Well, with my limited medical knowledge, it seems to be that whatever god designed the male anatomy, he (she/it?) screwed up big time when it comes to the location and plumbing of the prostate.

 

Here's a diagram of the prostate and surrounding organs. (My own body differs somewhat in that my penis is way bigger than that chipolata in the diagram - lol).

 

The bladder sits above the prostate and the urethra tube to empty pee from the bladder passes through the middle of the prostate. Also within the prostate is the duct coming from the testicles and carrying sperm.  So both pee from the bladder and sperm share the same urethra tube as it then travels down and out through the end of the penis.

 

Why on earth does the urethra from the bladder have to pass through the prostate? When the prostate enlarges, the urethra is squeezed and BPH is the result.  Surely God would have realised this! Was he having a bad day or something?

 

Why doesn't the urethra from the bladder bypass the prostate and join up with the main urethra as it leaves the prostate?

 

In fact, why isn't there surgery available to re-route the urethra from the bladder in this way?

 

I present my alternative bladder output routing (purple line) for those who wish to experiment with DIY surgery :)

Ask the devil

Thanks Simon, a very interesting post.

But sorry to tell you that there is no God, it was Charles Darwin who said where things should be! 555

I had a TURP procedure, bled for three days!

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

Well, with my limited medical knowledge

 

I'm going to have to stop you there.

The tone of your questions indicates your mind is closed to the answers you don't really seek.

Could it be that the design initially was fine, but evolution has not caught up with all the ills of modern living, like pollution, radiation, diet, hormone issues and probably many other things causing the prostate to enlarge?

I suspect that the evolutionary process (not the fictitious god) actually got it right at the time. As it did with most other male mammals including dogs, cats, and rats for instance, who all have prostates.

 

What the evolutionary process has still not caught up with is the fact that we now live much longer than we used to in the old days. Back then BPH would not have been an issue because most of us would have died off before its effects became apparent.

 

Living longer does have its drawbacks unfortunately. (unless you're a urologist of course)

 

I'm sorry you appear to have only one testicle - No seriously great diagram - thanks.

(My own body differs somewhat in that my penis is way bigger than that chipolata in the diagram - lol).

 

Ever heard of a male saying my penis is way smaller than... (whatever)?

Is the prostate a design fault?

 

No but the knees are. (Thinking Emoticon. Temporarily unavailable)

2 minutes ago, ravip said:

(My own body differs somewhat in that my penis is way bigger than that chipolata in the diagram - lol).

 

Ever heard of a male saying my penis is way smaller than... (whatever)?

 ... true, but not a problem, just have to be honest: "my penis is way smaller than ... a smeggin aircraft-carrier!"

And as we are honest already: " ... but not by that much, really ..."

 

555

 

45 minutes ago, MeaMaximaCulpa said:

Could it be that the design initially was fine, but evolution has not caught up with all the ills of modern living, like pollution, radiation, diet, hormone issues and probably many other things causing the prostate to enlarge?

More to the point evolution did not anticipate large numbers of people living into old age. And from a purely  evolutionary standpoint quality of old age is not too  important. 

 

Talk about "design" flaws, personally I would nominate the human spine!

My 2 bob's worth.

 

1/ We live longer than designed for

 

2/ mammals were originally 4 limbs on the floor, but some learned to walk on the back limbs. Do dogs and cats suffer prostate problems ( rhetorical question ).

That also answers Sheryl's opinion of the spine. It wasn't designed to be vertical.

 

As an aside, mammals were designed to have sex with the male behind, not this frontal stuff the religious dictated way back.

Talking of design flaws, the female having the urethra opening almost right next to the anus has to be the worst. Could be designed to cause UTIs.

 

Also not good when having a child. I was unfortunate enough to be at a birth where the Dr didn't do an episiotomy ( cutting the skin to allow a child to be born without tearing ) and the unfortunate woman had a tear right into the anus. I doubt she was very happy with that Dr.

3 hours ago, simon43 said:

I present my alternative bladder output routing (purple line) for those who wish to experiment with DIY surgery :)

No. That would allow the utrethra to be squashed with all the problems that would entail. The designed way protects the urethra from bladder to penis.

If we died at 40 or 50, none of the problems would be likely to arise.

As one of Robin Williams' characters said when speaking of 'intelligent design', "Who would put a waste disposal unit right next to an entertainment zone?"

I understand prostate problems and prostate cancer are at a higher risk level for men who are celibate, e.g. priests.

Over the years, I have done my best to stay in the lower risk category.

Evolution does not seek the best way to achieve something. It aims for the easiest way to make things work just well enough for organisms to survive and reproduce.
 

Also, ancient humans didn’t live long enough to experience problems with prostate enlargement, so this is a trait we have to live with.

4 hours ago, KannikaP said:

Thanks Simon, a very interesting post.

But sorry to tell you that there is no God, it was Charles Darwin who said where things should be! 555

"I suspect that the evolutionary process (not the fictitious god) actually got it right at the time"

 

Wait a moment!  You mean Darwin designed the human body?!  This man has a lot to answer for... He should be banished to some isolated islands as a punishment! The Galapagos Islands comes to mind :)

 

Posters should be aware that I am a scientist and my comments about God were in jest.  I personally believe in the flying spaghetti monster...

3 hours ago, Sheryl said:

More to the point evolution did not anticipate large numbers of people living into old age. And from a purely  evolutionary standpoint quality of old age is not too  important. 

 

Talk about "design" flaws, personally I would nominate the human spine!

Going back to before grain based agriculture started playing havoc with human health, if you managed to avoid wild animals, fatal falls, warring tribes, infections and other "hard stops", perhaps "old age" still wouldn't by itself cause BPH?

Just now, MeaMaximaCulpa said:

Going back to before grain based agriculture started playing havoc with human health, if you managed to avoid wild animals, fatal falls, warring tribes, infections and other "hard stops", perhaps "old age" still wouldn't by itself cause BPH?

impossible to know about old age illnesses that long ago. But the numbers of people avoiding all those things and reaching old age would have been few.

 

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My 2 bob's worth.

 

1/ We live longer than designed for

 

2/ mammals were originally 4 limbs on the floor, but some learned to walk on the back limbs. Do dogs and cats suffer prostate problems ( rhetorical question ).

That also answers Sheryl's opinion of the spine. It wasn't designed to be vertical.

 

As an aside, mammals were designed to have sex with the male behind, not this frontal stuff the religious dictated way back.

Just had my male dog desexed to avoid future prostate problems according to the vet.

10 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

impossible to know about old age illnesses that long ago. But the numbers of people avoiding all those things and reaching old age would have been few.

 

 

I think that old-age getting longer proves Mr Darwin's theory? Survival of the fittest and the body adapting to it's environment.

Just now, KannikaP said:

I think that old-age getting longer proves Mr Darwin's theory? Survival of the fittest and the body adapting to it's environment.

 

Not really. The "survival of the fittest" was based on  surviving long enough to have, and raise, many offspring. 

 

The much increased number of people living far into old age is the product of medical science, not evolution.

23 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Just had my male dog desexed to avoid future prostate problems according to the vet.

Seems a bit tough on the dog to have its balls chopped off just so you can avoid future prostate problems.... :)

 

I had my PSA checked a couple of months ago when I was in Thailand. It was 14, which maybe sounds very high, but it's unchanged since last year when I had prostate cancer checks which proved negative.  My high PSA is down to a long-term UTI which will not be shifted! But my PSA is not increasing so I'm happy.  I am ok right now with BPH medication but am realistic to accept that at some stage in the future I will need some surgical intervention.  Hopefully in a few years from now there will be more options available.

@simon43

I am listening to a podcast by Dr Peter Attia discussing the prostate, and the specialist he is interviewing said that in addition to the reproductive function of the prostate it seems like it has at least one other function: Due to the prostate being very unfriendly to bacteria (acidic), it can act as a protective buffer to protect the bladder (and ultimately kidneys) from infection.

 

So perhaps don't do that DIY urethra rerouting just yet... 

 

Here is the link to the podcast, over 3 hour long and at times complicated, but worth a listen if you have any prostate issues: https://peterattiamd.com/tedschaeffer2/

54 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

Not really. The "survival of the fittest" was based on  surviving long enough to have, and raise, many offspring. 

 

The much increased number of people living far into old age is the product of medical science, not evolution.

OK Sheryl, I bow to your superior knowledge. Thanks

"Evolution isn't perfect, it's just good enough" Dr Karl

4 hours ago, simon43 said:

"I suspect that the evolutionary process (not the fictitious god) actually got it right at the time"

 

Wait a moment!  You mean Darwin designed the human body?!  This man has a lot to answer for... He should be banished to some isolated islands as a punishment! The Galapagos Islands comes to mind :)

 

Posters should be aware that I am a scientist and my comments about God were in jest.  I personally believe in the flying spaghetti monster...

Not the celestial teapot?