tarekabdo12
Active Member
Naturally is not an explanation but rather I nice way to escape an argument.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do men have nipples?
- Thread starter FDRC2014
- Start date
Naturally is not an explanation but rather I nice way to escape an argument.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Tarekabdo,
I'm afraid you're contradicting yourself a little. On one hand you argue that evolution is the "path to atheism" and you frequently frame your arguments with "evolution can't explain it, therefore creator", which logically means if you were to accept that evolution does explain things, "therefore no creator". But OTOH you then say a Muslim can still believe that evolution is just the means by which God creates things.
If the latter is true, then how does atheism enter into it at all? Also, you are aware that the majority of "evolutionists" in the world are theists, right?
Finally, do you really expect me to believe that your evolution denialism is based purely on science? As I said, if that were indeed the case, I would expect you to be a lot more familiar with the science than you are with Harun Yahya and his demonstrably false material. I mean, how can someone say, "My position against evolution is based on a good understanding of the science", yet be totally ignorant of things like that new species and traits have been observed to evolve, and that all of us are born with a unique set of mutations?
I'm afraid you're contradicting yourself a little. On one hand you argue that evolution is the "path to atheism" and you frequently frame your arguments with "evolution can't explain it, therefore creator", which logically means if you were to accept that evolution does explain things, "therefore no creator". But OTOH you then say a Muslim can still believe that evolution is just the means by which God creates things.
If the latter is true, then how does atheism enter into it at all? Also, you are aware that the majority of "evolutionists" in the world are theists, right?
Finally, do you really expect me to believe that your evolution denialism is based purely on science? As I said, if that were indeed the case, I would expect you to be a lot more familiar with the science than you are with Harun Yahya and his demonstrably false material. I mean, how can someone say, "My position against evolution is based on a good understanding of the science", yet be totally ignorant of things like that new species and traits have been observed to evolve, and that all of us are born with a unique set of mutations?
Naturally is just a safe bet in a world where everything appears to come about by natural causes. That is if I were a betting person. Saying it is creation isn't any sort of argument either with no evidence to support it.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
And why are we knocking vagaries? Vagaries ROCK!
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
And yet, the point remains that evolution is not atheistic, nor does it lead to atheism. Evolution is simply the natural process by which life diversifies over time (much like gravity is the natural process that keeps the Earth moving around the sun).
Atheists come to their philosophy more due to the poor actions of believers than by the study of scientific facts.
wa:do
Back to the subject of nipples... I believe it has something to do with the presence of an X chromosome (the female chromosome) in a man's set of chromosomes (XY). The second X chromosome in a woman's chromosomes is what sets off the second sex characteristic of developed breasts during puberty through increased oestrogen and progesterone levels in the body. This would also explain why some infants lactate in the early stages of life outside the womb, due to the mother's body having high levels of these hormones to tell her to lactate being transferred into the baby through the umbilical cord.
Now onto evolution and Mr. Sigmund Freud. My personal theory as to why human males seem to have relatively larger nipples compared to other mammals also connects to why human women seem to be the only mothers who's breasts are pronounced outside of the stages of pregnancy and child-rearing. Basically, us men are admittedly attracted to a woman's breasts, it's just a simple fact. Now from an evolution point of view, if this was the case an odd one million years ago, Darwin's natural selection would tell us that the men would be more likely to mate with the women with the larger breasts and wider hips, as they are a sign of better child-rearing abilities. These women would produce children with a tendency to have larger breasts. And with this happening over tens of thousands of years would create a race who's women have (on average) larger breasts than their ancestors.
Now... If this tendency was etched into the genes of the X chromosome (the one responsible for female characteristics) it would result in men having relatively larger nipples than other mammals. (since men have one X chromosome along with one Y)
Phew, that was a doozey of first post ^_^'
Cheers
-DDWW
Now onto evolution and Mr. Sigmund Freud. My personal theory as to why human males seem to have relatively larger nipples compared to other mammals also connects to why human women seem to be the only mothers who's breasts are pronounced outside of the stages of pregnancy and child-rearing. Basically, us men are admittedly attracted to a woman's breasts, it's just a simple fact. Now from an evolution point of view, if this was the case an odd one million years ago, Darwin's natural selection would tell us that the men would be more likely to mate with the women with the larger breasts and wider hips, as they are a sign of better child-rearing abilities. These women would produce children with a tendency to have larger breasts. And with this happening over tens of thousands of years would create a race who's women have (on average) larger breasts than their ancestors.
Now... If this tendency was etched into the genes of the X chromosome (the one responsible for female characteristics) it would result in men having relatively larger nipples than other mammals. (since men have one X chromosome along with one Y)
Phew, that was a doozey of first post ^_^'
Cheers
-DDWW
Last edited:
ReligionBro
Member
I never really thought about that. Why would a god create men with nipples when men don't need them?
tarekabdo12
Active Member
We've previously discussed this issue earlier on this thread if you're interested to persue it
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Nice view
I'm one of them.
I deconverted based on the action of some believers.
Let me explain. I'm a geologist with all the necessary papers. (I had to try the YEC argument from authority, for it does work on some people
). In any case, the lies and deception so characteristic of YEC's played a very large role in my deconversion. Lies and deception are the only "tools" they have, because everything they said about geology, was a lie. And when I say everything, I mean everything. They sugar coated their lies for non-geologists in such a way that non-geologists wouldn't know that they were lying.For example, they got some "geologist" to do "radiometric" dating on the rocks which formed with the Mount Saint Helens eruption. They got weird, old dates. Now they tell everyone that all radiometric dates are wrong.
What they didn't tell their sheep was that the method they used (in this case K/Ar dating), is not suitable to date any young rock at all. The K/Ar method can't work on young rocks. There's a miriad of very good reasons for this.
YEC's know their methods are inaccurate, but they still sell it as "science" and tell everyone that all "radiometric dates" are wrong. Just lies and deceit. That's all they have.
Now I'm a very proud atheist (some Christians call me a radical atheist, which of course is another lie
).
Last edited:
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Human footprints dating 1.5 million years ago; doesn't this speak about itself
Footprints show human ancestor with modern stride | Reuters
which fossils? As far as I know, the OH 7 shows a U-shaped(ape-like) jaw.
As I know, evolutionists gave a cut point for Homo as 600cc, so these falling below 600 show no difference from Austr.
The creatures above 600 cc can't be considered with near intelligence to humans as the brain size can't be considered as an index for brilliance.
the anatomical makeup of the "Homo habilis" is identical to that of the physical makeup of the Australopithecus afarensis. The only major difference between the two is their cranial capacities (head size). However, the difference in their hat size may not necessarily indicate a different species. For example, J. Miller of the University of Southern California, recently took large samplings of skulls from gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and even human beings. He found that each animal, including the human samples, showed "a range in cranial capacity equal to or greater than that of ‘Homo habilis' -- and nobody doubts that these are single species."70 The point is that cranial capacity within a single species can vary immensely. Therefore, the larger skulled specimens from Olduvai may not represent a new species at all. They may simply be Australopithecine apes with big heads.
if one goes down to the local shopping mall and looks at the heads of those passing by, he can see the differences in the shapes and sizes of the shoppers' heads. Just because a human being has a larger than average head does not make him any less a human being. Why is it so hard to believe that "Homo habilis" samples are Australopithecine with big heads? Just because they have big heads does not make them any less an ape. In a rare moment of honesty, Donald Johanson confesses that "‘Homo habilis' was built much like an Australopithecine in overall body size and limb proportions."71 All fossil remains lead one to believe that "Homo habilis" is not the descendant of Australopithecus. Even in unguarded moments, paleoanthropologists hint that the evidence reveals he is anatomically the same genus and species as Australopithecus.
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record--Lesson 7
What about the "Homo habilis" "tool kit"?
What about the "Olduwan tools" of "Homo habilis"? Do these "tools" prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Homo habilis" was more than just an ape? First of all, one needs to be cautious in referring to chipped and broken pebbles from Olduvai as tools. By looking at the stone "tools" from Olduvai, the average observer would not even recognize them as such. Any archaeologist will tell you that an expert can also be easily fooled into believing that a pebble that appears to have been flint napped into a tool may have simply gained its appearance by natural forces. For example, in many parts of Africa high-level river gravels often contain large numbers of naturally produced, chipped pebbles which can fool experts into believing that they had found an extensive tool industry. In 1958, geologist J.D. Clark demonstrated that this type of flaking can occur naturally when stones fall from the walls of gorges and strike against other rock surfaces. These naturally occurring flaked pebbles are said to belong to the Kafuan type. They were named after the discovery of this phenomenon in beds around the Kafu River in Uganda.65 Keep in mind that the flaked pebbles which anthropologists use as proof that "Homo habilis" created a toolkit were located in an ideal setting for naturally occurring Kafuan flaking. Olduvai is a gorge. If you recall, it is the falling rocks from the walls of gorges that produce Kafuan flaking. Could these so-called "Homo habilis" tools be nothing more than a naturally occurring phenomena? The honest observer would have to say it is a distinct possibility.
Just for the sake of argument, suppose that "Homo habilis" used tools, would this necessarily make him human? As any anthropologist will be quick to point out, chimpanzees use tools. For example, chimpanzees have been known to break off reeds and use them to fish for termites in their mounds.66 One innovative Australian anthropologist even taught an orangutan to use simple stone tools. But perhaps the most surprising research is being done at the Primate Research Laboratory of Emory University. Researchers have taught a 160 pound bonobo chimpanzee named Kanzi to create and use his own stone tools. Kanzi has even developed his own tool making style. He uses his tools to cut cord and to open boxes containing treats.67 Because chimpanzees use tools, are anthropologists and zoologists going to reclassify them as human? Of course not! Then why would one who believes that "Homo habilis" may have used tools necessarily come to the conclusion that he was more than an ape? Primatologist William McGrew of the University of Sterling, and archaeologist Thomas Wynn of the University of Colorado, have suggested that the
cognitive processes of Homo habilis essentially are on par with those of modern apes and the differences that exist are due primarily to ecological, dietary, and technological differences rather than differences in intelligence levels.68
Further studies brought Wynn to the conclusion that "Homo habilis" "did not exhibit any cognitive complexity above that of the African apes."69 This is exactly what the creationists have been trying to get the evolutionists to admit. At least some evolutionists and creationists can agree that "Homo habilis" has no more intelligence than a modern ape. The fact that chimpanzees and orangutans have been known to make and use stone tools supports this claim. The reason "Homo habilis" has no more intelligence than a modern ape is another indication that he is nothing more than an ape. The idea that man evolved from this ape creature is unfounded. However, that which can be reasonably ascertained from these facts is that ancient extinct apes were as intelligent and as resourceful as modern apes. Therefore, instead of this evidence indicating evolutionary change, it indicates that things have remained static. Apes are just as intelligent today as they were when the "Homo habilis" ape roamed the earth.
http://giftofeternallife.org/books_articles/books/facts_fallicies/07.shtml
So, I don't think there's a remainng great difference between Homo Habilis and Austr.and that Homo habilis is not a true evidence for evolution.
Last edited:
tarekabdo12
Active Member
In addition,not only did all australopithecine specimens tested show that these creatures did not walk habitually upright (whereas all the erectus specimens did); when Homo habilis specimen was tested, it was shown to be even less suited to upright walking than both australopithecines and modern-day great apes.
Wieland, 0,1994. New evidence: only people ever walked really upright. CEN Technical Journal, 8(2): 127-128
Shipman, P., 1994. Those ears were made for walking. New Scientist, 143(1936):26-29
Spoor, F., Wood B. and Zonneveld, F., 1994. Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion. Nature, 369:645-648
Wieland, 0,1994. New evidence: only people ever walked really upright. CEN Technical Journal, 8(2): 127-128
Shipman, P., 1994. Those ears were made for walking. New Scientist, 143(1936):26-29
Spoor, F., Wood B. and Zonneveld, F., 1994. Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion. Nature, 369:645-648
tarekabdo12
Active Member
I'm one of them.
I deconverted based on the action of some believers.
Let me explain. I'm a geologist with all the necessary papers. (I had to try the YEC argument from authority, for it does work on some people
For example, they got some "geologist" to do "radiometric" dating on the rocks which formed with the Mount Saint Helens eruption. They got weird, old dates. Now they tell everyone that all radiometric dates are wrong.
What they didn't tell their sheep was that the method they used (in this case K/Ar dating), is not suitable to date any young rock at all. The K/Ar method can't work on young rocks. There's a miriad of very good reasons for this.
YEC's know their methods are inaccurate, but they still sell it as "science" and tell everyone that all "radiometric dates" are wrong. Just lies and deceit. That's all they have.
Now I'm a very proud atheist (some Christians call me a radical atheist, which of course is another lie
you think it's fair to desert religion because some people who follow religions do things bad.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
You can just consider these links if you are interested>>>>>>
The Medical Miracles of the Holy Quran
Embryology and human creation between Quran and science
you can consider a relation between religion and science. Islam carries a relation to scientific findings and it is not at all away from reality or giving irrational ideas.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Apelike Features of the OH 8 Foot Reported by O. J. Lewis (1980)
1. Articulations between the metatarsals "are like the
chimpanzee" (p. 294).
2. Ankle joint surfaces "retain the apelike form" (p. 291).
3. Form of the talus (ankle bone) is like that "seen in the
extant African apes" (p. 291).
4. Disposition of the heel similar to that of gorillas and
chimpanzees (p. 291).
5. Hallux (large toe) capable of being extended sideways, with
some "residual grasping functions" (p. 293).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commenting on the 1964 study by Day and Napier, Lewis (1980,
p. 294) noted that "conservative arboreal features of the tarsus
[ankle] . . . escaped comment." The suggestion that the OH 8
ankle manifested arboreal features is intriguing. It certainly
does not serve the propaganda purposes of evolutionists to have
the public visualizing a supposed human ancestor like Homo
habilis climbing trees with an aboreally adapted foot rather than
walking tall and brave across the African savannahs. When the
owner of the OH 8 foot did walk on the ground, it probably did so
in a chimpanzeelike manner, said Lewis (1980, p. 296).
From Lewis's study of the OH 8 foot, one could therefore
conclude that Homo habilis was much more apelike than most
scientists have tended to believe. The OH 62 discovery supports
this view. Another possible conclusion: the OH 8 foot did not
belong to Homo habilis but to an australopithecine. This view was
favored by Wood (1974b) and Lewis (1980, p. 295). A related
conclusion is that Homo habilis itself was, as Oxnard (1975b)
proposed, simply a variant of Australopithecus. Oxnard, said
Lewis (1980, p. 295), thought "the australopithecines (including
OH 8) were at least partially arboreal primates retaining
efficient climbing capabilities associated with a bipedal
capacity probably of a type no longer seen." Of course, the
proposal that Australopithecus was even partially arboreal defies
the conventional view that this creature was humanlike from the
neck down and walked fully upright on the ground. In Section
11.8, we give a detailed discussion of this issue.
Over the years, scientists have described the OH 8 foot
skeleton as humanlike (Day and Napier 1964), apelike (Lewis
1980), intermediate between human and ape (Day and Wood 1968),
distinct from both human and ape (Oxnard 1972), and orangutanlike
(Lisowski et al. 1974).
This demonstrates once more an important
characteristic of paleoanthropological evidence--it is often
subject to multiple, contradictory interpretations. Partisan
considerations often determine which view prevails at any given
point in time.
sci.anthropology.paleo: May-95: Re: Is this all there is?
So, I think the consideration that OH 8 is a clue about evolution is unreliable as it is full of a lot of controversy. Evolution-supporters try hardly to steal any clue even if not decisive to extol their strange ideas about the origin of the creatures.
1. Articulations between the metatarsals "are like the
chimpanzee" (p. 294).
2. Ankle joint surfaces "retain the apelike form" (p. 291).
3. Form of the talus (ankle bone) is like that "seen in the
extant African apes" (p. 291).
4. Disposition of the heel similar to that of gorillas and
chimpanzees (p. 291).
5. Hallux (large toe) capable of being extended sideways, with
some "residual grasping functions" (p. 293).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commenting on the 1964 study by Day and Napier, Lewis (1980,
p. 294) noted that "conservative arboreal features of the tarsus
[ankle] . . . escaped comment." The suggestion that the OH 8
ankle manifested arboreal features is intriguing. It certainly
does not serve the propaganda purposes of evolutionists to have
the public visualizing a supposed human ancestor like Homo
habilis climbing trees with an aboreally adapted foot rather than
walking tall and brave across the African savannahs. When the
owner of the OH 8 foot did walk on the ground, it probably did so
in a chimpanzeelike manner, said Lewis (1980, p. 296).
From Lewis's study of the OH 8 foot, one could therefore
conclude that Homo habilis was much more apelike than most
scientists have tended to believe. The OH 62 discovery supports
this view. Another possible conclusion: the OH 8 foot did not
belong to Homo habilis but to an australopithecine. This view was
favored by Wood (1974b) and Lewis (1980, p. 295). A related
conclusion is that Homo habilis itself was, as Oxnard (1975b)
proposed, simply a variant of Australopithecus. Oxnard, said
Lewis (1980, p. 295), thought "the australopithecines (including
OH 8) were at least partially arboreal primates retaining
efficient climbing capabilities associated with a bipedal
capacity probably of a type no longer seen." Of course, the
proposal that Australopithecus was even partially arboreal defies
the conventional view that this creature was humanlike from the
neck down and walked fully upright on the ground. In Section
11.8, we give a detailed discussion of this issue.
Over the years, scientists have described the OH 8 foot
skeleton as humanlike (Day and Napier 1964), apelike (Lewis
1980), intermediate between human and ape (Day and Wood 1968),
distinct from both human and ape (Oxnard 1972), and orangutanlike
(Lisowski et al. 1974).
This demonstrates once more an important
characteristic of paleoanthropological evidence--it is often
subject to multiple, contradictory interpretations. Partisan
considerations often determine which view prevails at any given
point in time.
sci.anthropology.paleo: May-95: Re: Is this all there is?
So, I think the consideration that OH 8 is a clue about evolution is unreliable as it is full of a lot of controversy. Evolution-supporters try hardly to steal any clue even if not decisive to extol their strange ideas about the origin of the creatures.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
you need some updated information... the OH8 fossil is exactly what would be expected... a nice mix of human and ape traits. One that while being good at climbing was also just as good at walking on two feet.
ScienceDirect - Journal of Human Evolution : The OH8 foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate analysis
ps... I think the greater problem is that some people pick and choose their data and then present it (however out of date) as gospel.
ScienceDirect - Journal of Human Evolution : The OH8 foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate analysis
wa:do
ps... I think the greater problem is that some people pick and choose their data and then present it (however out of date) as gospel.
No, but it was a starting point for me abandoning religion.
This was just the beginning. I can write a book on my deconversion.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
So what's up to date? why don't you share without me asking you?
tarekabdo12
Active Member
If evolution was a mechanism so how can it explain that there is a delicate balance between species, none is supposed to perpetuate unless the balance is disrupted by outside forces including humans. We see that the larger creatures in a kingdom reproduce with a fewer rate regarding the less dominant ones. This is actually something strange because evolutionary mechanism doesn't explain this. In fact, this is an obvious evident that there is a creator for the whole world who created the balance between different creatures for life to perpetuate. The number of predators and rate of reproduction is balanced with the rate of reproduction of their preys so that none is allowed to predominate. If at any time this balance was disrupted, the creatures would suffer from a great imbalance which would push them to perish. The balance in a delicate pattern clearly suggests that life started in all its aspects at a common point of time which is proven by the Cambrian explosion.