Rule
Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: domiguy
I am much more concerned about what has happened to Rule than refashioning my lost wienee skin.
Dude, what the fuck? Is this part of your plan to rule the masses through confusion? I fear that there is something seriously amiss.
Are you okay?
I am fine, though I have yet to find a way to cure herpes and other sexually transmitted diseases as well as to discover immortality.
Reality is often a bit more complicated than most people suspect. Sexually transmitted diseases in various ways are beneficial to the populations in which they occur.
Let me give an example:
Let's assume that circumcision gives - an impossible - 98 per cent protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
Let's have one sexually active circumcised population of 110 males and females. And another such population in which the males are as the Creator intended them to be.
In each population ten per cent of the couples are monogamous.
Each population is stricken by a sexually transmitted disease that kills fifty percent of the natural males and all of the infected females. All natural males get sick.
In each population is one male with a disease resistant allele.
First generation:
Circumcised: ten monogamous couples survive. 100 females die. One male dies. 99 other males survive. That leaves 109 living males, one of whom is resistant to the disease.
Uncircumcised: ten monogamous couples survive. 100 females die. Fifty other males die and another fifty survive. That leaves 60 living males, one of whom is resistant to the disease.
Notice that in this first generation the frequency of the disease resistant allele in the population of surviving uncircumcised males is nearly twice as high as in the population of circumcised males - in which it is nearly the same as before the disease struck.
In a subsequent generation - say generation five, in which the population has recovered its initial number of individuals - the disease strikes again. This time the results are:
Circumcised: ten monogamous couples survive. 100 females die. One male dies. 99 other males survive. That leaves 109 living males, one of whom is resistant to the disease.
Uncircumcised: ten monogamous couples survive. 100 females die. 48 other males die and another fifty-two survive. That leaves 62 living males, two of whom are resistant to the disease.
Notice that now the frequency of the disease resistant allele in the population of surviving uncircumcised males is more than three times as high as in the population of circumcised males - in which it is nearly the same as before the disease struck.
So in each subsequent generation that the disease strikes, the circumcised population remains as vulnerable as the initial population, whereas the uncircumcised population gets more and more resistant - until it is no problem at all.
The evolution of resistance will occur quicker than that, though.
In the circumcised population the ten surviving females will see no difference between the 109 surviving males. They know that there is only one way to survive: remain monogamous.
In the circumcised population, though, the ten surviving females notice that among the fifty widowers one man never got sick. Two of them decide to make love to him and produce two or more babies with the disease resistant allele: this doubles, triples and quadruples the frequency of the disease resistant allele in their population. After a couple of generations under duress by the disease, the entire uncircumcised population will be resistant against the disease. Thanks to the couple of adulterous women.
Of course the above is an extreme, unrealistic example - but it illustrates one of the many benefits of not circumcising the males in the population.
< Message edited by Rule -- 5/21/2010 4:44:20 PM >
|
RE: What is Lost Due to Circumcision? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread