Dearest Charles, your erection may feel spiritual to you, but it is indeed a physiological response to stimuli.
You guys seem to think your boners are all that and a bag of chips. I assure you: they are not all that to everyone. However, I'm glad you enjoy your boners so thoroughly.
One theory regarding the rise of man is that we are mutant chimpanzees who have benefitted from continuing juvenile traits into adulthood. An example is that a human's ratio of brain size to body size is closer to that of a baby chimp than an adult. Perhaps the boneless boner is a simple, undeniable advertisement of cardiovascular fitness.
As well, consider the bonobo. It is a chimp-like primate whose social structure is radically different. Their hierarchy is less rigid, they do not wage war on competing tribes like the chimps, and social bonds are reinforced through sex, amongst both the males and females.
For many years it was thought that chimpanzees were our blood brothers, or the closest thing to in the animal kingdom, and the bonobos were outlyer freaks, an evolutionary dead end, a stub of a thing best left to die in the jungle. However in modern times, with benefit of a genetic analysis which is purely mathematical and not clouded by expectations of 'proper' human behaviour, it is clear that bonobos and chimps are equally related to us, and we to them, and that the split between them happened after the split between them and us.
Yes Charles, small just means you're more evolved.
https://theconversation.com/the-human-pe…
Interestingly, our closest living relatives, including the chimpanzee, possess penis bones, but those bones are very small. It is possible that our primate relatives may too eventually lose their bacula.
Indeed, perhaps it鈥檚 more a question of why the other great apes still have bacula, rather than why we humans lack them. Complete loss of a baculum in humans seems to just continue a trend towards baculum size reduction which is found among the great apes.
It is also thought the presence of a baculum is associated with longer mating or perhaps just much more mating (as in the case of the lion discussed above). Perhaps the mating systems of humans are such that they don鈥檛 require this additional help.
@9: Some people have suggested that, since "tzeilah" ("爪旨值诇指注", literally "rib") is used to describe other rib-like structures and support beams, the rib taken from Adam could indeed have been the baculum. However, Genesis 2:21 uses the plural phrase "achat mitzal'otav" ("讗址讞址转 诪执爪旨址诇职注止转指讬讜", literally, "one of his ribs"), suggesting that Adam had more than one. So that interpretation perhaps is inaccurate, unless the plural referred to both costae and baculum together. (Reference: http://blog.chron.com/iconia/2011/08/heb…)
You guys seem to think your boners are all that and a bag of chips. I assure you: they are not all that to everyone. However, I'm glad you enjoy your boners so thoroughly.
As well, consider the bonobo. It is a chimp-like primate whose social structure is radically different. Their hierarchy is less rigid, they do not wage war on competing tribes like the chimps, and social bonds are reinforced through sex, amongst both the males and females.
For many years it was thought that chimpanzees were our blood brothers, or the closest thing to in the animal kingdom, and the bonobos were outlyer freaks, an evolutionary dead end, a stub of a thing best left to die in the jungle. However in modern times, with benefit of a genetic analysis which is purely mathematical and not clouded by expectations of 'proper' human behaviour, it is clear that bonobos and chimps are equally related to us, and we to them, and that the split between them happened after the split between them and us.
https://theconversation.com/the-human-pe…
Interestingly, our closest living relatives, including the chimpanzee, possess penis bones, but those bones are very small. It is possible that our primate relatives may too eventually lose their bacula.
Indeed, perhaps it鈥檚 more a question of why the other great apes still have bacula, rather than why we humans lack them. Complete loss of a baculum in humans seems to just continue a trend towards baculum size reduction which is found among the great apes.
It is also thought the presence of a baculum is associated with longer mating or perhaps just much more mating (as in the case of the lion discussed above). Perhaps the mating systems of humans are such that they don鈥檛 require this additional help.
@3: you don't actually seem that happy for us.
Hmmm. Well, I suppose I am unimpressed. However, I am quite fond. I am very fond, indeed.
Viagra in your future?