Nomad
Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007
|
For those that want greater detail on the mystical poles theory, I found it at the EvC forum where he's arguing the same thing and frankly doing a lot worse because the people there are still actually taking him up on the issues and responding rather than teasing him and waiting for him to respond to one of the many previous points that he's run away from.
| Quote | | . It is a simple idea that during evolution the reproductive organs moved towards opposite end of that of the head, which represents individuality at most. So the head and reproductive organs in mammals are on the opposite ends of their bodies |
link
So.. in other words.. his theory is that testicles moved down (or back) over time. Except for the species in which it didn't.
You know, that's right, Martin. The same species that you point out as problems with the cooling issues (I notice no response to the idea that internal testicle mammals have elaborate internal cooling mechanisms.. could it be that the group you listed also has specialized internal cooling that the other mammals are lacking? Why would you suggest that the cooling issue doesn't exist if the only way that mammals can keep internal testicles is to have specialized cooling mechanisms for them?) are problems to your pole theory. Why would small mammals and birds not demonstrate this effect? Are Aardvarks not in need of representing individuality, while rats are?
It's really irrelevant in any case, that doesn't explain why they go external in any event. Away from the head does not specify outside the body. There are plenty of areas in the human body that are farther from the head, hanging between our legs is hardly an ideal position in terms of distance. For mammals that walk on all fours it's even less useful in that regard, since hanging outside of the body in that layout means below but not farther back from the head.
So, Martin, care to try again, only this time perhaps you can take observed reality into account in your next attempt?
|
