Honestly, I believe in evolution, just want some opinions.
2006-09-27 10:21:50 · 9 answers · asked by Corey 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's an interesting question given that not everyone is circumsized. If there was a permanent overall preference among women for a circumsized one then logically it could EVENTUALLY happen. That's a big if though, given the fickleness of fashion, apart from anything else. In the long term it might be better to be born with one, so at least the parents have the option to match changing fashions.
Also, in recent years it has been discovered that in regions of Africa were there is widespread AIDS, villages which don't circumsize have a much lower infection rate than nearby villages which do circumsize their boys. It was hypothesised that the foreskin provides protection from AIDS and other diseases. I guess it must have evolved for a reason.
So my hunch would be no.
2006-09-28 03:32:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
obviously not, since environment is what influences evolution. The fact that we circumcise babies actually makes it so it probably won't happen. If being born with less foreskin was a desirable trait for reproduction, then it would evolve. But since it is not only a real factor for reproduction, it also can be artificially done by doctors, which means being born with that trait has no positive effect.
2006-09-27 10:33:18 · answer #2 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, we are inhibiting evolution with all our medical technology and human interference. We can look at circumcision, for example. If humans collectively found penises with less loose skin more attractive, they would mate with people with less loose skin. That trait would be passed on more often than lots of loose skin. If that continued, at some point humans would be born with no foreskin, or essentially circumcised. Because we have taken this trait into our own hands to determine, then we have inhibited any natural evolution it might follow.
Same with diseases or medical "malfunctions". If it's genetic and we fix them, then we allow that person to reproduce and possibly pass on that trait, whereas natural selection would have let those people die and the ones with immunity or fully functioning bodies live.
2006-09-27 10:31:40 · answer #3 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, because whether you had foreskin from birth or not is not a determinant of your ability to have offspring. And of course, being circumcised does not remove the genes that give you a foreskin from your DNA.
Similarly, if you lose a leg in a tragic accident, your DNA is still coded for two legs, so you will pass the two-legs gene to your children.
2006-09-27 10:30:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good Question. Although i believe in cereation, i do believe that we evolve as beings over time. I do not believe we evolve drastically enough to change sepcies.
2006-09-27 10:24:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe after a few million years, along with that apendix and body hair disapearing.
I love your avitar BTW!
2006-09-27 10:24:17 · answer #6 · answered by daisyk 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know, I've never thought of that, but I hope so.
2006-09-27 10:26:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... There is no selection process there.
2006-09-27 10:26:27 · answer #8 · answered by Pablito 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ROFLMBO
2006-09-27 10:27:12 · answer #9 · answered by azar_and_bath 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋