So why do men have nipples?

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Useless organs have no "selective pressure". So they should simply be left alone. Thus they should be accumulated in the process of evolution.

mmm.. I'm not so sure "accumulated" would be an appropriate assumption here. Sometimes "organs" or vestiges find other purposes.

Take ostriches for example, their wings no longer allow them to fly. But, they still use their wings. They balance themselves when running to keep from toppling over, and when threatened, they will extend their wings in a threat display.

You're going in the right direction though.

 

[juvenissun]

mmm.. I'm not so sure "accumulated" would be an appropriate assumption here. Sometimes "organs" or vestiges find other purposes.

Take ostriches for example, their wings no longer allow them to fly. But, they still use their wings. They balance themselves when running to keep from toppling over, and when threatened, they will extend their wings in a threat display.

You're going in the right direction though.

Fine, I accept your argument. So, there is no problem with man's nipples, evolution or creation. Case closed.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Fine, I accept your argument. So, there is no problem with man's nipples, evolution or creation. Case closed.

Except most would agree that useless nipples to feed their young on males is a "design" flaw, if ceationism were true. ToE gives explains this perfectly.

 

[juvenissun]

Except most would agree that useless nipples to feed their young on males is a "design" flaw, if ceationism were true. ToE gives explains this perfectly.

Why flaw? You just said they have some kind of functions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why flaw? You just said they have some kind of functions.

He said some vestiges have functions, not all. And besides, vestiges that have acquired new functions are never going to be as good as purpose-built mechanisms, and those without function are just a waste of resources.

So evolution can explain male nipples: they're a by-product of the evolution of nipples. But Creationism can't: they serve no function.

Like human ear muscles or the grasp reflex, they're obvious examples of once-useful features that have become superfluous. Perfectly understandable by evolution, but utterly baffling to Creationists.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Thanks WC ^^^

 

[Washington]

Is nipple a definitional organ for mammals? Is it possible to milk without a nipple? Why should human have only two nipples rather than several? Or, why not just has one?

No. Monotremes do not have nipples.

 

[juvenissun]

No. Monotremes do not have nipples.

What is the origin of nipple?

 

[juvenissun]

He said some vestiges have functions, not all. And besides, vestiges that have acquired new functions are never going to be as good as purpose-built mechanisms, and those without function are just a waste of resources.

So evolution can explain male nipples: they're a by-product of the evolution of nipples. But Creationism can't: they serve no function.

Like human ear muscles or the grasp reflex, they're obvious examples of once-useful features that have become superfluous. Perfectly understandable by evolution, but utterly baffling to Creationists.

I thought someone said male nipples have "some" functions. Is it not true?

 

[Washington]

What is the origin of nipple?

I don't what their ultimate origin is, but HERE is why males have them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I thought someone said male nipples have "some" functions. Is it not true?

I don't recall someone saying that, but it might be true. I don't know of any function the male nipple serves, though it wouldn't be the first time in this thread that I've been proven wrong!

 

[juvenissun]

I don't what their ultimate origin is, but HERE is why males have them.

Is there any fossilized nipple on some fossils? Does nipple only exist on some mammals? Did dino have some? Why didn't dinos make milk? Is milk a good thing to have? Why doesn't it appear in earlier lives?

I think the OP is immature before all my questions are considered.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is there any fossilized nipple on some fossils?

Unlikely. Soft tissue rarely fossilises.

Does nipple only exist on some mammals?

Yes.

Did dino have some?

No.

Why didn't dinos make milk?

They don't have sweat glands, of which the mammary glands are a modified variety. Since you only get nipples with mammary glands, and mammary glands are sweat glands, and sweat glands are only on mammals, you only get nipples on mammals .

Is milk a good thing to have?

Yes. It allows a species to feed its young tailored food: the species evolves the milk to be just what it needs. That's why breastfeeding is so good.

Why doesn't it appear in earlier lives?

Well, why should it? Just because it's good, doesn't mean it's going to be evolved.

I think the OP is immature before all my questions are considered.

Right...

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Why doesn't it appear in earlier lives?

Well, why should it? Just because it's good, doesn't mean it's going to be evolved.

OK, I pick this one.

If so, why did it appear at all? You (?) gave me an impression that the first mammal did NOT have mammary gland.

Also, why do mammals need tailored food like milk? It increases the dependence of baby and is unfavorable to evolutional process.

 

[juvenissun]

Nipples form before the sex of the child is biologically determined in the womb. That's why all male mammals have nipples. Why exactly it forms before is not something I know for sure. I'm not a biologist nor a biology major. I'd venture and take an educated guess and say that scientifically they are there because of an evolutionary glitch that's being worked out. Just as our wisdom teeth are not needed now and most of us have no room for them. Our ancestors did have need and room for them because they ate raw meat and their skulls were a lot larger than ours today. Some people don't even form wisdom teeth. It's a trait that's slowly just stopping to develop.

As to someone stating that nipples have "some" functions. Male nipples are an erogenous zone just as female nipples are. Some men get pleasure from them...if you get what I'm talking about.

If the wisdom teeth could diminish, I don't see why not the male nipples. Are you sure that every man has nipples today?

Also, I think you made a mistake: Are you suggesting that wisdom teeth IS an evidence for our evolutional change? I am afraid it is not true.

Evolution is a fairy story.

 

[Tenka]

Also, why do mammals need tailored food like milk? It increases the dependence of baby and is unfavorable to evolutional process.

You tend to leave things hanging at statements without explanation.
Mammals have few offspring as compared with lizards, reptiles and insects and represent a very big investment in time and energy, therefore adapatations that improve the survivability chances of the offspring are very very desirable.

If the wisdom teeth could diminish, I don't see why not the male nipples. Are you sure that every man has nipples today?

Some men and women have more than 2, I'm not sure how major a mutation is needed to remove them...maybe you could google it.

Are you suggesting that wisdom teeth IS an evidence for our evolutional change? I am afraid it is not true.

Again, you've left it hanging there, show your working.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If so, why did it appear at all? You (?) gave me an impression that the first mammal did NOT have mammary gland.

I don't recall doing so, but if I did, it wasn't my intention.

Sweat glands are a defining feature of mammals, and one species evolved mammary glands from them. We, along with all other nipple-bearing mammals, are their descendants.

I'm not sure if the first mammal had mammary glands. Monotremes can lactate, but I'm not sure if they have actual mammary glands.

Also, why do mammals need tailored food like milk? It increases the dependence of baby and is unfavorable to evolutional process.

Babies are dependant anyway: a chick is utterly dependant on its parents for food and protection.
However, dependence isn't necessarily a detriment. Prolonged dependence strengthens the bonds between kin, which garners a very strong selection pressure from kin selection.

If the wisdom teeth could diminish, I don't see why not the male nipples. Are you sure that every man has nipples today?

They could, but the way in which they form makes it unlikely. Dentition is not sexually specific, but nipples are: they serve a purpose in females, and so they form in human females. Since human males are female for their first few weeks, they develop nipples.

Getting rid of male nipples is not as simple as it seems, just as some traits are more beneficial than might be apparent.

Also, I think you made a mistake: Are you suggesting that wisdom teeth IS an evidence for our evolutional change? I am afraid it is not true.

How so? Wisdom teeth serve no purpose in the human mouth, except to crowd an already over-crowded mouth. In our simian cousins, the mouth is big enough to comfortably accommodate wisdom teeth. Our faces, however, have evolved to be flatter than theirs, resulting in an over-cramped mouth.

Evolution is a fairy story.

In your subjective opinion, perhaps. Most of the world, and virtually the entire scientific community, disagrees with you.

 

[Hespera]

Juv- since you think you can state as a "fact" that "evolution is a fairy story", that you know more than anyone else ("highest level of education that it is possible for a human being to have"), and, since amount of evidence on earth could ever get you to grasp that you are wrong about anything, why do you even bother to ask questions?

You dont accept or believe any answer you ever get. Isnt it a bit dishonest of you to even ask when it is predetermined that you wont accept any answer except goddidit?

 

[Naraoia]

Useless organs have no "selective pressure". So they should simply be left alone. Thus they should be accumulated in the process of evolution.

However, organs cost resources to build and maintain. Reproduction also costs resources: making sex cells, finding mates, fighting rivals and whatnot. An animal can only get so much food, which doesn't exist in infinite quantities.

So, if you have a big expensive organ that you don't use for anything, your reproductive success is going to suffer compared to those who have a smaller version or none of the useless organ at all. In these cases, there IS a selective pressure on the useless organs - in the direction of making them shrink.

The ones that can stay are the ones that confer no particular disadvantage. The ones that will definitely stay are the ones that are so heavily integrated into the developmental program that you can't remove them without upsetting something very important.

Is nipple a definitional organ for mammals?

No.

Is it possible to milk without a nipple?

Yes, monotremes do it. The nipple doesn't produce milk, it just makes it easier for the baby to suck it.

Why should human have only two nipples rather than several?

Because they rarely have more than two offspring at a time. They rarely have even two.

I think some people are born with multiple nipples, though. *searches* Yes, it seems it's quite common, although the additional nipples are usually not well developed. Again, a remnant of a past when our ancestors were more conventional mammals with larger litters.

Or, why not just has one?

I don't know if there's a specific advantage to having paired nipples (other than being helpful for mothers of twins), but having just one nipple would require symmetry breaking, and my guess is that that's not the easiest thing to evolve. (If anyone has more than a guess, though, I wouldn't mind some education)

If so, why did it appear at all? You (?) gave me an impression that the first mammal did NOT have mammary gland.

It had mammary glands, it probably didn't have nipples. The two are not the same thing.

As I said, the most obvious reason I can think of is that nipples make suckling more efficient. A baby mammal sucking a nipple can probably (I haven't seen actual measurements) get milk faster than one licking milk off mum's hair, and I'm pretty sure that less milk goes to waste if there's a nipple. I think it's a reasonable assumption that that translates into better growth for the young at a lower price for the mother.

Also, why do mammals need tailored food like milk? It increases the dependence of baby and is unfavorable to evolutional process.

Not necessarily.

First, parental care in general has a number of advantages:

(1) It increases the chance that any particular offspring will survive. It allows for fewer offspring overall (imagine having to care for the millions of eggs some fish lay!), but most of the offspring of non-caring species die very young, so it balances out.

(2) It lets the young grow faster: while the offspring of non-caring species must spend a lot of time and energy finding food, the young of many caring species don't have to do anything but sit in one place and eat what their parents bring (in this respect, many insects count as "caring" species, since they lay eggs in the middle of a huge, often protected, food supply). And grow. Faster growth is good for more than one reason: first, it gets you out of the "everyone eats you" size range more quickly, and second, it means you can mature and reproduce earlier.

Milk in particular is good because again, a food source tailored to your needs allows better growth than a food source that doesn't have an ideal composition. Plus, milk is a great way of immunising a newborn against many diseases while its own, previously sheltered, immune system is still learning to recognise pathogens.

So no, milk isn't "unfavorable to evolutional process". It's just one of several alternative strategies ensuring that at least a few of your genes get into the new generation, and seeing as there are still a few thousand mammalian species all over the globe a couple hundred million years (or more) after the invention of milk, it clearly can't be that bad.

 

[consol]

Juv- since you think you can state as a "fact" that "evolution is a fairy story", that you know more than anyone else ("highest level of education that it is possible for a human being to have"), and, since amount of evidence on earth could ever get you to grasp that you are wrong about anything, why do you even bother to ask questions?

You dont accept or believe any answer you ever get. Isnt it a bit dishonest of you to even ask when it is predetermined that you wont accept any answer except goddidit?

Hespera, please leave Juv alone, he's a creationist, and they are entitled to be as dopey as they like, (please have a little pity)
if you can't speak 'dopey' you won't stand a chance here, (at least try and learn a few words)
creationists are one of the few sects who are taught to speak 'dopey' from birth, they find it helps,
so if you wish to continue posting here you MUST learn at least some 'dopey', otherwise they won't understand you,
you know it makes sense, when in Rome... and all that.