Evolution and Penis Size

[DaddyDick Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close DaddyDick]

If everyone on that island cut off their index fingers would baby's eventually start to be born without index fingers?

Only if that tribe was in Russia. Yes, this is a reference to a government project.

Does this indicate that I may have read a book?

[Toadstool Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Toadstool]

What utter bollocks!

Is it? That is a question of sexual selection. The survival advantage would be reproducing more frequently. Over time the population may develop larger penises ... Even becoming a detriment to themselves.

I once heard of the Irish elk who developed antlers so large that they became the cause of the elk's extinction. These antlers are thought to have become some phallic symbol for the females and, over time, selected only the largest ones.
This led to problems. The antlers grew so large that it became difficult for the male to lift his own head. Fighting and protecting became much more difficult and, over time, they became extinct.

[billybrown Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close billybrown]

True, we know that now, but what I'm tying to bring across Padawan787 is that for the average peasant, like you and I, the THEORY given to believe in is not the THEORY taught at the highest levels. What Aristotle knew in 330 BC still got you burned at stake in the Middle Ages. Those boys BC were talking atoms mate & that nothing is really solid, when we were taught those were discovered much later with microscopes, etc. It is not called RE-search by accident . The same guys that preach and tax you on global warming now were preaching global cooling in the seventies with all the "scientific evidence" to prove it. Darwin's evolution theory (it's actually not his he was just the poster boy of his time) is very much a self justifying elitist, survival of the fittest propaganda. There's a lot more behind that "theory" that meets the eye, but I don't want to go into it now. Gravity theory in the old Newtonean sense has been "proven" wrong by people like Einstein (his is still just a theory. The phenomena that we observe as gravity exists of course... the man made bullshit around it is an other story.

[Jakebfs Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jakebfs]

If female vaginas have increased in size over the past few thousand years it is because humans are getting bigger, therefore babies are bigger and more room is required.

I would argue basic biological evolution has been ruled out in humans for many, many years. Penis size means nothing, reproduction success is based on all the factors we all know relationsships are based on (personality, looks, similar interests etc), since these conscious decisions have been made for thousands of years, it has ruled out penis size having any significant evolution. Just my two cents

[Padawan787 Moderator ReservePEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Padawan787]

What Aristotle knew in 330 BC still got you burned at stake in the Middle Ages.

We now have modern and civilized concepts in place such as the separation of church and state, these avoid galileo incidents and the meddling of religion in the advancement of science and human knowledge.

Those boys BC were talking atoms mate & that nothing is really solid, when we were taught those were discovered much later with microscopes, etc.

Here's a quote addressing the evolutive nature of science, which is something that you seem to dislike: "The suggestion that science is unreliable because it changes is akin to believing maps are unreliable because cartography is improving."

Our data, and our interpretation of the data, and the techniques used to analyse the data improve over time.

The same guys that preach and tax you on global warming now were preaching global cooling in the seventies with all the "scientific evidence" to prove it.

Honestly, global cooling and global warming are really very interchangeable terms. Most people fail to realise that global cooling would actual be the result of an increase in global temperature (global warming).

Darwin's evolution theory (it's actually not his he was just the poster boy of his time) is very much a self justifying elitist, survival of the fittest propaganda. There's a lot more behind that "theory" that meets the eye, but I don't want to go into it now.

If you have evidence which disproves the theory of evolution you should write it down, get it peer-reviewed, and go collect your nobel prize.

[imac Retired Moderator Member of the Month Nov 12PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close imac]

Is it? That is a question of sexual selection. The survival advantage would be reproducing more frequently. Over time the population may develop larger penises ... Even becoming a detriment to themselves.

I once heard of the Irish elk who developed antlers so large that they became the cause of the elk's extinction. These antlers are thought to have become some phallic symbol for the females and, over time, selected only the largest ones.
This led to problems. The antlers grew so large that it became difficult for the male to lift his own head. Fighting and protecting became much more difficult and, over time, they became extinct.

Are you suggesting that sexual selection in humans is based on penis size? Or that having a large penis allows someone to reproduce more frequently?

The mating habits of humans are a bit more complex than that of Elk.

[billybrown Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close billybrown]

Hahaha, no evidence. But listen, science is politically charged. Changing from flat earth to round proves that. We don't know shit unfortunately, not even the basics of life, who we are, where we come from or where are we going after. The middle of it though is filled with a lot of BS. Those boys in their white coats with their theories are financed by people or organizations with interests. There will never be any Theory or technology let out to the wider public domain which is not authorized. No free or unlimited fuel (or not even just cheaper one) or anything that would get power away from those who have it. REAL KNOWLEDGE SHARED IS POWER LOST! Anyway, I'm not trying to change your mind I'm just asking you to consider this and do not believe everything thrown at you from high up.

[tanaka Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close tanaka]

I would argue basic biological evolution has been ruled out in humans for many, many years.

It is widely accepted that reproduction rates decrease with standard of living. Higher education means less children so in first world countries reproduction may be in danger. (E.g. Japan.) We make it worse by rewarding non-working/low-wage poor with subsidies that even encourage reproduction.

If you haven't seen the movie Idiocracy I highly recommend it. It is hilarious. And perhaps prophetic.

[billybrown Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close billybrown]

Yeah, Idiocracy turned out to be more accurate than Nostradamus

[Toadstool Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Toadstool]

Are you suggesting that sexual selection in humans is based on penis size? Or that having a large penis allows someone to reproduce more frequently?

No, I'm suggesting that if there was an island made of two groups of naked people, one who pulls on their ding dongs, and one who does not, then the larger penises might provide an evolutionary advantage and carry on into the next generation just based off sexual selection.
That is, if there was an island of these two groups of people, if they were all naked (they'd have to be, otherwise how would anyone know they have a big dingaling?), if the women unanimously had a strong preference for it...
It's not complete utter bullocks to think that could happen, especially if you look at what happened to the irish elk.

The mating habits of humans are a bit more complex than that of Elk.

That is debatable.

[imac Retired Moderator Member of the Month Nov 12PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close imac]

No, I'm suggesting that if there was an island made of two groups of naked people, one who pulls on their ding dongs, and one who does not, then the larger penises might provide an evolutionary advantage and carry on into the next generation.
It's not complete utter bullocks to think that could happen, especially if you look at what happened to the irish elk.

I'm afraid it is utter bollocks to think that manually enlarging you penis through PE has any bearing on the genetic make up you pass on.

[DaddyDick Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close DaddyDick]

No, I'm suggesting that if there was an island made of two groups of naked people, one who pulls on their ding dongs, and one who does not, then the larger penises might provide an evolutionary advantage and carry on into the next generation just based off sexual selection.
That is, if there was an island of these two groups of people, if they were all naked (they'd have to be, otherwise how would anyone know they have a big dingaling?), if the women unanimously had a strong preference for it...

The only trait that would be carried for the people who pull their penises is the ability to pull their penises further. Genetic code must be altered for a change to happen. PE is is only a modification and will NEVER change DNA structure.

[imac Retired Moderator Member of the Month Nov 12PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close imac]

The only trait that would be carried for the people who pull their penises is the ability to pull their penises further. Genetic code must be altered for a change to happen. PE is is only a modification and will NEVER change DNA structure.

Exactly.

[Padawan787 Moderator ReservePEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Padawan787]

We don't know shit unfortunately, not even the basics of life, who we are, where we come from or where are we going after. The middle of it though is filled with a lot of BS.

We actually do understand an awful lot about our origins, and we most certainly do not know "shit."

May I ask if you're religious?

There will never be any Theory or technology let out to the wider public domain which is not authorized.

Authorised by whom?

Everything trickles down. Also, an awful lot of research is done by the private sector.

No free or unlimited fuel (or not even just cheaper one) or anything that would get power away from those who have it. REAL KNOWLEDGE SHARED IS POWER LOST!

Science has provided cheaper alternatives, and research is being conducted on alternative fuel sources. The oil lobbyists obviously play a role, but they will only remain relevant until an economically viable alternative is discovered.
The problem isn't necessarily how efficient a particular fuel source is, the problem also involves the cost of replacing the supporting infrastructure (i.e. the combustion engine).

The issue of alternative fuels is an economic question, not entirely a scientific one.

[Toadstool Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Toadstool]

You guys bring up a good point. My elk comment really is out of place, then.


I thought that the body would adapt to environmental changes. It seemed likely to me that if you had a group of people all enlarging their penis and them carrying on their genetics, that a shift would be made. What you guys are saying that it's the behaviour that would be passed down, and not the peen