Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Descent of testicles.
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 1 of 55 (446798)
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


Introduction:
Evolution is a directed process in which the neodarwinian forces of random mutation and natural selection play no role. Evolution is a predetermined process established by spirit and directed by internal forces of unknown characters.
Materialistic biology has only a restricted capacity to solve the great mystery of evolution. Great scientists of the past coined the term "orthogenesis". The only scientists nowadays who continues in their work is professor John Davison with his "Evolutionary Manifesto". I would like to extend and support his ideas of "evolution governed by law" by some interesting thoughts about evolution of descent of testicles. This is the partial problem of evolution where on my opinion neodarwinism hasn't offered a coherent and plausible explanation. Obviously behind the descent of testicles are evolutionary forces that govern beyond "natural selection", and we are facing some evolutionary forces with their own rules.
Mammalian species are often characterised by having testicles outside their bodies. Evolution of descent of testicles outside body has been a puzzle for evolutionary biology for a long time and the most common and accepted explanation for many years has been it was due to "cooling sperma". The history and enumeration of concepts explaining descent of testicles are to be found in the article by doctor Myers at Pharyngula:
What I want to stress is that the most common explanation is probably only a hypothesis with no scientific backing, because it is untestable:
A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted
I think it is not only untestable, but utterly dubious neodarwinian explanation.
The problem cannot be solved by "cooling sperma" explanation, because:
  1. Some mammalian species have testicles inside their bodies and obviously haven't "cooling spermatozoa" problems.
  2. Birds often have temperatures of 42o Celsius and do not have "cooling spermatozoa" problems either:
We should take into the consideration that having testicles outside the body is a very dangerous place.
The whole phenomenon can be observed in females too - descent of ovaries during evolution. But of course it is not as aparent and manifest as in males.
What we observe is increasing structuring of mammalian bodies and their functions in the two poles. The head pole - responsible for individual orientation towards the world (here are almost all senses: vision, taste, hearing, smell) and the opposite pole responsible for reproduction.
So the evolution of the descent of testicles into dangerous places outside of the body is directed by evolutionary forces that stand above random mutation and natural selection and cannot be reduced to them. It cannot be explained by neodarwinian formula "form follows fuction" either.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 01-07-2008 9:39 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 4 by Larni, posted 01-07-2008 9:46 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 9:56 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 6 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 10:05 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-07-2008 10:17 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 01-07-2008 10:21 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 10:25 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2008 10:30 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2008 2:42 PM MartinV has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 55 (446802)
01-07-2008 9:34 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics.

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 3 of 55 (446805)
01-07-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


Okay, darwinian evolution can't explain it, so you resort to some sort of directed process to explain descended testes. What, then, does a preference for descended testes tell us about the implied "director?" I posit that it tells us one of three things. The director is either:
a. a blithering idiot
b. a woman, or
c. a comedy writer.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 4 of 55 (446808)
01-07-2008 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


Testicles being in a dangerous place is indead very odd.
But it is much more odd for them to be in such a dangerous position in a directed version of evolution, don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 5 of 55 (446813)
01-07-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


2. Birds often have temperatures of 42o Celsius and do not have "cooling spermatozoa" problems either:
I'm not currently persuaded that this is very relevant. Birds have taken a different evolutionary path than mammals, and this could include other changes in the reproductive system that make bird sperm able to withstand higher temperatures.
I have not yet looked at the examples of mammals with internal testes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "evolutionary forces that stand above random mutation and natural selection" (particularly the "stand above" part of that). If that "stands above" is intended to refer to an intelligent designer, then your own observeration that "having testicles outside the body is a very dangerous place" would seem to argue against such intelligent design.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 10:35 AM nwr has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 6 of 55 (446814)
01-07-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


Martin, you say;
The whole phenomenon can be observed in females too - descent of ovaries during evolution. But of course it is not as aparent and manifest as in males.
If the process was directed (and you neglect to mention who your director might be, but I think I get the hint) then why lower the ovaries at all? Why not descend the testicles and leave the ovaries where they were? Of course, if the whole business evolved, it might make sense...

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 11:01 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 7 of 55 (446816)
01-07-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


i don't know anything about testicles, but i did do a science fair project about cetaceans and deep diving. when whales and dolphins dive into deep water for long periods of time, their blood nearly boils from the pressure and so forth. this is fine for the cetaceans, but dangerous for their fetuses. they have specific adaptations to protect their fetuses from the damaging effects of boiling hot blood. god help me it's been a long time ago, but look into it. maybe that'll give you some answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 55 (446818)
01-07-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


You mention two categories of counter-example.
Would you agree that if the animals that have internal testicles had either an alternative way of cooling their sperm, or had sperm that was not damaged by their body temperature then the cooling hypothesis still stands?
The paper cited by PZ is quite interesting. The most parsimonious explanation for the pattern of scrotumless mammals is that the adaptation came no earlier than the common ancestor of golden moles and elephant shrews, with some independent adaptations in the monotremes and one group of tenrecs. Thus, as you say: external scrota is not the best solution...unfortunately it was the best one mammalian ancestors had. Evolutionary pressures are decreasing the numbers of mammal species with this less than perfect solution.
There are many examples of less than perfect solutions, and I don't see how a paper that gives evidence of less than perfect solutions being replaced by better solutions helps your theory that this is not neodarwinian in nature.
What we observe is increasing structuring of mammalian bodies and their functions in the two poles. The head pole - responsible for individual orientation towards the world (here are almost all senses: vision, taste, hearing, smell) and the opposite pole responsible for reproduction.
We also observed increasing structuring of mammalian bodies in areas that you have not designated 'poles'. How does observing an increase in structure contradict neodarwinian evolutionary predictions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 11:29 AM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 55 (446822)
01-07-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


Remember, often there is no purpose.
One thing that we tend to forget is that the filter is "was it good enough to live long enough to reproduce?"
That's it. Was it good enough to live long enough to reproduce? Fini!
Often mutations can result in really dumb traits, pointless traits, ones that make you scratch your head in wonder. But that's just how it is.
At some time in some species some mutation led to testicles descended.
Did those species continue to reproduce?
Was the mutation one that kept the individual from reproducing?
The answer is "No, they reproduced."
And that's it.
The topic title begins with an implied fallacy, that some feature had to confer some advantage. That is simply a false assumption. The way the filter works is, anything goes unless it confers some disadvantage that is so severe that it prevents the critter reproducing.
"Was it good enough to live long enough to reproduce? Yes!"

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 01-07-2008 10:43 AM jar has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 10 of 55 (446823)
01-07-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
01-07-2008 9:29 AM


MartinV
I think it is not only untestable, but utterly dubious neodarwinian explanation.
The problem cannot be solved by "cooling sperma" explanation, because:
1. Some mammalian species have testicles inside their bodies and obviously haven't "cooling spermatozoa" problems.
t
2. Birds often have temperatures of 42o Celsius and do not have "cooling spermatozoa" problems either:
From this site
http://www.ossh.com/birds/budgies/gensystm.html
we get this explanation.
In common with their reptilian ancestors, the body temperature of birds fluctuates; it is believed that when it falls at night, sperm production can then proceed.
From another site
Picture Gallery - Infertile Felines | Fooling With Nature | FRONTLINE | PBS
we get this interesting bit of information.
Florida's panthers are in serious trouble. And some scientists see unsettling parallels between these large cats and other mammals, including humans. Already an endangered species, Florida's panthers are plagued by low sperm counts, abnormal sperm, undescended testicles, thyroid problems, depressed immune function, and congenital heart defects. Only 30 to 50 of the large cats survive. Until recently, inbreeding was blamed for their fertility problems. But many scientists think that manmade chemicals, like pesticides, are the real culprits.
The panthers' reproductive problems are the most severe of any cat species studied. Panthers have the lowest sperm counts, the lowest semen volume, and the highest number of abnormal sperm on record. In fact, over 90% of their sperm are abnormal. Most of the males also suffer from "cryptorchidism", meaning that one or both testes remain lodged in the abdomen. These undescended testes can contribute to sperm defects. They produce less sperm, and more defective sperm, than testes that descend properly into the scrotum. As a result of the defects, several of Florida's panthers are completely sterile and are unable to impregnate a female.
These fertility problems are eerily similar to reports of undescended testicles and plummeting sperm counts in humans. By some estimates, although the science is controversial, human sperm counts have dropped 50% over the last fifty years. What's more, a study in England showed an approximate doubling in the rate of undescended testes in three-month old boys between the 1950's and 1980's. Similar increases in cryptorchidism have been reported in Scotland and Denmark, although not in the U.S.
Since evolution does not require that our hypothesis be correct and only that the observed phenomena {undescended testicles} have no deleterious effects on the reproduction capabilities of the species.
It may be dangerous but I do not think that there is much in the way of evidence that danger has ever slowed down the human capacity for sexual fitness.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 01-07-2008 9:29 AM MartinV has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 11 of 55 (446825)
01-07-2008 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
01-07-2008 9:56 AM


I'm not currently persuaded that this is very relevant. Birds have taken a different evolutionary path than mammals, and this could include other changes in the reproductive system that make bird sperm able to withstand higher temperatures.
I have two points.
I. If such changes were possible in reproductive system of birds I see no reason why such changes in reproductive system would not have been possible in mammalian lineages too. It is only speculation that it was somehow impossible.
II. I think that the concept of sperms withstanding this or that temperature has two explanation. Either yours or the opposite one - sperms adapted to lower temperature in external scrotum. Now you consider sperms seeking lower temperature to be the source of their descent. The opposite view - their lower temperature as adatation on environment is also possible. I would say the second explanation is more in accord with the spirit of neodarwinism than the first one, but it is only my personal opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean by "evolutionary forces that stand above random mutation and natural selection" (particularly the "stand above" part of that). If that "stands above" is intended to refer to an intelligent designer, then your own observeration that "having testicles outside the body is a very dangerous place" would seem to argue against such intelligent design.
Not at all. We have two poles. The evolutionary "polarization force" do not care for survival advantage of species or for selfish gene's opinion. It do it job regardless of natural selection and do not care if it's outcomes are fittest or not. Maybe in some periods fittest were reptilians, dinos etc, but mammalians went their way. I do not deny "natural selection" but is only force removing extremities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 9:56 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 11:27 AM MartinV has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 55 (446828)
01-07-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
01-07-2008 10:25 AM


Re: Remember, often there is no purpose.
The way the filter works is, anything goes unless it confers some disadvantage that is so severe that it prevents the critter reproducing.
That's not right, really. The critter and its descendants have to reproduce at a rate at least the same as the other critters in its deme, otherwise the proportion of critters with the mutation will decrease over time.
The only exception to this is if the deme has not reached its maximum size with respect to its environment. If the deme has little competition for resources and can grow, then minor disadvantages are less likely to be penalized as much. However, once competition kicks up again, when there are limited numbers who get to successfully reproduce...any disadvantage relative to your deme-mates will tend to lead to the extinction of that disadvantage.
A descent of testicles may well increase fecundity, an advantage in a competitive world and so it could spread as long as the accompanying survival disadvantage was not too severe. There may be better ways of increasing fecundity but scrota got there first, and once we had it we'd have to wait until a better solution came along. That seems to have happened to some mammals, but not all of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 10:25 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 10:52 AM Modulous has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 55 (446836)
01-07-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
01-07-2008 10:43 AM


Re: Remember, often there is no purpose.
That's not right, really. The critter and its descendants have to reproduce at a rate at least the same as the other critters in its deme, otherwise the proportion of critters with the mutation will decrease over time.
Sure, but there is still no purpose and is just the next iteration of the process. As long as they reproduce they continue. If eventually they become so small a minority that they cease to exist, then that is simply the way things went.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 01-07-2008 10:43 AM Modulous has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 14 of 55 (446844)
01-07-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Granny Magda
01-07-2008 10:05 AM


Granny Magda
If the process was directed (and you neglect to mention who your director might be, but I think I get the hint) then why lower the ovaries at all? Why not descend the testicles and leave the ovaries where they were? Of course, if the whole business evolved, it might make sense...
I don't see your point. The process of polarization involved both sexes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 10:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 3:21 PM MartinV has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2863 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 15 of 55 (446850)
01-07-2008 11:15 AM


Health cue?
Total speculation, but has the following been ruled out?
An external scrotum presents more direct health cues (size, smell etc.) for females wishing to reproduce. This would increase the probability of healthy offspring. Perhaps such an adaptation becomes more likely in animals with a longer reproductive cycle.
I'm not a biologist, so if the above is garbage, a one line explanation would be enough. Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 01-07-2008 11:19 AM sinequanon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024