For Thousands Of Years

[pronatalist]

Almost every post in this thread is garbage. And to pronatalist, it seems that everyone who bashes evolution is very ignorant on the matter. I have no problem with religion (in fact I think it can be a great thing and can provide some morality to life), but the bible was written before the world was more scientifically understood. And it was written by man, not God. And a committee chose which books were truly 'divine'. Yes, a committee of people. And since they could not have experienced heaven or seen God, they had no more knowledge of the matter than you or me. And they chose which books were 'true'. This basically means that there is a 99.9999% chance that a) some books were included which are not divine, b) some books were excluded that were divine, or c) both. Basically, I can't believe in a word of the Bible because there's almost a 100% chance that something is wrong. And if I don't know what's wrong, I don't know what's right. I think the Bible is a nice story with some good general moral guidelines and should be treated as such, but the religious fundamentalism associated with it is ridiculous.

The Universe is much older than the Bible would lead you to believe. Evolution HAS occurred, IS occurring, and WILL occur. If you knew how similar we were to every single-celled bacteria in existence, would you still doubt that we evolved from a common ancestor? Microevolution is PROVEN to take place. Look at the evolution of bacteria and viruses. The Flu evolves every year (look at the avian flu, strain H5 N1). HIV is evolving drug-resistance (this is BAD). Even the MECHANISM of evolving drug resistance by HIV and other viruses, and especially bacteria (which are selected for every day in labs all over the world) has been determined. Evolution IS occurring.

I'm a very logical person. BUT, I will admit that I believe in God. Just not evolution. And I don't think God has any control over what happens (he just watches). Why do I believe in God? Probably because I want to believe that there's something greater out there. My beliefs are riddled with inconsistencies because of my belief in God. The only excuse I can think of is that God was present before the Big Bang. Yes, I'm trying to rationalize superstition. The point I'm trying to get across is that I'm not some atheist trying to bring down your religion. I'm saying that evolution exists, and that everything on Earth (and in the Universe) is due to random occurrences. Go read the Age of Reason by Thomas Payne (or go watch the first part of the movie Zeitgeist, available freely online).

[edit]Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that penis size is evolving noticeably during our present time -- it takes a LONG time for change like that -- see my other post on the matter in another evolution thread[/edit]

The Bible was written before the world was more scientifically understood? So? The Bible is inspired by God, and so since God knows all, and knows the future better than we can remember the past, as God is not bound by time, not only would Jesus have know "how to" heal people, but God would obviously know of all of man's pidly little scientific discoveries to come. And the Bible even foretells some of them. The burgeoning billions of people in the world, is foretold in Genesis 24:60. In the KJV, "thousands of millions" of descendents, is litterally countless billions. Doesn't it say in Job or somewhere, that the planet is a sphere and hangs on nothing? So the planet is in orbit? A balanced free fall, just missing the sun each time around? The Bible says that God created wo-man out of man. Interesting. Why do human males have both Y and X chromosomes, while women only have the X? Man could not have come from woman, well other than by birth, after a father helped conceive the child.

Why would the universe be any older than the Bible leads one to believe? How "old" did Adam look, the day that God created him? The first two people were never babies, so they likely didn't have any belly buttons, a scar coming from the human gestational process and birth. Didn't Genesis say something about God creating the light, before the stars? Hmmm.

What's this in science about the speed of light slowing down? What's that about?

"Natural selection" isn't evolution, and there are limits as to how much a range can be crossed. Because God created creatures to reproduce after their kind. So we breed a horse and a donkey, and get a sterile mule?

If typical penis size and such, was changing, we likely may even miss it, because we humans are such sloppy record keepers, and lack the comparitive data of only a few generations back.

 

[pronatalist]

everything that we are is a product of evolution. The fact is that human penis' are much larger than those of our evolutionary ancestors. this is a long process that takes 100's of thousands of years.

religion has nothing to do with anything. it is an outdated attempt at explaining the natural world before science. "man's response to the unknown"

Hmmm. If evolution supposedly favors larger penises, for reasons I may have even listed a couple of, then "way back when," perhaps human penises were microscopic in size? How do you know that penises aren't getting smaller?

Just because humans tend to be obsessed with penis size, doesn't mean that nature is. Fashion swings back and forth. Some small-penised men may try to compensate by driving a long car, a modern phallic symbol? Then long cars become old-fashioned, for old people, and then they supposedly look "hot" in a dinky little overpriced ugly sportscar?

As unlikely as some might think it may be, there could be such a thing as a penis that is just "too big." Say like when you step on it when you walk perhaps?

How's the old joke go? Somebody wished for a penis so long as to reach the floor, and so his legs dropped off.

 

[B_quietguy]

The cynic in me says that men who propagated lots of genes were necessarily those with big cocks. Instead men who were willing to kill to get power and rape/seduce women to make children. Just look at Ishmael the Bloodthirsty who sired 888 children, and Genghis Khan who had 500 children. Speaking of Genghis Khan, he boasted of raping the women of the lands he conquered - so I doubt the women had much choice in the matter of partner's dick size. There is a reason why 8% of Asian men have the same Y chromosome - and that it is traceable back to him. And a 5th century Irish warlord spread his genes about the Emerald Isle without giving his partners any choice. And Somerled of Argyll, one of Scotland's greatest warriors, has an estimated 500,000 living descendants today. And Charlemagne with his many wives and concubines is a direct ancestor to many western Europeans, and he expanded his kingdom by force.

Throughout much of the last few thousand years, I doubt many women got to choose their partners by penis size. Instead, their stories often contain rape and ownership.

 

[ActionBuddy]

Pseudoscience rules at LPSG again!

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Draconis71]

Pseudoscience rules at LPSG again!

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, the thread is _DEAD_. Good kill, Onan!


Edt: Oh, and if it were so, I'd have bred about 20 years ago, or so.

 

[pronatalist]

Yeah, humans are "huge" and growing huger. Wishful thinking perhaps?

The problem with your theory is that you assume average human size isn't huge. It is.

Adult Gorilla's average 2-3 inches erect.

Well that's a problem with trying to define "huge." Compared to what?

Our ancestors? Other mammals or primates? Thy neighbor in the lockerroom? Dad? A horse? Our body size?

One thing that makes human penises look "huge," is childhood memories of it being small, or seeing Dad's thing, and how "huge" it looks, to a little boy before going through puberty.

Are gorillas even relevant, considering that the evolution theory falls far short of explaining the world? Therefore, humans probably don't have much in common with gorillas.

But what if bigger penises, in some way enhances pleasure for both men and women? Humans are said to be among the horniest of God's creatures. And might our "huge" population size, be related somehow to bigger reproductive organs? Those humans that find sex more extremely pleasurable, perhaps still tend to breed more prolifically, spreading around their "endowments."

So while most of us might like to think our penises are "huge," compared to what? And isn't it a shame when our competitive nature requires somebody else to be "small," in order for ourselves to consider ourselves "big?" Can't we be "big" more cooperatively, and all help our neighbors along too, on the road to economic success, and not step on people on our way to the top of whatever? At least share the kindness and useful investment tips and priorities.

I mean, what if hypothetically, God decided humans weren't breeding enough or something, and handed out to the guys, an extra inch or two? Some people would still be "small" because everybody else added an inch or two also? What's wrong with that picture? Is it really so bad to be "small," especially if the "small" guy handily has more children than the "large" guy?

 

[andysmith]

Lets pretend your a woman

guy 1 has the following attributes:

1) good gentics in terms on immune system and health (may be shown through sport or body shape and education)

2) Does not cheat

3) evidence he makes a good father

4) ability to provide food and shelter (in this age that means money)

Guy 2 has the serverl or all the following attributes:

1) bad gentics, health etc

2) cheater

3) no drive to succeed.

Now which do you think the woman would want to settle down with and have offspring.

hmmmmmmmm notice how I never said large penis as it has no factor what so ever in surviving.

A large penis is great to have for both partners, however, unless a woman has messed up views she will stress on penis size. The majority of women who have strong survival instincts will not pick a mate on penis size.

 

[danake1]

Haven't posted here in awhile usually just hang out and read what others write, but I think evolution is an interesting topic. As far as the "monkey business" goes, we have on average compared to body size some of the largest penis among primates. A large reason for this is because we began to walk upright. When women began to walk upright it inverted their pelvis, and an inverted pelvis requires a larger penis to acquire pleasure. So compared to a gorilla we do have quite large penises. However compared to animals like chimps we have small testicles, because when they go in heat they sleep around with a lot of males. Therefore the males have larger testicles in order to produce more sperm to increase the likelihood of their sperm impregnating the female.

 

[hot-rod]

Interesting theory. Kinda supports the old notion that women aren't really into big dicks. Men are.

That's funny

 

[Anubis the Elder]

I think those of us who can think rationally about this subject should quietly back out of the room and let PPRONATALIST AND his supporters enjoy the solitude they so joyously deserve. After all one cannot have a meaningful discussion with someone who spouts regions dogma from the twelfth century. They’re as bad as the Moslems who blather on about their beliefs from the Koran. Two of a kind.

 

[pronatalist]

Haven't posted here in awhile usually just hang out and read what others write, but I think evolution is an interesting topic. As far as the "monkey business" goes, we have on average compared to body size some of the largest penis among primates. A large reason for this is because we began to walk upright. When women began to walk upright it inverted their pelvis, and an inverted pelvis requires a larger penis to acquire pleasure. So compared to a gorilla we do have quite large penises. However compared to animals like chimps we have small testicles, because when they go in heat they sleep around with a lot of males. Therefore the males have larger testicles in order to produce more sperm to increase the likelihood of their sperm impregnating the female.

Women have always walked upright, so your theory seems a bit off, at least as explained.

But I do like the remark about humans having about the largest penises among primates. That's interesting. It is perhaps because we are constantly "in heat," able to procreate year round, not confined to a limited breeding season, and so sexually active?

 

[dreamer20]

My answers/statements are in lavender:

The Bible was written before the world was more scientifically understood? Yes.

God knows all, and knows the future
God would obviously know of all of man's piddly little scientific discoveries to come: According to the tale of Genesis he/God neither knows all nor does he know the future.
Doesn't it say in Job or somewhere, that the planet is a sphere and hangs on nothing?: No.

Didn't Genesis say something about God creating the light, before the stars? Hmmm.
Why would the universe be any older than the Bible leads one to believe?

Because the Bible was written before the world was more scientifically understood. The ancient Hebrew's creation story sets the date of creation at 3,761 BC. It is but one of hundreds of creation stories made up by primitive men in ancient times. Note that there is a portion of Genesis dealing with mythical creatures that has been edited out following Gen 6:4. and before Gen 6:5.
The Genesis story suggested that the Earth was made before the Sun and stars. What we know as planets nowadays were no different from the other stars in the night sky to the ancients and they believed that the Moon cast its own light.

 

[midlifebear]

GREAT ARTICLE BELOW:

"Each and everyone of you is a product of natural selection. Guys, that means that your daddies, and their daddies, and their daddies... were PICKED (ie selected) by the women of their time. If they didn't like what they saw or felt in dick size, presumably they would have left and found someone else. Another way of putting it is, you are the product of past desirables, which would include your dick. So if the "average" range of dick sizes is between say 5 and 7 inches, then that indicates that females have been selecting that size on average for thousands of years. If the ONLY thing that mattered was a big dick, then all males would currently be very large (10 inches or more?) since past females would have selected only the biggest size. Strangely, but as a matter of fact, you have (past) females to thank for whatever size you are now. I know that most of this will be waisted on most of you. Statistically for every "large" male there is a similarly sized female. Big penis genes can also produce big vaginal canals."

What is so hysterical about this "interesting article" is:

1. It's rife with poor grammar, bad punctuation and misspellings (hmmm. . . )
2. The OP failed to include the source. So, there's no attribution to this "interesting article." Therefore, we are to simply accept it as a real article because the OP thinks we should. After all, he posted it. But we have no way of verifying it's origin?

We all generate enough of our own crap on this site without having to put up with such nonsense. Talk about "No child left behind!" What a dull, dishonest piece of crap this left-over child has pulled out of his ass.

 

[D_Terry_Misue]

Evolution, in the most basic context, is about competetion for resources and differential reproduction. Accordingly, only those traits that increase the fittness of the individual play a direct role in sexual selection, that is natural selection for mating success.

Sexual selection rarely appears as linear as it is assumed in this case. Females may prefer men with larger cocks, but it can be applied to sexual selection only if a man with a larger penis is more 'fit' to survive. In other words having a larger penis must advertise ones overall fitness.

The peacock (easy target for jokes, I know :smile has a tail that, superfically at least, appears as a disadvantage. However, the male with the longest, most robust tail that can still survive in the wild has the best genes. Also, the colors of the feathers in the tail, if they are bright and beautiful, say to available females that this bird is able to find the best food, thus he is the best mate choice because the resulting offspring will have the best available genes. It is all about advertisement.

If the guy with the biggest dick had the best genes and was the most fit to survive, then he would be the preferential mate choice for females. However, saying a big dick is an advertisement for fittness is like saying that height or weight is an advertisement for fittness. Many traits expressed in organisms fall under the catergory of 'continuous phenotypes' (like height or skin color in humans); that is to say that the population expesses a continuum of possibilities for that trait and the expression has more to do with prevailing environmental conditions than genetic fitness. I am not sure if dick size is a continuous phenotype, but I'm quite sure it is not an advertisement for overall genetic fittness.

 

[sexplease]

Evolution is a hit or miss crap shoot. Some life forms made it this far, some did not.

We walk upright because, it was easier to see over tall grass to chase prey and to see predators.

Females often subconsciously choose males based on the size of their butts. (good for chasing prey and thus securing food for offspring survival)

 

[CaptainChaos]

I encourage many of you to actually look up evolution. Many here have no clue.

I know whenever evolution is brought up, some moron brings up religion. Religion has nothing to do with penis size or anything else for that matter...

Penis size is but one factor among many that have been naturally selected to be passed on. Examples such as the trends in the middle ages hinting that small penis' were favored can even be counted as a drop in the bucket. The evolutionary process for humans has been occuring for millions of years;therefore, it is a very slow and gradual process.

As one of the few species that has sex for pleasure, it is logical to think that penis would be a factor. Having said that, I dont believe it to be as important as many on this site would like it to be. And there is such thing as too big.

Why are human males attracted to large breasts? No other animal is. In nature large breasts signal pregnancy, which is therefore "unatractive" if you're looking to reproduce. This is the other side of the coin. Human female breasts have grown to the preference of males selecting for this trait. Again, similar with penis size, there are many who are "average", then there are some who are small and large.

 

[B_andyo]

Captain,
That is true. I guess if old societies were like ours. We would only have women C+ cup sizes. I don't know about penis though since the most favorable size is somewhere between 6.5-8 inches. So, maybe those average or below will face extinction? We are not going to be here to see it

 

[CaptainChaos]

Captain,
That is true. I guess if old societies were like ours. We would only have women C+ cup sizes. I don't know about penis though since the most favorable size is somewhere between 6.5-8 inches. So, maybe those average or below will face extinction? We are not going to be here to see it

ya, it also is slightly different because men can usually see how big women's breasts regardless of what they are wearing. Not so with penis.

And penis size is one factor among many. Kind of a bonus, to put it one way.

This is the way I see it: To be reproductivly successful you still need to have many qualities. Being attractive, intelligent, socialable etc... its just if two men are equal in these categories, perhaps penis size could be one form of tie breaker.

If penis size had been a major factor in reproduction, maybe we all would be much larger than we are now...but thats not the case.

 

[D_Prudence_Admonition_Drightits]

ya, it also is slightly different because men can usually see how big women's breasts regardless of what they are wearing. Not so with penis.

And penis size is one factor among many. Kind of a bonus, to put it one way.

This is the way I see it: To be reproductivly successful you still need to have many qualities. Being attractive, intelligent, socialable etc... its just if two men are equal in these categories, perhaps penis size could be one form of tie breaker.

If penis size had been a major factor in reproduction, maybe we all would be much larger than we are now...but thats not the case.

Thank you for your post, this is what I am been trying to say without much success. Like your post in this thread, definitely more sound statement.

 

[Lng_1]

I will have to disagree with the average penis size is an indication of women's preferences and therefore a form of natural selection. Quite frankly, the average height of men is about 5'9" to 5'10".... this does not mean that women do not prefer 6' + tall men. Perhaps it means there are not just enough of those men to go around. So, although 6'+ men may be very popular, they do not populate the entire world and therefore do not constitute the majority... or another theory....

society as a whole keeps getting bigger and bigger (i.e. taller than generations ago).. as such, bigger penises may simply be the wave of the future!!!