Talk:Baculum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Usage

Does anyone known what the correct usage is? Penis bone or penile bone? Baculum or os penis? Or does it vary by species?-- The Anome 17:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adams Rib

The link "Adam's rib as an argument against evolution" does not actually contain any arguments against evolution. Link should be renamed.

Picture

Do we really need a picture that links to a sexual act in here when it's not even a real x-ray(conceptual art)-Bio2590 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I removed it. Powers 18:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam's "Rib"

I think the reference to Eve being created from Adam's penis should be removed. It is blatant conjecture, totally unsupported by Biblical evidence. The Hebrew word tsela (Strong's number 06763) appears 41 times in the Old Testament. Not even one of this word's occurances imply this salacious insinuation.

Symbolically, this word demonstrates God created Eve from Adam's side, where, as his "helper," she belongs (not from Adam's backside, so she must walk behind him; nor from his front -- below the belt or otherwise -- so she must walk before him; nor from the soles of his feet, so she must be tread upon).

Instead, it is important to consider that tsela appears in such passages as Genesis 25:12 and 14, referring to the Ark of the Covenant's sides. Therefore, in order for a person to believe Eve was manufactured from Adam's penis, you must also believe the Ark had a generative organ. If I am not mistaken, the Bible usually refers to male and female generative organs by using the words, "between the feet," in essence, between the legs. This conjecture is highly misleading and should be removed. Just my two cents. --207.239.111.117 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Suzanne

The notion that there was no Biblical Hebrew word for "penis" is simply phallacious. It may be true that there is "no known" word in Biblical Hebrew for "penis" but the assertion that there is none is ludicrous. Since stating this correctly takes all the weight out of the argument, I'm removing this statement entirely. ajax 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that the idea that men have 1 fewer ribs than women is silly and illogical and not a part of any doctrine I know. If you gave me a kidney, wouldn't all your children have both their kidneys still? Of course. The same goes for ribs. This should be removed from the article completely as irrelevant and false. 72.158.67.50 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the goal of wikipedia to push our beliefs- but to make available in encyclopedic format what valid ideas others others have come up with. The explanatory myth proposed and published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics is just as well documented as the Explanatory "myth" proposed by Dawkins. Yes, the method of erection in humans is blood pressure, and it may have been a form of sexual selection, but the discussion is not closed. I believe that this reference was removed because it is offensive to conservative Christians who do not want to have their creation story analyzed in this manner and it is offensive to atheists who do not feel that any reference to religion in non-religious articles is appropriate. So... I returned it, because it is a reference that is documented and the only reason it was removed is because a minority found it offensive (see comments about woman coming from man's side above- full of theology) Wcbpolish (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not offensive, it's silly.--Praseprase (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Raccoon penis bone & Oosik

My primary concern is that the two articles above don't have enough merit to grow beyond stub status & could be better used to enrich this article (two new pictures, two new sections is basically my proposal. --mordicai. 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No dissenters, so it is done. --mordicai. 20:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Luck?

Why this page categorised under luck? 72.211.139.189 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

isn't it cause in some cultures they're believed to bring good luck or somthing? I think it says somthing like that somewhere ont he article --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Spurious argument

Dawkin's argument is weak to nonexistent. What he fails to point out is the advantage that humans should have compared to chimps. The life of Pan troglodytes is certainly much more socially stressful than that of humans (they are about as aggressive as apes get), and that of Pan paniscus is at least sexually more exciting (and not to forget, full of "GG rubbing" which in males simply means "bashing their penises against each other's to relieve sexual/social tension"). So following Dawkins' logic but being not as ignorant about zoology as he is, it would probably be more likely that humans retained a vestigial penis bone (like gorillas, which are the next-closest relatives), whereas it would have disappeared in chimps and possibly bonobos too.

The whole thing could be checked. If Dawkins says "chimpanzees", I'd favor removing the entire thing or at least caveat emptoring it. Chimpanzees are not the closest living relatives of humans, the entire genus Pan (chimps AND bonobos equally) is. To say they are is factually wrong.

Suffice to say that it's not a proper scientific theory but ad-hoc speculation at present. We know far too little about the conditions under which Pan and Homo ancestors diverged. AFAIK, none of the "protohumans" have a penis bone. But then again, the rule-of-thumb in mammal taphonomy is that the penis bone is usually the first bone to become disassociuated from the rest of the skeleton. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dawkin's argument should not be sited in this page because it is really nothing more than speculation (the fact that it is from a book notwithstanding). The mere fact that he is a widely recognized academic does not make his speculation worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. 64.178.103.31 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"a widely recognized academic" - yes, but Dawkins is not and never was a biologist proper. He talks like one, but anthropology is really a "soft science" masquerading more or less successfully as empirical science :) In a nutshell, Dawkins likes to make bold claims, but has an annoying tendency to deliver little if any data.

As regards this here issue - a) why has the same not occurred in other apes? b) do humans have higher blood pressure than chimps? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962. Dawkins' got his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, for the study of animal behaviour, particularly the questions of instinct, learning and choice. His published opinion meets all of Wikipedias criteria for notability and deserves to stay in the article. Lumos3 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I also don't understand the logic of Dawkin's argument, and suspect that perhaps it has been mistated here. The use of erection rigidity by females to select for healthy mates is exactly the mechanism that would have selected *for* a penis bone, because it's far easier to grow a bone to prop up your erection than to maintain the health necessary to sustain one through blood pressure. These "cheaters" would have been indistinguishable from the non-boned variants, and therefore would have been selected by females who were selecting for this trait. The absence of a baculum in humans therefore might have resulted from the cessation of this selection, not the other way around. 128.249.106.234 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been sexual selection, just plain natural selection, those with a bone had bigger chances of after successfully mating producing unhealthy offspring, while those that didn't had the bone would only be able to successfully mate if they had healthy genes, eventually the ones with bones gradually reduced their numbers because the offspring died before having a chance to reproduce. --201.42.87.184 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Competitive penis fights

"The latter engage in competitive penis fights, and erection strength is a far more direct indicator of evolutionary fitness in bonobos than in humans." Can someone please find a reference for this claim? I really hope that this is true.

Dead external link

The link to the San Diego Zoo site is dead. Anyone know if it got moved or should the link be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.165.188 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the term "Oosik"

I have never seen the word "oosik" used to mean anything other than the bone from a walrus penis. Ask anyone in Alaska, they'll tell you it is from a walrus. Never any other animal. Should I change the definition here? 137.229.246.197 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirected from "Texas Toothpick"

Why does a search for "Texas Toothpick" redirect to this page? The page itself doesn't reference this term, and to my knowledge, a Texas Toothpick is a spud bar. Can someone fix this problem please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Stephen (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spud bar doesn't mention "Texas toothpick" either. I'm thinking that the redirect should just be deleted, but I'm open to other suggestions. Powers ^T 14:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)