Heavenguard

I was rather directing the question to the original poster. Since his (or her) argument is that evolution necessitates a species to become self-sufficient, symbiosis (and yes, you're right, parasites are even more interesting) would, according to that argument, would be evidence against evolution. However, as you pointed out, evolution could very well favour symbiosis instead, much the same way that humans and pack animals live in groups in order to benefit each other.

I'd like to meet a (human) baby anywhere that is self-reliant. Perhaps we have those who can self-soothe to sleep, but that besides, feeding, clothing, mobility, even diaper changing is completely dependent on parents or others. Where does this idea of a self-reliant baby come from, if no baby to begin with is any more self-reliant than another? The flaw in this supposition, that babies should become increasingly self-reliant through evolution, is that babies do not reproduce. Human adults reproduce, and by that point (hopefully) have grown entirely out of their infant habits and abilities. If babies were a species, rather than the juvenile state of man, then perhaps we would see babies that are self-reliant through evolution. However, since babies are the juvenile state of man, and have parents/other society members to care for human children (generally, discounting the neglected children of the world), there is no evolutionary push for infants to become self-reliant. Following the idea of this thread, would you suppose that animals living in symbiosis is an argument against evolution?

This makes me think of Matthew 5: The spirit of the law can be greater than the letter of the law! Oups, I necro'd an old thread

Oh, brother I think religious choices are at the core of mating preferences. Although I can't say there isn't any grain of truth to that idea, though. I used to go to a teen's conference, and one of the rules of the conference was "No macking". ("Macking" meaning "hitting on people".)

The problem with bloodstained sheets is that its not a foolproof way of proving virginity. The, er, part in question can tear due to other activities having nothing to do with sex. It can also be surgically "repaired", although I imagine there are a very few people who do it. But an annulment is often granted based on the idea that if one person misrepresents him or herself in a way to their partner such that if the partner knew the truth, the partner would not have married them at all. The fact that chastity is required by the Islamic faith just means that a Muslim man would require this of his wife. But what of a conservative man? Though rare in this society for a man to require his wife to be a virgin, it's perfectly possible and reasonable, still. If he filed for a marriage annulment for the same reason, I imagine it would have been granted him.

Back when The Passion of the Christ came out, there was backlash from some Jewish communities because they said it demonized them as the killers of Christ. And you know what? I think a lot of people actually do carry that idea. But God will use who he will in whatever way he will. I don't even blame Judas for his betrayal, since it was a part of God's greater plan. I don't even know if he would have been able to escape his own greed because of that, but there are a lot of people who don't sympathize with these ideas.

I would venture to say that the cost of not switching is far greater in the long run. We consume faster than nature can create, and it's only a matter of time before depletion occurs, following much political strife over the remnants. Never mind the environmental issues.