Jump to content
Science Forums

Why is Pleasure linked to Procreation?


Apes Anonymous

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody, great forum!

I got here after doing a search in google about a question that's been preoccupying me about evolution. I am no scientist as you'll soon guess, but as most people find evolution to be one of the most fascinating subjects.

I know that Evolution experts agree that mutations are the product of pure chance and that although it might look like "mother nature" has a plan to keep us alive that is not the case. Nature, we are told, has no favorites and merely supports the fittest.

This is a hard concept to swallow for the common man who sees that nature, in fact, rewards all our survival instincts, and it sure looks like we are being forced to survive and procreate. We are, for instance, rewarded by pleasure every time we eat, or engage in sexual intercourse , and are punished by pain or fear when our life is threatened.

Now science tells us That it only looks that way because we are mixing cause and effect, and that we should say: "I'm still alive because nature gave me the instinct of fear." and not the other way around: "Nature gave me the instinct of fear in me in order to keep me alive". The second statement is dead wrong because nature doesn't give a damn if we live or die.

I accept the the theory of evolution as a valid explanation for life, but the hard part for me is to understand how so much incentive to procreate can be given to living beings without any intention on the part of nature. For example, how come the sensation of pleasure is concentrated on the genitals? It is hard to keep the cause-effect order in mind if you know what genitals are for. The first thing that comes to mind is that animals are therefore encouraged to procreate.

I think that when people who believe in Intelligent Design it has more to do with the feeling that nature has an intention than what we are told by religion.

I think that maybe if I understood a bit better how Evolution operates, it might clear my confusion, so I guess my question to the knowledgeable members of this forum is: "How can you explain the development of sensations such as pleasure or pain in evolution and what are the mechanisms that associate them to the survival of a species?" I'll be grateful for any links you can point me to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pleasure and pain are basic indicators of of actions and their rewards. Sex, food, etc. are pleasurable because they in general are positive for viable offspring. Pain indicates things that are generally harmful. Granted as we have grown intelectually we have learned to manipulate these reactions to our advantage with either drugs to induce the brain's chemical reaction to pleasure or over-indulge to the point that it is harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apes Anonymous: And how did copulation ... become pleasurable?

 

Imagine a population with some animals that find pleasure in reproducing (ignore how this first arose, for this topic) and some that don't. Which group, on average, do you think would reproduce more? Those that find it pleasurable. Now, if there is any genetic underpinnings to that pleasurable sensation, then the group that's doing the more reproducing because it's pleasurable will pass on their "sex is pleasurable" genes to their offspring. So the "sex is pleasurable gene(s)" would spread through the population and become fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the answer Telemad, what you said is quite sensible but I think that the part you omitted...

(ignore how this first arose, for this topic)

...is exactly what I'm trying to understand. I apologize for not being very clear. I guess that if I understood how an asexual biological entity evolves into a sexual one, that would solve my problem. I'm afraid that this has to do with the birth of consciousness in animals, because that's a difficult problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it has to do with the birth of consciousness, there is no reason for us to be self-aware to experiance pleasure. Telemad is correct, there is an evolutionary benefit to experiancing pleasure and pain. It would be random mutations, fluctuations in DNA that would cause some people to be more sensitive in some areas than others. The mutations don't necessarily make only the genitals more sensitive, however, those beings that have more sensitive genitals rather than more sensitive [insert other body part here] would have more desire to have sex, resulting in more offspring, who are more likely to have that particular mutation, and spread it.

 

I am more interested in how life moved from organisms that only had one gender to organisms that had two, and why, if having two genders is a benefit, are there no species that have more than two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you pgrmdave for your input.

When I mentioned consciousness I was referring to the ability to "sense" the environment without necessarily reaching the levels that humans have attained. Now I'm starting to doubt if we can attribute consciousness to an organism without a nervous system. So if a "brain" is necessary to experience pleasure sensation, then the early sexual organisms had to have another incentive for mating. Any ideas?

I am more interested in how life moved from organisms that only had one gender to organisms that had two, and why, if having two genders is a benefit, are there no species that have more than two?

Interesting thought, but I think that because 2 is the cheapest way to go, nature would select it over 3 or more because that would be asking too many parters for the survival of the species. So my guess is that if such a species ever developed, chances are it would be extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(ignore how this first arose, for this topic)[TeleMad]

 

...is exactly what I'm trying to understand.

Before animals, there were plants. Before there were plants that attracted insects with nectar, there were (and still are) plants that simply release pollen in the wind (which has been around for quite a while). The pollen simply ends up where it ends up. Some of it will just happen to strike the pistillus of a plant of the same species or at least compatible. There you are, neither pleasure nor pain. When insects began to find nourishment in the secretions of plant genitals, they brought an advantage to those plants. If the insects were attracted more to some plants and less to others, even specimens of the same species, guess which ones got the most reproductive advantage?

 

Now, of course, you might shift the question to: How then did the pollen mechanism come about? Or, how did the insects come about? Or, how did animal forms come about? Or, how did photosynthesis come about? Or, How did multicellular forms and cell differentiation come about?

 

Nobody knows each and every detail of the whole chain but, with a bit of insight, we can nevertheless understand the overall picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm starting to doubt if we can attribute consciousness to an organism without a nervous system. So if a "brain" is necessary to experience pleasure sensation, then the early sexual organisms had to have another incentive for mating. Any ideas?
I've had that kind of doubt for quite a while but I'm not all that worried by it. :)

 

Replace the notion of pleasure with other reactions to stimuli, even at a more molecular level. What makes a protozoan struggle to ingest a bit of food, and not a speck of something useless or even harmful? One could even say it smells the food and goes up the gradient of concentration. It's all one cell, unlike us it can't have the same organs, the same nervous system etc... Its parts are, mainly, different proteins and these are able to fold and unfold according to conditions. These macromolecules are complicated mechanisms, able to exploit chemical energy nonthermally. Heat only comes in as necessary for diffusion.

 

How did all this come about? The steps from the organic soup to the first cells haven't been quite agreed on but I think I can see a few things through the mist, even though I'm not a biologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thought, but I think that because 2 is the cheapest way to go, nature would select it over 3 or more because that would be asking too many parters for the survival of the species. So my guess is that if such a species ever developed, chances are it would be extinct.
I don't quite fully agree but I do agree that 3 wouldn't have terribly more advantage over 2. Two makes the big difference as to diversity amongst offspring. In some cases it might be too much to ask in many cases it would not be a problem. In a sense, there are many examples of more than two, just not at the cellular level. Even on the same heat, females of some species usually have several siblings and might have let more than one guy have a go at it.

 

Basically I'd say that a scheme for actually more than 2 cells simply didn't show up and wasn't likely to, if it did it brought hardly an advantage, especially compared to promiscuity, although not necessarily so crushingly condemned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replace the notion of pleasure with other reactions to stimuli, even at a more molecular level. What makes a protozoan struggle to ingest a bit of food, and not a speck of something useless or even harmful?

 

Thanks for the info. I guess that sexual reproduction could be envisaged for a primitive organism if we accept the idea of digestion without sensual gratification (since no equivalent of a brain).

But regarding the species which acquired sexual pleasure, when would you suppose they appeared? What I want to know is do all the living beings with the "Pleasurable-sex gene(s)" have the same ancestor or is it more likely that the gene appeared in different species independently? Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. I guess that sexual reproduction could be envisaged for a primitive organism if we accept the idea of digestion without sensual gratification (since no equivalent of a brain).

But regarding the species which acquired sexual pleasure, when would you suppose they appeared? What I want to know is do all the living beings with the "Pleasurable-sex gene(s)" have the same ancestor or is it more likely that the gene appeared in different species independently? Any thoughts?

It is my understanding that many physical activities that permit our survival, such as sex, nursing infants, feeding, fear, etc...produce endorphins that change the moods of our brains. So I suggest you look for the first species when the ability to produce endorphens became a selected genetic trait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But regarding the species which acquired sexual pleasure, when would you suppose they appeared? What I want to know is do all the living beings with the "Pleasurable-sex gene(s)" have the same ancestor or is it more likely that the gene appeared in different species independently? Any thoughts?

 

As far as I know, Bonobos are the only other species that have been determined to have sex simply for pleasure like humans. Even their chimpanzee cousins only have reproductive sex. Sexually speaking, the genitals of bonobo females are rotated forward like those of human females, so that they can have face-to-face sex like humans. Bonobos share all kinds of the same sexual pleasures as humans, including cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation, massage, bisexuality, incest, body-licking, sex in different positions and group sex. They are also our closest cousins in the primate world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chimps are.

 

If you'd like to be specific, bonobos are chimps, specifically pan paniscus. The common chimp, which is usually referred to as pan troglodytes, is actually a diverse group containg several subspecies. You can see this in the Taxonomy Browser of the NCBI. Some studies report the commonality of pan paniscus as high as 99.6% with that of humans while that of pan troglodytes usually ranges from 98.5% to 99.4%. Of all in the chimpanzee family, pan paniscus, the bonobo, is the most closely related. There is an article here on the sequence diversity in chimpanzees you might be interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd like to be specific, bonobos are chimps...

 

 

 

I quickly found two references that say bonobo’s and chimps are two different species.

 

At first assumed to be a slightly smaller sub-species of chimpanzee, the bonobo was originally called a pygmy chimp. A few years after the Belgian discovery, however, the bonobo was accorded its place as a distinct species alongside the other great apes: gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan.

(http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/bonobo.html)

 

Only identified as a species separate from chimps in 1929, bonobos intrigue biologists … (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_03.html)

 

 

I also found sites that speak of chimps and bonobos as being two separate species.

 

There used to be many species of apes, but most are now extinct. The six remaining ape species: the "lesser apes" are the gibbon and siamang. The "great apes" are the orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo.

Bonobos walk upright somewhat more easily than the chimps can. Still, walking on all fours is less tiring for both bonobos and chimps.

 

Unlike chimps, the hair of a bonobo parts down the middle.

(http://williamcalvin.com/teaching/bonobo.htm)

 

The bonobo's apparent ability to empathize, in contrast with the more hostile and aggressive bearing of the related chimpanzee, ... (http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/bonobo.html)

 

Even sticking to these latter ones, this is the sense I’ve personally seen the term “bonobo” used in: as being distinct from what is meant by the word “chimp” used by itself, as I did.

 

 

Concerning the link to NCBI you posted, note that it says, “The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information.” That doesn’t mean it is wrong, just that it isn’t an actual authoritative source for classification.

 

And note that the PDF you linked to says this at the beginning of its abstract: “… little is known about genomic diversity in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus).” That part uses the terms chimpanzees and bonobos are two separate species. The authors do so other times, such as by saying, "A phylogenetic tree was estimated with a maximum likelihood approach (11) with human, chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, and orangutan sequences (Fig....". And you can look at the diagram of the phylogenetic tree and see that chimpanzee and bonobo are listed, separate.

 

So it looks like it very well might be scientifically, and certainly is “laymen-ically”, acceptable to say that chimps and bonobos are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also found sites that speak of chimps and bonobos as being two separate species.

 

Why would anyone think that pan paniscus and pan troglodytes are not different species. Pan Paniscus, bonobos are pygmy chimpazees instead of common chimpazees but they are still chimpanzees. The majority of sources I've seen still say that bonobos are slightly more related to humans than the common chimp. Until you can prove otherwise I choose to trust those sources more than your implied claim that they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...