That's exactly the point I was making. Regardless of how babies are being birthed, it's not going to affect their genes. If a baby is cut out, it still has the genes necessary to give birth. If a baby is cut up, it still has the genes to grow foreskin. By theorizing that a circumcised penis is more sexually attractive, it would mean men with circumcisions were reproducing more often. This relates to the original post because it was stated that c-sections would become the normal method of birthing (just as foreskinless penises would be the normal method of sexing). Either way, babies will still be born with the genes for foreskin and ability to birth.
I understood your point and this is why I said you didn't understand because the point is irrelevant to what was being asked. I'm not suggesting that the way a baby is delivered will affect their genes I'm saying that somebody's genes may affect the delivery.
It would be many many many years before random mutations lead to either of those gene sets becoming obsolete.
I wasn't suggesting that this would happen any time soon, especially considering that c-sections are not readily available to everybody. Even if they were it would take a long, long time for a change considering how massive the potential mating gene pool is for people these days. One point though, human pregnancies are already a massive compromise so any random mutation may not be something entirely new but an enhancement of something around already (e.g. bigger heads to fit bigger brains, narrower hips so female actors don't look silly when they run).
And even then, I'm not sure how easily the genome is willing to shed it's ability to successfully reproduce (figuratively speaking of course, genes have no direction in change).
Exactly, figuratively speaking. How about you stop thinking about some imaginary will of the genome and think about the actual genome and what actually causes direction in evolution. A c-section may not be a natural reproduction method but it is still a successful one, as such if genes that are dependent on c-sections get copied more rapidly and out compete genes that aren't dependent then eventually the c-section dependent genes will become dominant. There will be nothing in those genomes that looks to the future and thinks, "what if c-sections aren't always available?" If we take an example of babies' heads too big for vaginal birth there is no will or forethought of the genome to direct the vaginal birth process to adapt to this new development.
It's kind of like the male nipple; the female nipple is sooooo important in the survival of a baby that the trait is carried over into men as a useless aesthetic feature.
The reason men have nipples is not because they're important to females but let's focus this back to the conversation though: so what? Just because birth canals couldn't be used in deliveries doesn't mean they still wouldn't be there. There's already people that are dependent on c-sections and they still have birth canals.
I don't think we are in disagreement here. However, if a species used an excessive amount of its brain, then that is blood that could be used to power muscles. A species could get wiped out by prey if it's too smart for its own good. Of course though, humans have clearly made it past this stage. I am curious why you edited my original question before replying to it? It changes the tone and grammar of the question.
Yes, I wanted to emphasize that I'm merely talking about a hypothetical and not something I believe will happen. I believe it definitely lies in the realm of possibility but it certainly isn't a prediction - as you pointed out any advantage allowed by abandoning vaginal births could carry a cost that is higher than the advantage.
I don't see how this relates, I don't know of a single baby that has been birthed by caesarean naturally.
It relates because I changed the norm in the scenario to people who naturally don't have foreskins. In both situations the norm is the advantage but an operation is available that allows somebody to bypass their natural disadvantage. With c-sections it allows births that couldn't happen naturally to occur (which is a significant disadvantage indeed).
As a side note, I'm really enjoying this discussion - thanks.
Poll