Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

Tarekabdo,


Not sure what your point is here.

some Habilis fossils are just 1.6 million years ago.

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.

You are comparing according to shape not function. The functional formation was to promote ape-like pattern of life, living in trues. Still it's not explained why it would develop broad fingers as natural selection can't favor something that is not significant before some charachter that is ery important in the functional transition particularly the orientation of the hands.


The OH 7 hand is wide, with a large thumb and broad fingertips, similar to that of humans; however, unlike in humans the fingers are relatively long and exhibit chimpanzee-like curvature. Furthermore, the thumb's orientation relative to the other fingers resembles the anatomy of great apes
OH 7 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The similarity is just in being larger and broader which means nothing and it's fake to claim that this proves any sort of transition. If apes are compared to each others, some may be found to have a more human-like shape.

Modern-like teeth is I think smaller so why would natural selection favor smaller teeth so that creatures having larger teeth perish and only smaller teeth remain. This is something strange.

Wolpoff describes KNM-ER 1813 as ‘very similar to, really indistinguishable from, early H. sapiens in its teeth and frontofacial architecture (except for its narrow mid-face) but has a much smaller brain size

Wolpoff, ref. 2, p. 373

Thus, that similarity is what you use to to put it as a different species.

OH 7 seems so ape-like to assume evolution.

OH 24 (AKA "Twiggy") is a roughly deformed cranium dating 1.8 million years old, discovered in October 1968, at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania by Peter Nzube. It was found in a very fractured state, cemented in limestone rock, and had to be reconstructed, but over 100 small fragments could not be assigned a location in the reconstruction (Kreger 2005)
Homo habilis - New World Encyclopedia

so, it was distorted and destroyed and 100 fragments added so how to depend upon it for delicate information?


KMN-ER 1813

It's controversial whether it belongs to erectus or Habilis as cited before.



OH 62

The most startling aspect of OH 62 became evident when body proportions were calculated for the upper and lower limbs. Fairly accurate estimates of total limb length for the humerus and the femur, both incomplete, could be calculated. The humerfemoral index of 95 percent indicated that the humerus was 95 percent the length of the femur: a very long arm. In modern humans this index is roughly 70 percent, while in a quadruped like a chimpanzee it is 100 percent.

If H. habilis was to be considered an ancestor to H. ergaster/erectus at 1.6 million years old, then not only would body size have to increase rather considerably, but the relationship between upper and lower limbs would also have to change dramatically. All this would have to occur over a mere 200,000 years of time.

Also, it doesn't show hands or feet that are similar to that of humans.

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.

Is this according to the age of the fossils or is it your mere assumption. The fossils with older characters must bear older ages. Is that true?

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 are right, I shouldn't do so. I should illustrate what I understood so I apologize and I also ignored Haroun Yehia a time ago.

You also ignored post #342.

Didn't have time, I'll go back to it soon.

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?

The whole western world is devoted to prove evolution by any means even with lies while it appears greatly illogical and those scientists work in a way that the main goal of their jobs is to prove it's true because it's what gives their job a meaning. In addition, science doesn't cancel minds as it's changeable.

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Dr. Waddington recognizes a trend or tendency in evolutionary changes; so do I. Now, when statesmen control human affairs so that they move towards a definite end, we say that a policy is being pursued. Do not the trends and tendencies we note in evolutionary changes represent a policy, although no council meeting has been held and no written draft ever prepared? I hold that the factors which control evolutionary events are so regulated as to produce automatically the direction of change, giving all the appearance of a devised policy. Mr. Robertson and I agree that man has been evolved, but whereas he regards man's evolution as a result of chance, I see in it the successful result of a trend or policy which affected progressively the development and equipment of the human brain. The brain, from being an instrument fit for anthropoids, passed on to a state in which the range of feeling, understanding, and of manipulative skill, became fit for men. To ask me to believe that the evolution of man has been determined by a series of chance events is to invite me to give credit to what is biologically unbelievable."
(Keith, Sir Arthur. [British anthropologist and leading Darwinist], "Replies to Critics," in "Essays on Human Evolution," [1946], Watts & Co: London, Third Impression, 1947, p.217)

This is exactly what those whom I personally know to promote evolution say. Evolution may be true, it's still a debate and a field of research but chance as a means is impossible, it must be a deliberate design.
[/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

I just want to say that I too believe in evolution but from a different perspective. I think that similar creatures had a common ancestors, all cats had a common ancestors as well as primates but the change didn't occur gradually by random mutations but rather God created an original structure that shared common characters and then formulated it into different species and creatures with different ways of life. Common ancestors are very near possibility manifested by the sharing of organs between closely-related creatures but random mutations seems to be a phantom notion.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

To play with of course

 

[tarekabdo12]

Another problem facing random evolution is that the DNA-as far as I know- doesn't code for protein orientation but only for the protein structure. So how does the proteins orient to form a different creatures?If mutations are to occur they'd change the structural built of the proteins but not their orientation into humans or apes. That's because DNA is formed of basses but these bases can't guide cells during embryonic development to go here or there or to divide till a certain level and in a certain pattern. It can't guide bones to take a certain shape. Does anybody knows more regarding this issue?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The whole western world is devoted to prove evolution by any means even with lies while it appears greatly illogical and those scientists work in a way that the main goal of their jobs is to prove it's true because it's what gives their job a meaning. In addition, science doesn't cancel minds as it's changeable.

:biglaugh:....The creationist rationale is an amusing thing to behold....

 

[Me Myself]

To play with of course

I personally enjoy doing so.

Thanks God

 

[sadiq]

:biglaugh:....The creationist rationale is an amusing thing to behold....

And yet you do nothing to refute his claim other than a laughing emoticon.

 

[painted wolf]

Another problem facing random evolution is that the DNA-as far as I know- doesn't code for protein orientation but only for the protein structure. So how does the proteins orient to form a different creatures?If mutations are to occur they'd change the structural built of the proteins but not their orientation into humans or apes. That's because DNA is formed of basses but these bases can't guide cells during embryonic development to go here or there or to divide till a certain level and in a certain pattern. It can't guide bones to take a certain shape. Does anybody knows more regarding this issue?

HOX genes and the genes that work with them do that. It's a change in expression of HOX genes that cause people to be born with everything from missing limbs to extra digits, tails and cleft palates.

DNA does more than just code for proteins.

wa:do

ps... why would you doubt the existence of random mutations when we can see them happen everyday?

 

[idav]

Another problem facing random evolution is that the DNA-as far as I know- doesn't code for protein orientation but only for the protein structure. So how does the proteins orient to form a different creatures?If mutations are to occur they'd change the structural built of the proteins but not their orientation into humans or apes. That's because DNA is formed of basses but these bases can't guide cells during embryonic development to go here or there or to divide till a certain level and in a certain pattern. It can't guide bones to take a certain shape. Does anybody knows more regarding this issue?

Well it is a bit tricky without having the source code but basically yes, it does guide bones to take a certain shape. One example would be the code getting stuck in a loop being copied to many times which ends up making the bone structure of arm longer than it would have been originally. The thing is we can't always be sure what change will happen by giving it a different sequence but we are getting there and mapping out what we can. Slight shifts of body structure are easily explainable.

 

[idav]

And yet you do nothing to refute his claim other than a laughing emoticon.

It's a conspiracy I tell you1!! It isn't working for the US though we are ignorant for the most part about evolution but those sneaky scientists already got a hold of Europe!!!!

 

[Me Myself]

Men have nipples so God can be silent about it when we ask him.

 

[tarekabdo12]

HOX genes and the genes that work with them do that. It's a change in expression of HOX genes that cause people to be born with everything from missing limbs to extra digits, tails and cleft palates.

I searched about them and that's true but I found that they are similar in nearly all organisms so they can't account for different patterns in different creatures.I'm just interested to know more about them. Any way, Is that true?



General purpose” control genes are important elements in building complicated organisms like flies. Some “control” genes are common to many organisms (they are homologous—inherited from our common ancestor). For example, Hox genes help lay out the basic body forms of many animals, including humans, flies, and worms. They set up the head-to-tail organization. You can think of them as directing instructions as an embryo develops: “Put the head here! Legs go over there!”

They are general purpose in the sense that they are similar in many organisms; it doesn’t matter if it’s a mouse’s head or a fly’s head that is being built, the same gene directs the process. Small changes in such powerful regulatory genes, or changes in the genes turned on by them, could represent a major source of evolutionary change.

Evolution 101: Understanding Complexity

ps... why would you doubt the existence of random mutations when we can see them happen everyday?

I don't of course, I only doubt their ability to perpetrate major transformation in a creature.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Well it is a bit tricky without having the source code but basically yes, it does guide bones to take a certain shape. One example would be the code getting stuck in a loop being copied to many times which ends up making the bone structure of arm longer than it would have been originally. The thing is we can't always be sure what change will happen by giving it a different sequence but we are getting there and mapping out what we can. Slight shifts of body structure are easily explainable.

I mean the fine differences like size of supraorbital ridges, facial profile, the shape of fingers and even the finger print.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tarekabdo,

Your post #381 reflects exactly what you and I agreed should be present in the fossil record if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates. You jump back and forth between pointing out that habilis specimens have "ape like" and human-like characteristics.

For instance, you say "The functional formation was to promote ape-like pattern of life", yet habilis was an upright walker. So a species that walked upright but still retained some of its traits for living in trees? Sounds "transitional" to me.

Then you copy, "The OH 7 hand is wide, with a large thumb and broad fingertips, similar to that of humans; however, unlike in humans the fingers are relatively long and exhibit chimpanzee-like curvature. Furthermore, the thumb's orientation relative to the other fingers resembles the anatomy of great apes". Again, a mixture of primitive ape-like characteristics with more modern human-like, which is exactly what you and I agreed should be present under evolutionary common ancestry.

Your only response is, "The similarity is just in being larger and broader which means nothing and it's fake to claim that this proves any sort of transition". Except that's not really any sort of rebuttal to the data. That's just "It's all fake" with no substance behind it.

Modern-like teeth is I think smaller so why would natural selection favor smaller teeth so that creatures having larger teeth perish and only smaller teeth remain. This is something strange.

It reflects a change in diet, as our ancestors shifted to foods that were easier to chew and digest.

Wolpoff describes KNM-ER 1813 as ‘very similar to, really indistinguishable from, early H. sapiens in its teeth and frontofacial architecture (except for its narrow mid-face) but has a much smaller brain size

Wolpoff, ref. 2, p. 373

Thus, that similarity is what you use to to put it as a different species.

Ah, so now habilis is more similar to modern humans? Just earlier you were trying to argue that it still lived in the trees and was more primitive. Again, the fact that habilis shows a mixture of modern human-like and primitive ape-like characteristics is exactly what you and I agreed is expected under human/primate shared ancestry.

If H. habilis was to be considered an ancestor to H. ergaster/erectus at 1.6 million years old, then not only would body size have to increase rather considerably, but the relationship between upper and lower limbs would also have to change dramatically. All this would have to occur over a mere 200,000 years of time.

Not all specimens are the same across the entire timeline. More recent habilis specimens are more similar to earlier erectus than older habilis specimens are, as evidenced by your earlier statement about KMN-ER 1813, "It's controversial whether it belongs to erectus or Habilis as cited before." So younger habilis specimens are difficult to distinguish from older erectus...exactly what we would expect.

Is this according to the age of the fossils or is it your mere assumption. The fossils with older characters must bear older ages. Is that true?

The dates of the fossils are determined by radiometric dating techniques.

The whole western world is devoted to prove evolution by any means even with lies while it appears greatly illogical and those scientists work in a way that the main goal of their jobs is to prove it's true because it's what gives their job a meaning. In addition, science doesn't cancel minds as it's changeable.

Again, that's not really a rebuttal to the data, but is nothing more than an accusation of "It's all lies" with absolutely no substance behind it.

Remember, you agreed that if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates, then we would expect to see fossil specimens with a mixture of modern human-like and primitive ape-like traits, and that as we move forward in time the specimens should be more modern-like than their predecessors. When we discussed australopithecines, you kept arguing that they were just primitive apes, but now that we've moved into habilis you're jumping back and forth between arguing that it's like a primitive ape and that it's like a human. And I'm sure once we get to erectus, you'll argue that they were just modern humans, right?

But consider that trend in your own argumentation. It's exactly what you agreed to if humans and other primates shared a common ancestry. IOW, whether you realize it or not, your arguments are making my case for me.

 

[idav]

I mean the fine differences like size of supraorbital ridges, facial profile, the shape of fingers and even the finger print.

Yes all that is covered under what I said. Why wouldn't it be? DNA covers your whole body structure down the fine details.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And yet you do nothing to refute his claim other than a laughing emoticon.

I laugh because no matter how many times I or others post info that contradicts current creationist understanding they'll come back with more....(well, what about this or what about that)....

Look, it's not that one set of primates may not be related to another because someone is thinking they're some sort of authority on morphology. The fact of the matter is we all are related...the human primate and non-human primates. We are all primates.

 

[camanintx]

I searched about them and that's true but I found that they are similar in nearly all organisms so they can't account for different patterns in different creatures.I'm just interested to know more about them. Any way, Is that true?



General purpose” control genes are important elements in building complicated organisms like flies. Some “control” genes are common to many organisms (they are homologous—inherited from our common ancestor). For example, Hox genes help lay out the basic body forms of many animals, including humans, flies, and worms. They set up the head-to-tail organization. You can think of them as directing instructions as an embryo develops: “Put the head here! Legs go over there!”

They are general purpose in the sense that they are similar in many organisms; it doesn’t matter if it’s a mouse’s head or a fly’s head that is being built, the same gene directs the process. Small changes in such powerful regulatory genes, or changes in the genes turned on by them, could represent a major source of evolutionary change.

Evolution 101: Understanding Complexity

I don't think you fully understand your own sources. If the same HOX genes working on mouse and fly DNA can produce such radically different body parts, how can they not account for different patterns in different creatures?

 

[tarekabdo12]

I don't think you fully understand your own sources. If the same HOX genes working on mouse and fly DNA can produce such radically different body parts, how can they not account for different patterns in different creatures?

I can't grasp your point, I meant it doesn't determine different between creatures. Since it orients the same body parts in different creatures in the same position so nothing new-as far as I know of course-.

 

[painted wolf]

Because it isn't just the HOX genes.... like I said, it's the HOX and other genes that interact with them. It even says so in your quoted material.

HOX controls the basic shape, individual fly or mouse genes then add the particular mouse and fly bits that they control. Another set of genes controls when and where the HOX genes turn on and off and what bits they, in turn, are controlling.

This is basic medicine here... this is why we don't let mothers near certain chemicals or eat certain plants.... because it interferes with way these genes switch on and off.

wa:do