Science isn’t a religion? Oh dear. Science may be a useful religion, but it is still simply that. Suggestion: read Feyerabend’s “Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.”

I see that my project of saving you from the clutches of idiots will take longer than I’d expected.

Wow… have I ever been away for awhile.

LOL, I knew you’d have something to say! But as it happens, I disagree with all three of your points.

While our social structure may not condone rape (debatable), our genes do. Therefore, a biting vagina would not be an evolutionary advantage.

Here you fall into the same trap as several previous commenters: namely, you fail to ask, “evolutionary advantage to whom?” If a gene for biting vaginas were sufficiently advantageous for the females who had it, then it would spread regardless of its effects on the population as a whole.

It was my impression that Darwinian evolution worked through a process of spontaneous mutation… small changes over a long period of time. How can we slowly evolve teeth in our vaginas?

If this argument were valid, it would work not only against teeth in vaginas, but also against teeth in mouths! Where did the first teeth come from, anyway? Suffice it to say that complex adaptations, like teeth, eyes, brains, etc., can and do arise via sequences of tiny mutations. Dawkins, and for that matter Darwin himself, have both written lucidly on this point. Two major ways it happens are (1) “exaptation” of organs that were originally meant for something else, and (2) lots and lots of time.

Are you actually a fan of Popper? If so, I can’t see how you can resign yourself to both falsifiability and Darwinian evolution. Evolution, as Darwin concieved of it, can’t be falsified.

Bullshit. If it were found, for example, that exactly the same finch species arose indigenously in both the Galapagos Islands and in Australia, with nothing like it anywhere in between, that by itself would overthrow Darwinism (in favor of either special creation or else some teleological theory).

As for Popper, my opinion of him is the same as my opinion of most philosophers: namely, that everything he said is either obvious or false. I agree with the obvious things he said, and disagree with the false ones.

“Evolution can’t be falsified? Oh wait–that’s religion…”

1) No, evolution can’t be falsified. Can you think of a way to empirically show that evolution is wrong? Evolution may be verified by our observations, but that does not mean that it is a falsifiable theory. Unfortunately, there are a great many contradictory/wrong theories out there that can be verified using the scientific method. Hence Popper’s insistence on falsification as the new scientific crtierion.

2) Science isn’t a religion? Oh dear. Science may be a useful religion, but it is still simply that. Suggestion: read Feyerabend’s “Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.” Rather than reading the whole thing, pages 295-309 will get the point across. Amazing read. It’ll blow your mind. Actually, I highly recommend that anyone involved in the sciences read it. I’ll leave you with the quote that Feyerabend starts off the chapter with: “…science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit” (p. 295).

Evolution can’t be falsified? Oh wait–that’s religion…

1) I think The Wumps’ question was a great one, and very relevant: why does rape itself exist? Here’s my thinking on the matter. Human genetic makeup has changed very little since we evolved from chimps (if I’m remembering my biology classes right). Evolution takes time… LOTS and LOTS of time. Thus, the changes that we have observed in humans since our chimpanzee days are largely of a social/cultural nature. So, according to our genetic makeup, male aggression may actually be seen as a favourable quality as it is in the animal kingdom (the alpha male). While our social structure may not condone rape (debatable), our genes do. Therefore, a biting vagina would not be an evolutionary advantage. (Note: I can’t believe I’m arguing for the adaptiveness of rape. I feel dirty).

2) It was my impression that Darwinian evolution worked through a process of spontaneous mutation… small changes over a long period of time. How can we slowly evolve teeth in our vaginas? More to the point, I thought Darwinian evolution was supposed to be random… small random mutations that either work or don’t work. OR traits that are normally distributed in the poulation that, due to changes in the environment, become more or less adaptive (i.e. the big beaked/small beaked bird example). The evolution of a biting vagina would be more of a Lamarckian question, since this would be an all-or-nothing change in direct response to the society that can be passed on to offspring. This sort of theory was tried out in the former USSR to breed new generations of communtists. Not surprisingly, it didn’t work.

3) Are you actually a fan of Popper? If so, I can’t see how you can resign yourself to both falsifiability and Darwinian evolution. Evolution, as Darwin concieved of it, can’t be falsified. In fact, Popper himself even argues against it in his writings. It’s right up there in his mind with Freudian Psychoanalysis (which you poo-pooed near the beginning of this comments section). This is exactly why I have a problem with Darwinian evolution (that and the evils it has spawned in psychology due to the misrepresentations of Darwin’s original ideas on the part of Spencer and Galton). So, my question: are you actually a fan of Popper? If so, how do you reconcile the two ideas? If not, well, nevermind.

http://www.vaginaswithteeth.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_female_condom

Also, being raped doesn’t really affect a woman’s ability to pass along her genes at all. You might as well ask why we haven’t evolved USB ports to download data directly to our brains, it would certanly be convienent.

thanks for the fine imagery – “Biting Vaginas”.

In nature, I don’t know if rape occurs often but I think it’s probably harder to do. From nature shows they often mention that the male approaches the female to see if she is receptive and if she isn’t the male goes away. I would think that the reason for this is that a female animal is much more dangerous to the male of the species because that female probably has sharp teeth and claws. Again from nature shows they seem to indicate that animals (even lions) fear injury because it would affect their ability to feed themselves and/or they could also die.