It makes sex more difficult for some men, and less successful for a good number more. I think a better question would be what reasons we find valid to circumcise.
-
-
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.
-
Have a look at the info I sent. We had foreskins way before we were human and they always served the same function. Changes in them to become longer & more complex are small but driven by something. Our spines did not serve the function they do now. We move completely differently
-
I read it. The spine should then have a much greater impetus in changing than a foreskin that was functional as-is, right?
- 6 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.