Anonymous d47c418b50834a2125fb691b8c5ed36f started this discussion 2 months (2008-10-09 00:40:30 UTC) ago:
Wouldn't they be much better protected if they were internal?
Advertisement: AT — the number one reason to own an Internet connection!
Anonymous 2a89f81a3ba48a75d2a2377b22083849 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 00:52:03 UTC) ago, 12 minutes later (#67,756):
The ideal temperature for sperm production is a couple of degrees lower than human body temperature. Your nuts are outside so they can keep cool.
Anonymous d47c418b50834a2125fb691b8c5ed36f (OP) replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 00:53:40 UTC) ago, 2 minutes later (#67,757):
@67,756Why is it like that? Why isn't the ideal temperature for the sperms the body temperature?
Anonymous 432e0455ab62dcb07791d89df9399e2d replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 00:54:42 UTC) ago, 1 minute later (#67,758):
Pretty much all mammals have testicles that can move closer to the body to increase temperature and further away to decrease temperature. Proper regulation fosters the health of sperm.
Anonymous 05fd26325f7ad36323e322a4955674bc replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 02:44:13 UTC) ago, 2 hours later (#67,789):
That's strange though, why didn't the reproductive system evolve to the point where they could be stored inside the body? Why do we have to have an off-site sperm production facility, when it could simply be modified, and placed in the body? There's gotta be another reason for this. How come a female's eggs can be in the body?
Anonymous 432e0455ab62dcb07791d89df9399e2d replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 02:53:46 UTC) ago, 10 minutes later (#67,792):
@67,789It has to do with the fact that different chemicals require different conditions to form stable bonds. Evolution does not have a will of its own and is not biased toward efficiency. What you suggest would require evolution to force sperm to be made out of different chemicals, and that is just not reasonable.
Anonymous 864b801c3519bb72092632a04234f7e0 replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 03:34:52 UTC) ago, 41 minutes later (#67,808):
Let's say you're cooking something in the oven. What's the easier way to warm up some cheese but not subject it to the amount of temperature as inside the oven? Putting it on a paper plate on top of the oven, or putting it in some battery-powered cooling box and sticking that inside the oven?
Anonymous 05fd26325f7ad36323e322a4955674bc replied with this 2 months (2008-10-09 22:07:25 UTC) ago, 19 hours later (#68,030):
> It has to do with the fact that different chemicals require different conditions to form stable bonds. Evolution does not have a will of its own and is not biased toward efficiency. What you suggest would require evolution to force sperm to be made out of different chemicals, and that is just not reasonable.
That makes sense then, if the temperature was too high that it would disrupt chemical bonds. My premise for evolution forcing the balls to be inside the body is that the balls are in a semi-vulnerable position. If the risk of castration was sufficiently high throughout a person's life, then only people with smaller or more compact balls would be favored over people with dangly balls.
Anonymous 432e0455ab62dcb07791d89df9399e2d replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 01:58:54 UTC) ago, 4 hours later (#68,128):
@68,030But what in nature would possibly be a risk to the testicles without being a risk to the rest of the organism? The testicles aren't exactly primary targets in a fight.
Anonymous 05fd26325f7ad36323e322a4955674bc replied with this 2 months (2008-10-10 04:03:41 UTC) ago, 2 hours later (#68,197):
@68,128Yeah I know, that was my initial assumption that makes no sense.
© AnonTalk.com 2008