Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
mmm.. I'm not so sure "accumulated" would be an appropriate assumption here. Sometimes "organs" or vestiges find other purposes.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.
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.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.
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.Why flaw? You just said they have some kind of functions.
No. Monotremes do not have nipples.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.
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 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!I thought someone said male nipples have "some" functions. Is it not true?
I don't what their ultimate origin is, but HERE is why males have them.
Unlikely. Soft tissue rarely fossilises.Is there any fossilized nipple on some fossils?
Yes.Does nipple only exist on some mammals?
No.Did dino have some?
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 mammalsWhy didn't dinos make milk?
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.Is milk a good thing to have?
Well, why should it? Just because it's good, doesn't mean it's going to be evolved.Why doesn't it appear in earlier lives?
Right...I think the OP is immature before all my questions are considered.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Well, why should it? Just because it's good, doesn't mean it's going to be evolved.Why doesn't it appear in earlier lives?
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.
You tend to leave things hanging at statements without explanation.juvenisson said:Also, why do mammals need tailored food like milk? It increases the dependence of baby and is unfavorable to evolutional process.
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.If the wisdom teeth could diminish, I don't see why not the male nipples. Are you sure that every man has nipples today?
Again, you've left it hanging there, show your working.Are you suggesting that wisdom teeth IS an evidence for our evolutional change? I am afraid it is not true.
I don't recall doing so, but if I did, it wasn't my intention.If so, why did it appear at all? You (?) gave me an impression that the first mammal did NOT have mammary gland.
Babies are dependant anyway: a chick is utterly dependant on its parents for food and protection.Also, why do mammals need tailored food like milk? It increases the dependence of baby and is unfavorable to evolutional process.
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.If the wisdom teeth could diminish, I don't see why not the male nipples. Are you sure that every man has nipples today?
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.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.
In your subjective opinion, perhaps. Most of the world, and virtually the entire scientific community, disagrees with you.Evolution is a fairy story.
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.Useless organs have no "selective pressure". So they should simply be left alone. Thus they should be accumulated in the process of evolution.
No.Is nipple a definitional organ for mammals?
Yes, monotremes do it. The nipple doesn't produce milk, it just makes it easier for the baby to suck it.Is it possible to milk without a nipple?
Because they rarely have more than two offspring at a time. They rarely have even two.Why should human have only two nipples rather than several?
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)Or, why not just has one?
It had mammary glands, it probably didn't have nipples. The two are not the same thing.If so, why did it appear at all? You (?) gave me an impression that the first mammal did NOT have mammary gland.
Not necessarily.Also, why do mammals need tailored food like milk? It increases the dependence of baby and is unfavorable to evolutional process.
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)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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?