Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of size matters
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 71 of 91 (696915)
04-19-2013 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Phat
04-19-2013 2:10 PM


Re: Evolution of size of What matters?
This whole topic seems to be little more than an intellectual locker room comparison....
Not at all.
This is kind of a big thing. And we are just trying to understand the ins and outs of it.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Phat, posted 04-19-2013 2:10 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Phat, posted 04-19-2013 2:21 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 91 (696939)
04-19-2013 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Phat
04-19-2013 2:21 PM


Re: Evolution of size of What matters?
what precisely are we trying to understand?
We're trying to solve a riddle and learn a little more about our humanity.
And despite what you think, we are using our brains to do itnot our penises... though we do it with those too.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Phat, posted 04-19-2013 2:21 PM Phat has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 91 (696952)
04-19-2013 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
04-19-2013 4:02 PM


Re: Penile correlations and rape in the past
Let's phrase the question a different way:
Our species evolved to have relatively massive penises compared to our closest relatives.
Why is that?
And even if we did, we'd still not know whether the difference is genetically based.
Really? How can the difference not be genetically based? Almost all human males have penises within the 'attractive' range. Have we all just been so blessed to be randomly born with such fine-looking peckers, or do you think their presence is in our genes?
Your question, as I understand it is whether in the evolution from ape to man, the 'attractive penis' evolved prior to other (surely more important) characteristics that separate man from his non human ancestors 1,000,000 or so years ago. And that's based solely on knowing that other modern apes have unattractive (read as tiny) penises.
That's not my question; I have placed no importance on when the 'attractive penis' evolved, especially in relation to other factors of mate selection.
But the assumption that human penises evolved from smaller to larger certainly seems better than the alternative notion that human penises are as they have always been and that it is the penises of other primates that shrunk instead of ours getting bigger.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2013 4:02 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 10:10 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 91 (697005)
04-20-2013 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dogmafood
04-20-2013 6:53 AM


Re: it matters
Your example of stature is a good example as it demonstrates that environment and nutrition had a greater impact on stature than the sexual attractiveness of a tall man. This supports the idea that not all preferences are strong enough to make an appreciable difference.
Except that men are still taller (on average) than women in every individual population on Earth.
This supports the idea that even small preferences are strong enough to make an appreciable difference.
Sure there would be differences and variations between the many small groups and tribes. Some may have been matriarchal (which apparently means that there was sexual equality as opposed to a patriarchal society where there is not sexual equality). However, I think the greater assumption is to think that there was some complete reversal in a trait like male dominance.
The advent of agriculture some 10k yrs ago had a profound effect on our social behaviour. I assume that it was at around this time that we began to behave much more like we behave today. Prior to that I assume that our behaviour would have been much more like our primate cousins. I can see how the increase in the stability of resources provided by an agricultural way of life would have completely changed the dynamics involved and led directly to an increase in women's equality. This trend continues today. What I do not see is why it should have led to some whole scale change in the tendency for males to be dominant or why you would assume that they were not dominant before that.
The evidence is against you; it suggests that the advent of agriculture (plant and animal domestication) brought with it social inequalities. Prior to that you should probably assume that people functioned more like they do in hunter-gatherer societies of today rather than assume they flung shit at each other and stuck their asses in the air.
I am not dismissing the idea of sexual selection. It is just that there are so many far more influential elements at work in this case. Like the advantage of depositing sperm closer to the egg when another man's sperm is present. I imagine that an inch matters a lot more to a sperm than it does to a woman.
Then shouldn't we see more consistency in erect penis size if that is the case? Instead, it is flaccid penis size that is less variable, being roughly 3.5—3.9 inchesthe preferred size indicated in the study.
You're ignoring too many coincidences and good evidence to hold on to your assumptions.
It's not working.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dogmafood, posted 04-20-2013 6:53 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dogmafood, posted 04-21-2013 3:38 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 91 (697028)
04-20-2013 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by NoNukes
04-20-2013 10:10 AM


Re: Penile correlations and rape in the past
Again, you don't have any track record of penis size
Which do you believe more likely: (1) that human penises evolved from smaller to larger, or (2) that human penises are as they have always been and that it is the penises of other primates that shrunk instead of ours getting bigger?
and you don't know if genetic factors are more important than non-genetic ones in determining penis size
They are obviously important; if not, penises would vary in size considerably, but they don't. Flaccid penis size is pretty much confined to a very small range. Erect penis size varies more. This is exactly what we'd expect if selection pressures acted on flaccid size and not so much on erect size.
and you cannot even establish any track record of women selecting their mates over any substantial period of time.
The fantasy world of Prototypical in which women have never enjoyed any freedom in mate selection is just nonsense. And if I didn't otherwise take you and him more seriously I'd be laughing at the both of you instead of trying to create a serious discussion.
Until you have some evidence to hang your arguments from, you may just as well be doing Creation Science.
I'm not saying that your sexual selection proposal is not workable, only that it is unevidenced and that it is not the only possibility.
Well then present an alternative and we'll examine its merits.
Also, this isn't my proposal. I'm not even backing it or presenting evidence in its favor for the most part (as you've pointed out). I'm just defending it against nonsensical and irrelevant potshots. I actually have considered several alternative explanations, a few of which I think quite good, none of which have been presented by anyone else in this thread full of folks so apparently against the sexual selection proposal and so unwilling to present an alternative.
Can't we get a real discussion going here? One in which several explanations are laid out and examined against one another?
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 10:10 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 3:05 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 91 (697086)
04-21-2013 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dogmafood
04-21-2013 3:38 AM


Re: it matters
It also very clearly shows that there are other factors than can easily overpower the effect of sexual selection.
But these factors haven't overpowered sexual selection. The dimorphism exists in all populations whether the population is relatively taller or shorter compared to other populations.
Positing sexual selection isn't to explain general height trends; it's to explain the height dimorphism that exists in every population on Earth. And if that dimorphism is really the result of sexual selection, and that dimorphism exists in every population on Earth, then clearly the sexual selection for height dimorphism has not been overpowered.
The evidence is against you; it suggests that the advent of agriculture (plant and animal domestication) brought with it social inequalities.
What evidence supports that idea?
Relatively equal hunter-gatherer groups became highly structured and classed societies where drastic differences exist(ed) between the haves and the have-nots. Compare your average Native American tribe to the civilization of, say, Ancient Egypt.
In which one is inequality greater and more apparent?
So, for example, if I have a high level of intelligence and this allows me to successfully woo a female into submission (see what I said there) with elegant speech and humour and leads to my reproductive success you might say that my intelligence was sexually selected for. In reality my intelligence played a much more important role in my survival up to the point where I was able to reproduce than it did in my securing a mate. So even though there is sexual selection going on it is not the primary driver of the development of intelligence.
Okay... I think I see where you are coming from now. Larger penises may not have just been useful in wooing a mate, but might have also played a role in general survival, such as fighting off lions in the event spears became scarce.
That might be...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dogmafood, posted 04-21-2013 3:38 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Phat, posted 04-21-2013 10:51 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2013 11:02 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by Dogmafood, posted 04-21-2013 9:23 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 91 (697152)
04-22-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dogmafood
04-21-2013 9:23 PM


Re: it matters
Positing sexual selection isn't to explain general height trends;
Yeah I understand that but it is being posited to explain general penis size.
Well obviously it can't explain penis size dimorphism. But the sexual selection for height is essentially the same process as the sexual selection for penis size: taller men get more action/more well-endowed men get more action.
This is the same type of issue. Men are taller for other biological or beneficial reasons beside being attractive to women. They are attractive because they are taller not taller because they are attractive. A bit of a chicken and egg thing but it seems that it would be the survival advantages of a trait that make them attractive.
There is obviously a selection pressure for taller men; specifically men who are taller than women. There is no selection pressure for men to be a specific height, which is what we would expect if height were being selected for because of some other advantage it bestows on the individual.
We would also expect women to evolve to be around the same height, since it would grant an advantage to the population in terms of having more hands for 'hunting and defence'.
Relatively equal hunter-gatherer groups became highly structured and classed societies where drastic differences exist(ed) between the haves and the have-nots. Compare your average Native American tribe to the civilization of, say, Ancient Egypt.
In which one is inequality greater and more apparent?
Differences between the haves and the have-nots are not differences in sexual equality. Those in high society are just like those down at the bottom with the exception that they are generally more depraved and susceptible to power tripping. Men and women both.
I am sure that it was all very complicated but a trait like male dominance does not show up or disappear quickly. It is slowly being minimized by social pressure and the rejection of violence as an acceptable thing.
You have nothing except your assumption that groups of people completely unlike ourselves acted the same way we do.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dogmafood, posted 04-21-2013 9:23 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dogmafood, posted 04-24-2013 9:26 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 91 (697389)
04-24-2013 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dogmafood
04-24-2013 9:26 PM


Re: it matters
Obviously, the penis is neither useless nor counter productive and a little extra size has proven benefits.
And what are those proven benefits?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dogmafood, posted 04-24-2013 9:26 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2013 10:13 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 90 by Dogmafood, posted 04-24-2013 10:15 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 91 (697469)
04-25-2013 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dogmafood
04-24-2013 10:15 PM


Re: it matters
The displacement of previously deposited semen. The increased likelihood of producing an orgasm in the female which improves the odds of conception. The advantage of depositing sperm closer to the objective.
But aren't these related to increases in erect penis size? Erect penis size has increased along with flaccid penis size, but not very neatly and the variation is greater. While the flaccid penises of most men fall within the 3.5—3.9" range (right near the 'minimum' identified by the study in the OP); the average erect length runs a gamut from 4" upwards of 6".
If it is erect penis size that is being selected for, why don't we see more consistently larger penises? Instead, we see more consistently 'attractive' penises.
I don't see how we can discount sexual selection in explaining the presence of so many 'attractive' penises that are otherwise less effective when erect (according to you) than their larger-when-erect counterparts.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dogmafood, posted 04-24-2013 10:15 PM Dogmafood 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