What about dinosaurs?

Discussion in 'New Member Introductions' started by Imported, Dec 2, 2003.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Shelby: Assuming the theories of evolution and natural selection are valid, wouldn't it follow that a median sized penis is the most perfectly adapted to the purpose it serves? I mean if a nine inch penis bestowed the genetic advantage many members here seem to believe it does, it stands to reason that this would have over time become the average.
    Because the great majority of posts here are self congratulatory in tone, I thought I'd toss this out for your consideration.
     
  2. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    So the average height guy is nature's choice?

    Or the average sized ears?

    Or the average sized nose?

    Or the average sized feet?

    Or ... well you get the idea.

    Variety is the spice of life!


    Pecker

    You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.
     
  3. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Donk: Interesting post. Here's a couple of thoughts:

    First, I'll just observe that not everyone believes in the validity of evolutionary theory. But your post starts with the premise that we'll assume it's valid, so I'll leave anything more on that issue unsaid.

    Second, assuming the general validity of evolution/ natural selection theory as a premise, the next step would be to state a theory of how natural selection plays out as an empirical matter. I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that a theory that does not explain what we actually see in the world must be of questionable validity. Taking your version of natural selection theory to its logical conclusion, there would be one ideal size for everything and we might expect all human beings to be about that same size (i.e., in overall body size, not just penis size). And that's obviously not the case--there is great variation. (On the topic of penis size in particular, it may not be that a 9 inch penis is a genetic advantage, but if it were a serious disadvantage, it's unlikely that the genes for it would still be in existence. On the other hand, maybe all of us with large penises are just mutants.)

    Third, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the average-sized penis is perfectly suited for its purpose and that this explains why most penises are around that size, so what? Is there some moral victory in having an "evolutionarily perfect" penis size? As a topic for discussion, the post is interesting, but to the extent that it suggests there is something "wrong" with having a penis that varies from the median I don't really get it. (Also, I don't really agree with the post's premise that LPSG members generally perceive a "genetic advantage" to a large penis. And I personally don't believe that my penis size makes me in any way superior to anyone with a smaller penis.)
     
  4. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Ineligible: In general, variation in a community has a strong evolutionary advantage, because conditions don't stay the same. If everyone is at the ideal, and conditions change, then everyone is suboptimal. But if there is variation, then some individuals will be better off, and able quickly to take advantage of the changed conditions. In this way the species as a whole can adapt faster, and therefore survive better.

    That's the theory, anyway. It's a bit difficult to see how it might directly relate to penis size, but it may simply be that biological systems work generally to produce variation because it's often useful, so they produce variation even when it's not useful.
     
  5. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    EddieUK: I AM a scientist and it has been well established for a number of years that the human penis is LARGER than it needs to be (yes, even the average ones). You are confusing Natural Selection with Sexual Selection. There is a slight difference. It is assumed that over the course of evolution (when we were still running around naked) that females would select males with bigger penises presumibly considering their own pleasure. Also, in the animal kingdom, bigger usually means healthier. So, a male with a bigger penis would probably father a healthier child (AND pass on the traits that mad his penis bigger.) Over time, penises got bigger this way.
    It is the same for peacocks. Ever seen one fly? Their huge tails make it very difficult. They also make them a mark for predators. So, why have one? Why? because female peahens chose those with bigger tails to mate with. Over time, the ones with bigger tails mate and pass that trait on and so on........ Dariwn once said that the site of a peacock made him sick (becasue he culdn't explain it with his theory.)

    Anyway, the bottom line is that sexual selection for penis size worked when we were running around naked. Now, what makes a man "healthy" is other things (job, muscular build, finacial security.)
     
  6. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Shelby: I agree with all of you. Thanks for your considerate and well reasoned replies. :)
     
  7. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    lomejorhombre: Thanks EddieUK! finally a real scientific explaination here. I was beginning to wonder if I needed to start giving biology lessons online to many people here so they could get a true grasp on what some of these terms meen that their throwing about!
     
  8. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    lilaznguy: My two cents... which probably aren't even necessary, but I thought I'd share...

    From a purely mathematical standpoint (using Markov Chains and Leslie matrices to model populations), marginal groups will continue to maintain generally the same ratio over time... this is assuming that nature "works itself out," evolutionarily... (which probably isn't a word, but hell, I'm going to be a comp sci major, so don't bug me about it :p)

    Basically, the percentage of the population with above average penises (as well as those that are average or below average) will stay pretty much the same over time, all things constant. Just thought I'd share, since I did sufficiently well on my lin alg/discrete dynamical systems final. ;)
     
  9. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Tender: ***So, a male with a bigger penis would probably father a healthier child (AND pass on the traits that mad his penis bigger.) ***

    we base our findings on "probably"?
    :D
    of course that isnt true, we know that a small penis has nothing to do with the health of the offspring... its the quality of the sperm... genetics and such.... not size...


    ok i know! i know its theory...
    i get it-- but still its kind of silly i think....

    Tender
     
  10. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    lomejorhombre: I feel the need to give a lesson "sorry"
    In science the term theory has a different meening than in the regular world, same with hypothesis, and law.
    The term law refers to a summary of an observed natural event. Like the law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed only changed from one form to another. This summarizes observed natural events. A theory in science is a proposed explaination of the natural event, as for why and how it occurs. The theory of evolution is a summary of many known natural laws and it puts them together in a why that simplifies and unifies. When ever new data is found it is tested against the theory it may either support the theory or not. Theory may get changed or altered, this is the natural process in science called the scientific method. Now as for the theory of evolution and Darwin, he never even said the term evolution! His term was natural selection. Which is that nature will select for or against a particular trait if it serves as an advantage or disadvantage.
    Now back to the topic, having a larger penis on male Homo sapiens serves no evolutionary advantage. As was mentioned in another comment statistically the average size is the average size simply because more people have it. Now if the trait we were talking about was heighth than there would be a statistical average, anything below this or above it are deviations genetically. They may be caused by disease or mutations in the genetic code itself. The same is true with penis size! The peacock does have an evolutionary advantage for having it plumage, it gets him layed! and this passes on HIS genetic traits and not others, and if the environmental pressures were so strongly against them having this plumage then they would not have survived.
    And besides genetically the size of the penis isn't even a gender related trait and is controlled by numerous genes and alleles and even then gets influenced greatly by the environment as well. Thus just because your dad has a big one does mean you will, it also doesn't mean you won't!

    Now how that for a bunch of science spewing forth from my mouth that I am sure many of you could have cared less about and got board and switched to another topic, Oh well I am a teacher I'm used to it!! :p
     
  11. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    EddieUK: That was part of my point.........over evolution, the guys with bigger penises got laid more and passed those alleles down.
     
  12. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    [quote author=Shelby link=board=meetgreet;num=1070394275;start=0#0 date=12/02/03 at 11:35:35]   Assuming the theories of evolution and natural selection are valid,[/quote]
    Until you can produce a living cell in oxygen, I have no reason to see why evolution isn't valid. And until you can find a phoenix, I can't see why natural selection isn't.

    Wouldn't mutations make it more diverse? What about genetic drift? And maybe mitochondrial Eve was a size queen?

    Well, let's look at what we started with!

    Homo sapiens 12.7 cm
    Pan troglodytes 7.62 cm
    Gorilla gorilla 3.18 cm
    Pongo pygmaeus 3.81 cm

    I don't have anything on Pan pansicus, but the basic theory relies on the female orgasm. The theory is, female orgasms cause draw semen into the vagina; it also explains the thicker human penis. Another theory relies on human promiscuity; species where females are more promiscuous typically have longer penises. Or simply a beauty standard.
     
  13. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Ineligible: Those seem remarkably precise figures, jonb! Where did they come from?
     
  14. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    [quote author=Ineligible link=board=meetgreet;num=1070394275;start=0#12 date=12/25/03 at 16:38:41]Those seem remarkably precise figures, jonb! Where did they come from?[/quote]
    Desmond Morris.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted