[gyrator53]

It's interesting to view this question from a UK perspective because, unless your religion dictates otherwise, circumcision is unusual in the UK and never did achieve the popularity that it did in the USA. It seems to me if you are an evolutionist then the foreskin has evolved because it gave some advantage. If you are a creationist then your God intended you to have one. Either way, it would seem worth keeping unless you have a specific medical reason for doing otherwise.

[damd]

It's interesting to view this question from a UK perspective because, unless your religion dictates otherwise, circumcision is unusual in the UK and never did achieve the popularity that it did in the USA. It seems to me if you are an evolutionist then the foreskin has evolved because it gave some advantage. If you are a creationist then your God intended you to have one. Either way, it would seem worth keeping unless you have a specific medical reason for doing otherwise.

The flaw in that statement is the human appendix...

[gyrator53]

Well, in the UK it is not standard practice to remove appendix, tonsils or adenoids unless a medical condition make it necessary.

[damd]

The arguement is that you need it. Clearly you do not. However, we do not remove tonsils ect... unless necessarry either.

[gyrator53]

Oh, yes, and I believe there is some evidence that, far from being vestigial, the appendix serves an immunological function.

[CHANDLERS WISH]

Well, in the UK it is not standard practice to remove appendix, tonsils or adenoids unless a medical condition make it necessary.

I am sure there is another Thread which was really well debated regarding circumcision...

Damd was a major contributor~~~

I understand what you are saying, as in Australia it is not that popular either.

I had my tonsils out at 11, bugger if i can recall anything other than I had a continual bad sore throat. She nearly broke the needle in my, had to bribe me with a Violet Crumble. That did the trick...

I don't know what i think personally. My Father wouldn't let me get my ear pierced said if God had intended for me to have holes in my ears I would have been born that way.

Fair call. Excepting i have 4 now but only use 2...

[damd]

Oh, yes, and I believe there is some evidence that, far from being vestigial, the appendix serves an immunological function.

Thanks. I was still on the understanding that doctors had still to pinpoint the use of the appendix?

Actually, I will retract my previous statement. I did some minor research and found the function of the appendix to be argumentative. It appears that there is still no conclusive evidence that the appendix holds any function in the human body today. And there is no evidence that it has harmed anyone to have it removed.

Sorry for getting off subject.

[gyrator53]

And there is no evidence that it has harmed anyone to have it removed.

Well, all surgical procedures carry some risk (of anaesthesia if nothing else) so there will have been people who died from having precautionary appendectomies.

[owlhunter]

I think there is a fault in the evolutionary thinking. Just because some part of an animal exists DOES NOT mean that it got there becuase is developed to serve a purpose. It could just be a random mutation that did not do any harm or make the creature less good at adapting to change.

However it could serve a purpose (see June 21 issue of Economist). The LACK of a foreskin can/may have a negative effect on firtility. The lack of a foreskin could make insertion, ejeculation or both take longer.

These are not my thoughts but thoughts of a Dr. wilson from Cornell University.

Anyway, I'm glad I have mine.

[gyrator53]

I think there is a fault in the evolutionary thinking. Just because some part of an animal exists DOES NOT mean that it got there becuase is developed to serve a purpose. It could just be a random mutation that did not do any harm or make the creature less good at adapting to change.

However it could serve a purpose (see June 21 issue of Economist). The LACK of a foreskin can/may have a negative effect on firtility. The lack of a foreskin could make insertion, ejeculation or both take longer.

These are not my thoughts but thoughts of a Dr. wilson from Cornell University.

Anyway, I'm glad I have mine.

Yes, because we cannot, as yet, identify the purpose for something does not mean it hasn't got one. From my own field I'm reminded of the old aerodynamics texts that explained how wings designed by man were so much more efficient than those of birds. It's just as well birds can't read as they would have fallen off their perches laughing. It was not until we started to learn much more about the subtleties of the subject (boundary layer control etc) that we realised how advanced they really were. And of course medicine is a vastly more complex subject that aerodynamics.