Where's my Baculum? Evolutionists or Creationists tell me?

I need to read up on other species penis's more, because I've never heard of such a damned thing.



A.....baculum......which is a dick bone that keeps it up ALL the time? Is that right? Or does it retract like Wolverine's claws?

Monkey's have them, men don't.

I don't know man, maybe its because monkey women are a helluva lot uglier than human women. If I were a monkey, yeah, I might need that.

Subscribing to see where this goes, if anywhere at all.

originally posted by: halfoldman
Well when last did we have it?

It appears Neanderthal man and Homo Erectus still had had it.

And then, poof.

It's gone.

No members of our genus, Including H. Erectus, H. Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Naledi... I think you get the idea... none of us had a baculum. So yes, it wasn’t there and then “poof... gone”.

originally posted by: halfoldman
The Baculum is a penile bone found in most mammals, including our supposed closest ape relatives.

Why don't we have it?

The official explanation, but do you buy that?

The loss of the bone in humans, when it is present in our nearest related species the chimpanzee, is thought to be because humans "evolved a mating system in which the male tended to accompany a particular female all the time to try to ensure paternity of her children"[13] which allows for frequent matings of short duration. Observation suggests that primates with a baculum only infrequently encounter females, but engage in longer periods of copulation that the baculum makes possible, thereby maximizing their chances of fathering the female's offspring. Human females exhibit concealed ovulation also known as hidden estrus, meaning it is almost impossible to tell when the female is fertile, so frequent matings would be necessary to ensure paternity.[1

en.wikipedia.org...

In all honesty that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard to account for an entire bone in the human body going missing!


In fact for centuries it was believed in Christianity, for example that Eve came from Adam's now missing baculum.
That sounds more plausible than the "science".

I know it’s on Wiki, but that’s one of several plausible hypotheses. To be honest, it’s one of the bigger mysteries in anthropology. But do you really want to compare what your packing to the other apes? For example the Baculum in a chimpanzee is about the size of a human finger nail and they tend to top out at around 1.25 inches in length and can only last for about 7 seconds of copulation. If that’s all you were working with, I think your choice of mates would be significantly smaller.

For those who have been missing out ...

Purchase a baculum bone!

Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in the aforelinked web page whatsoever. Just thought it was contextual.

originally posted by: Deplorable


It should be legal to slap the living s**t out of anyone expressing belief in Evolution for 2 generations. After that ... there would never be any discussion of the subject.

OK, I'm sitting here waiting or your slap. Bring it on. Or try

a reply to: halfoldman

It's because of the same reason the automatic gearbox superseded the manual.

Who needs the old stick shift?



Actually, it seems to me that the loss of traits is far easier to explain than the gaining of traits with all the machinery involved.

If evolution does not have a 'direction' where are all the species that devolved from 'higher' ones, like us? There should be far more than the ones that evolve 'upwards'.

What does that simple fact do the the phylogenetic tree, which always assumes an upward and outward direction?

Couple that with a little horizontal genetic transfer, and it means anything can lead to pretty much anything else, in no sequence or order.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I just love how you think you are smarter than people with much higher IQs who have studied this topic their whole life.

How nice. A two-for reply that sets yourself up for abject failure on the subject.

So there are people with higher IQs than myself (yeah ... I'm stoopid), who have made a life-long commitment to the study of evolution (a total farce).

Ready to fail? Of all of these experts you've referred to, there must be thousands upon thousands of new species that you're prepared to name because they've all been carefully and scientifically recorded. Please begin. Start from 24 November 1859. Don't let your audience down. -snicker-

originally posted by: F4guy
OK, I'm sitting here waiting or your slap. Bring it on. Or try

See above.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Deplorable

The evidence is everywhere. In the case of evolution there's abounding evidence that it is true. Anyone who has ever studied evolution, including myself, will find it very difficult to conclude it is not science fact. The evidence is just too compelling with regards to the way different species specialize and cross-breed.

Regardless, any time a theist brings up the topic of evolution I can't help but think he or she is pretending to believe in God. Some people's faith in God is just so weak they are easily offended by anyone claiming a different dogma over their own.

Let's settle this once and for all. If you are theist, just stop caring about evolution. Evolution simply does not matter. You need to strengthen your faith and burn the following deep into your heart. Our omnipotent God is all-powerful. Omnipotent means without limitations. Our omnipotent God is not bounded by the laws of physics or the laws of logic. Our omnipotent God can create the Universe in ANY amount of time. Not only can our omnipotent God create the Universe in any amount of time He can also include all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. Stop assuming our God is a lesser God bounded by physical evidence. There is no evidence evolutionist are going to present that will change the fact our omnipotent God has no limitations to what He is capable of doing. So stop insulting God with your claims about evolution being "ridiculous". God is certainly powerful enough to create the Universe with evidence of evolution. Stop insulting God!

Now why would God create a Universe with fake evidence of evolution. It's very simple. God's proving ground for faith is perfect in its construction.

According to you, species cross breeding like crazy is evidence. Well...forst off cross species breeding is quite rare and even so that takes one generation. You breed a horse and donkey once, you will get a mule. The mule didnt evolve, those two soecies just jave a rare ability to create a half breed when forced to do so. The halfbreed isnt a newly evolved animal. And even if it were common, thats the big PROBLEM with evolution. If so common (and they have labs where bacteria and viruses reproduce every few minutes creating hundreds of generations a day and millions a year but...) why has constant breeding of any kind we have observed ever created a generation where the species pf animal changes to a new one? Its hard to even get adaptation.

Also if you know evolution well you should know how shallow a theory it really is with even Darwin tossing it out before he died. Homo habilis is based entirely off one kneecap found, australipithicus or some other step is based off a skull because the brow is too big to be homosapien but just as many people who examined it say it looks like any old skull of a man with arthritic joints and bone disease or some on the fringe say it looks like a homosapien who lived to be 150+ years old since the male brow never stops growing and that matches whay every ancient civilization says you could expect back in the day.

Its a religion, evolution. Its faith in a belief. Science is the study of the universe through observation and experimentation. Well our bacteria experiments show no matter how many millions of generations you never yield a new species and nobody has ever observed evolution. Just a lot of speculation of steps with a magical missing link needed for it to work that evolution ASSUMES AND RELIES upon entirely. Why cant there just have been multiple bipedal species which got bred into homosapiens and died out? Thats what happened to ancient american dogs, to extinct cats, etc. Evolution though? We never have found a species in transition amd by evolutions reasoning all species are. But instead we see only evidence and fossils of completed species all at the same spot on the evolutionary chain, geography doesnt even gove us packs of animals a few generations behind or ahead. Just 100% all done wipe your hands species.

originally posted by: Deplorable

Ready to fail? Of all of these experts you've referred to, there must be thousands upon thousands of new species that you're prepared to name because they've all been carefully and scientifically recorded. Please begin. Start from 24 November 1859. Don't let your audience down. -snicker-

Exactly. IF evolution did occur, then we'd have, for example, countless new branches of species from laboratory fruit flies. Millions of generations of fruit flies all throughout the world undergoing artificial selection, and yet none of these populations 'evolve' into something other than fruit flies. It's hard to prove a negative but this is about as close as you can get.

Evolution does not happen.

Actually I think becoming bipedal, or walking upright might have a lot to do with it too.

So, I think it's quite possible that from Homo Habilis to Erectus we began to lose the baculum.

Although these hominids were around for a very long time, so exactly when is obscure.
This clearly needs further research, and would include what bits we can expect to be fossilized.
And we don't know, maybe they ritualistically cannibalized certain parts of the body in fertility rituals and so forth.
Especially in struggles with other primates even, the genitalia is known to be ripped or bitten off.
It would have made a handy arrow or spear-tip too.
Have we found chimp fossils with baculums (although we know they still have it today)?

But you can tell an upright male from a female in the savanna from miles away, whereas the male member in other apes and primates is rather carrot-like and unremarkable. So perhaps it's not just the loss of the baculum that's significant, but the entire shape of the tackle.

But it is pretty unique considering we're classed as "apes" or primates (whereas in our "relatives" apparently it looks like a carrot).
Display seems to have been part of it.
Perhaps the human equivalent of the spectacular peacock's tail?
I guess one could make a similar argument for breasts in human woman (gender signifiers before clothing).

I once saw a program on killer animals, and apparently chimpanzees can tell human males and females apart from miles.
So it could have a deterrent effect, especially to other hominids and primates.

But when exactly it happened, and in which hominid species (since some may still have been around 300 000 years ago, and shared the earth in Africa with our direct ancestors, for example Homo Naledi).
How we know with very rare fossils, for example Denisovans is unclear. All we have is a finger bone and itty-bitty fragments, and I'm not sure one can tell by DNA if a baculum or remnant there-of was still present). Tell me the exact DNA sequence to indicate a baculum or not. Otherwise that is an unproven statement, or speculation. Even Neanderthals were around for so long that their skulls, for example changed shape between early specimens, classic and late periods.

But I'd say it has more to do with bipedal display, and identifying males and females in the Savannah from a distance away. Such males would have attracted more females from other groups.

To base it on the duration of love-making is a delusional fantasy, as far as I'm concerned.
As Freddie Mercury implies in the film Bohemian Rhapsody: "If you think seven minutes is too long (in that case, metaphorically for a radio-friendly rock single), then I pity your wife".

Not that heterosexual impregnation is all that men do with it (it's probably the least, although in Freudian theory and so forth, all is forgivable as long as it leads to that eventually).

So scientifically my argument is, bipedalism and display - when we all frolicked about naked - is the key.
And forget sex, human males can even pee standing upright, which in the Savannah would have been a major advantage to spot predators, rival groups or potential mates. Could we always do that with a baculum? I wonder.

But still, it must have been a long process, although evolution can happen in bursts, but we're still looking at a puzzle.

Then, I wonder, with selective breeding, can it be regenerated?
I'm skeptical, you'd have to change the shape of everything perhaps, so probably not looking at a baculum regeneration craze, in the same context as foreskin regeneration.
But I'm sure some guys will identify as "hominids" and do it.
Why not?

Although surgically, who knows?
Might become a new fashion soon, especially with the people who identity as another species.
I think for impotency there's already stuff like that (not the same, but similar concepts).

But I'm skeptical of anybody who says this or that hominid had it or not, even if just a remnant, based on a very limited fossil record.

But then once, apparently due to natural disasters (the Mount Toba eruption, for example) our ancestors were once almost extinct and only a handful of individuals were left, so that may also have played a role as to which selection was available for propagation.

But thinking if people or documentaries pose the question about ancestral Eve, or in some cases (specifically in the thread) Adam, that to me would be the first male where the baculum had disappeared.

Because even geneticists can become confusing saying this is the first male or female that all humans living today are related to. So looking for "ancestral Adam" is looking for the male to which all men are related.

But then one thinks, yeah but they had ancestors before them (unless one follows creationism or alien interventionism - we were placed here as a new species). But they all had parents and ancestors. It's not like it really means the first "man" literally sprouted from a bacteria.

So if they were related to something older, where do you draw the line?

To reiterate, I'd draw the line with our Homo Sapiens with the first male who didn't have a baculum. When they can pin-point that (with solid evidence), then they have convinced me they found the first "ancestral Adam" for the human species.

On a lighter note, we once had this biology teacher who told us: "If you don't listen, you're going to lose your ears, just like our monkey ancestors lost their tails when they didn't use them".

Yeah right, going to blast Bon Jovi and Iron Maiden when I get home, so no lady, I'm not going to lose my ears.

The Australopithecus PT teacher: "Now listen guys, if you keep on being clumsy and cracking your baculums, eventually they're going to disappear".

Yeah right.
What does that old fart know? He's already over 25.
Never going to happen.
Let's smoke some banana leaves, and chow some fermented marula fruit.

a reply to: halfoldman

Well, I at least think I have a clear criteria for what the first human male should be - our first male ancestor without a baculum.

Otherwise you end up with an "ancestral Adam" (an uneasy, oxymoronic terminology between science and religion in any case, yet commonly presented as factual) that still has ancestors and parents, and they had ancestors and parents ... across millions of years when you really get something like a bacteria.
But is that a "man"?

So actually some religion wasn't that wrong when they defined Adam as the first one who lacked the baculum.

Even scientifically, that is a very good criteria if we're looking for the first male ancestor of Homo Sapiens.

Instead of slamming that idea, I'd rather science would have a conversation on the means by which this could be established.

Can we use DNA, physical anthropology, or even artistic programs to guess?

Even if the baculum grew smaller until it disappeared, there must have been a first male who had none. When exactly was this? Because that was "Adam".

On a lighter note:

The first male without a baculum gets romantic: "Honey, you know I'm a bit deformed and not like the other guys, what could we do?"

"Well you could always nibble on my ear. Just easy tiger, your jaw is still frighteningly robust".

The bros waiting outside the cave: "Flip, hurry up, we want to go hunting! It's already been 30 seconds - what's taking so long? Are you still alive in there bro? When they said she's a maneater I hope they didn't mean that literally!"

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Deplorable

The evidence is everywhere. In the case of evolution there's abounding evidence that it is true. Anyone who has ever studied evolution, including myself, will find it very difficult to conclude it is not science fact.

I have studied evolution* and I did not find it very difficult to conclude it is not a fact, but a fraud. And I know of quite a few others who also did not find it very difficult, among which are biologists, biochemists, geneticists and synthetic chemists (*: referring to both the evolutionary philosophies involving the biological evolution of single-celled ancestors into all the single-celled and multicellular kinds of life that exists today, a.k.a. or so-called "macroevolution", as well as the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" referring to the origin of life by chance and the forces of nature)

Fraud is defined as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.” It is the “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.”​—Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

“Evolution is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. For years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times!

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind.

Gould appropriately says that “myths become beliefs through adulterated repetition without proper documentation.” True. That is how religious creeds were formed that say the Bible teaches that the soul is immortal, that wicked people are tormented in hellfire forever, that God is a Trinity of three persons in one, that the days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 are 24-hour days​—and all of this without proper documentation from the Bible.

And that is also how the evolutionary litany that ‘evolution is a fact’ becomes a belief: through “repetition without proper documentation” from scientific evidence.

‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities​—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.* So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. (*: see earlier footnote regarding my usage of the word "evolution" and what is included in that subject)

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

Evolutionists that specialize in the Big Lie that ‘Evolution is a fact’ also take another leaf out of Hitler’s book, for in it he said of the masses he controlled: “With the primitive simplicity of their minds they will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one, since they themselves perhaps also lie sometimes in little things, but would certainly still be too much ashamed of too great lies.” A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.

It is a lie that is also a fraud because it is “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,” an “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.” Teaching that man’s ancestors are animals, starting with some microbe and ending with some ape, evolutionists have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” By this lie, they induce many to part with something of great value​—their faith in God as their Creator.​—Romans 1:25.

This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’ Enter the moral breakdown, unrestrained and full-​blown. Parted from their Creator and the true values of the Bible, they become spiritually impoverished and end up “like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed.”​—2 Peter 2:12.

The Big-​Lie Propaganda

“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”​—Limitations of Science, 1933.

“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”​—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.

“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”​—Julian Huxley, 1959.

“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”​—Biology for You, 1963.

“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”​—The New Orleans Times-​Picayune, 1964.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”​—James D. Watson, 1965.

“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”​—Science on Trial, 1983.

“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”​—Ashley Montagu, 1984.