Amos

You mean to confirm that only sex is required for reproduction? Some of us, and increasingly more of us, can have sex without ever being able to reproduce, and that was my point. Of course, if everything 'is' right and if everything 'goes' right (because it is beyond our comprehension or control) you would be right. In that case sex makes babies because no sex means no babies. Lucky for us we have sex organs, wouldn't you agree?

Amos

Causality has been proven with statistics only and does not explian for smokers who do not get lung cancer.

I can prove my hypothesis scientifically when artificial hormone induction changes our sexuality from male to female and vice versa. Our gender equal society does this mentally in a much slower way. Just put female body builders on a slippery slope and you will arrive at fertility problems immediatly.

Ms. Siv

I dont understand your point.

Mine was that our genetic programs may be the what-is but need not be the what ought to be .
Thats why we have practices like contraception and adoption .

- S.

Amos

Hello Sivakami, it is nothing to be upset over.

You wrote. 2. The is-ought fallacy. We're here today because of sex. Because our genes programmed us in such a way as to enjoy it .... they got themselves propogated down the generations.

My correction was that we are here not just because of sex because creation and conception must take place prior to sex for a 'living' sperm to be conceived in a 'vital' ovum. I used the word created to identify the independent life of the sperm and the vitality of life in the ovum.

There is no joy in genes because pleasure and pain are illusions and our genes are not.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Jagged

Pseudo-scientific doublespeak. When's the last time you took a research methods class?

If your hypothesis is true, why can you not prove it NOW?

If you can offer no proof, why should we believe you?