3 ms·

Sort of. The essential quality is that you're likely to have children who then have children. A walking pair of gonads or ovaries is more accurate. Here's the

by shawn 8y ago

Sort of. The essential quality is that you're likely to have children who then have children. A walking pair of gonads or ovaries is more accurate. Here's the human body scaled proportional to brain usage: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Front_of_Sensory_Homunculus.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Front_of... (Mildly NSFW?) The genital areas were not scaled because – seriously – they would far eclipse the hands.

minhazm423 8y ago
then isnt this picture kind of pointless and not supportive of your point at all? do you know if a picture exists thats truer to scale including genitals?
- shawn 8y ago
  I was just looking for that. It's annoying how difficult it is to find. The only result I found was https://imgur.com/R24W168 https://imgur.com/R24W168 (definitely NSFW). I wish it were possible to represent the female body in the same way for comparison, since motherhood may give rise to some surprising differences. Still, these pictures seem closer to "Let's imagine what might be true" rather than "this is rigorously scientific," given the inconsistencies between models. Nonetheless it seems generally true.
perpetualcrayon 8y ago
I had considered that also. For some reason, though, I tend to see reproduction as less primitive to survival than digestion. EDIT: Less primitive to survival of the animal itself, not of its species. In fact I'm not 100% sure that survival of the species is critically important. It just so happens that all of the animals that are still here are the species who do have a raging desire to procreate.
wild_preference 8y ago
It’s just a scale of sensory and/or motor function and not very scientific. Genitals have very weak motor ability and very crude sensory resolution, so why would they be large on this scale? Seems like you knew what a sensory homonculus was and tried to repurpose it as a response to their claim.

by shawn 8y ago

minhazm423 8y ago

then isnt this picture kind of pointless and not supportive of your point at all? do you know if a picture exists thats truer to scale including genitals?

shawn 8y ago
I was just looking for that. It's annoying how difficult it is to find. The only result I found was https://imgur.com/R24W168 https://imgur.com/R24W168 (definitely NSFW). I wish it were possible to represent the female body in the same way for comparison, since motherhood may give rise to some surprising differences. Still, these pictures seem closer to "Let's imagine what might be true" rather than "this is rigorously scientific," given the inconsistencies between models. Nonetheless it seems generally true.

perpetualcrayon 8y ago

I had considered that also. For some reason, though, I tend to see reproduction as less primitive to survival than digestion. EDIT: Less primitive to survival of the animal itself, not of its species. In fact I'm not 100% sure that survival of the species is critically important. It just so happens that all of the animals that are still here are the species who do have a raging desire to procreate.

wild_preference 8y ago

It’s just a scale of sensory and/or motor function and not very scientific. Genitals have very weak motor ability and very crude sensory resolution, so why would they be large on this scale? Seems like you knew what a sensory homonculus was and tried to repurpose it as a response to their claim.