Size and Natural Selection

diamond

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
678
Media
4
Likes
1,265
Points
548
Location
Suisse
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Unlike Snoozan, I do believe in natural selection, to a certain degree???:confused:

Well, you singled me out long after my post, it came off as being snide, and you used the WTF? smiley. How else was I supposed to take it? Admit it, you were taking a jab at me.


You mean the smiley above???!! That smiley represents confusion and not WTF (to me anyways) and if you were to check the scroll down menu with the smiley icons it clearly states "confusion" for the smiley above. If I were to choose WTF, this is the smiley that appeared :wtf1:

More importantly before you go off on a tangent perhaps you might want to ask me to clarify what I meant in my post rather than retaliate with comments that attack my personal character.
...and no I was not taking a jab at you, if you knew me well, as some members do, you would come to the realization that I would confront you head on.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Without having even to read much more than the first sentence or two of the first post of this topic...

clearly there is no fear of having a lesser than "huge" penis.

There are many more beautiful and successful and incredibly personalitied women than there are "huge" penises. Not all women seek a large penis. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is a very small amount (i.e. say the percent of women on this site compared to the total number of members?) who do. So if you're not huge it is not a big deal. There are so many more important things to being a lovable person than your penis size --- stop fretting.
 

vrod

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Posts
11
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
146
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
First off - in terms of natural selection one would require THOUSANDS of pairings, which is why most evolutionary biology is on the order of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

Secondly – if men can be selected over time; why haven’t we all become caring, honest and emotional men?
 

Male Bonding etc

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
920
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Southwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
in that case, i'm doomed.

you know what they say, someone fires a tentative shot in your direction, you hit them with a tactical nuke. wow, i'm sounding positively presidential.
Doomed? Not necessarily. Some people like fiesty... and a few even like the current presidential attitude.

There just seemed to be an increase in contentious exchanges (not just yours and Diamond's) lately as the temperatures in the northern hemisphere rose.
 

diamond

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
678
Media
4
Likes
1,265
Points
548
Location
Suisse
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Doomed? Not necessarily. Some people like fiesty... and a few even like the current presidential attitude.

There just seemed to be an increase in contentious exchanges (not just yours and Diamond's) lately as the temperatures in the northern hemisphere rose.


I believe the sudden climate change has nothing to do with an increase in "contentious exchanges" but rather stems from certain individuals attacking my personal character based on unfounded assumptions.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
I hope snoozan and diamond can come to an understanding. I know that a lot of problems come from two people meaning different things with the same set of words and how the words are said also can change the meaning greatly. Of course there is no way to catch the inflection of the voice in written conversation.

Since this difference of opinoin or understanding seems to be limited to just two people, I suggest taht the two of you continue your conversation via private message. Without the cheerleaders and public scrutiny I think you two would have a better chance at coming to an understanding.

This is me Freddie, a member, making this suggestion, not me, the moderator telling you what to do.

It's not going to hurt my feelings if you two don't follow my suggestion. And I can't guarantee my suggestoin will work either.

I am just hoping for the best for both of you.

Good luck as you two try to sort out this diference of opinion or what ever you prefer to call it.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
People have always selected mates based on cultural, economic, and geographical similarities. However, even in the most isolated communities and the most isolated times in the history of humanity, people haven't done this enough to speciate, which says a lot.....
All of this is very well said, Snooze. You really do know your stuff. Except I am not sure how much speciation one would expect after only a few hundred thousand years.

...Not really. She has siblings, cousins, and further removed family members who all carry a lot of the same genes as her. It's not really about the individual so much as it's about the gene pool. It's not the person who wins this race, it's the gene. The more a gene is expressed and selected for, the more common it is, and therefore wins the genetic race. In that way, it's less about individuals and more about genes and gene pools. Yes, people carry the genes, but it's more about the group carrying said gene and the selection pressures thereupon that make the difference of which genes become widespread and which genes die out.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins goes into this part of evolutionary theory. It's a good read. I don't claim to be an expert on evolution, but he is, and can probably express what I'm trying to better than I can.

Still, this doesn't have any bearing on the OP, really.

...Here let me help you out. Its not the individual who leaves the most offspring rather it is the individual who leaves the most 'surviving' offspring. ...
Actually Snoozan was closer when she stressed the genes of the kin being just as valuable as the individual. Also, its not the one with the most surviving offspring. Its the one with the most offspring that survive to reproduce, or to have its kin reproduce (i.e. species such as bees have drones who never reproduce, but are essential to the colony. Better drones could mean a more successful colony.) This is what Snooze is getting at.).

Also, there is very little difference between natural selection and the kind of selection that happens in modern human populations. Our capacity for producing a shared culture in which we all live, is a product of evolution. As such, the selection criteria that come from that culture is a natural result of the culture itself.

In fact most of the criteria involving physical attractiveness has changed very little in principle since our preconscious ancestors. Glossy hair, smooth skin, tall men, muscular men, wide hips, etc. are all indicators of good health and were probably even more important 200,000 years ago. Not much has changed except we have added a few things like wealth, and communication skills, but its not really rocket science to see why those criteria evolved culturally.

One mistake we all make in our insistence on the sacredness of the "individual" is to overlook the fact that most of the what we are has been determined by evolution even up to ten minutes ago.

Another great read is Evolution For Everyone.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
All of this is very well said, Snooze. You really do know your stuff. Except I am not sure how much speciation one would expect after only a few hundred thousand years.

Yeah, I misstated that. Maybe it suffices to say that no matter how isolated human populations have been, there's genetic evidence that people still interbred with other communities fairly regularly. From what we know, humans have been moving around and running into each other for a couple hundred thousand years even though past human communities may seem extremely isolated in comparison to the modern day.

Actually Snoozan was closer when she stressed the genes of the kin being just as valuable as the individual. Also, its not the one with the most surviving offspring. Its the one with the most offspring that survive to reproduce, or to have its kin reproduce (i.e. species such as bees have drones who never reproduce, but are essential to the colony. Better drones could mean a more successful colony.) This is what Snooze is getting at.).

You are very graciously correcting my rusty brain here. To be honest, it's been probably 7 years since I seriously studied biology and I'm seeing that it's time for a tuneup. I've been stuck in f-stop land for those 7 years.

But yes, I was getting at something like the frequency of a gene in a given gene pool and the survival of the individuals who carry that gene determines the evolutionary "winner." I just wanted to hit home that evolutionary theory works more on species and populations within that species than the individual.

Also, there is very little difference between natural selection and the kind of selection that happens in modern human populations. Our capacity for producing a shared culture in which we all live, is a product of evolution. As such, the selection criteria that come from that culture is a natural result of the culture itself.

This is a really interesting area of study-- cultural evolution, which is I think what you're talking about. Cultural evolution happens in man-time more than it does in geological time and it's something you can actually watch happening. It also means while our cultural selves fit into our ways of living, out physical selves haven't been able to keep up.

In fact most of the criteria involving physical attractiveness has changed very little in principle since our preconscious ancestors. Glossy hair, smooth skin, tall men, muscular men, wide hips, etc. are all indicators of good health and were probably even more important 200,000 years ago. Not much has changed except we have added a few things like wealth, and communication skills, but its not really rocket science to see why those criteria evolved culturally.

I just don't see penis size making sense in the same way the other criteria you've mentioned do. Most people have already mentioned they myriad reasons of why it doesn't make so much sense.

One mistake we all make in our insistence on the sacredness of the "individual" is to overlook the fact that most of the what we are has been determined by evolution even up to ten minutes ago.

Biological determinism is depressing when you think about it too long.
 

toobig4u

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Posts
37
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
153
Age
41
Location
dc
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
seems pretty simple, if only the men with large penises reproduce, then it would follow that in the future, there would be less small penis men. Who knows if women would force that to happen by mate selection. I am larger than my dad, or my brother.
 

diamond

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
678
Media
4
Likes
1,265
Points
548
Location
Suisse
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
seems pretty simple, if only the men with large penises reproduce, then it would follow that in the future, there would be less small penis men. Who knows if women would force that to happen by mate selection. I am larger than my dad, or my brother.


Wishful Thinking, Perhaps???:biggrin1:
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Cultural evolution happens in man-time more than it does in geological time and it's something you can actually watch happening. It also means while our cultural selves fit into our ways of living, out physical selves haven't been able to keep up.

Yes, but there has been some culturally induced biological evolution within the last 10,000 years. Lactose tolerarance in adults, for example, evolved after some cultures became agrarian.

I just don't see penis size making sense in the same way the other criteria you've mentioned do. Most people have already mentioned they myriad reasons of why it doesn't make so much sense.

Yes, I agree.

Biological determinism is depressing when you think about it too long.

Haha, yes. But I have made my piece with my biological determinism. We are in far less control over rational decision making then we fancy ourselves to be. Those of us who think otherwise are in denail. Just ask your nearest addict.

Does Natural Selection still apply in an age where birth control exists?

In addition many successful human beings prefer to have fewer if at all children.

Natural Selection always applies. The opting out of having lots of children is a selection criteria, regardless of it being a cultural thing.

seems pretty simple, if only the men with large penises reproduce, then it would follow that in the future, there would be less small penis men. Who knows if women would force that to happen by mate selection. I am larger than my dad, or my brother.
Except there is no evidence that this is happening, other than people just being bigger and healthier due to better nutrition. Your size compared to your dad is anecdotal evidence. Its only important if this situation outnumbers those who are smaller than their dad. Penis size distribution is remarkably uniform around the world.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
...Actually Snoozan was closer when she stressed the genes of the kin being just as valuable as the individual. Also, its not the one with the most surviving offspring. Its the one with the most offspring that survive to reproduce, or to have its kin reproduce (i.e. species such as bees have drones who never reproduce, but are essential to the colony. Better drones could mean a more successful colony.) This is what Snooze is getting at.)....

There are those who like to argue that homosexuality must be unnatural because evolution would have selected out traits that diminish the rate of reproduction. What they miss is this group or kin thing where the behavior of non-reproducing members can easily improve the group's success. Drone bees who don't reproduce and alpha males with exclusive reproduction rights are the obvious counterexamples.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Women have much larger breasts than female gorillas :smile: and we have much larger cocks than male gorillas, not that I am going to tell one.

Chimps have very large balls relatively.

As great apes, the traits that have developed have a sexual attraction reason as well as the fact that we are bipeds. Though I do yearn for that time when bottoms were stuck high in the air. :biggrin1:
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
One mistake we all make in our insistence on the sacredness of the "individual" is to overlook the fact that most of the what we are has been determined by evolution even up to ten minutes ago.

I pretty much get what you and Snoozan have been putting out there. But I feel that the time element required to achieve a positive mutation can be misconstrued. By and large a mutation that saves a few individuals from a catastrophic event (i.e. Black Plague) gets expressed pervasively and immediately in the next generation but it is my impression that most mutations remain to express themselves as pervasive traits over larger periods of time, on the order of thousands of millenia (i.e. lactose tolerance well beyond childhood).
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
There are those who like to argue that homosexuality must be unnatural because evolution would have selected out traits that diminish the rate of reproduction. What they miss is this group or kin thing where the behavior of non-reproducing members can easily improve the group's success. Drone bees who don't reproduce and alpha males with exclusive reproduction rights are the obvious counterexamples.

What survival improving role do non-reproducing gay members play in a society? (they raise property values?) - loaded question I know.

I think in Ancient Greece homosexuality was just a part of sexuality and men were not exclusively gay but rather sired children and had same-sex lovers at the same time. Gay men reproduce if the society one lives in forces everyone to procreate. Sexual desires or orientation don't really matter. That is why I think it has been passed down even though it does not confer a survival advantage. The only thing the confers a survival advantage I think is our ability to love and bond with others, men, women, children so sexuality may just be a aspect of this.

I think there are a lot of "natural" genetic anomalies that have been passed down for generations that do not increase the survival chances of our species. Not everything is selectively bred out contrary to general thought.

Appendix
Webbed toes
Tay Sacks disease
Down-Syndrome
Albinoism
Dwarfism...etc
Sickle Cell Anemia (increases malaria survival)

Most genetic mutations are lethal but some are advantageous and many are benign and they just get passed down generation to generation. There is a theory that evolution is not gradual but happens in spurts because of these mutations happen randomly. Mutations in gene replication are the only way to introduce new traits into our gene pool. And a larger species gene pool provides for better genetic fitness to respond to environmental changes. So if there is a homosexual gene, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a survival criteria for the gene to exist, just means that it is not lethal.
 

hypolimnas

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
2,035
Media
0
Likes
3,027
Points
343
Location
Penisland
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
What survival improving role do non-reproducing gay members play in a society? (they raise property values?) - loaded question I know.
In the past I have thought of the question in terms of what are the benefits to a community to have some members who are not exclusively heterosexual?

There are several possibilities, from a scientific point of view, as to why some people have a genetic inheritance which determines other than exclusively heterosexual attraction. This is not the question posed here however.

The "survival improving" role relates, in my mind, to that fact that the dominance of humans over other animals has depended on our striking ability to develop societies with a collective consciousness. Humans are reasonably rare animals in that we have comparably higher levels of trust among members of our species that we are not immediately related too.

I think in animal communities there is always the risk that some offspring will lose their parents through illness and injury. In some species and societies adult males will try and kill offspring who are not their own, while some practice infanticide. Many communities have children who are not well cared for by their own parents or families.


My point really is that if we look at the roles that many gay and lesbian people have (without drawing excessively on stereotypes) within their communities, many have successful roles that (a) involve selflessly caring and nurturing (eg teaching, nursing/medical careers, coaching, university teaching etc) children who are not their own, many of these children will have much to offer the ongoing survival of the community; or (b) work in single sex environments crucial to the survival of the wider community (eg military); or (c) have leadership positions within their communities that draw on their natural affinity to work with heterosexual male and females members equally well and with an understanding that all the young people of any community may become community memebers who may contribute significantly to the survival of the community in future; or (d) are highly specialised and essential roles to the wider community, that cannot generally be filled by people who may have their own immediate families' interests at heart more than that of the wider community.

This is not to say that heterosexual people are not able to fill all of these roles extremely well, only to observe that under some conditions, gay members may well have an extremely valuable role to play among the "reproducing" members of society.

And that is because although humans are a species that notably trust those that they are not closely related to, they are more inclined to make more sacrifices for those that they are more closely related to.

Gay members of a community may be more inclined to contribute more to the wider community because they are not genetically predisposed to favour their immediate off spring (because they may not have any).

Of course gay and bisexual people do have children, many are adaptive to the norms and needs of their immediate community at any given time. This flexibility may also improve the health, and long term survival of a community, and collective genetic inheritance. The sacrifice then is of perhaps not having children but there are many potential benefits for the community,as well as freedoms for the individuals.
 

Cobalt Blue

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Posts
2,260
Media
1
Likes
2,051
Points
433
Location
UK
seems pretty simple, if only the men with large penises reproduce, then it would follow that in the future, there would be less small penis men. Who knows if women would force that to happen by mate selection. ...
Well, it isn't quite that simple!
I don't buy it. It sounds like junk speculation and pseudo-scientific horseshit. ...
Men with small penises have always gotten laid, and as far as I know, it doesn't seem plausible that men with large penises consistently have more kids than men with smaller penises. I think other factors influence mating and breeding so much more that penis size is a non-factor and therefore won't change that much. I could be wrong, though.
I just don't see penis size making sense in the same way the other criteria you've mentioned do. Most people have already mentioned they myriad reasons of why it doesn't make so much sense.
Again, not quite that simple.
As other members have pointed out, man already has the largest penis of any primate. Why is this? Any student of recent cultural history, this site being an excellent example, would have noticed a paradigm shift in the way that the penis is being discussed openly amongst both sexes. There is even a gender difference emerging, whereas men have traditionally thought in terms of length as the salient trait when describing the concept of penile size, most 'length versus girth' surveys show that a large proportion of women use thickness rather than length as the determining salient trait:
Are we talking about length or girth? Both are important, but girth is more important than length.
So far so good, albeit not very scientific. So has a preference for a larger penis expressed itself historically and in evolutionary terms? There are several extremely fascinating studies that seem to bear this out:

Cambridge University Press
0521845386 - Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty - Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-cuckoldry Tactics - Edited by Steven M. Platek and Todd K. Shackelford

Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty - Cambridge University Press

In Chapter 7, Gordon Gallup and Rebecca Burch [ SUNY Oswego - Psychology Department: Faculty and Staff ] introduce the semen-displacement hypothesis, which suggests that the morphology of the human penis may act to plunge another male’s ejaculate from the reproductive tract of his partner. Gallup and Burch (2004) documented that men’s and women’s perceptions of a male’s sexual behavior (e.g. depth, vigor, and speed of penile thrusting) change as a function of cuckoldry risk. Additionally, by utilizing prosthetic male and female genitalia, they provide evidence that the morphology of the human penis, specifically the glans penis, the frenulum, and the coronal ridge, may be designed for successful semen displacement. This chapter capitulates this hypothesis and raises some interesting predictions based on their findings.

By using the coronal ridge to create a suction mechanism, the penis is able to remove sperm already deposited in the female’s reproductive tract.

The most obvious assumption of the evolution of the male penis is female preference. That is males with longer, thicker penises are preferred to males with shorter or thinner penises by receptive females. If this were the case, then there would be evidence that females do indeed prefer big penises to small penises. According to G. Arnqvist, the penis only evolves as a result of sexual selection if the female of the species mates polyandrously(2). This would indicate that since there is evidence that the human penis evolved through sexual selection(1), that human females are polyandrous in their mating choices. Since human females are polyandrous, this leads to the assumption that there is not only intersexual selection, but also intrasexual selection. Intrasexual competition is realm where sperm competition occurs. Sperm competition explains why human testicles are so large. Chimpanzees, whose females are also polyandrous, also engage in sperm competition. However, their penises are small, when compared to humans, while their testicles are larger than humans. So what is the mechanism behind the actual size of the human penis?

There is evidence to suggest that the human penis is capable of displacing seminal fluid from the reproductive tract of human females. Length of the penis may have evolved as a way to place semen deeper in the reproductive tract of the female, making it less vulnerable to displacement(1), which would make the sperm of a male with a longer penis more likely to fertilize the female, which would make the male with the longer penis more fit. This explanation overlooks whether the female prefers a male with a longer penis. It has been suggested that the actual size of the penis has evolved through female selection, and that females have chosen larger penises over smaller penises. It bears mentioning that that the coronal ridge of the penis is shaped so that at its most pronounced point, it will come into contact with the g-spot of the female. It has also been suggested that a female who reaches orgasm during intercourse is more likely to conceive. So it may be that a penis long enough to reach the g-spot will be more likely to produce offspring, and that females may select penises that may give them orgasms.
Since males have to “persuade” females to mate with them, it stands to reason that males are going to compete against each other for the females’ attention. This relates to penis size as in an ancestral environment, males may have displayed their penises to entice females. This may be a biological reason behind male “flashing” or exhibitionism.
Since humans are bipedal the penis is a highly noticeable feature. It has been suggested that in ancestral environments, males may have been selected for bigger penises by using them as a status symbol. This would mean using penises to decide social standing. The male with the largest penis would be the one with the most power, therefore the male with the most access to females.
However, other hypotheses may be conjectured in the future which may provide a stronger case for the morphology of the penis.

see also:
Arnqvist, G. (1998). Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393(June 25):784. Gallup, G. G. Jr., and Burch, R. L. (2004. Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2:12-23. Majerus M. E. N., O’donald, P., Kearns P. W. E. and Ireland H. (1986). Genetics and evolution of female choice. Nature 321(May 8):164-7


As for another question raised in this thread:
...penises over the 5.1" actual average. ... most modern scientific surveys put it closer to 5.1" and this is not putting into consideration that small men would be less likely to participate
Got links to those surveys?
The Journal of Urology puts the average penis size at 5.08 inches, and the International Journal of Impotence Research puts it at 5.35 inches.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
i have an idea.

obviously, penis size evolved to the current average size at some point in primate history. we don't know if it evolved (that I know of) in humans. we do know that chimps have smaller penises than humans, but it's possible that one of our common ancestors from chimps had a more human-sized penis, and chimps evolved away from that whie that chane evolved in us. what drifterwood said makes sense-- walking upright makes a lot of sense for why sexual organs have gotten bigger and selected for. they are our human version of the peacock's plume. however, like the other culturally-induced biological evolution that Just Asking is talking about, we have added another factor that may have changed the evolution of the penis to a larger size-- clothing. we wear a lot more clothing than did our ancestors in africa, especially those first ancestors who first started walking upright.

here's another idea. penis size seemingly has a very important limiting agent-- vaginal capacity. As penis size gets bigger, there are fewer woman that can comfortably accommodate said penises. In that scenario, one or two things may happen-- vaginal size gets larger to accommodate the larger penises, or the penises get smaller or stay at a relatively constant size-- around the average capacity of the female vagina. In fact, in this scenario, men with smaller penises have a biological advantage-- they can impregnate more women because they can comfortably have intercourse with a larger percentage of women. This reason is most likely why penis size and vaginal capacity share about the same average-- they have evolved together.

It remains, though, that for penis size to get larger, average vaginal capacity must also get larger. Vaginal capacity would have to get larger first to make a larger penis selected for. So then, what increases vaginal capacity? Penis size could, though it seems to be an uphill battle. Walking upright, larger stature, larger offspring could all influence vaginal size to be larger and bring penis size with it. My main point is that penis size, unless heavily selected for for other factors (hardwired preference for larger being one of them), comes behind vaginal capacity, not ahead.

Just some ideas.