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.
We don't know. Several hypotheses exist but we often don't know exactly why parts of us look like they do - whatever advantage they once conferred is either gone or is not apparent. One suggestion is protection from seeds & sharp plants before clothes.
-
-
Wouldn't our primate cousins have at least the same level of necessity for it then?
-
It seems not. Might be something to do with being more exposed on standing upright. Just a hypothesis tho. Clearly, they didn't need it coz they didn't develop it.
-
What are we arguing again? I have the feeling we're on a side track...
-
Oh, I don't know. I must start to wind down for the night, anyway.
-
Reading back it seems that I argue that there is some use to circumcision. Which I stand by. That doesn't mean that infant circumcision is then ethically OK, of course.
End of conversation
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.