Evolution and Penis Size

[HailEros]

As I said I was attempting to educate. However, I can see you wish to argue, so be it. However, please reread your original post and subsequent post, and avoid the shifting argument. Look you are interchanging DNA and genes in a way that is utterly nonsensical. DNA and genes are not the same thing. That would be like saying a pile of metal is a Corvette. I have no doubt that you are intelligent, and educated. However, I am unaware of when you went through, biology, genetics, embryology, cellular biology, microbiology, evolutionary analysis, or any of the other biology curriculum that covers this topic. Things have changed, and they will continue to change at a very rapid pace.


What I say has no bearing on the fact that what you said is invalid, it is invalid. You said genetic code does not get adjusted, that is invalid. You said genetic code does not change, that is invalid. You said the genes you pass on to your kids are the genes you are born with, that is invalid.

There is no evolution without genes/DNA changing, and those changes have to occur in an individuals lifetime. If there is no evolution, we are all the same. A person does not evolve, but a person's genes/DNA will change. Here is a link to wiki that explains mutations Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The recapitulation theory is not considered accurate. However Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a term still frequently used, to mean that as we develop we go through stages that look like our ancestors.

THANK YOU. Sorry I posted my response to that before I read yours. You expressed my point more efficiently.

[Ivor]

I completely disagree. If this were the case, there would be no such thing as evolution. If the genetics of a given specimen are fixed at conception and do not alter throughout It's lifetime then at what point would any genes evolve?

Evolution is not something that individuals do, it's something that a population does. Genetic material gets 'remixed' every time sexual reproduction occurs, and mutations provide extra variation. Some genetic combinations are more successful than others and so get passed on. Over time the genetic makeup of a breeding population - *not* the genes of one individual - changes according to environmental pressures.

Babies aren't born "massively ripped" because they are not yet developed. A baby boy who is born from a long line of muscular men isn't going to be muscular at birth, but later in life after sexual development, given a proper environment, that baby will probably be muscular, or at least have a significant advantage over a person born from a less muscular lineage. I believe (yes, this is a BELIEF. Not trying to call it a theory. Not saying It's anything concrete. Rather a general idea that makes sense to me) that a person's lifetime actually determines evolution. A given individual's perception , through experience, on what is required to facilitate survival, I believe, is what determines specific traits that should be passed down on a genetic level.

You're right that a predisposition to being muscular will make it easier for someone to put on muscle mass, obviously. But this genetic predisposition has nothing do with what you do or 'perceive' in your lifetime - it's fixed at the moment of your conception. You can only work with what you've got.

[NauseousOuroboros]

Evolution is not something that individuals do, it's something that a population does.

Not at all. Evolution does occur to individual organisms. The environment the organism lives in has a cumulative effect on the phenotype of the organisms DNA. This of course gets passed on if the organism sexually reproduces but it also cements the individual organism's genetic changes.

[Ivor]

But the phenotype doesn't affect the genotype, that's the whole point. The genotype can be changed by mutations but these are random, they don't happen in response to evolutionary pressures. It sounds like you're talking about Lamarckian evolution, which was a rival theory to Darwin's and has been completely discarded.

I have no idea what you mean by "cement[ing] the individual organism's genetic changes"...what changes? If you're short then tough luck, you've got 'short' genes - no amount of wishing you were tall or doing stretching exercises is going to turn your 'short' genes into 'long' ones.

[samsi4life]

Alright, here are my two best theories.

1. Our transition to carbohydrate diets over the last 10K years has reduced our dependance on protein, which as I noted previously, may be a factor in determining how large the penis grows during childhood etc.

2. (This is not pleasant.) Throughout eons of evolution men were having sex with girls too young for the act (incest and rape of pre-pubescents or young post-pubescents). Evolution rewarded men with small organs to reduce damage to the females involved.

Just theories.

Here is a thought... if you dont evolve you die! Evolution does not care about sex fantasies but procreation... ok you dont have a 10 incher but even a 4 inch penis can get a girl pregnant... so i dint think evolution cares about big or small as long as its big enough to continue life

[second lensman]

What do you suppose would be the result if only people with IQ's of 150 or greater would be allowed to breed, or the converse if only those with IQ's of 90 or less?
Has any one seen the movies Idiocracy? or Zardox?
What if only men with 12" dicks could breed? How many generations would it take for an increase in the average size?
Apologies to those who perhaps very legitimately believe in creationism. Who am I to argue?
I have lots of questions but answers can be a real bitch.
P.S. Your lesson for today is: what is the derivation of the word evolution?