Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

I mean which body organ

 

[Jose Fly]

Please explain 2 me. What exactly makes you think it's intermediate? Please specify. Thanks.

I mean which body organ

I'm not sure what you're asking. Please clarify.

 

[tarekabdo12]

I'm mean you think the jaw , for instance, carries intermediate characters between humans and apes.
You think that the lower limb has intermediate characters?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm mean you think the jaw , for instance, carries intermediate characters between humans and apes.
You think that the lower limb has intermediate characters?

As we agreed to earlier, an "intermediate" will show a mixture of more primitive and more modern characteristics; while some body parts may be primitive, others will be more modern. So there's really no point in picking out one single part and saying "See? The ribs are primitive, therefore it's not an intermediate". If the ribs are more primitive, but the legs and pelvis are more modern, then the specimen exhibits a mixture of modern and primitive characteristics, which we agreed is what we would expect to see under human/primate common ancestry.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Do you think this study means that we can't consider austrlo. and man as a direct ancestor to man - as proposed by the evolutionary theory-?

Discovery Suggests Humans didn't Evolve from Chimpanzee-Like Ancestors (VIDEO) - Salem-News.Com

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you think this study means that we can't consider austrlo. and man as a direct ancestor to man - as proposed by the evolutionary theory-?

Discovery Suggests Humans didn't Evolve from Chimpanzee-Like Ancestors (VIDEO) - Salem-News.Com

There are several problems with the media and how they report on human evolution and evolution in general. One of the problems is that they act as if evolutionary scientists believe that humans evolved from modern chimpanzees, which is not the case at all. The article you linked to makes this error.

The common ancestor of humans and our closest primate cousins (chimps and bonobos) was not a chimp, human, or bonobo. Chimps and bonobos have been through as much evolution as we have. The scientist quoted in the article tries to get this concept across:

"Darwin was very wise on this matter," Tim White from the University of California Berkeley, who helped lead the research team, observed.

"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it. And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared," White said.​

Unfortunately, the media is more focused on attention-grabbing headlines than generating a good understanding of the science. It's the same thing that makes them use the "missing link" term over and over, even though the scientists in the field absolutely hate that term.

 

[tarekabdo12]

There are several problems with the media and how they report on human evolution and evolution in general. One of the problems is that they act as if evolutionary scientists believe that humans evolved from modern chimpanzees, which is not the case at all. The article you linked to makes this error.

The common ancestor of humans and our closest primate cousins (chimps and bonobos) was not a chimp, human, or bonobo. Chimps and bonobos have been through as much evolution as we have. The scientist quoted in the article tries to get this concept across:

"Darwin was very wise on this matter," Tim White from the University of California Berkeley, who helped lead the research team, observed.

"Darwin said we have to be really careful. The only way we're really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it. Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it. And, just like Darwin appreciated, evolution of the ape lineages and the human lineage has been going on independently since the time those lines split, since that last common ancestor we shared," White said.​

Unfortunately, the media is more focused on attention-grabbing headlines than generating a good understanding of the science. It's the same thing that makes them use the "missing link" term over and over, even though the scientists in the field absolutely hate that term.

I didn't mean 2 attack the theory by this link, I only was asking if this is true. I mean scientific evidence say that the australopethicines is not a human ancestor in order to save my time from arguing about this issue. So you believe this is true? Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, apes or australo. ? You previously said that they may be cousins not ancestors? Is this -from your prospective - plausible & true?

 

[tarekabdo12]

All embryos start as "female".

wa:do

Actually , they start as unspecified sex.

 

[Gunfingers]

I didn't mean 2 attack the theory by this link, I only was asking if this is true. I mean scientific evidence say that the australopethicines is not a human ancestor in order to save my time from arguing about this issue. So you believe this is true? Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, apes or australo. ? You previously said that they may be cousins not ancestors? Is this -from your prospective - plausible & true?

Australopithecus is a genus of apes and apes are a family of old world monkeys. Pinning down the exact evolutionary path can be difficult. Australopithecus may have been a cousin to the organisms that we actually descended from. We can determine that we are related to Australopithecus, and that if it is not our ancestor then something very similar was, and that whatever that is shared a very recent common ancestor with Australopithecus.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't mean 2 attack the theory by this link, I only was asking if this is true.

Yes, the statements by the scientists that humans did not evolve from modern chimps is true, and has been known to be true since Darwin's time.

I mean scientific evidence say that the australopethicines is not a human ancestor in order to save my time from arguing about this issue. So you believe this is true? Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, apes or australo. ? You previously said that they may be cousins not ancestors? Is this -from your prospective - plausible & true?

Again, our evolutionary past is not a straight line from human-chimp common ancestor to modern humans. Evolution proceeds in a branching pattern, and it now seems the Australopithecines were on a branch that did not lead to us, but are nonetheless on our family tree.

But that does not mean the don't represent an intermediate evolutionary specimen, or that they aren't part of the fossil evidence that we share a common ancestry with other primates. Again, Australopithecines are exactly the sort of specimens we would expect to find under human/primate shared ancestry.

 

[camanintx]

Actually , they start as unspecified sex.

No, painted wolf is right. She should know.

A well-trained embryologist cannot tell the difference between a male and a female embryo if the embryo is less than seven weeks old. At that early stage of prenatal life, there is a fork in the road of development. If there are no hormonal changes in the prenatal environment, the embryo developes into a female. If, however, the embryo is destined to become a male, its Y-chromosomes trigger the production of testosterone (the male hormone), which masculinizes the brain and genitalia (internal as well as external) of the embryo. But it takes no female hormone to produce a female infant. (Only at age ten or later does the female body begin to produce the hormones that transform the girl into a woman.)

There are documented cases where genetically male individuals developed into females because they didn't produce testosterone at the right time during development.

 

[tarekabdo12]

No, painted wolf is right. She should know.


There are documented cases where genetically male individuals developed into females because they didn't produce testosterone at the right time during development.

I know this information but this doesn't mean the fetus starts as a female. The testis produces mullerian inbiting factor by the sertoli cells which inhibits further development of the female genital tract" Mullerian duct system". Yet, this doesn't mean it starts as a female as if the testis doesn't produce testis determining factor and the mullerian inhibiting factor , the embryo will continue as a female . But, it didn't start as a female, it completed as a female.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Yes, the statements by the scientists that humans did not evolve from modern chimps is true, and has been known to be true since Darwin's time.


Again, our evolutionary past is not a straight line from human-chimp common ancestor to modern humans. Evolution proceeds in a branching pattern, and it now seems the Australopithecines were on a branch that did not lead to us, but are nonetheless on our family tree.

But that does not mean the don't represent an intermediate evolutionary specimen, or that they aren't part of the fossil evidence that we share a common ancestry with other primates. Again, Australopithecines are exactly the sort of specimens we would expect to find under human/primate shared ancestry.

I can't understand: How it's not our ancestor and at the same time it's intermediate?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Australopithecus is a genus of apes and apes are a family of old world monkeys. Pinning down the exact evolutionary path can be difficult. Australopithecus may have been a cousin to the organisms that we actually descended from. We can determine that we are related to Australopithecus, and that if it is not our ancestor then something very similar was, and that whatever that is shared a very recent common ancestor with Australopithecus.

Is there evidence for this claim?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Australopithecus is a genus of apes and apes are a family of old world monkeys. Pinning down the exact evolutionary path can be difficult. Australopithecus may have been a cousin to the organisms that we actually descended from. We can determine that we are related to Australopithecus, and that if it is not our ancestor then something very similar was, and that whatever that is shared a very recent common ancestor with Australopithecus.

If austrlopithecus is not the direct ancestor so what difference does it's existence makes? I mean the effects of its presence won't differ from that of the monkey or the orang-utan.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Still the fossil findings are vague and not decisive- as I see-.

 

[Marble]

Because they are useful

Moderator cut: image removed

Because the embryo developes nipples before they become masculinised. article.

Or you just ask your doctor

 

[Gunfingers]

Is there evidence for this claim?

The evidence is evolutionary theory. When something becomes as well established as evolutionary theory it can be used as evidence of other things, such as the ancestry of humans. To use an unrelated example of this concept, I can prove using derivations that
e^(ix) = cosx + i*sinx
because each expression's derivative is i times itself. Thus I can cite the fundamental theorem of calculus (every function is the integral of its derivative and vise-versa, to simplify) to demonstrate that since these expressions have the same derivative they must be the same function. I do not have to provide evidence of the Fundamental Theorem of calculus to prove this, because the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is so well established that it can be accepted as evidence.
It's also worth noting that the evidence used to indicate that Australopithecus is not a direct ancestor is based on evolutionary theory.

If austrlopithecus is not the direct ancestor so what difference does it's existence makes? I mean the effects of its presence won't differ from that of the monkey or the orang-utan.

Because even if it is not our direct ancestor, as some new evidence indicates, it is closely related to it. Thus much of what we know about Australopithecus will likely apply to our actual ancestors too.
You have to remember, scientists get excited about these findings not because they're trying to prove that we share a common ancestor with modern apes. They already did that, a hundred years ago. It's because they want to know more about how our ancestors lived and how they became what we are today.

 

[tarekabdo12]

The evidence is evolutionary theory. When something becomes as well established as evolutionary theory it can be used as evidence of other things, such as the ancestry of humans. To use an unrelated example of this concept, I can prove using derivations that
e^(ix) = cosx + i*sinx
because each expression's derivative is i times itself. Thus I can cite the fundamental theorem of calculus (every function is the integral of its derivative and vise-versa, to simplify) to demonstrate that since these expressions have the same derivative they must be the same function. I do not have to provide evidence of the Fundamental Theorem of calculus to prove this, because the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is so well established that it can be accepted as evidence.
It's also worth noting that the evidence used to indicate that Australopithecus is not a direct ancestor is based on evolutionary theory.

what you are saying is like giving proof for evolution that "it's a fact". If there's no proof for evolution that it's not a fact , it's a phantom.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Because even if it is not our direct ancestor, as some new evidence indicates, it is closely related to it. Thus much of what we know about Australopithecus will likely apply to our actual ancestors too.
You have to remember, scientists get excited about these findings not because they're trying to prove that we share a common ancestor with modern apes. They already did that, a hundred years ago. It's because they want to know more about how our ancestors lived and how they became what we are today.

How is it closely related to us and how are apes closely related to us? As far as I'm concerned, there is no solid evidence up till now.