this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
234 points (96.4% liked)

Not The Onion

21826 readers
392 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I see the general point, it’s just the perforce absolutism of it that I don’t get.

For example, if what you say is true and as long as a large population survives, all its genes necessarily do to, then shouldn’t there be people somewhere in some numbers that exhibit every trait in every one of our evolutionary ancestors?

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Sure, but your original question was about evolution getting rid of the genes necessary for a micropenis. That condition is very possible in our gene pool. Yes, there probably aren’t people who grow fins, even though that’s technically possible with enough specific mutations, so sure, evolution will eventually effectively get rid of traits in a species even if they’re not life threatening (though enough mutation for a human to grow fins would probably be deadly), but then your talking about evolution on the scale of millions of years.