Evolutionary advantage of X?

estebancambias

How do I put this in the best manner possible?

Ok, what is the advantage of a bigger 'weiner' and what could the future have in store for the appendage?

Dave!

I'm not sure there is an advantage of having a bigger knob... Hence, the average size is about 5.5-6ins, and not 5.5-6 foot!!!

estebancambias

Dave! wrote: »

I'm not sure there is an advantage of having a bigger knob... Hence, the average size is about 5.5-6ins, and not 5.5-6 foot!!!

That would be ****ing class....for the laugh.

Dave!

Not for yer mot

Goduznt Xzst

Dave! wrote: »

I'm not sure there is an advantage of having a bigger knob... Hence, the average size is about 5.5-6ins, and not 5.5-6 foot!!!

further to this, why is it a matter of contention amongst male humans? It seems to be a desirable trait to have a larger penis, and seems to be something men with larger ones flaunt where as males with smaller ones conseal. Is this a human created comparison (probably tied in closely to the female orgasm) or where males sexually selected by females due to the size of their penis?

failsafe

It increases the frequency of the female orgasm!?

Richard Dawkins explains this kind of thing in the selfish gene in a chapter called "battle of the sexes". The idea is that, over evolutionary time there is a play off between the sexes, much like there is between predator and prey. When a mutant gene for "speed" becomes widespread in a population of rabbits, it puts strong selective pressure on the foxes to become fast enough to catch them. Similarly, when an advantage arises for one gender which allows them to better pass on their genes with less effort (usually at the cost of the other gender) then this puts pressure on the other gender to catch up.

This is where my knowledge gets a bit hazy, but I think the theory goes something like this: The female's defining characteristic is that she invests more into baby making. It starts with the egg being much bigger than the sperm, and goes from there - pregnancy, breast feeding, raising the child etc. A common evolutionary strategy amonst many animals is for the female to withold mating from the male until she get's stuff - a nest, a nice dance or song, a diamond ring! The internal nature of the female's reproductive system is a biological representation of this strategy. As opposed to some organisms, such as the flowering plant, in which both sex cells are released and fuse externally, in humans and other mammals the female has evolved to restrict access to her eggs by keeping the process in-house. This gives her the advantage of picking the male she reproduces with, demanding a nest, a display of fittness, a provision of food, or some other request that would add to the survival of her and her offspring. Some females, such as the mantis, or some ants, mate once and keep a store of sperm to use whenever they feel like popping out a few nippers. In humans (and other animals with a penis), the males developed long sperm injectors to level the playing field so that females continue to need them everytime they want to make a baby. Take that bitches!

Goduznt Xzst

failsafe wrote: »

the males developed long sperm injectors to level the playing field so that females continue to need them everytime they want to make a baby. Take that bitches!

I don't quite understand this. As wouldn't it be more dependant on the mobility of the sperm and not so much to do with the length of the "sperm injectors". Plus, in regards to the "female orgasm" it has been shown that length really isn't that important. Girth proves to be a much larger factor in regards to women achieving orgasm. Anything past 6"s would make the experience painfull for most females.

Galvasean

Females seek males with big genitals. Males seek females with small genitals.

Soon we will have evolved into beings incapable of sexual intercourse and become extinct.

failsafe

Galvasean wrote: »

Females seek males with big genitals. Males seek females with small genitals.

Soon we will have evolved into beings incapable of sexual intercourse and become extinct.

The problem with that theory is that we all know there's different strokes for different folks. If somehow we reached the stage where almost all pennies didn't fit the slot, then any female who was born with a natural attraction to smaller penises would have a huge natural advantage (she could make babies). The same too would be true for any young man who liked it loose like a wizards sleeve. He would be the only one in his area makin lots of babies, and so his male kids would be born inheriting his distaste for a tight embrace and his daughters would inherit their mothers larger than usual lady parts.

Of course a situation like this would almost certainly not occur. What is more likely is that tastes and sizes would vary slightly within a certain stable range. If we drifted towards the incompatability that you suggested above, natural selection would kick in and ensure the tastes of men and women adjust accordingly.

Dades

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"More evolved"? How do you measure that?

I guess he figured wisdom teeth were useful in a time in human development when our original back teeth would fall out and we required 'backup' choppers. Now we hang on to our teeth long beyond the time our wisdom teeth tend to appear and our mouths just don't have the room.

Galvasean wrote: »

Soon we will have evolved into beings incapable of sexual intercourse and become extinct.

About time too. Parasites, all of us. :pac:

Lazare

Excellent thread.

My Q's...

What environmental pressures led to certain differences in human races?
Particularly oriental peoples eyes, and white peoples varied hair colour?

How come seperated members of the species such as Aboriginal Australians didn't become a whole new species? Is it because of humankinds unusually long generations? If so, rougly how many generations are needed for a species to morph into a new one?

Zillah

Sperm injector.

Zillah

This thread has gotten a little odd.

failsafe

A strange evolution indeed




(I'll get my coat)

Dave!

Lazare wrote: »

Excellent thread.

My Q's...

What environmental pressures led to certain differences in human races?
Particularly oriental peoples eyes, and white peoples varied hair colour?

How come seperated members of the species such as Aboriginal Australians didn't become a whole new species? Is it because of humankinds unusually long generations? If so, rougly how many generations are needed for a species to morph into a new one?

Good questions! Someone else will hopefully hazard a guess

Zillah

Lazare wrote:

What environmental pressures led to certain differences in human races?

Ok, I don't even know where this was quoted from but I can hazard an answer at most of it.

Particularly oriental peoples eyes, and white peoples varied hair colour?

Both of these could be an example of genetic drift. Meaning that they are mutations that are neither beneficial nor detrimental, and simply arose in the gene pool by chance after they developed.

Other factors could have played a part, such as social identity or perhaps some environmental factors.

How come seperated members of the species such as Aboriginal Australians didn't become a whole new species?

1 - "Species" is merely a convenient definition we use. Species don't really exist in nature, merely an ever fluctuating genotype and phenotype. Any given person has a different genetic identity to any other given person. It just so happens that by our arbitrary standards they are similar enough to be considered as being the same species. By other standards white people and black people could be considered different species, but certainly not by any existing standards.

2 - Insufficient time. The time period by which, say Aborigines, have been isolated is a drop in the ocean of evolutionary time. Generally evolutionary change takes an immense amount of time, far longer than the Aborigines have been separated. Enough time for distinct characteristics to develop, certainly, but nothing like meeting the criteria for a new species.

If we took some human beings and put them on another planet for 100 million years you can bet that they'd be a drastically different species when we got back to them. As it is Aborignes have only be in Australia for a few tens of thousands of years, which in the grand scheme of things is virtually nothing.

Is it because of humankinds unusually long generations?

No. We're not all that long lived. Some species of animals such as certain birds and amphibians live longer, not to mention the huge amount of plant species that drastically outlive us.

However, it would not be illogical to conclude that the longer a species' generations the slower their overall evolutionary progress (a bit like frame rate in a film). It makes sense, but I have not read anything to that effect.

If so, rougly how many generations are needed for a species to morph into a new one?

As I said, species is a fairly arbitrary definition. One generation could be enough if a drastic enough set of mutations occurred. When a biologist compares two creatures and tries to determine whether they are the same species or not, they essentially have a checklist of features that need to be ticked. If they differ in enough regards, particularly the ability to reproduce with each other, then they are considered different species.

I'm sure there are a whole bunch of species and variations that even experts within their respective fields argue are merely offshoots or entirely different species based upon their various attributes.

Such is the gentle slope of mount improbable.

Galvasean

failsafe wrote: »

The problem with that theory is that we all know there's different strokes for different folks. If somehow we reached the stage where almost all pennies didn't fit the slot, then any female who was born with a natural attraction to smaller penises would have a huge natural advantage (she could make babies). The same too would be true for any young man who liked it loose like a wizards sleeve. He would be the only one in his area makin lots of babies, and so his male kids would be born inheriting his distaste for a tight embrace and his daughters would inherit their mothers larger than usual lady parts.

Of course a situation like this would almost certainly not occur. What is more likely is that tastes and sizes would vary slightly within a certain stable range. If we drifted towards the incompatability that you suggested above, natural selection would kick in and ensure the tastes of men and women adjust accordingly.

You realize I was joking ya? :pac:

failsafe

Galvasean wrote: »

You realize I was joking ya? :pac:

Yeah, but when else would I get to use the phrase "liked it loose like a wizards sleeve" in a legitimate response. I just couldn't resist.

Lazare

Zillah wrote: »

If they differ in enough regards, particularly the ability to reproduce with each other, then they are considered different species.

I'm sure there are a whole bunch of species and variations that even experts within their respective fields argue are merely offshoots or entirely different species based upon their various attributes.

Such is the gentle slope of mount improbable.

Thanks for an excellent reply.

I always thought the only deciding factor on whether a particular organism belongs to a particular species is it's ability to reproduce within that group.

sdep

Zillah wrote: »

The time period by which, say Aborigines, have been isolated is a drop in the ocean of evolutionary time. Generally evolutionary change takes an immense amount of time, far longer than the Aborigines have been separated. Enough time for distinct characteristics to develop, certainly, but nothing like meeting the criteria for a new species.

If we took some human beings and put them on another planet for 100 million years you can bet that they'd be a drastically different species when we got back to them. As it is Aborignes have only be in Australia for a few tens of thousands of years, which in the grand scheme of things is virtually nothing.

Yes, that's it.

Some time estimates for the human lineage (going on the generally accepted model of a recent East African origin for humans) are:

Human and chimp common ancestor - 5 to 7 million years ago
Human and Neandertal common ancestor - 300,000 to 400,000 years ago
Modern humans evolved in Africa - 200,000 to 100,000 years ago
Humans from Africa colonise globe - 60,000 years ago onwards

So humans left Africa only a few thousand generations ago. That's not a lot in evolutionary terms - only 1% of the time since we separated from the chimp lineage.

Greenmachine

In terms of the orgasm it increases the bonding of the sexual partners. A males ability to help a woman achieve an organism would offer the male an advantage as it would suggest a more nurturing partner capable of fulfilling her needs. In terms of the frequency of the female orgasm I would suggest in human it reduced importance is down to the integration of sexual imagery into human. Think of cave dwelling human and their artwork. Language too I feel would be a factor in it's diminsh. This allowed females and males to exagerate their sexual prowess or the level of reward achieved from their experiences. This created sexual anxiety in the male of the species in terms of how their performance compared to their partners previous experiences. In females it creFted an excessive expectation in terms of what could be achieved and exactly how powerful experience it is. Futhermore men expressing a preference for a particular attributes in females created anxiety in women in terms of their suitability or desirability as a partner making it more difficult for them to orgasm.


In the case of breasts. There viewing as an object of sexual desire is dependant on the society. In a society which practices modesty, the sight of a womans breast is something exciting. I would hypothesize that in part some society that require women to cover up do it as not only a mean of dehumanizing the female but to encourage monogamy in the male. Imagine if you were single and spent the last few years in jail or something without a female in sight. Your object value would be shifted and you would prolly be glad of recipricating with any female that viewed you as desirable.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Here's a live one for ye.

Case: the therizinosaurs, a group of dinosaurs which over time evolved from fleet footed predators similar to 'raptors' into lumbering plant eaters. Falcarias is the earliest known one which displays traits of both carnivorous and plant eating dinosaurs. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what evolutionary pressures may have brought about such change?

Here is an article on Falcarias
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/therizinosaurs.htm

So, nobody care to take up the challenge?

Zillah

Lazare wrote: »

I always thought the only deciding factor on whether a particular organism belongs to a particular species is it's ability to reproduce within that group.

Its certainly one of the most important ones, but like I said, the issue is fairly complicated.

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

So, nobody care to take up the challenge?

We could churn out plausible sounding guesses all day but as the article says:

"Just how the dinosaur form changed from predator to plant-eater still poses a mystery, Sampson said, and speculating about the problem "means working outside the realm of science.""

Maybe their preferred prey started dying out, perhaps a new super-nutrient rich plant species was introduced to their habitat, a wizard did it, etc

Goduznt Xzst

why do we dislike the taste of food that is good for us and crave food that is bad for is? Is this societies conditioning?

I mean if it is how come jungle tribes still gorge themselves on honey and naturally sweet roots or sap.

Whereas food that is beneficially for our growth, virility and longevity we tend to find bland or distasteful.

Dave!

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

why do we dislike the taste of food that is good for us and crave food that is bad for is? Is this societies conditioning?

I mean if it is how come jungle tribes still gorge themselves on honey and naturally sweet roots or sap.

Whereas food that is beneficially for our growth, virility and longevity we tend to find bland or distasteful.

The explaination I've seen for that is that sugary and fatty foods are high in energy, but were historically quite scarce. So the advantage is in making those foods desirable so that when we find a source we gorge on them and take full advantage. Of course, sugary and fatty foods suddenly became ubiquitous (thank you trans-Atlantic trade!), and so now that remnant of evolution leads to diabetes and obesity!

Goduznt Xzst

Just listening to some music and tapping my foot whilst working. What is the evolutionary advantage to dancing and/or moving ones limbs and body parts in sync with a musical beat? When did we start responding to rhythmic noise and why?

Dades

Dancing to attract a potential mate (of the sexual kind) maybe?

Dave!

You've never seen me dancing have you Dades?

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Dancing to attract a potential mate (of the sexual kind) maybe?

ZOMG slick moves! :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgnOQqLhrlw

]