The plunger on the end is to extract competitors' sperm. That makes survival of your genes a lot more likely. Having to mess around with foreskin? Not an issue preventing fertilization.
But evolution isn't philosophy. There is much evidence that human foreskins grew longer and more complex than that of the other apes and there must have been some benefit to this even if there isn't one now (there might be).
-
-
Observation that human foreskins are pretty large doesn't mean they're pretty useful. They would be modified exactly *because* something about them is in the way.
-
Only stuff that gets in the way of reproduction [by killing the bearer of the gene, or making him unlikely to reproduce] gets changed by natural selection. Things that are fine the way they are remain static for the same reason.
-
Yes, I know. This is evolution 101. Although it only needs a slight advantage/disadvantage to make a difference over evolutionary time. The foreskin got bigger and more complex in humans. There must have been some reason for this.
-
Evolution is way too messy for small advantages to have much of an impact. Otherwise our spines wouldn't be such a fucking mess.
-
No, it's not. This is how we refine where variation exists and it does with foreskins. They're not like spines trying to cope with us standing up.
-
Then explain why our foreskins would adapt to small advantages over the long run, whereas our spines are still ill-adapted to bipedal stance.
-
Because variation in foreskin length exists enabling them to grow longer or shorter but no human had a spine suited to bepedalism so it had to adapt imperfectly.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.