Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!usc!jarthur!wilkins
From: wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex, Babies, and Orgasm
Message-ID: <3797@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 17 Jan 90 00:19:40 GMT
References: <25721@cup.portal.com> <678@banyan.UUCP> <1887@uwm.edu> <1024@khijol.UUCP> <8290@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 17

In article <8290@portia.Stanford.EDU> alderson@jessica.stanford.edu (Rich Alderson) writes:
>In article <1024@khijol.UUCP>, erc@khijol (Edwin R. Carp) writes:
>>Sex was not designed to produce babies *only*
>
>Sex was not designed.

  Sure it was.  Assuming modern evolution as true, the system of living
creatures and their environment changed randomly.  Things which worked
better made it, things which didn't didn't make it.
  If a human being can "design" something, why can't the whole of nature
"design" something?  I've seen humans design things in much the same way.


Argue with me by E-mail.  Alt.sex isn't the place for this.

-- Mark Wilkins
   wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu