So, this solves a bit of Genesis then

It can be as long as a finger in a monkey. In the walrus, it can be two feet long. But the human male has lost it completely. And researchers are a little stumped.

Known as the baculum to scientists with an interest, the penis bone is a marvel of evolution.

Just a translation issue here. As we know, men and women have the same number of ribs. Thus the taking of Adam’s rib to make Eve isn’t quite right. It was, of course, the baculum.

Which explains why we spend so much effort chasing pussy of course. We just want to be reunited with our missing dick bone. Further, this also forbids any female complaints about floppiness at crucial moments. For the only reason that floppiness is possible is the reason you exist m’dear.

My story and I’m sticking with it.

45 comments on “So, this solves a bit of Genesis then

  1. So no one is touching this thread I see. Sensible.

    Although I am sure it is of no interest to anyone here, but male impotence has been found to be linked to their partner’s waist size.

    I would like to believe it, for a friend’s sake of course, but I guess I don’t. Too much of this sh!t is made up.

  2. This should have been filed under ‘Questions in the Guardian we can answer’. The obvious answer these spud-thick so-called scientists don’t want to believe is that man did not evolve from monkey, walruses or anything fucking else.

  3. @SMFS,

    That’s a pretty plausible non-causative correlation.

    Craig appears to owe us an explanation of who created God.

  4. “And researchers are a little stumped.”

    Aha! Species: Researcher.

    The explanation was revealed in 1859, ‘On the Origin of Species’ – Charles Darwin.

    Natural selection….

    Organisms with characteristics which make them best adapted to their environment reproduce more successfully.

    Having a baculum made some organisms best suited for their environment; not having one made others best suited for their environment.

    It is simple enough. Same reason monkeys have tails, Humans not – monkeys live up trees; Humans do not.

    But then ‘Researchers’… nuff said.

  5. At least they didn’t bring up that ghastly bit of pseudo-science about penises supposedly scooping out semen.

  6. ‘Impotence has been found to be linked to their partner’s waist size.’

    The “Men don’t need Viagra; they need better looking wives” theory.

  7. ‘man did not evolve from monkey, walruses or anything fucking else’

    Yep, we were poofed into existence 7,000 years ago, as any fool can see.

  8. Why did Bloke in Germany bring God into it? Why not just stick with the science and see where it leads you? How did complex organisms make themselves contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, physics, biology, and information theory?

  9. It’s all about guaranteeing the continuation of the species.

    The dick bone disappeared at about the same time women who look and sound like Lindy West arrived… The last thing the species would need is Lindy getting the wrong signal upon seeing a stiffy.

  10. You know, if you manage to look like a histrionic nutter by the standards of this blog’s regulars, maybe time to rethink things.

    Hasn’t stopped anyone – least of all me – yet. So why now?

  11. @Craig,

    You need to ask yourself the same question of the entity you believe created said complex beings.

    Selection and reproduction are important clues to why the question is wrong-headed. The direction of each individual change is random for sure but maladaptive changes (the majority) are discarded. Earth is not a thermodynamically closed system. Energy is being literally beamed into it. Constantly. Which is also irrelevant as you can still have a net increase in entropy as it decreases in other areas.

    Do feel free to talk science rather than reproducing [sic] arrogant dogma from whichever fundapologetics tome is in vogue this year.

  12. “It can be as long as a finger in a monkey.” Why does inserting it into a monkey make a difference to the length?

  13. ‘Darwin didn’t explain the ORIGIN of anything. Neither can you.’

    Darwin explained the origin of species. I assume you make the standard creationist error of thinking that he must explain the origin of life.

    Not my job, mon. The origin of life preceded evolution by 3,000,000,000 years. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. Quite well. It matters not whether God poofed life, or it arose from the primordial ooze, or was delivered on a meteor.

  14. @Tim N

    And getting kicked in the knackers is bad enough already. Imagine how bad it’d be if there was something down there that could snap! You could end up with a broken meat and a punctured veg.

    Yep, having tackle that stays floppy nearly all the time is pretty handy.

    Except when it stays floppy at the wrong time.

    Or stops being floppy at the other wrong time.

  15. Bloke in Germany – I don’t need to ask myself the same question beacause I didn’t bring God into it – you did. An important clue for you is ‘selection’ because it means just that. You can only select from what is available, thus selection is a conservative force and not a creative one. Not only can you not explain the origin of life, you also cannot explain where the new information comes from which is necessary to increase the complexity of pondscum to produce people.

  16. @Craig,

    I do know where the new information comes from. First hand. I’m one of the lucky few who, in a previous career, has seen such new information arise in organisms in the lab and do some interesting shit. Indeed, has done experiments that increase the rate at which such new information is created. Evolution works because living organisms are capable of exponential reproduction. The capacity for a species to explore the many valleys and dead-ends of the genetic landscape while hunting for the sunlit uplands is vast. So you cannot just select from what is available, you can create new information to select from. If you really don’t believe that I assume you don’t bother with ‘flu vaccines (for reasons other than vaccine-related tinfoilhattery).

    The point of bringing a god in is that – unless you have a completely new theory that you think is better than the current widely accepted one (a theory which you are very reticent to reveal) then you are likely a god-botherer. Admittedly not the only possibility, but the most likely – and my apologies for my incorrect assumption if it is incorrect. You could solve that easily by telling us what you think.

  17. “How did complex organisms make themselves contrary to the laws of thermodynamics”. Eh? The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to say on the subject though they do have implications for the relationship between complex organisms and their surroundings.

  18. I do know where the new information comes from. First hand. I’m one of the lucky few who, in a previous career, has seen such new information arise in organisms in the lab and do some interesting shit.

    That’s the great thing about this blog. The regular commenters include real experts on a wide range of subjects – as well as one or two of the usual world experts on everything. I learn so much just from reading here.

  19. It’s the usual problem with cretinists. They think they are special, that everyone and everything is special. You’re actually just a slightly better organised piece of something else’s shit, another random throw of your parents’ DNA’s dice that might work out better but usually doesn’t.

    Being special, being a cretinist, makes you blind to the sheer scale of the thing. Can’t look out the window of the plane on a TATL and realise there is nothing but primordial soup for the next 5 hours. Or look up and see the stars and realise we are just one lucky bowl of primordial soup among a number of such bowls that will crash your calculator. And we can only even ask this questions because we are lucky. Maybe even the luckiest of the luckiest.

    Life, the universe, and everything, is just so much more awesome without supernatural crap than with.

  20. “Organisms with characteristics which make them best adapted to their environment reproduce more successfully.”

    And in what way does this apply to the Panda?

    “Darwin explained the origin of species. I assume you make the standard creationist error of thinking that he must explain the origin of life.”

    Darwin showed that a species can adapt to it’s environment, he also suggested that missing links would show how species developed from common ancestors. He did not explain how and he did not prove his theory by research. However he did say that his theory would need looking at if the missing links were not found.

    “The capacity for a species to explore the many valleys and dead-ends of the genetic landscape while hunting for the sunlit uplands is vast.”

    This works very well for the bacterium etc., less well for higher organisms.

    “Random mutations.”

    1. What is the probability of a Random mutation being beneficial?
    2. What is the probability of a beneficial mutation surviving in complex organisms, i.e. Will the immune system attack it as a foreign body?
    I believe that there has be little to no research on this…

    “complex organisms make themselves contrary to the laws of thermodynamics”

    This is referring to the Entropy law, all chemical and physical processes are ruled by this, they all tend to disorder. The beginnings of life appear to be an exception to this law, as well as the increasing complexity of the coding potential of DNA.

    Other interesting questions that have yet to be answered…
    How many missing links are we looking for in the fossil record?
    How did the cell evolve, taking into account the latest discoveries of its complexity?
    Can the apparent ability of the chemical code DNA, to fix problems and to gain extra abilities by Random changes, be used to fix the problems in programmes by computer scientists?

  21. @TJ,

    Clearly pandas do not reproduce successfully and have failed to adapt to more than one extremely small niche environment. Which fits very neatly with the observation that we don’t have much in the way of pandas chewing through the hedgerows of rural England, or even rural China.

  22. @TJ

    Tell us your theory for the diversity of species on earth. Evolution can only be replaced by a better theory. Silly questions are not a better theory.

  23. ““…you also cannot explain where the new information comes from…” Random mutations.”

    Nope. The mutations reduce information. It’s the natural selection process that increases it.

    The best analogy I’ve found for evolution is that of a gardener trimming the hedge into the shape of a giant squirrel. (Topiary.) Mutations are analogous to the random growth of the bush, in every direction. Selection is analogous to the gardener choosing which twigs and branches to trim. The gardener cuts away anything that doesn’t conform to the pattern being aimed for. It should be clear enough that the information comes from the gardener, not the randomly growing bush.

    People already knew how this worked before Darwin came along, because of artificial selection. Plant breeders and dog breeders shaped plants and animals by precisely this mechanism. Darwin’s insight was to realise that nature could do the same thing without any intelligent intervention because organism designs not well-suited to survival tended to die. (Obviously!) Their branches of the tree of life got trimmed, by straying into areas corresponding to bad design. The shapes you see are what’s left over when you have trimmed away everything that doesn’t work.

    The information about what designs are best for survival comes from the process of selective death, in which designs that are *not* good for survival are trimmed away. Narrowing the population distribution reduces randomness, increasing information.

    You could say that God was a sculptor, whose hammers and chisels were famine, disease, predation, and parasitism. We were carved out by the scythe of the Grim Reaper.

    The Aztecs (and many others) worshiped Gods with that sort of nasty disposition – killing off anyone who didn’t do what they wanted – and who are we to disrespect their religious beliefs? Maybe they were more familiar back then with how the natural world worked?

  24. 1. What is the probability of a Random mutation being beneficial?

    Low. Most of them have no effect.

    2. What is the probability of a beneficial mutation surviving in complex organisms, i.e. Will the immune system attack it as a foreign body?

    High. Humans accumulate about 64 mutations per generation. That is to say, every single human has lots of mutations, surviving in a complex organism.

    How many missing links are we looking for in the fossil record?

    The fossil record is more gap than record. It’s like taking a book and keeping about one word in every hundred. Every time you find a new word to fit into a gap, you replace that gap with two gaps, one on either side of the word inserted.

    How did the cell evolve, taking into account the latest discoveries of its complexity?

    Do you mean the cell membrane? It works basically like a soap bubble. (And soap is not particularly complicated.) Or do you mean the contents? What bit, specifically?

    Can the apparent ability of the chemical code DNA, to fix problems and to gain extra abilities by Random changes, be used to fix the problems in programmes by computer scientists?

    Yes. They’re called genetic algorithms, and are often surprisingly effective, although they have their limitations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

  25. @NiV,

    You are assuming the topiarist is aiming for a squirrel (ooh er). This isn’t the case. The “topiarist” is aiming for anything that works better than the pre-squirrel. Which might still be a squirrel, or could be something that’s not quite a squirrel. The twiggy mutations might need trimming, or they might work better.

  26. Gamecock – “The “Men don’t need Viagra; they need better looking wives” theory.”

    It is a tough field to do research in but I think the medical authorities ought to fund me. Not for myself of course. But to solve the bigger problems facing humanity!

    Gamecock – “Yep, we were poofed into existence 7,000 years ago, as any fool can see.”

    So homosexuals can reproduce then? Here I was thinking they could only recruit.

  27. “You are assuming the topiarist is aiming for a squirrel (ooh er). This isn’t the case. The “topiarist” is aiming for anything that works better than the pre-squirrel. Which might still be a squirrel, or could be something that’s not quite a squirrel. The twiggy mutations might need trimming, or they might work better.”

    When it comes to natural selection, it’s more like the way the low branches are trimmed by herbivores, the branches on the windward side trimmed by storm damage, the branches rubbing against the nearby rock face trimmed by friction damage, and so on.

    The result is a very odd-shaped tree, precisely molded to avoid every risk and threat surrounding it.

    The gardener with the desire for the squirrel-shaped hedge is, of course, engaged in unnatural selection. 🙂

  28. I am fascinated by Craig’s points, and wish to subscribe to his newsletter. Since he is clearly an authority in evolutionary biology, I am hoping his expertise extends into other contentious theoretical areas. Perhaps he also has something to contribute to the vexed debate on superstring theory. For instance, considering candidate warped throat topologies in Calabi-Yau manifolds, which of Klebanov-Strassler or Randall-Sundrum throats does he feel give a better fit to observed CMB anisotropies?

  29. Had a creationist friend who once sneered that it was stupid to suggest life came from a bunch of cells, pointed out it only took his parents 9 months and 2 cells to produce him. The subject has never come up since

  30. All that is necessary for evolution is:

    1. Reproduction,
    2. Inheritance of traits,
    3. Variability of traits.

    All of which we all have seen.

  31. What is the probability of a beneficial mutation surviving in complex organisms, i.e. Will the immune system attack it as a foreign body?

    Why would, and more importantly, by what mechanism could, the immune system attack a mutation (beneficial or otherwise) that has been part of the organism since conception?

  32. “So if we are living in a simulation, what do we call the one running the simulation?”

    Richard Murphy?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.