At 15:57 1999-12-18 PST, Lilith wrote:

>You didn't get my point at all.
>
>What I meant was... that mentioning evolution as in 'evolution gave us this,
>it must be good!' or 'evolution didn't do this, so maybe it's wrong to do
>it' is ridiculous.

Now I get Your point, but still don't agree: The reason why we are here
in this list is that as we can't know exectly what diet is the optimal
(because it is too complicated to find out) we agree that a diet as we
guess we have evolved to is the closest we can come.
In the same way I think that as we can't figure out if circumcision is
better or not, the best thing is to rely on the result of evolution. There
is probably a reason why we have foreskins, but of course it can be some
remnant from earlier times, and it may also be less compatible with
wearing trousers, who knows. I am still glad i have my left :-)
(And I suspect the *real* reason for circumcision is to obstruct
masturbation.)

Todd wrote:

>Hmmm... not really.  There's nothing in neodarwinism to prevent
>suboptimal but non-lethal traits from sticking around
>indefinitely.

I am aware of that: See my answer to Lilith above.

> There are
>cases -- uncommon but not unheard of -- where the foreskin is in
>fact too tight and this causes chafing and inflammation and
>circumcision is therapeutic.

I also know that, as one of my sons had problem with it. No inflammation
but difficulties to urinate. But the therapy here is less than circum-
cision, often just a small lengthwise cut is needed.

- Hans