[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: Evolution of the big and little penis

Written by RJK at 09 Nov 2000 23:15:32:

As an answer to: Evolution of the big and little penis written by Loren at 09 Nov 2000 20:13:42:

>There is so much variation in penis size. I've wondered why this is. What would be the selective advantage to big or little over the course of natural selection during evolution? Does size relate to sexual frequency or leadership potential or social respect? Ideas? Data?
Can't supply any firm data, but sexual selection is often presented as an important factor in evolution: peahens are said to prefer the peacocks with the most flamboyant tails--evidence of freedom from parasites,it is said--and so to select these for the fathers of their chicks. I've also seen something somewhere that claims the human penis is larger than it really has to be to accomplish the transfer of sperm into the uterus. The advantage is in the preference of the mothers for one type over another. Potential mothers are said to have worked, through time, to enlarge the penis by selecting the best-endowed males available to be the fathers of their sons. More evidence: a scientist (or voyeur?) working in South America found men who had a mutation for a blue-colored penis--I swear I am not making this up--and found the mutation spreading among the population faster than if the spread were due to chance alone. This he felt indicated that the ladies were selecting sexual partners with blue penises when they had that option. Sooo, Loren, you may well be on to something. (No creationists need respond.) Yours in the interests of scientific enlightenment, RJK.