Does Geography affect size perception

That’s my point. Natural selection is the major factor, second is oxygen levels. Heat though? Come on.

Heat could be the motivator for natural selection.

Or it could just be that women like bigger dicks, and due to tribal nakedness found it easier to ‘naturally select’ what they wanted in the first place. I mean, yeah, lower hanging balls: maybe. But larger dick?

“Animals and plants in the rain-forest are larger” - The Beasty One

^^Not true. In fact animals solely inhabiting tropical forrested regions are often, compared with “cousin” animals from different climes, more slender and daintier. Virtually zero large animals inhabit the rain-forest, and those that do (for example the Tiger) have more slender and less powerfuls frames than you would expect (in this instance compare with, say, a Lion). Also think of equatorial Pygmy’s.

As for natural selection, you can explain anything with this with enough imagination. Bird2, your “natural selection” theory on the perceived tallness of the Dutch was, im afraid, downright silly.

I wonder what reason you bring up then. I believe there is a reason behind everything, wonder what other logical explanation there can be.

“Dutch people have the gens to grow larger. The reason as I see it is that this was a swap area until the middle ages. To survive in the swap area, length came in handy so natural selection made Dutch people larger than other populations.” - Bird2

Now, as for these “gens” the Dutch people have, perhaps there is some true in that. However, your explanation of the prescence of these “tall genes” confused me a lot. For example, in what capacity did “length” come in handy? Was food in the medieval Netherlands rationed via some sort of inter-communal basketball play-off?

Finally, humans certainly have not substantively changed or subdivided since the middle ages.

Larger animals are smaller because they need to get through the thick vegetation. Smaller animals like insects however, are larger.

Call it what you want but it’s still bullshit. Instead of saying it’s “proven”, please provide a valid (reputable) link, else it isn’t really “proven”, is it?

Your statement about basketball made you downright silly.

I think that we can agree that a swap is harder to live in than for instance a plain or a forest. In a swap more physical things would be asked for survival so this could be an explanation. I don’t have hard facts but it sounds like a logical explanation to me.

Not entirely true. The average length of the Dutch population has seen a steep rise since WW2. The reasons are less physical heavy work, later age of starting to work full time, nutrition and prosperity.

swap=swamp??

Yeah, spell check didn’t catch that.

Interesting.

I just drove in from a trip through Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico by car (starting and ending in Texas). On this trip, I was wearing comfortable (thin) canvas shorts that were not too loose. The glances I have become accustomed to seemed to dwindle the farther north I travelled. Once I got to Colorado…the crotch watchers were very hard to find. Of course the demographics of Colorado are quite different than those of the deep south.

Perhaps “size perception” is related to region.

Funny cause I just drove from Miami to Boston last week practically nude and didn’t notice ANY crotch watchers until East Rutherford. So I guess size perception has nothing to do with region… However Miami did have lots more women with expensive shoes, so we can safely conclude that warmer regions will have more women wearing nicer footwear on any given day. But colder climates definitely have more guys named “Hank”…

lol

twatteaser - Finches on Galapagos Islands Evolving

"The average length of the Dutch population has seen a steep rise since WW2. The reasons are less physical heavy work, later age of starting to work full time, nutrition and prosperity." - Bird2

Huh? What does this have to do with natural selection/evolution? Are you seriously suggesting the Dutch people have EVOLVED since 1950? No, you’ve just said otherwise!

Anyway, my main point is I dislike cod evolutionary theorising, it can be used to justify anything. However, I have just noticed a thread that proves you (Bird2) are right and I am an imbecile:

Finches on Galapagos Islands Evolving