Why do men have nipples?

[painted wolf]

All embryos start as "female".

wa:do

 

[KittensAngel]

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?

An especially relevant question considering Bible God created man first and in his divine image and likeness.
Which would mean God had nipples first.

OK, that's a Monday morning before the tea, visual.

Otherwise, I think the answer is 42. Or, just so that television censors could go nuts pixeling those men who go shirtless but have manboobs behind the nips, so that they look like exposed women and as such are made blurry because the American viewing audience is presumed unable to handle such a sight that may tend to confuse the children. ("Mommy? Why is daddies boobies larger than yours?")

 

[Jose Fly]

An especially relevant question considering Bible God created man first and in his divine image and likeness.
Which would mean God had nipples first.

There ya' go...Adam's nipples were the prototype and before he created Eve, Biblegod thought to himself, "Those little round things are nice, but they just need to have something behind them to set them off. Maybe something round...." :yes:

 

[FDRC2014]

All embryos start as "female".

Yes, i know this. But this doesn't explain why god gives us nipples or rudimentary teeth?

 

[KittensAngel]

There ya' go...Adam's nipples were the prototype and before he created Eve, Biblegod thought to himself, "Those little round things are nice, but they just need to have something behind them to set them off. Maybe something round...." :yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, i know this. But this doesn't explain why god gives us nipples or rudimentary teeth?

... because God wanted to ....

 

[waitasec]

All embryos start as "female".

wa:do

that's an interesting point...
contradicts the idea that men were created first...

 

[FDRC2014]

... because God wanted to ....

This is not an answer to why.
For example, the answer to why there is thunder, isn't 'because the clouds want to'.
Another example is answering an exam question, say why does drug A affect receptor B, i can't just put 'because drug A wants to'.

This is just restating the problem, as i can reply with the question, why?

 

[FDRC2014]

that's an interesting point...
contradicts the idea that men were created first...

It contradicts the idea that we were created, period.

Why would god (as well illustrated by KittensAngel), add nipples to men, if really they are not needed.

 

[FDRC2014]

Does anyone else get this feeling?
I'm playing along here with the idea of God. But do you not get the feeling it would be much simple just accepting evolution (obviously aimed at those who don't).
It seems that if I pose i problem, you just make up an answer.
Just accept the logical answer, that is so so simple.

 

[Gunfingers]

No, you are correct, the prescence of unnecessary homologies is one of the main reasons why universal common ancestry is accepted rather than the "creationist orchard".

 

[waitasec]

It contradicts the idea that we were created, period.

Why would god (as well illustrated by KittensAngel), add nipples to men, if really they are not needed.

good question...
i was just having fun...my sarcastic meter isn't functioning it seems....

 

[horizon_mj1]

I see many people have had a stab at a scientific reason for men having nipples, which is likely to be true. But this still doesn't explain why god gave them them.

So scientist would have a way to explain how things work (?). Is this the type of answer you are looking for? So that the anatomy of our bodies can work properly with each other(?). Some questions have more than one answer.

 

[FDRC2014]

So scientist would have a way to explain how things work (?).

You can produce a logical hypothesis for everything.

Is this the type of answer you are looking for? So that the anatomy of our bodies can work properly with each other(?). Some questions have more than one answer.

Our anatomy can work with each other? Im confused what you are getting at here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is not an answer to why.
For example, the answer to why there is thunder, isn't 'because the clouds want to'.
Another example is answering an exam question, say why does drug A affect receptor B, i can't just put 'because drug A wants to'.

This is just restating the problem, as i can reply with the question, why?

Of course it is. Why? Because God wanted to.

You can always continue to ask the question, why, no matter what the answer.

And the answer can simply be repeated, just like to any other three year old.

 

[tarekabdo12]

The mammary gland develop from a band like thickening called the mammary line appearing on each side of the trunk from the base of the forelimb till the region of the hind limb. Most of it disappears and only appear persists in the thorax giving the nipple and breast.

Accessory nipples may persist at any site along the ridge, however, accessory nipples may persist in areas as arms, legs, and on the back which are areas where no breast grows in animals -which proves that it has no relation to do with evolution.

Nipples in men were found to be sensitive just as female nipples and are involved in sexual stimulation.

In addition, Nipples in the chest have a cosmetic effect ( imagine a man without nipples I think he'd less attractive than a man without), however everybody has his own sense.

So they have a function as it appears.

You may also point to the presence of appendix and it's functions. Actually the appendix is involved in the immunity and has a function just like the tonsils. Below it's mucosa lies a lymphoid tissue aggregation which is very important in antigen identification and presentation.

You may also point to the presence of the round ligament of the uterus and other rudimentary sexual parts. The development of the sexual organs starts from common cells, however, the production of testosterone doesn't occur until the eight week of gestation which guides the development of sexual organs. and I don't know what's the relation of this to evolution?!!!!

 

[tarekabdo12]

I'd like to ask a few questions :

1- Don't you think that the complementarity of the sexual organs in a great design and fashion doesn't confirm creation? If chance created a body- as some may some- can it create a complete complementary design in such way? Does this make sense?

2-How can chance explain that certain cells during embryonic development respond positively to testosterone and others -in female- respond negatively? Did chance also create such development and such complicated and steroid receptors as well as putting these receptors in certain cells only to be affected by this hormone and these receptors aren't present in cells that have no relation to sex characters?

3-How can chance explain the diversity of cells in the body with each cell choosing the genes it needs to express ad produce proteins that it need to do it's specific function within the organ it lies in and doesn't translate other proteins -not needed for it's functions- inspite of the presence of the same enzymes involved in transcription and translation of the DA in all cells?

 

[tarekabdo12]

I'd like to ask a few questions :

1- Don't you think that the complementarity of the sexual organs in a great design and fashion doesn't confirm creation? If chance created a body- as some may some- can it create a complete complementary design in such way? Does this make sense?

2-How can chance explain that certain cells during embryonic development respond positively to testosterone and others -in female- respond negatively? Did chance also create such development and such complicated and steroid receptors as well as putting these receptors in certain cells only to be affected by this hormone and these receptors aren't present in cells that have no relation to sex characters?

3-How can chance explain the diversity of cells in the body with each cell choosing the genes it needs to express ad produce proteins that it need to do it's specific function within the organ it lies in and doesn't translate other proteins -not needed for it's functions- inspite of the presence of the same enzymes involved in transcription and translation of the DNA in all cells?

 

[waitasec]

stop calling it chance...

 

[Jose Fly]

1- Don't you think that the complementarity of the sexual organs in a great design and fashion doesn't confirm creation? If chance created a body- as some may some- can it create a complete complementary design in such way? Does this make sense?

It's easy when you limit your consideration to only the "happy" examples. But if you look throughout biology, you find all sorts of less than ideal, and at times, truly horrible ways that organisms breed. Look into the breeding habits of bedbugs and hyenas for example. Do you look at those and say, "Awwww...how beautiful. The Designer is wonderful"?

2-How can chance explain that certain cells during embryonic development respond positively to testosterone and others -in female- respond negatively? Did chance also create such development and such complicated and steroid receptors as well as putting these receptors in certain cells only to be affected by this hormone and these receptors aren't present in cells that have no relation to sex characters?

3-How can chance explain the diversity of cells in the body with each cell choosing the genes it needs to express ad produce proteins that it need to do it's specific function within the organ it lies in and doesn't translate other proteins -not needed for it's functions- inspite of the presence of the same enzymes involved in transcription and translation of the DNA in all cells?

And there's the rest of the problem. You're obviously thinking that evolution is random and proceeds "by chance". Certainly mutations occur randomly, but they are then passed through natural selection, which acts as sort of a filter. So, the overall process itself is not "by chance".