1. OCAU Merchandise now available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion here.
    Dismiss Notice

Why are testicles so badly designed?

Discussion in 'Science' started by ddk, Mar 11, 2013.

  1. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    41,802
    Location:
    Brisbane
    It genuinely bothers me that more people don't understand this.

    There seems to be a belief amongst the masses that evolution is geared toward some sort of concious decision making process that has the ability to read the future, and create things based on some possible future need.

    Likewise, there is a similar belief that just because some body part evolved into its current form, it's necessarily "superior" to some other option, ignoring the being as a whole, and the concept of being old/functional enough to reproduce, and then being evolutionarily useless after that point.

    Evolution is not "smart". It is merely random, circumstantial, and very basic in its requirements.
     
  2. luxtin

    luxtin Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    6,756
    In battle there are a lot of better spots to target than the groin to disable someone. There is no reason to protect them from attack only accident, but this wouldn't happen on a large enough scale to change a population, maybe if they were hanging off your elbow but not in the groin.
     
  3. breno

    breno Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,707
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Maybe in the future, we can genetically modify our male children to have their testicles grow on the inside to save them from the agony and getting 'smacked in the balls'.
    Let's make 'getting smacked in the balls' history!
     
  4. holdennutta

    holdennutta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,757
    Location:
    Brisbane
    It's also troubling how little people understand about how their body works.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    ddk

    ddk (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,570
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Who here said it was 'smart'?

    I said it didn't make evolutionary sense. That it seems to be something that would inhibit reproduction and therefore would result in an evolutionary dead-end.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2013
  6. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,447
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    On the contrary. Given the amount of animals that have their testicles outside of their body, it seems to have made perfect sense as that's the design that won.
     
  7. holdennutta

    holdennutta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,757
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Are you yourself not proof that you're wrong about that?
     
  8. OP
    OP
    ddk

    ddk (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,570
    Location:
    Melbourne
    And my question is, "Why?"

    Care to explain in greater detail and clarity what exactly you mean by that comment?
     
  9. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,447
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    Yes, we got that in the first post and a number of theories have been provided.
     
  10. doubter

    doubter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    213
    If your environment is filled with people with generally the same testicles, then it is not going to make a difference.

    The factor mediating in evolution is the 'environment'.

    Certain evironments foster some people to breed more than others.
    The question is what are the environmental factors that influence the ability for a human to breed and for that child to survive and breed.

    Now those environmental factors are so complex, intertwined (as in, from a materialists perspective, social and physical are one). Think about all the abstracted social aspects, the luck, neuroplasticity, etc etc etc.

    In the context of all that, testicle 'design' means nothing really. So it is irrelevant in relation to making 'sense'. If you wanna make sense of our existence and testicles... well good luck really.

    It's almost all luck and bullshit.



    :rolleyes: to you.
     
  11. The Wolf

    The Wolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    449
    Evolutionary pressures have to be long term and sustained. Inconvenience is not an evolutionary pressure. An Accident is random and unpredictable, and is not a pressure either. Infertility from everyday activities is rare, ergo the current design is acceptable
     
  12. TRAG!C

    TRAG!C Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,755
    Location:
    Sydney
    They are not exactly a weakness. Sure if you are looking at MMA a swift kick to the balls will often take a man down but the changes are you can still have kids. Now this may change after several kicks but hey...

    From an evolutionary point of view all it cares about is did you survive until puberty, did you successfully mate. If we go back a couple of thousand years I think the least of our worries was a saber tooth tiger taking a cheap shot to our testicles. So from that point we were far more likely to die than to have a testicle damaged.

    Weigh that against the benefits of external testicles, increased sperm count and reduction in birth defects. Means given 2 equal samples the external testicles are more likely to produce more offspring.
     
  13. gregpolk

    gregpolk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,403
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Anyway, yes damage to your testes could reduce your fertility and thus having exposed testes could be something that is selected against in populations where damage to testes is likely. This would be balanced against having them internally where they would be less productive and so our fertility would always be lower, except protected, so this would be a trait selected against in populations where damage to testes is unlikely. Now, could they evolve to have the sperm operate at a higher temp? Maybe, but perhaps there are some special chemical reactions that require those temperatures and evolution can't really change physics/chemistry. Alternatively could our body temp lower to suit the internal testes? Maybe, but same problem again, special chemical reactions require those temps, and it would be tough to evolve against that.

    Now, if a loving all powerful god who created the entire universe designed our balls, he could adjust the chemistry and make it all work internally. He is omnipotent after all. But he didn't. Begs the question of why he is so incompetent. Anyone know a bible verse that justifies his poor design skills? Find the one for the recurrent laryngeal nerve while you're at it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2013
  14. OP
    OP
    ddk

    ddk (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,570
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Ooh, ooh, ooh! I know this one!

    God works in mysterious ways.

    Do I get into Heaven now?
     
  15. Sipheren

    Sipheren Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    3,426
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Also, for the OP, this might shed some light:

    Full Document
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2013
  16. OldMate

    OldMate Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,422
    Location:
    Northern Beaches SYD
    maybe he stuffed up?
    I dunno, and I'm a catholic.
     
  17. Sam_Q

    Sam_Q Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,008
    Location:
    Endeavour Hills VIC
    ok no problem, where are the missing links then? Darwin himself was reported to of said the evidence defies the theory. I should look that up and see if it's a true quote. Explain the dolphins sonar system in evolutionary terms then.
     
  18. gregpolk

    gregpolk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,403
    Location:
    Brisbane
    There aren't any major missing links because all you're doing is when we find A and B and claim that C fits between you then go AHA now you have 2 missing links of A-C and C-B! If you'd care to point out exactly where you'd like a link, I'm willing to bet with some brief research I could find it, already discovered. So long as you don't expect a fossil of every organism to have ever lived so that there aren't any gaps in the lineage.

    What Darwin thought about the evidence for evolution is irrelevant because he published it in 1859 for christs sake.... We've come some ways since then...

    Do look it up that quote, if I'm thinking of the same one then while you're at it read the next line. He posted an argument against his theory in Origin so that he could then, in the next line, rebut an expected argument against him.

    So yes, in your own time, can you biblicly justify the poor design of the human body? Because biologists can justify it by looking at comparative anatomy.



    Was the quote in this the one you were thinking of?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2013
  19. Aetherone

    Aetherone Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,747
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    Its right here :rolleyes:

    Darwin is 150 years outta date; not to mention he predates DNA in its entirety and modern molecular genetics/systematics.
     
  20. holdennutta

    holdennutta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,757
    Location:
    Brisbane
    You posted:
    The fact you're a human would tend to suggest dangling testes isn't an evolutionary dead end.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: