Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

If the creatures were there by evolution their nature would simply would be more diverse than those present now. Suppose that random mutations did put all the creatures in, the result would be multiple forms of the same creature and all are functional yet not optimal. If a creature had one ear it wouldn't die yet this form must be present and abundant. Also, if the creature had a single eye it would also be present and abundant and won't perish and will fill the earth. The unity of the form of creatures actually defies evolutional theory. If it was for evolution many humans would be knuckle walkers ad why not and this wouldn't kill them and still they would remain viable and this form won't perish and with fewer modifications to the hands they'd be able to write and do what humans do and mostly will be more abundant than currently present form of humans. If it was via evolution, humans would have stronger muscles and will be even stronger and faster than lions and why not? The mechanisms that gave them the ability to develop the larger and extremely efficient and intricate brains would simply accord them stronger muscles and larger bodies since they represent the summit of evolution. It isn't plausible that they are weaker than chimps; this is a drawback and a recession in the face of evolution. They should also have stronger canines and sharper and more crunching teeth, of course this is an advantage. Even if they don't use this much this doesn't explain the unity of the loss, as natural selection would favor these characters and at least if not the only form, this form will be still abundant but it's not. If natural selection was the mechanism so why would humans lose their hair still it has advantages and still it should remain a character. If evolution was the mechanism why would all humans have the same anatomy sure it would be functional even if not optimal in many other ways. You see this greatly complicated and organized anatomical. It'd be even impossible to consider a difference between species as the great overlap would hinder so. To end, numerous variations would be present if it was for randomization like many ear, noses, variation in size, shape, number of legs, teeth. Simply, there'd be no system as currently present.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Anywhere you go on the planet, you will come across various different ecosystems, such as forest ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, coral reef ecosystems, and so on. Whichever ecosystem you take into consideration, you will find that there is a very close relationship between the living and non-living community. The inter dependence is so delicate that even the smallest amount of change in any of the participants within an ecosystem would result in changes all the way through the bio network. This is why it is very essential that the balance should be maintained at all times throughout the system.
Natural Balance in the Ecosystems

So, the delicate and intricate nature of the ecosystems is an obstacle in the way of evolution because it proves the whole numbers of creatures with their wide and well-designed diversity must be extant at a single time and in a perfect complete pattern.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Also, regarding the natural balance, it's strange to conclude that via evolution the predators grew to have less progeny compared to their preys despite the fact that many of the preys are less developed along the steps of evolution. This fact actually contradicts evolutionary theory as it's supposed that the more developed hunters are to be with more progeny as why would the steps go backwards. Simply, evolution speaks about creatures in an individual pattern and not in a global manner.

 

[tarekabdo12]

One thing else, I want to say that if evolution went upwards via transitional states, we should find millions of them everywhere and in various diversities. It's even strange that a transitional state extinct as the transitional state is supposed to be more developed than its antecedents so why would its ancestors remain and it perishes while it's supposed to be more adapted to its environment?
It's also wrong to claim that evolution occurred years ago and we can't till now see in front of our eyes transitional states present and appearing as the mechanisms that caused evolution in the past are still operating and if they were so powerful to lead to such current variation so the transitional states would be everywhere and we couldn't determine distinction between species even. In addition, transition would be occurring and increasing everywhere whilst life is going on.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Does natural selection really advocate evolution? I don't think so since it's very complicated to build a complete organ by just random mutations so until the organ is fully functional, there's no natural selection that favors its presence, that's if it doesn't lead to derangement in the nature of the creature from the beginning which would be totally against evolution. You can see that random mutation as a successful mechanism are a phantom since they must occur in the gametes, most of them are destructive, there's a proficient DNA repair system and they organ takes a very long long long long.....time to be perfectly developed in an intricate developed. Moreover, natural selection is also a phantom since during the wide period of time during which a completely different system of the body is developing in an intricate pattern and in a well-adapted creature in its environment that doesn't even need to change its way of living. I hope you'd return to your minds and stop complicating obvious things.

 

[painted wolf]

So what's up to date? why don't you share without me asking you?

Just that it's very telling that your source would cite a study done in 1980 that references (only references, it doesn't do it's own examination) a preliminary study done in 1960's.... When the fossils have been more thoroughly looked at far more recently.

Given the spin they are trying to put on, it only makes sense that they would ignore the more accurate data in favor of something more easily taken out of context.

And I'm sorry but your numerous uncredited quotes show a deep misunderstanding of evolution. Not to mention being rather spammish in application.

For example the repeated trope about "building things solely from random mutations"... this is a gross mischaracterization of evolution as it never states that anything is built solely from anything, random or not. Not to mention the foolishness about "transitional states".

wa:do

 

[tarekabdo12]

Just that it's very telling that your source would cite a study done in 1980 that references (only references, it doesn't do it's own examination) a preliminary study done in 1960's.... When the fossils have been more thoroughly looked at far more recently.

Given the spin they are trying to put on, it only makes sense that they would ignore the more accurate data in favor of something more easily taken out of context.

Is there something contradicting?

 

[tarekabdo12]

And I'm sorry but your numerous uncredited quotes show a deep misunderstanding of evolution. Not to mention being rather spammish in application.

For example the repeated trope about "building things solely from random mutations"... this is a gross mischaracterization of evolution as it never states that anything is built solely from anything, random or not. Not to mention the foolishness about "transitional states".

Give explanations, don't throw allegations

 

[painted wolf]

I already did... I gave you the paper and the entirety of the abstract.

The foot wasn't outside of what was expected, a foot that was ok at climbing but also perfectly fine for walking bipedally.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

So what's up to date?

Wouldn't 1996 be more up to date than 1980?

 

[painted wolf]

Certainly more up to date than the 1960's

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm not arguing, give me what's new to read about if it has any contradicting ideas

She gave you what's new here, and reminded you of the fact that you hadn't bothered to read it here. Pay some ******* attention.

 

[tarekabdo12]

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

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.

sorry, I didn't notice this post.

First, I'd like to know if there is a solid proof that OH 8 belongs to H.habilis. As I know, it was found near OH 7 and they were claimed to have a near age but is there any strong evidence for this linkage? I actually didn't read further about this condition.

Second, the presence of a creature designed for both walking on legs and living in trees doesn't provide a solid proof for evolution. There are some fish that can come out of water and mammals that live in water. Still the mechanisms for random evolution are deficient and not reliable and the creatures on earth have wide variation that advocates God's ability. However, evolution faces many harsh obstacles that it can't pass. The argument is essentially whether evolutionary mechanisms can guard the whole change or not. That's because creation is a more wide idea compared to evolution and can embrace variations in creatures without any problem but evolution is not.

 

[painted wolf]

sorry, I didn't notice this post.

First, I'd like to know if there is a solid proof that OH 8 belongs to H.habilis. As I know, it was found near OH 7 and they were claimed to have a near age but is there any strong evidence for this linkage? I actually didn't read further about this condition.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248410000436
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248404000181
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248496900615

Second, the presence of a creature designed for both walking on legs and living in trees doesn't provide a solid proof for evolution. There are some fish that can come out of water and mammals that live in water. Still the mechanisms for random evolution are deficient and not reliable and the creatures on earth have wide variation that advocates God's ability.

There is no random evolution... and yes, the ability of evolution to produce the wide variety of life on Earth is a strong advocate for God's ability.
If evolution wasn't able to do this, then it would be counter to God's abilities. Like finding out gravity only works on Tuesdays.

However, evolution faces many harsh obstacles that it can't pass.

The only real obstacle is how often people argue against it, without bothering to understand it.

Like insisting that it's random.

The argument is essentially whether evolutionary mechanisms can guard the whole change or not. That's because creation is a more wide idea compared to evolution and can embrace variations in creatures without any problem but evolution is not.

I have no idea what this means.... Creationism's basic point of view is that God can't do anything that the human arguing for it can't understand. Can't understand how natural selection can turn a fin into a foot, then it must be impossible for God to do.
You can imagine God sculpting a foot out of some clay, so therefore that is the way God must have done it.

It's all about telling God what he can or can't do based on personal bias.

wa:do

 

[tarekabdo12]

lady wolf, it seems that I didn't understand your whole point of view because it seems to me that you think in a different way compared to others on this forum. I understand that you think that God did guide the way of the mutations to reach the different varieties of creatures, isn't this true? Please tell me clearly how you think. But, the problem is that if you do admit this pattern so I think evolution won't be considered as a religious belief as it is put here in the forum because it won't affect the presence of God or not. I understand now that you think the mutations are not going on randomly. Even if that is true but I'm not going out of context as the "random" idea is the notion adopted by most of those arguing in this forum and in this current thread and it's the main stem of their belief in atheism. If you notice most of the previous posts you'll find that it's actually true regarding most of who'd argued before. Thanks anyway for being patient.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tarekabdo,

Human footprints dating 1.5 million years ago; doesn't this speak about itself

Footprints show human ancestor with modern stride | Reuters

Not sure what your point is here.

which fossils? As far as I know, the OH 7 shows a U-shaped(ape-like) jaw

Again, stop focusing on one single trait in one single specimen. As I posted and as we agreed earlier, it's the mosaic of primitive and human-like traits that indicate evolutionary change over time. OH 7 has a hand that is very similar to modern humans, yet with more primitive-type fingers and thumb. It also has more modern-like teeth.

IOW, a mixture of more modern-like and primitive traits, exactly what you agreed we should expect to see if humans and primates shared a common ancestry.

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.

Again, you're ignoring the bigger picture. The older habilus specimens overlap australopithecines, whereas the later ones overlap erectus. And the other traits (teeth, face, hands, feet) continue the evolutionary trend towards modern humans.

And now we get into your spam....er....copy and pastes....

the anatomical makeup of the "Homo habilis" is identical to that of the physical makeup of the Australopithecus afarensis

Except it's not, as we've been discussing. The teeth, hands, feet, and face are more modern-like and the cranial capacities are larger (especially in the later specimens). So right off the bat, the source you copied from is wrong.

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.

Your source makes the exact same mistake you do, i.e. focusing on one single trait and ignoring all the others.

You know what Tarekabdo? If all you're going to do is respond to my posts with copy and pastes from creationist websites, then I see no point in continuing. If I wanted to debate Harun Yahya and "giftofeternallife.org", then I would contact them and debate them. I was hoping to discuss this with you, but it's obvious that's not going to happen. Apparently after reading my posts, you simply go straight to Google and just copy whatever you can find.

You also ignored post #342.

All I can say is, if you truly think the empty and demonstrably false arguments of creationist websites are superior to published scientific articles and the consensus view of the entire professional community, there's probably not much I can do for you. There's an almost infinite number of creationist websites out there you can copy from, and they'll all tell you generally the same thing, "Evolution is wrong and God created everything", yet for some strange reason not one of them has managed to convince a single scientific organization.

Tell me, why do you think that is? Why do you think not one of these creationist websites has ever submitted their material to the journals Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science?

 

[painted wolf]

lady wolf, it seems that I didn't understand your whole point of view because it seems to me that you think in a different way compared to others on this forum. I understand that you think that God did guide the way of the mutations to reach the different varieties of creatures, isn't this true? Please tell me clearly how you think.

Very roughly stated... I think that Evolution is the means God uses to create living things. Just like Nuclear Fusion in the Sun is the means God uses to create light.

But, the problem is that if you do admit this pattern so I think evolution won't be considered as a religious belief as it is put here in the forum because it won't affect the presence of God or not.

Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. Nor does any other scientific theory.
Like all scientific theories it is not religious.

I understand now that you think the mutations are not going on randomly.

Depends on what you mean by this... The fact that mutations happen is not random, it's the result of basic chemistry when you copy RNA/DNA.
The exact nature of those mutations are random, we can not predict the type of mutation or its results.

['quote] Even if that is true but I'm not going out of context as the "random" idea is the notion adopted by most of those arguing in this forum and in this current thread and it's the main stem of their belief in atheism. If you notice most of the previous posts you'll find that it's actually true regarding most of who'd argued before. Thanks anyway for being patient.[/quote] Anytime

Let me try to sum up the two most important parts of how evolution works.
Mutations are random... but the selective pressure that determines what mutations will and won't be successful are not random. It's not random that animals that live in the Arctic have ways to deal with the cold.

Going back to the sun analogy, the movement of individual atoms in the sun is totally random, but what happens when they hit one another isn't. You need both the random and the non-random to get light.

You need the random (mutations) and the non-random (natural selection) to get evolution.

When you see the sun, you marvel at God's work giving us light... you don't curse nuclear physics for explaining how it works or dismiss it as Atheist propaganda. Evolution is the same... it is the marvel of creation, made all the more wonderful by the fact that God left the evidence of it here for us to study.

wa:do

 

[otokage007]

You are totally wrong you little bad boy. God made the MAN to his own image, so you should been asking why WOMEN have nipples.

 

[tarekabdo12]

It appears that the ancient Egyptains also did think about evolution but they'd a different concept from that present currently.It's clear that they thought humans evolved from cats rather than apes.

 

[tarekabdo12]

You are totally wrong you little bad boy. God made the MAN to his own image, so you should been asking why WOMEN have nipples.

No, why would God have nipples? God's entity is something that our minds can't grasp& we shouldn't think that we are like Him at all.