Penis evolution?

Lets say for example I worked my dick to 8 inches BPEL and then had a child, would that child grow up to just be below 8 inches when hes finished puberty (assuming my invisible wifes genetics were more average :-P ). And what if he did PE and got himself to 9 inches and also had a child himself, does anyone think this is possible or just plain loony??? in a thousand years most men would be leaving 3 lined snow trails :-P

No, I don’t think this would change the size of the offsprings penis, it is not a genetic change IMO.

it may not be a genetic change but who’s to say it can’t be. Surely the environmental change will be programmed into sperm no?

If someone is exceptionally brilliant and accomplished alot in his lifetime, won’t the offspring also carry some of those traits?

Changes resulting from environment are not imprinted on the genetic code.

Edit: Unless that environmental factor changes the DNA itself, such as high-level radiation exposure and the like which can cause chromosomal defects. But if you cut your arm off, you will not give birth to one armed babies, and if you stretch your ligs out, you will not give birth to babies with huge floppy ligs.

Jungalist, the only problem that you would run into is that the genetic code for penis size has not been altered through PE. The tissues have been changed but this would not effect the genetic coding that you received from your parents at conception. There is a possibility that your son would be smaller than you when born because of the genetic alterations nade to the foods that we eat. There is a thread here discussing pediatriacians and their views on the sizes of the babies they circumsize being smaller than 20 years ago. I would have thought that the sizes would have increased, but this does not seem to be the case according to these two men, but it is possible that their sample is on the smaller side and the sizes really haven’t changed that much in 20 years.

It may also help to understand whether or not evolutionary theory is the means in which life on this planet exists. If you assume it to be true then many of the theories that exist in our current age, ranging from psychological studies to environmental studies, can be accepted as true but if it is not fact then these theories have nothing plausible on which to stand.

I’m a biological science major and have yet to enter into any class where the Evolutionary theory was taught as anything other than fact, and as I have entertained the ideas there has not been enough evidence to support the views that it is indeed the way we have come to exist currently. In many instances it’s only by assertions that can’t be proven with too many unknowns as to how, when, and why that leaves much to be desired. That’s just how I see it but I’m not trying to jack the thread.

I wondered about this same question myself. Eroset makes a good point though.

Eroset makes the perfect point. If someone does well as an athlete they are normally genetically in an advantage which normally makes the offspring this way. But if the athlete had to work very very hard and become the best, this wouldn’t change the genetics of their offspring, they will still be at the disadavantage the parent started at.

Dicks, who knows? But I know enviromental factors and other stranger related things have made the Dutch a taller people in 200 years.

I agree with Eroset though.

I think it’s nature not nurture that influences starting size.

Yes, I agree somewhat. Nature is the plant you bought over the weekend and will grow to possibly its maximum potential. But if it doesn’t reach the sunlight, nor gets watered it will get stunted or croak.

So, essentially you got what your genes gave you to work with. But if you take certain drugs for other ailments it could stall puberty, or a disease might mess you up too. God knows what all the chemicals do to us? Both are intertwined in my notion of this. Just like you could have 6’11” genes but if you are malnourished you won’t reach maximum height at all.

Thats what happened to me I bet, lol. I was supposed to be a ft taller and have a 10x6 inch dick :)

This is called the Lamarckian theory of evolution, and it’s been disproved for quite some time.

Lamarckism - Wikipedia

Lamarckism is a now discredited theory of biological evolution developed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck in the 19th century. Lamarckism holds that traits acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism can be passed on to the offspring. Lamarck based his theory on two observations, in his day considered to be generally true:

Use and disuse – Individuals lose characteristics they do not require (or use) and develop characteristics that are useful.
Inheritance of acquired traits – Individuals inherit the traits of their ancestors.

Examples of Lamarckism would include:

Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees, strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks.

A blacksmith, through his work, strengthens the muscles in his arms. His sons will have similar muscular development when they mature.
With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws:

In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

In essence, a change in the environment brings about change in "needs" (besoins), resulting in change in behavior, bringing change in organ usage and development, bringing change in form over time—and thus the gradual transmutation of the species. While such a theory might explain the observed diversity of species and the first law is generally true, the main argument against Lamarckism is that experiments simply do not support the second law—purely "acquired traits" are not inherited. The mechanisms of inheritance were not elucidated until later in the 19th Century, after Lamarck’s death.

Yeah, darwin kicked his ass.