Why do men have nipples?

[Storm]

This is still going? The issue was settled long ago: Men have nipples 'cause they're cute!

 

[tarekabdo12]

Even if ERV's were prone to insert at the same location in different species, how do you explain that many of them carry the same mutations?

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

I read the article you had posted but I couldn't figure out how the provided links meant that the ERV in different species shared the exact mutations;
Human Endogenous Retroviral Elements as Indicators of Ectopic Recombination Events in the Primate Genome
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences


I read the abstract and conclusion but couldn't find out the difference they gave. If you have a better understanding then I am asking for your aid. I actually didn't find anything different. I also found this very strange; even if the humans and apes shared the same ERVs how they can have the same mutations since the mutations are totally random. Even the evolutionary model can hardly explain the occurrence of the same mutations in different species within genes that are not essential for the life of the organism. I also didn't find other leading articles to the same claimed finding, if you've please share.

 

[tarekabdo12]

This is still going? The issue was settled long ago: Men have nipples 'cause they're cute!

I really agree with you.

 

[camanintx]

I also found this very strange; even if the humans and apes shared the same ERVs how they can have the same mutations since the mutations are totally random. Even the evolutionary model can hardly explain the occurrence of the same mutations in different species within genes that are not essential for the life of the organism. I also didn't find other leading articles to the same claimed finding, if you've please share.

That's what makes ERVs such strong evidence of common descent. orthologous ERVs by themselves might be explained by homoplasy but the orthologous mutations cannot. I think the following illustration from the first link you posted demonstrates it very clearly.

 

[RomCat]

God gave men nipples in order to confound
the evolutionists.

 

[fantome profane]

God gave men nipples in order to confound
the evolutionists.

So “God” is the author of confusion. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[tarekabdo12]

God gave men nipples in order to confound
the evolutionists.

I advocate creation yet I don't like to talk this way. I think God is so sapient to so such thing. The nipple must have a function even if it isn't crucial in life.

 

[tarekabdo12]

There many problems concerning ERVs in my opinion; these components are hardly caused by random insertion into the genome of a common ancestor for both humans and apes-as I consider-.That's because the insertion of a certain ERV in a certain site in all the extant population of those alleged ancestors is something illogical. I can't ponder how a single virus can insert at the same time in all the individuals living to be transferred to their progeny in the same place and with the same sequence. If those ancestors were so huge in number, it's a logical fallacy to consider so. And if they were few in number they could never complete the chain of evolution that depends on random mutations for the transitions. I think that it's not fair to befoul our minds with such ludicrous explanations that try to explain evolution by any means. Instead of considering unknown functions for these sequences you-evolutionists-hasten to say that this supports evolution without accurate scrutiny. If it's as you allege that the viruses inserted into the whole genome of the claimed ancestors so this means that these viruses have a certain tendency towards specific sites in the genome. This might explain that the sequences are inserted in the same position in the whole generation. However, if you admit this so this means that they can also insert into the same sites in humans and apes because of such tendency. In that way we enter a dilemma that'd never lead to the way of evolution. A specific tendency of the ERVs towards certain sites explains the insertion into the same sites without a common ancestor.

Briefly, I mean that whether from the creation or the evolution perspective we must assume that the ERVs have a specific affinity towards certain sequences, which makes the ERVs not an evidence for both views. I wish my words would help ending this tussle.

 

[tarekabdo12]

So “God” is the author of confusion. Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't think that God did aim at confusing anybody, people are those who confuse themselves by making simple things so complicated and refusing to cosider lucid and clear facts. Considering something like male nipples, what if it is just for shape and symmetry; not all tissues are considered crucial for life yet they are still functional. Even if the fuction is important for 0.00001% im relation to the function of the whole body organs, it's still functional and not useless.

 

[idav]

There many problems concerning ERVs in my opinion; these components are hardly caused by random insertion into the genome of a common ancestor for both humans and apes-as I consider-.That's because the insertion of a certain ERV in a certain site in all the extant population of those alleged ancestors is something illogical. I can't ponder how a single virus can insert at the same time in all the individuals living to be transferred to their progeny in the same place and with the same sequence. If those ancestors were so huge in number, it's a logical fallacy to consider so. And if they were few in number they could never complete the chain of evolution that depends on random mutations for the transitions. I think that it's not fair to befoul our minds with such ludicrous explanations that try to explain evolution by any means. Instead of considering unknown functions for these sequences you-evolutionists-hasten to say that this supports evolution without accurate scrutiny. If it's as you allege that the viruses inserted into the whole genome of the claimed ancestors so this means that these viruses have a certain tendency towards specific sites in the genome. This might explain that the sequences are inserted in the same position in the whole generation. However, if you admit this so this means that they can also insert into the same sites in humans and apes because of such tendency. In that way we enter a dilemma that'd never lead to the way of evolution. A specific tendency of the ERVs towards certain sites explains the insertion into the same sites without a common ancestor.

Briefly, I mean that whether from the creation or the evolution perspective we must assume that the ERVs have a specific affinity towards certain sequences, which makes the ERVs not an evidence for both views. I wish my words would help ending this tussle.

It is because it wouldn't insert into an entire genome. It would only be left in species that survived. Saying it went into an entire huge population is assuming all of them managed to get their genes passed through to today but that isn't how it works. Besides that viruses are very mobile and can easily infect a majority of any population. We see it all the time.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is still going? The issue was settled long ago: Men have nipples 'cause they're cute!

It shifted a bit to a conversation between Tarekabdo and me regarding the hominid fossil record. But apparently that's ended and the discussion has shifted once again.

 

[tarekabdo12]

It is because it wouldn't insert into an entire genome. It would only be left in species that survived. Saying it went into an entire huge population is assuming all of them managed to get their genes passed through to today but that isn't how it works. Besides that viruses are very mobile and can easily infect a majority of any population. We see it all the time.

Yes, thy are mobile but to affect the whole population in the particular position, this can't be explained except that they have a certain affinity to specific sequences. Even if the creatures that acquired them survived, this doesn't give an explanation to the presence of the same sequences in the same places. Or may be these sequences give a specific function in these places so giving the creature an advantage in the face of natural selection, but if you admit so you can't rule out that it can be a part of intelligent design-assuming that it serves a function-. There are also evidences that point to the presence of functions for these sequences, although they may not be directly producing proteins yet they can serve a regulatory functions for other genes. We, humans, can't say that we know everything about the DNA, it's not impossible that later on we'd discover more about the different functions of sequences that we used to think that they have no function.

 

[tarekabdo12]

It shifted a bit to a conversation between Tarekabdo and me regarding the hominid fossil record. But apparently that's ended and the discussion has shifted once again.

No, it didn't end but I was very busy as I had examinations so I just engaged in some lighter converstions as I didn't have time to write and read alot. In addition, I was writing in other issues that I couldn't escape from and this consumed me a lot of time. So, I'm sorry again but you previously told me that you're not in a hurry. I'm glad to continue the conversation and soon I'll - if God wishes so-.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, thy are mobile but to affect the whole population in the particular position, this can't be explained except that they have a certain affinity to specific sequences. Even if the creatures that acquired them survived, this doesn't give an explanation to the presence of the same sequences in the same places. Or may be these sequences give a specific function in these places so giving the creature an advantage in the face of natural selection, but if you admit so you can't rule out that it can be a part of intelligent design-assuming that it serves a function-. There are also evidences that point to the presence of functions for these sequences, although they may not be directly producing proteins yet they can serve a regulatory functions for other genes. We, humans, can't say that we know everything about the DNA, it's not impossible that later on we'd discover more about the different functions of sequences that we used to think that they have no function.

First, I've yet to see evidence that the specific ERV's in question have affinity for specific spots in the genome. The best anyone could do was Shermana who strangly thought that because parvoviruses could become endogenous and seemed to favor certain regions over others (and keep in mind, regions are not specific sites), that somehow meant that the ERV's shared between humans and chimps were merely parallel infections rather than a remnant infection inherited from a common ancestor. Of course that's a very superficial analysis, as parvoviruses are not retroviruses and behave quite differently.

Second...trust me, you don't want those ERV's to be functional.

Finally, the whole "but you can't rule out design" is exactly the problem with creationism. Under creationism, you can't rule out anything. Gods can do absolutely everything imaginable, including creating something one way, but making it appear like it was created completely differently. That's the basis for "Last Thursdayism" (or the Omphalos Hypothesis), and it's exactly why creation by gods is meaningless in science.

No, it didn't end but I was very busy as I had examinations so I just engaged in some lighter converstions as I didn't have time to write and read alot. In addition, I was writing in other issues that I couldn't escape from and this consumed me a lot of time. So, I'm sorry again but you previously told me that you're not in a hurry. I'm glad to continue the conversation and soon I'll - if God wishes so-.

Ok.

 

[camanintx]

I can't ponder how a single virus can insert at the same time in all the individuals living to be transferred to their progeny in the same place and with the same sequence.

Maybe you can't ponder this because it doesn't happen. A virus only needs to insert itself into the germ cell of a single individual and it will appear in the descendants of that individual. That's how mutations spread through a population.

 

[tarekabdo12]

First, I've yet to see evidence that the specific ERV's in question have affinity for specific spots in the genome. The best anyone could do was Shermana who strangly thought that because parvoviruses could become endogenous and seemed to favor certain regions over others (and keep in mind, regions are not specific sites), that somehow meant that the ERV's shared between humans and chimps were merely parallel infections rather than a remnant infection inherited from a common ancestor. Of course that's a very superficial analysis, as parvoviruses are not retroviruses and behave quite differently.

Parvo viruses are ssDNA viruses so what's their relation to ERVs which are RNA viruses. Moreover, you didn't explain enough, I feel that I can't understand what you mean. Please provide a link or explain further your point.

Second...trust me, you don't want those ERV's to be functional.

I actually don't care if they have a function or not, the original conversation was about their relation to evolution and their insertion into the same sites.

Finally, the whole "but you can't rule out design" is exactly the problem with creationism. Under creationism, you can't rule out anything. Gods can do absolutely everything imaginable, including creating something one way, but making it appear like it was created completely differently. That's the basis for "Last Thursdayism" (or the Omphalos Hypothesis), and it's exactly why creation by gods is meaningless in science.

Also we can't just consider that evolution is a fact without evidence and that's why we are discussing evidences so don't arborize from the main stem of the conversation. In addition creation is so simple that a mind can easily consider, if you see a TV or a camera you simply know that it had a designer and if you don't think so then you've simply lost your mind.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Maybe you can't ponder this because it doesn't happen. A virus only needs to insert itself into the germ cell of a single individual and it will appear in the descendants of that individual. That's how mutations spread through a population.

Yes, but not in a million existing -if not more-individuals and at the same site.

 

[Jose Fly]

Parvo viruses are ssDNA viruses so what's their relation to ERVs which are RNA viruses.

Exactly, and that's why Shermana's attempted argument was so ridiculous.

Moreover, you didn't explain enough, I feel that I can't understand what you mean. Please provide a link or explain further your point.

My point was that ERV's are extremely good evidence for common descent and that creationist counter-arguments are pathetic at best (as you confirmed with Shermana's above).

I actually don't care if they have a function or not, the original conversation was about their relation to evolution and their insertion into the same sites.

You cared just a bit ago when you tried to throw "maybe they have a function" as a counter-argument.

Also we can't just consider that evolution is a fact without evidence

Because it is a fact. When we study populations over time, all we see is them evolving. Every new trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. You might as well be telling me that rain never falls from the sky.

In addition creation is so simple that a mind can easily consider, if you see a TV or a camera you simply know that it had a designer and if you don't think so then you've simply lost your mind.

The idea that babies are brought to homes by storks is also very easy to understand, but that doesn't make it true, does it?

And using your analogy of TV's and cameras, we would have to conclude that all biological traits are evolved. Why? Think of it this way; how do we know TV's and cameras are "designed"? Because we can see humans making them all the time, every day. That's the only way we've ever seen them come to be.

Similarly, every new trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. It's so common, we can even control the process. Yet we've never seen a new trait, ability, or species come about via creation by gods, have we?

Thus, by your own logic we must conclude that all traits, abilities, and species have arisen via evolution.

 

[tarekabdo12]

What's my relation to Shermana, I was talking about a simple way of ratioalization

You cared just a bit ago when you tried to throw "maybe they have a function" as a counter-argument.

Yes, I said may have and I still believe so and that we don't understand all the the matters concerning the DNA but the mainstem of the argument was about how they'd enter in the same sites in all the generation.

Because it is a fact. When we study populations over time, all we see is them evolving. Every new trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. You might as well be telling me that rain never falls from the sky.

We evolce combimations of already present genetic materials yet no new species or genetic material are created. I can imagine that when cats of different characters mate a new cat is produced with new charachters yet this is still a combination of already extant genetic material. However, I can't imagine that one day these combiations will give birth to a dog.

The idea that babies are brought to homes by storks is also very easy to understand, but that doesn't make it true, does it?

And using your analogy of TV's and cameras, we would have to conclude that all biological traits are evolved. Why? Think of it this way; how do we know TV's and cameras are "designed"? Because we can see humans making them all the time, every day. That's the only way we've ever seen them come to be.

Similarly, every new trait, ability, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. It's so common, we can even control the process. Yet we've never seen a new trait, ability, or species come about via creation by gods, have we?

Thus, by your own logic we must conclude that all traits, abilities, and species have arisen via evolution.

What kind of logic is that?!! The TVs are designed in a complicated way and are gaining new characters as they are being designed via terrific minds, those of humans. However, the minds of humans themselves are so complicated that we can't understand collectively up till now with our great available technology so how can you assume that those terrific complicated minds are not designed? This is non-sense.

 

[Jose Fly]

What's my relation to Shermana, I was talking about a simple way of ratioalization

"Simple" is how I would describe it as well.

Yes, I said may have and I still believe so and that we don't understand all the the matters concerning the DNA but the mainstem of the argument was about how they'd enter in the same sites in all the generation.

So basically your rebuttal is "Maybe they have a function, and you don't know everything about DNA anyways"? That's not very compelling, is it?

We evolce combimations of already present genetic materials yet no new species or genetic material are created.

Yes they are. You simply haven't been paying attention.

New Species

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic... [J Hered. 1990 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

Reproductive character displacement and speciation... [Evolution. 2000] - PubMed result

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

New Genetic Material

Before I post citations for this, I want to express just how ridiculous it is that you think there is no evolution of new genetic sequences. Every single human is born with ~100 mutations, which obviously means that every baby is the evolution of a new genetic sequence. Again, you may as well be telling me that rain doesn't fall from the sky.

The Panda's Thumb: On the evolution of Irreducible Complexity

http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/betran/publications.htm

The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Global variation in copy number in the human genome : Abstract : Nature

I mean, if what you are arguing were true, you and I should have the exact same genomes, right?

However, I can't imagine that one day these combiations will give birth to a dog.

Dude, seriously? Your understanding of evolution is "a cat gives birth to a dog"?

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem here isn't the science, but your understanding of it?

What kind of logic is that?!! The TVs are designed in a complicated way and are gaining new characters as they are being designed via terrific minds, those of humans.

But how do you know? How do you know TVs are made by humans?

However, the minds of humans themselves are so complicated that we can't understand collectively up till now with our great available technology so how can you assume that those terrific complicated minds are not designed? This is non-sense.

The human brain is a biological trait, correct? As I said, every single biological trait we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. We've never seen any biological trait, ability, or species come about via "design" (creation by gods), have we?

If you were so inclined, you could go to a university and conduct an experiment where you would see the evolution of a new trait (and related genetic sequence) with your own eyes, any time you wanted. Show me the same for creation by gods, and I'll be very impressed. Otherwise, you're simply flailing about, trying desperately to deny every bit of evidence that comes your way (rather than objectively examining it and taking it for what it is), and making yourself look rather ridiculous in the process.