Descent of testicles.

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: 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 42^o Celsius and do not have "cooling spermatozoa" problems either:
   ​
   dormancy | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

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.Edited by MartinV, : Reccomendations of AdminPD accepted. I've add Introduction, attached link to Britanica and checked grammar.Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar, word usage, formatting.

A few suggestions. Can you provide a few examples of the species next to points 1) and 2)?Also, I feel that is a bit lacking in details. Perhaps you could expand on it?

The link I have given addressed your first question fully. There is a diagram of mammalian orders"Results of mapping the three character states onto a phylogeny of the Mammalia. Testicle position unordered: red, testicond; gray, descended and ascrotal; black, descended, scrotal; blue, marsupial; white, equivocal.Pharyngula - Hotell anbefalinger BarcelonaThe article describes in detail some mammalian species having testicles inside their bodies.The second question can be easily answered using britannica:

quote:

---

...avian temperatures range between 37.7 and 43.5 C (99.9 and 110.3 F), with the majority between 40 and 42 C (104 and 108 F).

---

dormancy | Definition, Examples, & Facts | BritannicaThe thirs question is for longer discussion and is rather philosophical and speculative. As speculative as "cooling spermatozoa" explanation I would say. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Yes, I was hoping you could integrate the examples of names of species into the OP, to round it off. So it might read like:

quote:

---

some mammalian species (for example, elephants) have testicles inside their bodies and obviously haven't "cooling spermatozoa" problems.

---

quote:

---

birds often have high body temperatures (for example, pigeons and sparrows) and do not have "cooling spermatozoa" problems either.

---

We've got a link to cooling explanation as well as several others as well as a paper on a proposed history of testicles. I was hoping, since you mentioned your preferred theory that you would give at least a cite to it, or even an explanation beyond two sentences. If you keep it in the OP, you will certainly be asked for a cite for any claim that begins 'What we observe is...' so I thought it would cut out wasting posts with requests for said cite.

I anticipated problems with the new thread I will propose. This is my last answer, I will not answer your other questions that on my opinion are nothing else but a kind of chicane. All problems discussed here could be avoided if you have read the short neodarwinian article I have sent. Point 1) and 2) are right and correct.As to your last questions, yes Adolf Portmann claimed it in his article "Dualitat der Geschlechter" mit the words I reproduced almost exactly: "die Differenzierung des Kopfpols, dem die Orientirung des Individuums zugeordnet ist gegenuber einem entgegengesetzten Fortpflanzungpol".ERANOS - JAHRBUCH 1967 Polaritat des Lebens Rhein-Verlag AF, Zurich page 466.

I am not debating with you Martin; I am not suggesting any of your points are right or wrong. I am making suggestions for improving the OP, the first two points are minor and easy additions - not corrections, that I thought would improve the OP.If you really want to avoid adding that information into the OP, that's fine - I didn't expect it would be something you'd be resistant to for any reason. However, would you be so kind to edit the OP to include the cite - and given that it is in German and this is an English-predominated debate site it would save everybody needless backwards and forwards if you could provide a brief summary in English.If you aren't willing to do even this outside of a debate context I can't see any reason to believe you will be any more accommodating during a debate on the subject and so (regretfully) will indicate that I am not inclined to promote the topic. Perhaps another admin will think otherwise - after all it is an interesting topic.

AdminModulous,firstly I don't know what abreviation OP stands for. Secondly I am not willing to write sentences in the way you like them best. It is my post and not yours - I will not write sentences according your dictate. On the other hand if I have sent some neodarwinian stuff or a stupid question you know answer the topic would be released immidiately, no doubt.The whole debate sounds to me as a some kind of parody. First I wrote english meaning of Adolf Portmann words, then you asked me quotation, so I quote those words in German and now - I should translate them into English what I already have done! I cannot do a brief summary in English, because the sentence has obviously few words in German you know.Is there any instance where I can make complain about your moderation? I hope there are not only neodarwinian moderators here but also some unprejudiced judges. The forum is named Evolution versus Creation so I hope there are not only neodarwian admins in charge here.

Of course! You may criticize or complain about my moderation in the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0. Other members may support your proposed topic in Topic Proposal Issues in the same forum. There are also other admins who may feel differently about the OP's quality (not all of which are 'neodarwinian') and decide to promote it - and they can do so without requesting my permission without me feeling undermined. I would really like to see this topic discussed.

---

OK. I have sent my complaint at Suggetions and Quetions. I will see what happens.http://EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0 -->EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0Edited by MartinV, : link added

"OP" is "opening post", or sometimes "opening poster" (originator of the thread).We like the opening post to clearly define the topic to be discussed, and to pique the interest of readers. As it stands, it is not clear to me what you want to debate. It could be that you have a better neo-Darwinian explanation. Or it could be that you have an alternative explanation that is evolutionary but not neo-Darwinian. Or it could be that you are challenging the whole idea of evolution.AdminModulous has been trying to help you improve the OP. It seems to me that he has been attempting to avoid comment on the substance, since that should be left for the actual debate after your thread is promoted.Incidently, though a proponent of evolution, I have also criticized neodarwinism. I'm not sure if that meets your concerns when you object to neodarwinist admins. We also have some non-science admins, but they are usually reluctant to approve scientific topics, much as the scientific admins are reluctant to approve religious topics.

---

I think anyone who can read could underestand from my last sentence that I am criticising neodarwinian explanation of the phenomena. I have introducedd in "Biological evolution" several threads. Claims that I will not defend my opinions there are utterly ridiculous. My thread about mimicry has been closed and many partcipants abused me that I was troll and that I sent repetitive posts. Everyone at "Biological evolution" knows that I am opponent of neodarwinism and that I support the idea of orthogenesis or evolution directed by law.That AdminNosy supports Modulous is no wonder. The last thread I introduced was about German idealistic morphology and again I was
chicaned and forced to rewrite my OP several times - and behold - there was almost no answer to my OP!I am not curious to any neodarwinian admin opinion, because they are colleagues and they hold together. I would like to know opinion of admin with no neodarwinian prejudice who believe either in ID or is
open to the idea there are non neodarwinian forces behind evolution.Is here anyone like that or is "Biological evolution" run by neodarwinian admins exclusively?Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

I am bowing out of this discussion.If either AdminPD or AdminBuzsaw wishes to review your OP, I will accept whatever they may decide is appropriate.

---

I'm not a science admin and I don't even know what neodarwinism is, so here is my opinion.I read your proposal before any admin had responded. I passed because it was a science topic and I tend to pass on those, but at first read, I felt it needed clarification.I feel that the suggestions made by AdminMod were appropriate and would help with the understanding of what you propose to debate. They would be the same questions I would ask. I would also ask that you correct your typos. His recommendations:
Can you provide a few examples of the species next to points 1) and 2)? He provided examples of what he meant.Expand on this statement: What we observe is increasing structuring of mammalian functions and bodies in the two poles. The head pole - responsible for individual orientation towards the world (there are almost all senses: vision, taste, hearing, smell) and the opposite pole responsible for reproduction.However, would you be so kind to edit the OP (opening post) to include the cite - and given that it is in German and this is an English-predominated debate site it would save everybody needless backwards and forwards if you could provide a brief summary in English.Providing a brief summary with attribution is not against forum guidelines.As for AdminMod. His suggestions were not biased and did nothing to detract or change the course of your proposal. Your paranoid responses were more detrimental than his suggestions.If you want this proposal promoted, make the adjustments and let AdminMod know when you are ready for him to promote the topic to the appropriate forum.

I don't underestand you. It is my topic, many opinions are mine and some opinions presented are of German zoologist professor Adolf Portmann. But why it is so important to know whose opinions are presented and if they were first presented in Czech or German? I have presented the article from dr. Myers where names Werdelin and Nilsonne are mentioned. I am disputing their arguments not them.Btw. I have bad experiences mentioning names like Adolf Portmann. He is one of my favourite authors but folks at EvC who knows nothing about him ridiculed his personality. I am not curious to know what they think about him and I hope I am able to defend in OP mentioned opinions myself.As to point two I again quote the whole, extended sentence from brittanica comparing mammalian and birds temperature:

quote:

---

Whereas mammalian temperatures normally range between 36 and 39 C (97 and 102 F), avian temperatures range between 37.7 and 43.5 C (99.9 and 110.3 F), with the majority between 40 and 42 C (104 and 108 F).

---

dormancy | Definition, Examples, & Facts | BritannicaReally I don't see a reason why should I submit to Modulos chicane. The sentences of brittanica are self-explaining and I don't need to find out all species with given temperature and ask Modulous which of them he would kindly reccomend to notice. It's your opinion. I have had my experiences with new threads. With the first there was no problem. Now the problems are more serious even though the hypocricy on the part of neodarwinian admins is unbelievable - "yes, that's really interesting stuff, but please change this and this and this and this..." Thank you for your advice but I do not accept it. I claimed that I will submit to the impartial judgment presented by admin who is not a neodarwinist. And it is you, so I lost.Thank you for your patience.

And last but not at least: I reccomend everybody to have a look what torture I had to go through until my OP about German idealistic morphology was "fit" to be released for discussion here. Do you notice that the main discussion is on my opinion just an absurd chicane between me and neodarwinian admin AdminNosy?Then I reccomend everybody to check "Biological evolution" section what neodarwinian crap is released without hesitation as well as all stupid discussions like "Did Eyelids Evolve?" No problem. Fit for release.http://EvC Forum: Idealistic morphology -->EvC Forum: Idealistic morphologyhttp://EvC Forum: Did Eyelids Evolve? -->EvC Forum: Did Eyelids Evolve?I have opened only 4 threads last year as far as I remember and I defended my ideas until those threads have been closed or nobody answers. So I let everyone to make his own conclusions who is here paranoid - me or the fact, that the whole "Biological evolution" is run by admininstrators who are all neodarwinists. AdminModulous wrote: "Reason to believe" and testing my ability "accomodating during a debate" after having posted more than 400 posts, what do you say?Edited by MartinV, : grammar