Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

We don’t know everything aboutour early ancestors—but we keep learning more! Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas, using groundbreaking technology, and continually filling in some of the gaps about our understanding of human evolution.
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Au. afarensis that may be answered with future discoveries:

1. A fossil similar to Au. afarensis and dating to 3.5 million years ago has been found in Chad—did this species extend so far into central Africa?
2. We know Au. afarensis were capable of walking upright on two legs, but they would have walked differently than modern humans do today; so, what did their bipedal locomotion look like?
3. Did Au. afarensis usually walk upright like modern humans, or did they spend more time climbing trees like other living African apes?
4. The species Au. afarensis existed through a period of environmental fluctuation yet showed no adaptations to the changing environment—why? Was it because they were able to migrate to where their usual food sources were located? Or were their food sources somehow unaffected?
5. Au. afarensis shows strong sexual dimorphism in that the body sizes between males and females are quite different; however, sexual dimorphism in other primates is usually characterized by size differences in bodies and teeth. Fossil evidence shows that male Au. afarensis individuals had canine teeth comparable in size to those of females. Did male dominance in Au. afarensis individuals not include the need to bear large canine teeth, as it does in many other male primates?
6. The teeth and jaw of Au. afarensis are robust enough to chew hard foods, but dental microwear studies show Au. afarensis individuals ate soft foods like plants and fruit instead. While most scientists think that Au. afarensis ate hard, brittle foods during tough times when vegetation was not easily found, further microwear studies show that eating hard foods did not coincide with dry seasons of little vegetation. So how do properties of A. afarensis teeth relateto their diet?

copied from
Australopithecus afarensis

If all this is not known so how can you assert its relation to humans? He also didn't mention that he is not sure that it walked upright like humans. He should have considered that shape of the pelvis, the incapability of its knees to lock like humans' knees and the presence of upper limbs adapted for knuckle walking. Sure, evolutionist can design a weird explanation for everything then claim that creationists are illogical.

 

[Jose Fly]

This what Smithsonian site says. Tell me what kind of evidence does this carry.

The evidence is the fossils themselves. That is the data.

Even walking upright is still doubted as explained in the previous video.

So are you saying that if you can find anyone who disagrees with science's interpretation...anyone at all...that is sufficient reason to wave everything away?

 

[tarekabdo12]

So if I were to show you examples of gradual change happening as a result of random mutations and natural selection you would recant?

Show me , but I hope that these changes can explain macro-evolution.

 

[tarekabdo12]

So are you saying that if you can find anyone who disagrees with science's interpretation...anyone at all...that is sufficient reason to wave everything away?

Of course not, but the evidence must be solid and clear.

 

[Jose Fly]

If all this is not known so how can you assert its relation to humans?

So are you going all NewHope on us now? You're saying that because scientists don't know absolutely everything about Australopithecines (how far they ranged, how their food sources were affected by climate change, why there was less sexual dimorphism in their teeth than other primates), then they cannot know anything at all? It's all or none? Either you know everything or you know nothing?

He also didn't mention that he is not sure that it walked upright like humans.

We've been over this. Of course they didn't walk upright exactly like modern humans; we wouldn't expect them to.

He should have considered that shape of the pelvis, the incapability of its knees to lock like humans' knees and the presence of upper limbs adapted for knuckle walking. Sure, evolutionist can design a weird explanation for everything then claim that creationists are illogical.

I'm feeling like you're not really giving this a true good faith effort. Now we're back covering ground we covered earlier this week.

Tell me, what would it mean to you personally if it turns out humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates? Would that change your religious views at all? Would it change your opinions of people you trust?

 

[tarekabdo12]

The evidence is the fossils themselves. That is the data.

This data appears to me insufficient.

 

[tarekabdo12]

We've been over this. Of course they didn't walk upright exactly like modern humans; we wouldn't expect them to.

so what difference to they make? If their skulls, jaws, ribs, waists, pelvis, shoulders, hands, arms, knees, feet, brains are different from those of humans, I don't find any addition. I find them like chimps and Orang-utans. A new member to the primate family, so what?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Tell me, what would it mean to you personally if it turns out humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates? Would that change your religious views at all? Would it change your opinions of people you trust?

Well, ask the atheists arguing who are advocating evolution : what evolution represents to them?

 

[tarekabdo12]

So are you going all NewHope on us now? You're saying that because scientists don't know absolutely everything about Australopithecines (how far they ranged, how their food sources were affected by climate change, why there was less sexual dimorphism in their teeth than other primates), then they cannot know anything at all? It's all or none? Either you know everything or you know nothing?

No, they should know at least what is sufficient to advocate their claims.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course not, but the evidence must be solid and clear.

Ok, so why are you posting material from one guy who disagrees, as if that's a meaningful rebuttal?

This data appears to me insufficient.

What's lacking in your opinion? What sort of fossil would make you go "Ah, now the case for human/primate common ancestry is compelling"?

so what difference to they make? If their skulls, jaws, ribs, waists, pelvis, shoulders, hands, arms, knees, feet, brains are different from those of humans, I don't find any addition.

Again, because the Australopithecines are very close (time-wise) to the last common ancestor of humans and chimps, we expect them to show mostly primitive characteristics, with only a few hints of more modern characteristics. As we move forward in time and start seeing members of the genus Homo, we start to see fewer/less primitive traits, and more/more modern traits, which is exactly what you agreed is predicted by human/primate common ancestry.

I find them like chimps and Orang-utans.

Except they're not like chimps and orangutans. If they were, we would call them chimps and orangutans.

Well, ask the atheists arguing who are advocating evolution : what evolution represents to them?

Again, you're dodging questions. Why? I thought you promised me you were in this discussion in good faith?

So again, what would it mean to you personally if it turns out humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates? Would that change your religious views at all? Could you still be a Muslim? Would you have to go to a different Mosque? What would your friends and family say if you told them you were an "evolutionist"? Would you have to hide it from them?

No, they should know at least what is sufficient to advocate their claims.

But none of the unknowns you posted have anything at all to do with our ability to determine if Australopithicenes belong on our family tree. They're all about secondary (at best) issues. So why did you post them?

And you still haven't answered if you think the following is a better interpretation of the fossils than evolutionary theory.

So did this god create Sahelanthropus tchadensis, decide he didn't like it, wipe it out, and then create a little bit different Ardipithecus? And then he didn't like that either, so he wiped them out and created a bunch of Australopithicene species, each a little different than the others? But then he didn't like those either, so he wiped all of them out and created H. habilis? And then he was bored with that, so he killed all them and created H. erectus, which were slightly different than habilis? And then after a while, he decided to kill off erectus and created a slightly different species, H. heidelbergensis? But then he tired of them, so he killed them and created the first H. sapiens, which were only slightly different than heidelbergensis? And just for kicks, he created the slightly different H. neanderthalensis alongside sapiens, but then for whatever reason he just killed them off leaving just H. sapiens?​

If you're just going to keep dodging questions, bringing up side issues, and copying from websites, what's the point in continuing? That's not really anything we can call a "conversation" is it?

 

[Gunfingers]

Show me , but I hope that these changes can explain macro-evolution.

I'm going to need you to give me a delineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution, then, since everything we know about biology today indicates that no such thing exists.

This data appears to me insufficient.

What would be sufficient? You seem hell-bent on disbelieving, so why don't you give us an idea of what data could be presented that you would consider sufficient?

so what difference to they make? If their skulls, jaws, ribs, waists, pelvis, shoulders, hands, arms, knees, feet, brains are different from those of humans, I don't find any addition. I find them like chimps and Orang-utans. A new member to the primate family, so what?

Old member, actually. Died out three million years ago.
But the thing is, they show traits that are similar to humans, and similar to chimpanzees (chimps being our closest relatives, genetically speaking). Then another organism was found that was similar to a. afarensis, less similar to chimpanzees, and more similar to humans. Then another following that same trend. Then another. Then another. We've found a lot of organisms following this trend.
Taken by itself, A. Afarensis would indeed be a meaningless find in terms of human evolution, but in the context of everything else its role in human evolution becomes more clear.

No, they should know at least what is sufficient to advocate their claims.

Here's what you need to understand about scientific theories, and if you really go into medicine I hope this is something you pick up on because otherwise you're going to end up killing people: nothing can ever be proven with 100% certainty. There's a margin of error on the fact that I'm typing this right now. The goal, therefore, is to come up with the best explanation for the available facts, which is called a "hypothesis". When a hypothesis is able to explain all available evidence and is contradicted by none of it, it is regarded as a "theory".
To use an example you might be familiar with, imagine that a patient comes to you and is sick. You can't prove that the patient has a certain disease with 100% certainty, but you need to come up with something that explains their symptoms so you can treat them. If you wait for 100% certainty which you can never have, you can never treat the patient and they will die. It's the same with evolution. We don't know anything about our ancestry with 100% certainty, but we have a certain body of evidence and the best way to explain it is descent from A. Afarensis or something similar.

 

[tarekabdo12]

So again, what would it mean to you personally if it turns out humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates? Would that change your religious views at all? Could you still be a Muslim? Would you have to go to a different Mosque? What would your friends and family say if you told them you were an "evolutionist"? Would you have to hide it from them?

No, I don't think it can change my religion. That's because evolution can't explain the origin of the first life and the presence of the complex whole world which doesn't obey the laws of biology. My argument about evolution is not because of contradicting my religion. It's because I don't find it feasible. About the family and friends, I think it's subjective as everyone has his views. The whole complicated cell and the complicated efficiently designed systems I have seen when studying medicine can't be explained without a creator.

What I meant to say is that atheists use evolution to escape the idea of religion and not the contrary. Regarding my refusal to evolution, I refuse it mainly because I find it not plausible.

However, God in the Qur'an said that He created Adam by his own hands, not by evolution from a monkey.

 

[tarekabdo12]

I'll continue later on- if God wishes- as I have a lot of work to do. You can complete if you want . Bye

 

[Storm]

On a genetic and evolutionary level, the answer is obvious. But if you believe that god designed us, why did he design men with nipples?

We've had this discussion.

 

[Android]

Regarding my refusal to evolution, I refuse it mainly because I find it not plausible.

....and this guy is studying medicine??????
(god) help us all!

 

[idav]

On a genetic and evolutionary level, the answer is obvious. But if you believe that god designed us, why did he design men with nipples?

It seems the creator was too lazy to clean up the genetic code. Now we are full of junk DNA. A good coder would have made the genders more clearly defined instead of intermixed. Penis, no penis, boobs no boobs not to mention the fact that mistakes continue to replicate themselves with no foreseeable creator intervention.

 

[Storm]

But they're so cute!

It seems the creator was too lazy to clean up the genetic code. Now we are full of junk DNA. A good coder would have made the genders more clearly defined instead of intermixed. Penis, no penis, boobs no boobs not to mention the fact that mistakes continue to replicate themselves with no foreseeable creator intervention.

You think a good creator would have deprived women of the clit?!? I don't think we can be friends.

 

[idav]

But they're so cute!


You think a good creator would have deprived women of the clit?!? I don't think we can be friends.

Haha I didn't really go there. Good thing I find evolution did a fine job lol!

 

[idav]

Haha I didn't really go there. Good thing I find evolution did a fine job lol!

Oh and to answer your question if we are talking the creator from the bible then yes he would deprived women of a clit because sex is only for procreation according to the bible. I don't necessarily think it is a matter of "good" design to us because it depends on what the designer feels is a good design. Though I find it odd that the god of the bible would design us in a way that would make us prone to go against his bidding.

 

[Storm]

Haha I didn't really go there. Good thing I find evolution did a fine job lol!

That's better!