[Geezer]

for Geezer, Do you deny rapid genetic change?

No, I don't. All I'm saying is that the 4,000 year circumcision experiment has produced no genetic change.

[echochartruse]

LOL! No evidence! Is four thousand years of evidence that it has no effect insufficient?

Length in the 102 who were circumcised was 0.8 cm (5% or 1/20th) less than length in the 43 who were uncircumcised.

The above relates to the size of penis for circumcised men.

I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin.

[echochartruse]

for Geezer, Do you deny rapid genetic change?

No, I don't. All I'm saying is that the 4,000 year circumcision experiment has produced no genetic change.

you mean nothing has been found? or can you show evidence?

[echochartruse]

As bobtail gene produces tails of various lengths in herding dogs. Human males are born with various lengths of foreskin, fact.

This is most probably relevant to a gene and it would be interesting to find out if circumcision has an influence.

[Geezer]

it would be interesting to find out if circumcision has an influence.

It doesn't. If it did, don't you think we wouldn't know about it after 4,000 years?

[Bored chemist]

This
"I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin."
is not consistent with any significant subset of the human race having a noticeably reduced foreskin for any reason, such as proposed lamarkian evolution among Jewish boys.

You have collected the evidence which proves that your idea is wrong.

[echochartruse]

This
"I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin."
is not consistent with any significant subset of the human race having a noticeably reduced foreskin for any reason, such as proposed lamarkian evolution among Jewish boys.

You have collected the evidence which proves that your idea is wrong.

I am unable to find a scientific study for this exploring the genetic variation.
If you have evidence of such a study please let me know.

[Geezer]

I am unable to find a scientific study for this exploring the genetic variation.
If you have evidence of such a study please let me know.

There is probably a good reason you can't find any references. It might well be that there are none.

If you want to confirm your proposal of genetic change, the onus is on you to provide positive evidence that it exists. It really doesn't work the other way around.

[Bored chemist]

This
"I have just read a magazine here that states men are born with various size forskins and recently more babies are noted to be born with extra long forskin."
is not consistent with any significant subset of the human race having a noticeably reduced foreskin for any reason, such as proposed lamarkian evolution among Jewish boys.

You have collected the evidence which proves that your idea is wrong.

I am unable to find a scientific study for this exploring the genetic variation.
If you have evidence of such a study please let me know.

So, you accepted the magazine article as evidence when you thought it supported your belief, but once I showed that it proved you were wrong, it was no longer adequate.

It seems that you will go to considerable effort not to accept that you are wrong.

[echochartruse]

I would just like to say that the  quote below is not substantiated, there is no proof that having foreskin removed from generations of children has no genetic change or has genetic change. This statement is opinion only not fact.

It may seem odd to consider this idea "It is like saying that if I have a hand chopped off, and then have a child, the child is likely to be born with no hand." but, if Lamarckian evolution worked, Jewish boys would be born with no foreskin.

Again, what I am saying is that there is no evidence for or against genetic change as there seems to be no study done.

Although, there has been study done to show that the size of penis is smaller in children who's foreskin has been removed.

Just like the bobtail gene produces various lengths of tails in herding dogs, I have found that babies have various lenghts of foreskin, but human foreskin has not been associated with any scientific study. Only observation.

I have read in a magazine (not scientific)that in a specific hospital it had been noted that some babies had seemingly longer foreskin than previous generations. The nationality of the babies have not been mentioned or whether they come from generations of having the foreskin removed or not.

The flippant remark by Bored Chemist should not be taken as proof until proven.

I have just put forward the information that I have found. I am not saying it does or doesn't. Whether the foreskin is short medium or large or extra large, there seems be be no study done to determine why. So why did Bored Chemist make such a statement without being able to back it up?

If a Cesarean birth can alter genes in a baby that can then be inherited, isn't that acquired?

If we all have the same genetic code then a mutation happens, causes a cancer that can be inherited such as breast cancer, isn't that acquired?

If Tibetans can develop 10 new genes (or the epigenome unravels these genes) to allow them to breath at high altitudes and this is inheritable isn't this acquired?

Just as babies born is specific months in specific locations are more proned to specific disease, everything has an effect. This is proven.

In each case an individual had to have the genetic make up which they were not born with, Not inherited but acquired and is inheritable. Then there is a great possibility that generations of foreskin removal as a child will effect generations to come. There is No study into this and therefore we can not be sure it does or doesn't have effect.

AGAIN - I am not saying it does or doesn't effect the following generations but you say 'it doesn't' without proof.

[echochartruse]

Dr. Art Petronis, head of the Krembil Family Epigenetics Laboratory at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, has revealed new evidence that DNA may not be the only carrier of heritable information; a secondary molecular mechanism called epigenetics may also account for some inherited traits and diseases. These findings challenge the fundamental principles of genetics and inheritance, and potentially provide a new insight into the primary causes of human diseases. (Credit: Copyright Center for Addiction and Mental Health)


Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think About Genetics
'New evidence for epigenetic inheritance has profound implications for the study of evolution, Jablonka and Raz say.'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518111723.htm