has nothing to do with embryonic developmental structure."

"male and female created he them" on the sixth day. Gen. 1:27.
They are apparently spoken into existence simultaneously, like everything else is in the first chapter of Genesis.
The second chapter gives a quite different scenario wherein the male is formed as a sculpture and then animated by breathing into his nostrils. The female is made sometime later, after it has become apparent that the male can find no suitable mate among the animals.
The male is formed out of soil, but the female is made via a surgical proceedure: a rib is removed from the male and used to form the body of the female.
Were they both, male and female, spoken into existence on the sixth day?
Or was the male sculpted and then animated, and the female subsequently constructed from a rib of the man?
Chapter two certainly makes it clear that the male was made first.
Chapter one strongly suggests that they appeared simultaneously by the miraculous power of God's spoken command.
This is why I ask the question regarding which came first.
The Bible presents two alternatives, two theories if you will.
Chapter one presents the sexes as having equal status: both of them sharing the mastery of all life in the universe (heaven, earth and sea); both of them living in a world that was "very good."
Chapter two presents the male as the pre-eminent one and the female as a derivation of him: both of them workers on a plantation; both of them failing the test of loyalty; both of them losing their jobs, being placed on probation, and expelled from the plantation to the thorny desert outside its gate.
-----------
db
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 02-17-2002 10:35 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 05-14-2002 9:44 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 30 of 36 (9627)
05-14-2002 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by doctrbill
02-18-2002 1:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
"male and female created he them" on the sixth day. Gen. 1:27.
They are apparently spoken into existence simultaneously, like everything else is in the first chapter of Genesis.
The second chapter gives a quite different scenario wherein the male is formed as a sculpture and then animated by breathing into his nostrils. The female is made sometime later, after it has become apparent that the male can find no suitable mate among the animals.
The male is formed out of soil, but the female is made via a surgical proceedure: a rib is removed from the male and used to form the body of the female.
Were they both, male and female, spoken into existence on the sixth day?
Or was the male sculpted and then animated, and the female subsequently constructed from a rib of the man?
Chapter two certainly makes it clear that the male was made first.
Chapter one strongly suggests that they appeared simultaneously by the miraculous power of God's spoken command.
This is why I ask the question regarding which came first.
The Bible presents two alternatives, two theories if you will.
Chapter one presents the sexes as having equal status: both of them sharing the mastery of all life in the universe (heaven, earth and sea); both of them living in a world that was "very good."
Chapter two presents the male as the pre-eminent one and the female as a derivation of him: both of them workers on a plantation; both of them failing the test of loyalty; both of them losing their jobs, being placed on probation, and expelled from the plantation to the thorny desert outside its gate.
-----------
db

I think that Adam and Eve were NOT the first humans created.
In Genesis 1 God creates the whole world (and universe) and populates
it.
Then in chapter 2 he creates Eden, puts his special Adam in it,
and calls forth all manner of useful animals to live in
eden and for Adam to have dominion over. Eve follows later.
If this interpretation were viable, then there should be mention
of people other than Adam's family within genesis ... oh wait ..
Kane went to the land of Nod and knew his wife!!!
PS [by edit]:: This would also put a dent in YEC aging of the
universe because there is no time span defined between creating
the human race and creating Adam in eden.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 02-18-2002 1:07 AM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by compmage, posted 05-15-2002 1:58 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 3:00 AM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024