The other option in the text tells us that the 'appearances' would make a species to change. Not because there was once 2 of them to choose from. But the male attractiveness toward a female. So only appearance, no crucial thing for survival. Because of the volcanic eruptions trough the globe or heat increase or could weather changes etc.
So they slowly lost something nevertheless because the female would like that (loosing your hair) so they choose this appearance over the other.
The penis is a important appearance for the female, and it's the penis appearance we talking about. this should have gained slowly according the fairytale you believe in.
how the autonomy of the penis occurred, is not what we discus. But the appearance should have made it change to.
What I think you're saying: One of the hypotheses put forward by whoever wrote the text you attached is that humans visually preferred less body hair, and so even though less body hair wasn't even useful the trait spread. The penis is an important visual feature for the female, and females prefer larger penises, so therefore if the theory of evolution is correct then we should be getting larger penises.
My response:
1) We return, once more, to what I'm telling you in point #2, above. ONE thing that needs to happen in order for a species to evolve is that the new trait needs to be somehow useful for producing and raising offspring. A new trait could be useful for that just because humans think it's sexy and want to mate with you. I explained that in the 12th post of this thread. That doesn't mean "we want something and therefore we evolve to have it." The mutation happens
first, and then it
spreads because we select mates with that trait. Over time, the species evolves to have the trait.
Read point #2 again, above. The one that starts with "The text you attached to your last post actually illustrates..."
2) Even if we assume that you are correct, and our desire to have something is itself what drives the entire process in the theory of evolution, you're making some unsupported assumptions about what "we" want and whether we
are getting bigger dicks.
What does it mean when a species "evolves"? Does it mean every single member of the species now has the new trait, and to the same extent as every other member of the species?
What does it mean when humans "prefer" a trait and select for it in mates? Does that mean EVERY human has the EXACT SAME preferences? What makes you think you speak for all humans when you say things like "a male in his million years of evolution, desperately wanna change the penis more then ANYTHING else on their body" and "[t]he penis is a important appearance for the female," (the implication being that females prefer penises larger than what we have now on average).
Today, some humans have lots of body hair and others have very little. Is only one or the other sort of person really "human"? Some humans are born with enormous penises, and others are born with (
relatively) small penises. (I'll come back to this 'relatively small' business in point #4 of this response). Is someone only "human" if they have a big dick? Is someone only "human" if they have a (relatively) small dick?
Some humans like lots of body hair, and others do not. Some women like enormous penises, and others do not. YOU think bigger penises look better. (And I agree). DLD thinks hairy looks better (I disagree and girls I've been with disagree, but I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who agree with DLD). Different people have different visual preferences! The entire race does not have one, unified opinion!
My Son just knew because it was my job and He was around me all the time in my PE heyday. As much as He knows, which is what I know, He still prefers what God has given Him?
An example of a male who knows
exactly how to make himself bigger, and has a father devoted to the discipline, and
still chose to just keep what he's got now. Not even all males want bigger dicks, (certainly not like they want eyebrows), and females are less visually oriented than we are to begin with.
3) Human sexual desire for a trait, even once the mutation has occurred randomly, is SITLL only ONE factor in determining whether the trait spreads.
For one example, humans are pretty obsessed with digitigrade legs, as opposed to the plantigrade legs we have. I say this based on high heeled shoes. Women pretty universally wear high heels to increase attractiveness, forcing them into a digitigrade posture. So why did we lose digitigrade legs in the first place? Why haven't we gotten them back? One reason is that even if we find the form of a digitigrade leg/foot more aesthetically graceful, it also has some serious mechanical drawbacks when you're walking around on just two legs. It's a lot harder to balance, and takes more energy to stay upright. Just try walking around as high up on your toes as you can get all day, and you'll see what I mean.
Even if you disagree with the example above, and you think the high heel thing is nonsense, the
principle I'm illustrating holds. A 10" flaccid hang might look awesome (as many of us in this forum believe), but maybe it's not the best thing to have when you're running naked through the forest.
I'm sure you can think of your own examples of things we think
look nice, but aren't actually practical. "Form vs function."
4) We HAVE been evolving bigger dicks!! What you're claiming
not to be the case... actually probably
is the case. Even our "average" penis is larger relative to our size than that of any other primate.
Check it out here.
And here.
For transparency, I will point out that there is
some disagreement regarding the length of chimpanzee penises, (some studies have concluded that chimp penises are longer but narrower than human penises). Even the dissenting studies, however, hypothesize that this helps chimps navigate a longer and narrower canal in their female counterparts. It's not because female chimps (who are NOT selective maters) visually prefer pencil dicks.