Poll: (Thought Experiment) Understanding Anatomy.

[Khada]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

Please explain to me how the theory of evolution, as it relates to man, would say you are right, as I have been suggesting the opposite. Humanity came into being as the group slowly changed and adapted, not two crazy, unsocialized, feral ancestors.
Or is your point that the theory states that it is every species's primary goal to survive and procreate? The last one I'll give you. As a whole, people do want to continue on as a species. As two humans who have never encountered other humans before and may not identify them as equals or even similar beings, I believe not.

I'll not do the argument its due justice but lets give it a go.

From your post I'll assume you know about natural selection. In this case the relevant point would be that instinctual procreation is contained within the genes along with what you might call the 'DNA memory' for how to do it. This is supported by an array of species both present and past who are not nurtured from birth or 'taught' how to procreate and yet instinctively know how to reproduce. A key point to take here is that no creature needs to be 'socialised' to know how to reproduce. If the information of how was not successfully stored withing our DNA, we would not have survived long enough to develop brains in the first place.

I'll certainly admit that two feral humans may not copulate as willingly or successfully as their common place modern day counterparts but it would be a non sequator to suggest they would not know how.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

Please explain to me how the theory of evolution, as it relates to man, would say you are right, as I have been suggesting the opposite. Humanity came into being as the group slowly changed and adapted, not two crazy, unsocialized, feral ancestors.
Or is your point that the theory states that it is every species's primary goal to survive and procreate? The last one I'll give you. As a whole, people do want to continue on as a species. As two humans who have never encountered other humans before and may not identify them as equals or even similar beings, I believe not.

I'll not do the argument its due justice but lets give it a go.

From your post I'll assume you know about natural selection. In this case the relevant point would be that instinctual procreation is contained within the genes along with what you might call the 'DNA memory' for how to do it. This is supported by an array of species both present and past who are not nurtured from birth or 'taught' how to procreate and yet instinctively know how to reproduce. A key point to take here is that no creature needs to be 'socialised' to know how to reproduce. If the information of how was not successfully stored withing our DNA, we would not have survived long enough to develop brains in the first place.

I'll certainly admit that two feral humans may not copulate as willingly or successfully as their common place modern day counterparts but it would be a non sequator to suggest they would not know how.

You could be right, and doing all the experiments to prove that idea wrong would be both difficult and unethical, usually both. However, just because it is unlikely anybody is going to do a test that will prove you wrong doesn't mean you are right. There are any traits we no longer possess that our ancestors did. We no longer have tails, we no longer have fur in most places, we no longer have arms long enough to be front legs. Now this doesn't mean that we no longer possess the necessary genetic information, because it is quite possible we still do considering how much of our genetics are just unused. Instead, we just don't focus on these traits anymore, they no longer matter to us.
It is quite possible that the knowledge and possibly even the drive to procreate has been sidelined at this point, simply because we no longer need it since we'll teach ourselves anyway. As a comparison, consider how important walking on two legs is to us biologically. Our spines, heads, and arms are all very adapted to this situation rather than walking on all fours. Yet, our minds will not naturally lead us to walking on two legs over walking on all fours, and the majority of feral humans have walked around predominantly on all fours, probably suffering neck and spinal problems because of this. We lack this natural inclination towards our natural behaviors because we will teach ourselves to walk on two legs anyway, so why force it into the already huge list of behaviors we have to develop naturally.
Furthermore, before you try to point out sex drive being in some more basic region of the brains, remember that motor skills are as well, meaning this analogy is quite appropriate. I would say our nature gives us the drive and capacity to mate and raise children, and socialization fills in the gaps.

 

[Khada]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

Please explain to me how the theory of evolution, as it relates to man, would say you are right, as I have been suggesting the opposite. Humanity came into being as the group slowly changed and adapted, not two crazy, unsocialized, feral ancestors.
Or is your point that the theory states that it is every species's primary goal to survive and procreate? The last one I'll give you. As a whole, people do want to continue on as a species. As two humans who have never encountered other humans before and may not identify them as equals or even similar beings, I believe not.

I'll not do the argument its due justice but lets give it a go.

From your post I'll assume you know about natural selection. In this case the relevant point would be that instinctual procreation is contained within the genes along with what you might call the 'DNA memory' for how to do it. This is supported by an array of species both present and past who are not nurtured from birth or 'taught' how to procreate and yet instinctively know how to reproduce. A key point to take here is that no creature needs to be 'socialised' to know how to reproduce. If the information of how was not successfully stored withing our DNA, we would not have survived long enough to develop brains in the first place.

I'll certainly admit that two feral humans may not copulate as willingly or successfully as their common place modern day counterparts but it would be a non sequator to suggest they would not know how.

You could be right, and doing all the experiments to prove that idea wrong would be both difficult and unethical, usually both. However, just because it is unlikely anybody is going to do a test that will prove you wrong doesn't mean you are right. There are any traits we no longer possess that our ancestors did. We no longer have tails, we no longer have fur in most places, we no longer have arms long enough to be front legs. Now this doesn't mean that we no longer possess the necessary genetic information, because it is quite possible we still do considering how much of our genetics are just unused. Instead, we just don't focus on these traits anymore, they no longer matter to us.
It is quite possible that the knowledge and possibly even the drive to procreate has been sidelined at this point, simply because we no longer need it since we'll teach ourselves anyway. As a comparison, consider how important walking on two legs is to us biologically. Our spines, heads, and arms are all very adapted to this situation rather than walking on all fours. Yet, our minds will not naturally lead us to walking on two legs over walking on all fours, and the majority of feral humans have walked around predominantly on all fours, probably suffering neck and spinal problems because of this. We lack this natural inclination towards our natural behaviors because we will teach ourselves to walk on two legs anyway, so why force it into the already huge list of behaviors we have to develop naturally.
Furthermore, before you try to point out sex drive being in some more basic region of the brains, remember that motor skills are as well, meaning this analogy is quite appropriate. I would say our nature gives us the drive and capacity to mate and raise children, and socialization fills in the gaps.

I'm not sure I follow. Is "I would say our nature gives us the drive and capacity to mate and raise children" an admission that the desire to procreate is instinctual?

Either way, I've made my case as best I can. It's up to you what validity you give it. I would think it extremely unlikely that we have grown out of our natural instincts for procreation given the surmountable evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for the chat and sharing your view.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The theory of evolution would say; yes, they can.
(note: theory is not the same an hypothesis).

Please explain to me how the theory of evolution, as it relates to man, would say you are right, as I have been suggesting the opposite. Humanity came into being as the group slowly changed and adapted, not two crazy, unsocialized, feral ancestors.
Or is your point that the theory states that it is every species's primary goal to survive and procreate? The last one I'll give you. As a whole, people do want to continue on as a species. As two humans who have never encountered other humans before and may not identify them as equals or even similar beings, I believe not.

I'll not do the argument its due justice but lets give it a go.

From your post I'll assume you know about natural selection. In this case the relevant point would be that instinctual procreation is contained within the genes along with what you might call the 'DNA memory' for how to do it. This is supported by an array of species both present and past who are not nurtured from birth or 'taught' how to procreate and yet instinctively know how to reproduce. A key point to take here is that no creature needs to be 'socialised' to know how to reproduce. If the information of how was not successfully stored withing our DNA, we would not have survived long enough to develop brains in the first place.

I'll certainly admit that two feral humans may not copulate as willingly or successfully as their common place modern day counterparts but it would be a non sequator to suggest they would not know how.

You could be right, and doing all the experiments to prove that idea wrong would be both difficult and unethical, usually both. However, just because it is unlikely anybody is going to do a test that will prove you wrong doesn't mean you are right. There are any traits we no longer possess that our ancestors did. We no longer have tails, we no longer have fur in most places, we no longer have arms long enough to be front legs. Now this doesn't mean that we no longer possess the necessary genetic information, because it is quite possible we still do considering how much of our genetics are just unused. Instead, we just don't focus on these traits anymore, they no longer matter to us.
It is quite possible that the knowledge and possibly even the drive to procreate has been sidelined at this point, simply because we no longer need it since we'll teach ourselves anyway. As a comparison, consider how important walking on two legs is to us biologically. Our spines, heads, and arms are all very adapted to this situation rather than walking on all fours. Yet, our minds will not naturally lead us to walking on two legs over walking on all fours, and the majority of feral humans have walked around predominantly on all fours, probably suffering neck and spinal problems because of this. We lack this natural inclination towards our natural behaviors because we will teach ourselves to walk on two legs anyway, so why force it into the already huge list of behaviors we have to develop naturally.
Furthermore, before you try to point out sex drive being in some more basic region of the brains, remember that motor skills are as well, meaning this analogy is quite appropriate. I would say our nature gives us the drive and capacity to mate and raise children, and socialization fills in the gaps.

I'm not sure I follow. Is "I would say our nature gives us the drive and capacity to mate and raise children" an admission that the desire to procreate is instinctual?

Either way, I've made my case as best I can. It's up to you what validity you give it. I would think it extremely unlikely that we have grown out of our natural instincts for procreation given the surmountable evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for the chat and sharing your view.

I do believe we have a drive to procreate, but I think it's really an after the fact drive. When I was talking about it I was referring to the strong emotions felt after and during sex as well as a mother's strong feelings towards their offspring. What we've really lost in my opinion is an overriding drive to procreate, for us it seems to just be one of many, and one that we can be conditioned out of. I'd say we've also lost a strong sense of what it is we should be attracted to as well, and an understanding of how to have and raise children. It is something we enjoy doing, but only while we're doing it or when we understand what it is. I do believe we have a desire for sexual gratification, which I think could be before or after the fact, but I don't really think it's that well directed as to how we are supposed to achieve this gratification. This gratification is tied to what we find aesthetically pleasing, but once again I don't think that what we find aesthetically pleasing is always going to be human. I think this sense of aesthetics is developed from observation and conditioning, which could easily often lead to attraction to something inherently inhuman.
In the end, this is all something I'd really love to study more in depth, and studying human sexuality is one of the primary reasons I want to get into the social sciences, specifically sociology. I guess my desire to understand the issue from a sociological perspective may have colored my opinions here, so take that as you may. However, seeing as this is an issue without much research, it is hard to form a decision for either side. The little research I've found seems to support me, but there are far less experiments done than necessary to form a legitimate conclusion.
Here are a couple links dealing with feral children, though it should be understood that they reached their conclusions with somewhat limited data. The incredible one is the second, which shows some data gathered from experiments using monkeys. If anything supports my opinion, it's that one.
http://cogitz.com/2009/09/03/feral-children-living-with-beasts/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Nature-Vs-Nurture---A-Sociological-Approach-to-Feral,-Isolated,-and-Institutionalized-Children&id=2405260