Why do men have nipples?

[DaneaFL]

If I may, I'd like to stand in the awkward position of one leg in the Creation camp, and one in the molecular biology camp...

My understanding is, all embryos start their formation by following the "female" template, but the presence of a Y chromasome causes testicles to develop instead of ovaries. The testicles begin forming testosterone, which alters the remaining development of male embryos, giving them (among other things) male genitals. However, by the time the testosterone comes along, the nipples have already been formed (following the female template), and they aren't "erased", so they (and the associated mammary glands) remain on the male body.

There's nothing "unGodly" about following a template; simplicity prevents many errors, and God is no fool.

As for why male nipples are socially acceptable and female nipples aren't, this is purely cultural. Before 1935, men at city beaches were legally required to cover their chests, and could be arrested if they didn't. Likewise, female nipples and breasts are acceptable in many cultures today, and have been for thousands of years.

Of course, this doesn't answer the "Did Adam have nipples?" question, but I'll leave that to you all...

Have fun!

Well of course you are right when saying that there's nothing inherently ungodly about men having nipples but it begs the question as to why?

I thought God created woman from man, not man from woman. Why dont female embyros follow a male template instead?

Of course it doesn't make any sense why genetics should work like this if you are just going to ignore how natural selection works.

But it makes perfect sense if you understand evolution and how reproductive fitness plays a part in determining sexual dimorphisms.

Yet again, the scientific explanation is much more satisfying than the "God did it" one.

Instead of marveling at the stupendously long and complex process of evolutionary events that have lead to the birth of sexual reproduction, these creationists have two naked people in a garden.

 

[Jamin4422]

Well of course you are right when saying that there's nothing inherently ungodly about men having nipples but it begs the question as to why?

Yes, of course because the theory of evolution comes up with the best answer, so I can see where that would be a problem for people. The last thing we need is more evidence that the theory of evolution might be true in any way.

 

[Darkhorse]

All mammals have nipples, both male & female. Why? Because that is part of the definition of a mammal. The all have mammary glands.

Not to nitpick, but stallions don't have visible nipples; they have a "sheath" for their penis where nipples would otherwise be. Of course, they may have nipples hidden under the skin there; I don't know about that.

Well of course you are right when saying that there's nothing inherently ungodly about men having nipples but it begs the question as to why?

I thought God created woman from man, not man from woman. Why dont female embyros follow a male template instead?

Of course it doesn't make any sense why genetics should work like this if you are just going to ignore how natural selection works.

But it makes perfect sense if you understand evolution and how reproductive fitness plays a part in determining sexual dimorphisms.

Yet again, the scientific explanation is much more satisfying than the "God did it" one.

Since the female body is more complex than the male, it makes more sense to simplify a complex template than it does to make a simple template more complex. Again, less chance for error.

As far as the "woman came from man" part, Genesis attempts to describe profound events in the ideas and language of people who had just barely emerged from the Stone Age. Molecular biology and quantum thermodynamics would have been unintelligible to them, as they are to most people now. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" worked then, and it still does, although it leaves out a lot of details.

If God exists, didn't He create science along with everything else? Couldn't He have used evolution to fashon and adapt His creatures?

 

[SkyWriting]

.

 

[CabVet]

As far as the "woman came from man" part, Genesis attempts to describe profound events in the ideas and language of people who had just barely emerged from the Stone Age. Molecular biology and quantum thermodynamics would have been unintelligible to them, as they are to most people now. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" worked then, and it still does, although it leaves out a lot of details.

If God exists, didn't He create science along with everything else? Couldn't He have used evolution to fashon and adapt His creatures?

If I absolutely had to reconcile creation with science this would probably be my approach as well.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Of course, male nipples can also be recruited in assisting in certain pleasurable activities

Best use of an emoticon EVER.

-Dan.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

That Answers in Genesis article is just wrong... Just like everything else from Answers in Genesis.

No one ever said that men's nipples are "vestigal" or had a previous use.

strawmen... strawmen... strawmen... that's all those AiG quacks can come up with.

Nipples NEVER had a previous function on men. I JUST told you why men have nipples and linked you to the scientific american article about it.

Men have nipples because that trait is NEUTRAL. It never was useful! That AiG article keeps rambling on about how it's silly to assume that "men would have breed-fed at one time".

That is absurd. No evolutionist thinks that! Men have nipples simply because nipples are a genetic correlation between males and females that never had a reason to diverge as a sexual dimorphism... nothing more.

Well, what a surprise - we've unearthed another creationist lie from AiG.

 

[SkyWriting]

As far as the "woman came from man" part, Genesis attempts to describe profound events in the ideas and language of people who had just barely emerged from the Stone Age. Molecular biology and quantum thermodynamics would have been unintelligible to them, as they are to most people now. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" worked then, and it still does, although it leaves out a lot of details. If God exists, didn't He create science along with everything else? Couldn't He have used evolution to fashon and adapt His creatures?

Do you realize that if we were 1% out of "The Stone Age" then this would be the year 34,000 instead of 2000? YOU are just barely out of the stone age. Likely your house is made out of twigs of wood in a lean-to fashion just to keep the rain off your head. Likely with some tar from a tar pit spread on top.

Anyway, what would be wrong with a simple explanation of natural selection? Any cave man could see that when animals have a litter, only the strong survive. What's so hard about that?

No the Bible tells a TOTALLY different story. The meak shall inherent the earth. Those who ignore the evolution story and become meak are the winners. The strong willed shall all perish. God is responsible for life, not being a good "fit".

 

[SkyWriting]

That Answers in Genesis article is just wrong... Just like everything else from Answers in Genesis. No one ever said that men's nipples are "vestigal" or had a previous use.
strawmen... strawmen... strawmen... that's all those AiG quacks can come up with.

Well, what a surprise - we've unearthed another creationist lie from AiG.

The same lies as told by Scientific American
(Don't you people research anything?):

" In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared."
Why do men have nipples?: Scientific American

"It follows, then, that we should never find vestigial nipples..."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html


AND from Scientific American again:

"Men's nipples, sometimes cited as vestigial structures, are not truly vestigial because they are not remnants of functional male nipples in ancestral species. They occur because nipple precursors are grown early in the development of the human embryo, before sexual differentiation. " http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples

 

[Tomk80]

The same lies as told by Scientific American
(Don't you people research anything?):

" In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared."
Why do men have nipples?: Scientific American

"It follows, then, that we should never find vestigial nipples..."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2


AND from Scientific American again:

"Men's nipples, sometimes cited as vestigial structures, are not truly vestigial because they are not remnants of functional male nipples in ancestral species. They occur because nipple precursors are grown early in the development of the human embryo, before sexual differentiation. " Why do men have nipples?: Scientific American

All of these articles state that male nipples are "analogous to" or "not truly" vestigial. Which is correct. The Answers in Genesis article states that according to evolutionary theory, nipples are vestigial. Which is wrong.

Notice the difference? It's not like it's even a subtle difference.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do men have nipples?

I actually thought about this when discussing the topic of homosexuality with someone who made the claim that there is a "proper" way to use the anus for sex. I thought that was nonsense because obviously there's a proper function already associated with that body part. To use it for sex is about as proper as using it for eating food; there are already male and female parts that are proper for each other, just as there is a proper place to put food into your body.

But then I thought this line of reasoning through a bit further: if all body parts have their proper function, then what is the proper function of nipples of men?

Serious question. Women have breasts and nipples to suckle their children; one might argue that they are also for sex appeal in order to attract a mate. But men? Why do men have them? Why do women cover their larger breasts and nipples when they go to the beach while men typically do not their smaller equivalent? I guess it's because for women their exposure is considered inappropriate and sexual, whereas for men it is not.

Some argue that men have nipples primarily for pleasure, but it does seem weird to me that God would create nipples on men for this reason. For example, if you reason that God gave women a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to experience sexual pleasure, well then it seems like he put it in the corresponding place: with her sexual organs. But nipples on men just seem like a curious pair of concentrated nerve endings that are there out of place for no real reason except to be yanked by school bullies if you are a kid.

Anyway, share your opinion on this incredibly important question.

The nipples mark an important location of a nerve center. It is the hub of nerves that connects many other critical organs in the body. (If you take acupuncture therapy, you might get a needle which sticks right into it (or from side into it).)

The swelling of female nipples serves an "additional" function.

 

[SkyWriting]

All of these articles state that male nipples are "analogous to" or "not truly" vestigial. Which is correct. The Answers in Genesis article states that according to evolutionary theory, nipples are vestigial. Which is wrong.

Notice the difference? It's not like it's even a subtle difference.

Sure, I can did deeper if you like.

It's fairly subtle because is termed SEXUALLY VESTIGIAL. Open to confusion by many.

"It would not be a vestigial trait, like the appendix or male
nipples, of no selective import at all, because music still
carries a physiological cost"

Male Nipples
10 Vestigial Traits You Didn't Know You Had

. Does the HVc
in female zebra finches have some other function, or
could it be merely sexually vestigial, such as nipples in
male mammals?

Hey, I'm not defending AIG. I find them to be slackers, just like the people who call them liars without do any checking first. I don't support their YE premise either. They are preachers, ministers, and lay people with an agenda that clouds their judgment.

 

[DaneaFL]

As far as the "woman came from man" part, Genesis attempts to describe profound events in the ideas and language of people who had just barely emerged from the Stone Age. Molecular biology and quantum thermodynamics would have been unintelligible to them, as they are to most people now. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" worked then, and it still does, although it leaves out a lot of details.

Well sure, if we are just going to throw out the Bible's literal inerrancy then I'm sure you can get it to say whatever you want.

There's also another explanation that you aren't considering. Is it that the words of God were just too advanced for those primitive, bronze age nomads, or is it that the Bible WAS WRITTEN by those primitive, bronze age nomads?

Seems like the later is a more plausible explanation as to why we don't find molecular biology or quantum physics in the bible.

If God exists, didn't He create science along with everything else? Couldn't He have used evolution to fashon and adapt His creatures?

When you say "create science" do you mean that he created the laws of physics and chemistry? Well of course, that's assumed.

It's POSSIBLE that God used evolution to allow his creatures to adapt and eventually become human but that seems kind of evil of him.

Homo Sapiens have been around for about 100,000 years. So you are saying that for the first 98,000 years of our existence, while our species suffered and died, mostly from childbirth and problems with their teeth, with war, famine, struggle, suffering, and misery, that God was just sitting there with his arms folded...

...and then about 2000 years ago He decides "that's enough, time to intervene", and the best way to do this would be to come down and reveal himself in some obscure, primitive part of the middle east... Not in China where they had sophisticated civilizations and science, but to illiterate, nomadic goat herders.

...and what better entrance could he make but by revealing himself by condemning a person as a blood sacrifice to himself to make a loophole in a law they he created himself to allow the sinful people he created himself to have a way to escape the place of eternal torture that he created himself.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

AiG say:

"The vestigial idea suggests they were functional in the past, but as the evolution of man progressed, their function was lost.

In other words, they are using "vestigial" in the quite literal evolutionary hangover sense. This is someone no-one has ever proposed. It's possible they made the same misreading as you have, but that implies that they haven't the faintest clue what they're on about, because anyone with the first idea would not make that mistake.

 

[Split Rock]

The question is did Adam have a belly button. As far as Science is concerned YES he did. Eve came from Adam, so Adam had to contain all of the female stuff.

Adam had a uterus????

Although Adam would have had to pass his mothers MtDNA onto Eve.

What mother? Adam didn't have a mother... unless his mother was dirt.

 

[Jamin4422]

The nipples mark an important location of a nerve center. It is the hub of nerves that connects many other critical organs in the body.

The Wiki article suggest that there could be a connection between the nipples and the release of oxytocin in the brain for both men and women. Men may not need nipples to feed a baby, but when it comes to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] then mens nipples are every bit as functional as womens.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jamin4422]

Adam had a uterus????

No God created Eve from Adams rib. Some people would say that the bone marrow in the rib is a excellent source of DNA.

What mother? Adam didn't have a mother... unless his mother was dirt.

According to Science Adam had a mother. What part of Adam was a REAL person do you have a problem understanding? What part of there are people alive today descended from the Adam and Eve in the Bible, do you have problems understanding?

Have you studied population genetics? Do you know that everyone alive today has mutations that science uses as markers to identify them. We are talking about "Y-chromosomal Aaron". We know that Y-chromosomal Aaron goes back more then 6,000 years. We know that Adam lived in Eden in the Middle East 6,000 years ago. So Adam had to have had a mother and a father according to science.

I mean really everyone has a mother and a father, so would you care to join us in the real world? Actually science can NOT verify that Eve came from Adam. But as far as Science is concerned if Adam was married to his aunt or his sister then the result would be the same.

The Jewish people have a lot of inherited diseases. There has been a lot of research done on their DNA to deal with these diseases. So quite a bit is known about them. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING in all of that vast research on the DNA of the Jewish people would suggest that Adam and Eve in the Bible were not real historical people. No one is directly trying to prove that Adam and Eve in the Bible are real people. They are just trying to help the Jewish people today to deal with all of their inherited diseases.

Do you want to accept what Science has to say about this based on their research into the DNA and population genetics or do you want to ignore Science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

 

[Split Rock]

No God created Eve from Adams rib. Some people would say that the bone marrow in the rib is a excellent source of DNA.

Its also quite tasty... hmmmmmmm...

According to Science Adam had a mother. What part of Adam was a REAL person do you have a problem understanding? What part of there are people alive today descended from the Adam and Eve in the Bible, do you have problems understanding?

No, science does not say there was an Adam. The bible says (clearly) that got made Adam from dirt. If you take the story of Adam as literal history, then he had no mother. If you don't take it as literal, then Adam is figurative and represents men, just as Eve represents women.

 

[NailsII]

I don't think it would be.

But approach from an intelligent design perspective.

There is no intelligent design perspective, because you wouldn't design something to have useless features - unlees you were stupid or incompetant.

But then that leads me to the question in the OP. What's the correct function of nipples on men?

They don't have a function per se, they simply develop in vivo before sexul differenciation.
You might as well ask why we have fingerprints that are characteristic, there is no reason for this. Fingerprints could be all the same, similar or totally random if they were designed.

From Answers in Genesis. (Probably should have checked there first):

lol
Why on earth would you check there first?
If religion is your primary source of knowledge, why not just look in the bible?
Oh yeah, it is strangely silent on the issue.
So the AiG answer doesn't come from genesis then after all....

Creationism teaches an "embryological vestige." The same article says they are for sexual stimulation.

they can be used for sexual stimulation, that doesn't mean they were designed for it.

No the Bible tells a TOTALLY different story. The meak shall inherent the earth. Those who ignore the evolution story and become meak are the winners. The strong willed shall all perish. God is responsible for life, not being a good "fit".

You do realise how stupid this comment is, don't you (no offence, but it really is dumb).
If the meek wil inherit the earth, why has the church become so strong?
Because if it hadn't, it wouldn't have survived.
Religion has evolved, so have ideas - the strongest have survived, the weakest pushed aside and destroyed.
If the Christian church had been meek, and the early Christians had been meek, they would have perished and faded into obscurity.
Dying for your faith is also not a symptom of a meek and mild person.

The nipples mark an important location of a nerve center. It is the hub of nerves that connects many other critical organs in the body. (If you take acupuncture therapy, you might get a needle which sticks right into it (or from side into it).)

The swelling of female nipples serves an "additional" function.

The nipples cannot be a nerve centre, they are merely a cluster of nerve endings.
Please go and learn some biology instead of firing comments out like you know anything.
You might find during your research that what you describe as a hub of nerves that connect organs are more likely to be found in the spine...

 

[Jamin4422]

Adam had a uterus????

I do not know. I am not trying to figure out HOW it all happened. I am just saying that IT COULD have happened and so there is NO CONFLICT between science and the Bible. The Bible is literal and science can and does confirm that.