Is penis size hereditary?
- Thread starter Dorset
- Start date
robogoretex said:
Um . . . what? Your dad was your brother? And you're what? Sounds like Darwin's waiting room.
My brother is 10 years older than me, and I don't think I've ever seen him naked, but I do remember as a teenager taking a trip as a family, he and his new wife came along, she'd married him as a virgin, and had no experience with anyone else, but was quite surprised when seeing a horses dick while we where out riding one day, and I heard her say something about "I thought horses where supposed to be really big?" she was serious, so, from that statement alone, I assume my brother is probably bigger than I am.
My father on the other hand, is probably a little bellow average.
My father on the other hand, is probably a little bellow average.
Skinny Guinea said:In my experience, I don't think it is hereditary -- because I've heard that my father is well hung, and I am not.
Yeah me too... My father walks around naked all the time and is a bit of a naturist. He has a huge member, must be 8/9" flaccid so i dread to think what it's like erect!
As a kid i always assumed mine would grow to that size... and i'm still waiting! But i think that at 24 my dick won't grow any larger than the current 6"
DAM DAM DAM DAM DAM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh well
Oncamale28
Sexy Member
From what I have learned from all my genetics courses in my 4 year university career, I would be very confident in saying that penis size is in no way hereditary. In fact, it's hard for me to even acknowledge this as a valid question. Not only because the definition of a gene is not known, but also because of the gene-to-trait assumption that everyone is using here.
Wow, thanks for saying that!! I was gonna be worried about my son.
Guess he still has a shot at impressing the ladies (or men?)!!!
As far as i'm concerned, I would say Yes. My father and I have almost the same penis size, our dicks really seem to be twins. They' re both quite above the average, with a big helmet and both seem to be circumsised even though we are not circumsized...when I was a teenager he used to joke about it. So I guess penis size is hereditary
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
nick22ca said:
Frankly, nick, none of your assertions, in any of your posts on this thread, have been helpful to me. You really need to explain yourself at greater, erm, length.
Now, if you're saying, as you apparently are, that heredity has no part at all in the determination of penis size, you're saying something so far outside of what I understand (not that I'm in any sense an expert on this topic) that I'd like you to explore this in some detail.
Surely such a claim is a huge exaggeration beyond what science actually allows you to say.
That said, you may very well justify some claim that heredity is not the whole story.
Which is a far more modest and defensible claim.
It's actually the question (along with scientific knowledge) that allows me to make what you think is a generalization. In science, we are barely beginning to even understand what heredity is. The genome isn't the only thing that is inherited, and epigenetic research has found recently that non-transcriptional RNAs can also be passed on. In fact, these RNAs can even skip a generation and can possibly alter DNA. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of what cells of one generation have 'inherited' from the cells of the next (or even the one before that). Is penis size hereditary? Science doesn't know what constitutes heredity. The question is invalid.
What about heredity in terms of what we know? The problem is, new information is challenging what even constitutes a gene. The beads-on-a-string theory of genes on DNA is all but defunct. Genes overlap, there is alternative splicing, there is RNA editing...we are discovering new properties of DNA every year that point to the fact that we don't know what the hell a gene is. Is penis size hereditary? Traditional forms of heredity (ie. genes) don't exist. Again, the question is invalid.
So actually, saying that heredity is not the 'whole story' is actually more treasonous to science than saying that heredity has no part at all in penis size. We don't know what heredity is, and we don't know the agents of heredity. Saying heredity is not the whole story assumes a very dangerous pretense, in my opinion. I refer you to a VERY good article called 'What Is A Gene?' by Helen Pearson. It's a newsfeed story, but it covers recent research very well. I am busy lately with school, but if you have more questions about the topic I'll try to respond as promptly as I can.
What about heredity in terms of what we know? The problem is, new information is challenging what even constitutes a gene. The beads-on-a-string theory of genes on DNA is all but defunct. Genes overlap, there is alternative splicing, there is RNA editing...we are discovering new properties of DNA every year that point to the fact that we don't know what the hell a gene is. Is penis size hereditary? Traditional forms of heredity (ie. genes) don't exist. Again, the question is invalid.
So actually, saying that heredity is not the 'whole story' is actually more treasonous to science than saying that heredity has no part at all in penis size. We don't know what heredity is, and we don't know the agents of heredity. Saying heredity is not the whole story assumes a very dangerous pretense, in my opinion. I refer you to a VERY good article called 'What Is A Gene?' by Helen Pearson. It's a newsfeed story, but it covers recent research very well. I am busy lately with school, but if you have more questions about the topic I'll try to respond as promptly as I can.
senor rubirosa said:
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
I wonder if you are failing to see the forest for the trees.
The question is, Is penis size hereditary?
Well, what is heredity? The transfer of characteristics from parents to offspring. Now, traditionally, we have assumed that what is hereditary is entirely a matter of genes. More recent work, which you explain in general terms, suggests that far more than genes are involved. You mention non-transcriptional RNA, alternative splicing, RNA editing, and so forth.
Assumptions of a few decades ago are now seen as decidedly passé. We know more now, but our current assumptions, just like our past assumptions, will no doubt be subject to correction and themselves come to seem variously incomplete, misconceived, or outright wrong.
But what difference does this make?
The question is basically asking, Does Jones likelihood of having a large penis increase if his male forebears had large penises themselves?
The question could equally be about small penises, or large/small noses, or any of a huge range of physical traits.
And without having any clue of what a gene is (and remember, Mendel himself had no knowledge of what genes are), we could say that yes, the likelihood of having Trait X, lets say, increases if that trait was present in ones forebears. This is a principle that has worked in animal husbandry and crop development for centuries, and which humans have long observed, informally, in traits visible in their own offspring. You surely have seen this yourself. Tall parents are going to have, as a rule, more tall children than short parents are.
Now, if you say, correctly, Ah, but the mechanism of how heredity achieves this magic is incompletely known, is still under study, one could sagely nod and agree, yet still insist that heredity, broadly defined, is not at all disallowed as a factor in cross-generational transmission of traits.
This mechanism will always be under study. But wherever it takes us, it will still be endeavoring to explain why so many traits are inheritable.
The question of exact mechanism is scientific, and unrelentingly in progress.
But the basic question is long-answered and philosophical. More scientific detail may shade it but not significantly alter it.
At least, that's how it seems to me.
How 'bout it?
The question is, Is penis size hereditary?
Well, what is heredity? The transfer of characteristics from parents to offspring. Now, traditionally, we have assumed that what is hereditary is entirely a matter of genes. More recent work, which you explain in general terms, suggests that far more than genes are involved. You mention non-transcriptional RNA, alternative splicing, RNA editing, and so forth.
Assumptions of a few decades ago are now seen as decidedly passé. We know more now, but our current assumptions, just like our past assumptions, will no doubt be subject to correction and themselves come to seem variously incomplete, misconceived, or outright wrong.
But what difference does this make?
The question is basically asking, Does Jones likelihood of having a large penis increase if his male forebears had large penises themselves?
The question could equally be about small penises, or large/small noses, or any of a huge range of physical traits.
And without having any clue of what a gene is (and remember, Mendel himself had no knowledge of what genes are), we could say that yes, the likelihood of having Trait X, lets say, increases if that trait was present in ones forebears. This is a principle that has worked in animal husbandry and crop development for centuries, and which humans have long observed, informally, in traits visible in their own offspring. You surely have seen this yourself. Tall parents are going to have, as a rule, more tall children than short parents are.
Now, if you say, correctly, Ah, but the mechanism of how heredity achieves this magic is incompletely known, is still under study, one could sagely nod and agree, yet still insist that heredity, broadly defined, is not at all disallowed as a factor in cross-generational transmission of traits.
This mechanism will always be under study. But wherever it takes us, it will still be endeavoring to explain why so many traits are inheritable.
The question of exact mechanism is scientific, and unrelentingly in progress.
But the basic question is long-answered and philosophical. More scientific detail may shade it but not significantly alter it.
At least, that's how it seems to me.
How 'bout it?
Has anyone mentioned mother's clit size? I couldn't be bothered reading all the posts. But we all start as females on the base level. Those of us who become male, the clit grows into a cock and the ovaries drop down as balls (along with all the other changes).
So that being the case if ones father isn't big, yet you end up hung like a horse, as gross as it sounds, find out if your mother has an unusually large clit .
Or can those with an average or not big penis, yet a partner with an unusally large clit who has boys who are well hung confirm this?
So that being the case if ones father isn't big, yet you end up hung like a horse, as gross as it sounds, find out if your mother has an unusually large clit
.Or can those with an average or not big penis, yet a partner with an unusally large clit who has boys who are well hung confirm this?
Well first, the part about science endeavoring to explain why so many traits are inheritable is simply not true. Keep in mind that a trait is anything that can be measured, including the amount of blood in your left atrium right at this moment. The number of traits approaches infinity, and the number of traits for which we actually find heritability estimates is miniscule. I won't even get into why heritability estimates are among the worst/most controversial measures in science.
The mechanism is important, because people in this thread are thinking in terms of inherited genetic material. You gave some examples of tall people, animal husbandry, and crop traits. But given that we don't know the mechanism of heredity, we don't even know if we are selecting for the environments that express these traits or the genetic material. For example, tall people may give rise to tall children because the children are exposed to similar environments as the parent (which in turn was responsible for their tallness). Does the likelihood change if the mechanism changes from genetic to environmental? Of course it does...this taken in tandem with the fact that we don't know what genetic heredity is, or what its agents are, means we can't jump to conclusions about genetic likelihood.
So not only are most traits not inherited, but the ones that are 'partially' inherited are very likely to be discrete traits. Penis size is of course a continuous trait. You can see the probability for penis size being genetically determined is dwindling to zero. Then we are reminded that we can't talk about genetic likelihoods, or even genetic heredity, without losing credibility. And now your question about Jones has to do with environmental factors...is the likelihood still increased if their parents have trait X (trait X most likely being a discrete trait, and one of the minimal number of traits determined by genes)? We can't answer that at all, because research and heritability estimates have up to this point been focused on genetic likelihoods. You should be asking, 'is it possible that environmental factors are responsible for the likelihood (and please remember the constraints on what trait X can be, it is VERY important)?' I would of course answer...maybe. And even in this case, the likelihood differs from the likelihood we have traditionally associated with genes. I think discounting mechanisms is humorous at best, and dangerous at worst.
So back to this question: Does Jones’ likelihood of having a large penis increase if his male forebears had large penises themselves?” If someone honestly asked me that, I would try my best not to be rude...but would most likely end up saying, "No of course not. What are you, stupid? I would like to also note that since you mentioned gender, you are implying a genetic-type of heredity. And in asking that question, you also forgot about half of our inherited genome...
I don't think it is a case of me failing to see the forest for the trees. I just don't see a single tree and start calling it a forest.
The mechanism is important, because people in this thread are thinking in terms of inherited genetic material. You gave some examples of tall people, animal husbandry, and crop traits. But given that we don't know the mechanism of heredity, we don't even know if we are selecting for the environments that express these traits or the genetic material. For example, tall people may give rise to tall children because the children are exposed to similar environments as the parent (which in turn was responsible for their tallness). Does the likelihood change if the mechanism changes from genetic to environmental? Of course it does...this taken in tandem with the fact that we don't know what genetic heredity is, or what its agents are, means we can't jump to conclusions about genetic likelihood.
So not only are most traits not inherited, but the ones that are 'partially' inherited are very likely to be discrete traits. Penis size is of course a continuous trait. You can see the probability for penis size being genetically determined is dwindling to zero. Then we are reminded that we can't talk about genetic likelihoods, or even genetic heredity, without losing credibility. And now your question about Jones has to do with environmental factors...is the likelihood still increased if their parents have trait X (trait X most likely being a discrete trait, and one of the minimal number of traits determined by genes)? We can't answer that at all, because research and heritability estimates have up to this point been focused on genetic likelihoods. You should be asking, 'is it possible that environmental factors are responsible for the likelihood (and please remember the constraints on what trait X can be, it is VERY important)?' I would of course answer...maybe. And even in this case, the likelihood differs from the likelihood we have traditionally associated with genes. I think discounting mechanisms is humorous at best, and dangerous at worst.
So back to this question: Does Jones’ likelihood of having a large penis increase if his male forebears had large penises themselves?” If someone honestly asked me that, I would try my best not to be rude...but would most likely end up saying, "No of course not. What are you, stupid? I would like to also note that since you mentioned gender, you are implying a genetic-type of heredity. And in asking that question, you also forgot about half of our inherited genome...
I don't think it is a case of me failing to see the forest for the trees. I just don't see a single tree and start calling it a forest.
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
nick22ca said:
Well, okay. But you don't convince me, nick. This is partly personal observation and partly, I think, common sense.
nick22ca said:
I am only mentioning gender because we do not note great differences in dick length among females. Of course, there is a contribution from the female side of one's lineage. I didn't state, and didn't imply, otherwise.
But you're getting, it seems to me, a bit nasty, nick. Let's let others take up this question.
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
Actually, on reflection, I don't think Nick is getting nasty.
I'm being a little sensitive today.
I apologize to him unequivocally.
I'm being a little sensitive today.
I apologize to him unequivocally.
Mr. Snakey
Expert Member
Yes its heavy burden passed on from my grandfather,a family curse! i would have muched rather high blood pressure:tongue:
To argue that heredity is as likely a result of environment as paternal influence seems a little absurd. Otherwise why do babies look so much like their parents? If an African couple living in Nigeria moves to Poland and has a baby, their baby is not going to look Polish. Heredity obviously exists, whether we understand it completely or not.
Sorry that's all I had to contribute, Rubi.
Sorry that's all I had to contribute, Rubi.
Similar threads
