305
US man who claims to have world’s smallest penis launches fundraiser for enlargement surgery (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 months ago* by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
133 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Evolution still doesn’t work that way. If it prevents you from reproducing (like this probably would), it will be selected against, meaning it will be extremely rare (like this is), but it will never just go away unless it isn’t compatible with life (eg, missing an X chromosome).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I have trouble processing the word “never” in your statements here because evolution has consigned so much to extinction that I don’t understand why traits can “never” disappear. Can you explain why a phenotype that would prevent you from reproducing can “never” lead to a genotype disappearing entirely? Blocking reproduction seems incompatible with life to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Because there are so many humans that someone’s almost definitely gonna have it. If there were like a million people, then we probably wouldn’t see many of these traits, but there are 8 billion people around. That means on average, traits that are one in a million are in 8,000 people. Traits that are one in a billion are still likely to be in a handful of people.

    If it’s incompatible with life, no one will have that trait, because no one will be born with it. If it merely prevents you from reproducing, it just won’t be heritable, but the mutations/anomalies will still happen, so people will have them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I see the general point, it’s just the perforce absolutism of it that I don’t get.

    For example, if what you say is true and as long as a large population survives, all its genes necessarily do to, then shouldn’t there be people somewhere in some numbers that exhibit every trait in every one of our evolutionary ancestors? Even in your own examples you only go up to one in a billion, but odds do actually go lower than that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Sure, but your original question was about evolution getting rid of the genes necessary for a micropenis. That condition is very possible in our gene pool. Yes, there probably aren’t people who grow fins, even though that’s technically possible with enough specific mutations, so sure, evolution will eventually effectively get rid of traits in a species even if they’re not life threatening (though enough mutation for a human to grow fins would probably be deadly), but then your talking about evolution on the scale of millions of years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent