Why are testicles so badly designed?

Sad but common problem in 1st world societies today.
So to counter this you want to join a group, good on you.

There you blew it.
If you want to join a group in conversation it pays to spend a moment listening and watching the group. From this we can judge the demeaner of the group. An internet forum makes this fairly easy to do because you can read a number of threads. Here you'd soon realise there's a number of well educated people in the field of science, some even employed in the field.

Science itself always uses specific words to avoid confusion as much as possible, some of the sciences went so far as to use a specific language, if you wanted to study that field you used to have to learn that language.
So there's a problem with "ballsacks", it doesn't denote any part of the human anatomy , here you're in effect inviting a group to lower the standard just so you can feel part of the group.
Sorry, humans generally don't interact in that way. You need to learn some social skills otherwise you're going to remain lonely and have diffculty finding a job and a mate. See, evolution at work. Females might well be attracted by physical attributes however because human offspring need a considerable period of nurturing a female will tend to favour a mate for reproduction that can provide for them during those years. A stable job, a dwelling and a close circles of reliable friends all make a male more attractive.

 

This isn't true. Evolution isn't making our testicles evolve towards being totally optimised sperm production machines, with regards to what we do today. Evolution has been a product of the competing pressure on humans in the past, of which sperm production was one factor. Evolution doesn't take us towards some globally (mathematics globally) optimum human design.

For example, if your idea of best was producing huge volumes of sperm, then the testicles required would be enormous. Yet we haven't evolved towards the position where every man has giant cojones - and this is because there are other factors in play than just the production of sperm.

 

There's jus'n be'in fancy word-sounds fer teh eleeetests.

I can use fancy words too. Doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Just the perception of the reader. Your bias is nothing but a social construct that ultimately has little meaning to anyone other than those who subscribe to the value of academic language.

Once again, this is not an academic website. The minority of people who think that they're better than everyone else does not rule this forum category. They are not the owners. When Agg comes in and says I have to present my discussions to the liking of the 'in' crowd, then maybe I'll change it.

Until then, I'll use everyday language to converse with everyday people. And if you don't like it, you're welcome not to participate in the thread. You won't be missed.

 

What fun readint this has been.... Quite a distraction.

Ddk, I want you to do something for the science forum. Yes its a bit like homework but its intent is to teach you how to fish.

Your question, while quite interesting in its content, misses in form. Most of your underlying query has been answered on this thread. The task, to start from page one and extract this detail, trawl through the advice and restate the question including what was learned, requesting clarification is ok here.

Take some time with this, we don't mind amd activly encourage you to take break and do something else whilst considering your rsponse.

 

Science uses elitist fancy words because it leads to reduced ambiguity. It's not some artificial barrier to entry. It's there for a practical reason.

You ever seen Idiocracy? This is how I'm picturing you:

 

FYI:
http://www.quora.com/Human-Anatomy/...houldnt-they-be-protected-by-something-harder

 

And once again, you're applying it to an internet forum for computer nerds. This is a casual site, not an academic inquiry site. If you expect to converse with scientists, then go to a university. Your bullying will not deter me from posting here and if anything will just encourage me to continue posting.

You are your own worst enemy. Relax a little and accept that not everyone here is an elitist snob who demands they be conversed with in their native tongue and you may just find you're not an angry little man posting on a casual internet discussion forum about the accepted vernacular.

Some humility would go a long way to producing more constructive and less adversarial conversation, don't you think?

 

You posted in the "SCIENCE" forum. Not the pub.

It's okay though, ddk. Not everyone is suited to such pursuits. Some are simply better at digging holes.

 

Question, has your question been answered? If not, clarify.

 

No, actually.

But the thread has been polluted by people with an elitist agenda and can't be recovered.

It's like I went to the park on a nice, sunny afternoon with a light breeze, children playing tag, a pretty woman by my side and some good wine.

And then a bunch of nerds came into the park and started up with, "I know you are, but what am I?!"

 

It would then help YOURSELF considerably if you explained what hasn't been answered.
Much information has been freely given that well answers your question.
The only conclusion I can draw then is there's something in the answers that you don't understand or you've conflagrated concepts in the wrong way. There's a huge number of possibilities there and it's quite unreasonable to expect the group to work through every one of them.
Contribute some of your time and you're far more likely to learn something.

 

No objection. I rephrase: Shape, size, and location of our balls are the by evolution tested and proven best concept to support our reproduction, that includes quantity and quality of sperm of course.

 

Once again you assume a superior position in the belief that I'm here to learn something from you or others.

My intent was to create discussion. Not argument, not conflict, and certainly not vitriol. That was your and others intent.

What I find truly sad about that is that you all make the claim that you're so knowledgeable and intelligent and yet don't seem to have the capacity to engage in a casual and polite conversation on an internet forum. Truly intelligent and knowledgeable people understand the benefit of communication and don't arrogantly presume that everyone around them needs to learn something from them.

You know, I have a better analogy than the picnic. Two people are talking about the physics of Star Trek on a train. Then two more people listening in tell them that they're wrong about everything and are stupid morons for not knowing the exact terminology and for not using the proper vernacular for discussing theoretical physics.

And then they proceed to argue with them about how to properly integrate themselves into a discussion on a train.

 

Two open oportunities to clarify down, they say the 3rd time is a charm

What has been missunderstood? Testies in mamals have protien folding sequences that olny work well at approx 34 c. As a result the testies hang low, other solutions require more energy for little added benefit in reproductive success

Is this clear? If not please be clear..

 

From your first post:

Rather seems to me you're asking questions and people ask questions in order to learn something.

That is a false accusation. It's been you all along who has been trying to create conflict. Sadly though no argument, an argument implies a rational response constructed in some logical manner.

You asked questions of people in the anticipation of getting an answer, the very topic you yourself used starts with "Why".

Star Trek is a work of fiction, even so the writers need a certain level of internal consistancy to make the narrative plausible. Not only that they employed the service of a number of learned consultants in order to avoid creating as many scientific mistakes as possible. That many works of science fiction have well stood the test of time speaks loudly that those who wrote them had a considerable grounding in science.

Star Trek also used correct scientific words as much as possible. Clearly SciFi also has invented new words, some oddly enough taken up by the scientific community, so much for your "elitist" argument.

There's a distinct difference between "argue" and giving advice.

So far it is you yourself who have taken an elitist position.
You claim that you are in a different class and the rest of the group has to conform to your norms for the purpose of some "discussion" that you hanker for. You have done nothing to further the discussion, have made it plain that you don't want to learn anything and seem to make the claim that you have a right to remain uninformed on the very topic that you say you are interested in. I'm no scientist but I am always curious and wish to know more about every field that my life has bought me into contact with. Yes, I'm blessed with slightly above average intelligence but I'm certainly no genius. I can generally engage most people from every level of society but whenever I've been snubbed my first question to myself is to ask where have I gone wrong.

 

It has been answered, you're just too busy engaging in an irrelevant argument and simply don't care, which is fine, you've got the "discussion" you were after...

 

Yes, obviously it was me who decided to be rude and derogatory and require everyone to conform to my standards of discussion.

Oh, wait, no, that was you.

I'm done. Thread's all yours. You won. Congratulations. You killed the discussion. Are you proud?

 

Why haven't we evolved to have reptilian skin to stop paper cuts?

That is how stupid your question sounds.

Testicles are evolved to do the job they do. We have not evolved to cater to your nut cracking lifestyle.

The fact of the matter is I personally cannot remember the last time I was in a situation that involved and nut crackin'.

Nut Cracking is not a part of everyday life, neither is punching people in the face or kicking them in the ribs and cracking them.

 

I believe they evolved as a separate part of our bodies that needs to be extra special at being able to protect sperm from its primary enemy - temperature.

I imagine that on hot days you probably lose a lot of heat from your balls via sweat, too.

But we didn't really develop avenues to basically become a geodude or something because we are essentially apex predators- though not in the traditional sense.

We hunt and develop complex social structures but also have the brain capacity to realise HEY PUNCHING THIS THING IS EASIER IF I USE A ROCK TO DO IT FOR ME.

And it flows from there, like a giant tangent going out of control. I would imagine that over time, from antiquity (taming wolves) --> roman times ---> now there would have been a lot of physiological change from what is required by the environment compared to what is required in the brain (although that may end up being a small group of people, and this is a very small microcosm of humanity's timeline).

I mean, back in roman times we would have been twice as strong (exaggeration) but also half a foot shorter (not an exaggeration, maybe even conservative). We got healthier, taller, but there is a strong subconscious and definitely known desire in our society today all over the world, that is enamoured with taller people.

A few scientist have postulated (or had a study IDK, was browsing) that it is a correlation between society health and average height increase, but I wonder if there is also any relation to our desire for better mates, for more successful, tall people.

But I think I'm rambling.




My point is-

A): The balls aren't going to evolve to become more "safe" from a mating standpoint because having strong balls isn't something a mate is going to look for- they're going to check if you can pick up the rock, not get smashed in the balls with it. They are also going to check if you are sufficiently pretty enough to seduce said rock with your pretty face.


B): Animals and other natural predators (at a time when we were actually competing for food with them, and to not be eaten by them) don't really seem like their 'combat mechanisms' are based around biting our balls off.

Take for example, the crocodile and the tiger/big cat. The crocodile grabs onto what it can, and puts you in a death roll. The tiger (on a bear) will rear up, essentially claw the back of the neck and bite through the spinal cord. A cheetah or lion will go for the throat- the easy, instantaneous (or very close to it) kill.

Sure, there are tribal and global conflicts, but none that would trigger such a response to say hey boys harden the fuck up. We do the same thing as the animals- we go for the easiest kill we can- and if you are fighting with tools and swords, you're more likely to try and bash in their cognitive senses and go for the quick kill rather than the stun, then kill option (which would happen, but more often than not It'd be- fuck, arrow in the knee, fuck stabbed in the face, fuck squashed by rock etc.

 

I'd go so far as to say that they're only the best option so far. Its perfectly reasonable that there's a better way again, but it simply hasn't been randomly tried yet.

Thats a damn fine question, thank you for posing it and stimulating universe changing discourse.

I postulate that paper has simply not been a strong enough selection pressure for long enough that hand-scales have had time to randomly occur and then be proven beneficial enough that all the un-paper-cut heroes of awesomness get to bang & impregnate all the chicks.

Read more closely. The universe changing discourse is easier when you actually realise that the answer has been given.