Why do men have nipples?

[Guitar's Cry]

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?

For some guys they are a powerful erogenous zone. So one answer is to play with them.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Tarekabdo,

By the way, my name is Tarek only.

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.

Yes, it is but it doesn't point to functional change.

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

OK, but there's no explanation that an additional trait is lost because just there is a change in dietary food was easier to chew as the creature can also chew hrad material as this trait is a good one even if and why did transitional hominids eat food easier to chew? Apes eat leaves,fruits and meat but I don't think there's something easier to chew that this except if they cooked which is incredible.

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.

This fossil is not dated far away in time from other Habilis fossils to say so, and also you can't say that it's Habilis not Erectus if it's so similar.

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

I know, I meant that to say so you must relate the fossil characters to their assumed ages so that older fossils gave more primitive traits and vice versa.

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.

I didn't say so and I didn't use this to refute any evolutionist claims as a matter of reasining but I'm pointing to the fact that you are trying as a community to prove evolution by any way as if it is a dogma and it's not. As stated before during the current converstion, evolution doesn't efface religion.

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.

We will continue, we haven't finished yet.

 

[tarekabdo12]

For some guys they are a powerful erogenous zone. So one answer is to play with them.

I stated this before and it's scientifically true. Nipples are sensitive in both males and females.

 

[tarekabdo12]

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

so You mean that the DNA contains a map for all these fine and subtle details and a direction to where each tendon, artery, vein, capillary, bone, muscle is oriented. Is that really true? So if you assume this is true so hoe can the dividing cells during embryonic development correlate between each others while every cell is forming a body part independently?

 

[tarekabdo12]

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

How is that?

 

[tarekabdo12]

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.

Of course we are and I said so before but this is not the point of the argument.

 

[idav]

so You mean that the DNA contains a map for all these fine and subtle details and a direction to where each tendon, artery, vein, capillary, bone, muscle is oriented. Is that really true? So if you assume this is true so hoe can the dividing cells during embryonic development correlate between each others while every cell is forming a body part independently?

Because DNA contains instructions for the whole body structure down to the fine details. Each cell contains this genetic information and every cell that forms has a different job requiring communication with other specific cells. These cells are able to replicate themselves (which is important for healing). All these connections develop in stages in the embryo as cells replicate themselves based on the hereditary material.

How is that?

Cause everything in your body is organic, even bones.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, it is but it doesn't point to functional change.

That's a secondary question. The fact is, parts of the hand and fingers are primitive ape-like, and other parts are more modern human-like. The most likely explanation is that they're indicative of a transition from an arboreal lifestyle to one on the ground.

OK, but there's no explanation that an additional trait is lost because just there is a change in dietary food was easier to chew as the creature can also chew hrad material as this trait is a good one even if and why did transitional hominids eat food easier to chew? Apes eat leaves,fruits and meat but I don't think there's something easier to chew that this except if they cooked which is incredible.

Same thing. Exactly why the transition took place is an interesting question, but it's based on the fact that the transition occurred. If you're interested, here are a couple of papers on the subject:

Diet and the evolution of the earliest human ancestors

ScienceDirect - Journal of Human Evolution : Tooth microwear and dietary patterns in early hominids from Laetoli, Hadar and Olduvai

South African Journal of Science - Isotopic evidence for contrasting diets of early hominins Homo habilis and Australopithecus boisei of Tanzania

This fossil is not dated far away in time from other Habilis fossils to say so,

In the timeline for habilis specimens, OH 7 is a later fossil. Habilis range from 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago, and OH 7 is 1.7 MY old, putting it in the latter part of habilis' existence.

and also you can't say that it's Habilis not Erectus if it's so similar.

And that's the entire point. Later habilis specimens are difficult to distinguish from early erectus specimens, exactly what we would expect under an evolutionary history.

I know, I meant that to say so you must relate the fossil characters to their assumed ages so that older fossils gave more primitive traits and vice versa.

Except that's not what happens at all. The ages are not "assumed" but are determined via radiometric dating. The fact that the older fossils are generally more primitive than the younger ones is what we find, not anything that's "assumed".

I'm pointing to the fact that you are trying as a community to prove evolution by any way as if it is a dogma and it's not.

We don't need to do anything of the sort. The evidence is there and it's exactly what we would expect if humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates.

 

[painted wolf]

so You mean that the DNA contains a map for all these fine and subtle details and a direction to where each tendon, artery, vein, capillary, bone, muscle is oriented. Is that really true? So if you assume this is true so hoe can the dividing cells during embryonic development correlate between each others while every cell is forming a body part independently?

Every cell isn't forming or developing independently...

This is basic embryology.... which is pretty well studied medicine.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

so You mean that the DNA contains a map for all these fine and subtle details and a direction to where each tendon, artery, vein, capillary, bone, muscle is oriented. Is that really true? So if you assume this is true so hoe can the dividing cells during embryonic development correlate between each others while every cell is forming a body part independently?

So you not only have a problem with evolution but you don't understand embryology either. Didn't you say you were a medical student?

 

[tarekabdo12]

So you not only have a problem with evolution but you don't understand embryology either. Didn't you say you were a medical student?

Induction

One of the significant questions that early developmental biologists sought to answer was how cell individuation occurs. Almost every cell in the body contains the exact same DNA as every other cell, as they all are derived from the initial zygotic cell. So how is it that some cells become cardiac cells and others become skin cells?
One explanation offered for this question is termed induction, the process whereby the development of a cell, or the fate of a group of cells, is influenced by neighboring cells.
The early development of an egg is influenced by the mother. When an egg is first fertilized, its cytoplasm contains lots of the mother’s RNA and proteins. In fact, the fertilized egg does not actually start to transcribe its own DNA until the blastula contains about 4,000 cells. The mother’s RNA and proteins are not dispersed homogenously throughout the egg’s cytoplasm. Instead, they form gradients, so that each section of the egg has a particular selection and quantity of the mother’s RNA and proteins. This is called the maternal effect.
When cleavage events occur, different groups of cells in the blastula are exposed to different environments from one another. The different environments consist of different selections and quantities of the mother’s RNA and proteins. The mother’s RNA and proteins act as signals for the cells, telling the cells which genes to turn on or off. Thus, because different cells will receive different signals, they will develop differently via cell-intrinsic signals and will produce individual signals of their own.
Induction is held to occur when a cell produces a certain signal, for example, by emitting a protein. The protein may diffuse around the cell source. Cells that are closely neighboring the source will receive lots of the signal, while more distant cells will receive less or none of the signal. Therefore, cells will develop different characteristics and functions depending on their relative location to other cells, and thus their individual cell-cell interactions.
Although the phenomena of induction provides insights into how cells individually differentiate into diverse structures, a comprehensive understanding of this process, from an individual egg cell to particular organs, lacks consensus.


Notably, some developmental biologists question an underlying assumption of embryonic development that genes ultimately direct the changes, maintaining that the genetic matter only determines which proteins can be produced, but not the form of the organisms (Wells 1997).

Embryology - New World Encyclopedia



It's still very complicated-as far as I know-. If somebody know exactly how cells differentiate I'd be glad to know but I don't know more and I'd be happy to learn.

 

[painted wolf]

You're learning embryology from the New World Encyclopedia.... ?

Mechanism That Triggers Differentiation Of Embryo Cells Discovered

wa:do

 

[idav]

Notably, some developmental biologists question an underlying assumption of embryonic development that genes ultimately direct the changes, maintaining that the genetic matter only determines which proteins can be produced, but not the form of the organisms (Wells 1997).

Embryology - New World Encyclopedia



It's still very complicated-as far as I know-. If somebody know exactly how cells differentiate I'd be glad to know but I don't know more and I'd be happy to learn.

That is old school around the time we were mapping our entire genome.

As I pointed out earlier every cell contains all the genetic material. As Painted Wolf pointed out from the article, the cells simply activate a certain sets of those genes. In theory any cell can become any part we need in our body. And cells don't just become tissue or blood. Bones are cells too, just like our entire biological body, otherwise we could never grow or heal our bones.

 

[tarekabdo12]

You're learning embryology from the New World Encyclopedia.... ?

Mechanism That Triggers Differentiation Of Embryo Cells Discovered

wa:do

You are right and I'm wrong and as I said before I'm glad to know more so the DNA controls embryonic development but this adds to the complexity mutations must overcome during transition and didn't change anything.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Mr. Jose what do you think about this? Doesn't it appear to be more human-like?

Fossilized remains of mankind estimated at 6 million years old


"It is at least 6 million years old, which means it is older than the (previously oldest) remains found at Aramis in Ethiopia, which were 4.5 million years old."

A thick right humerus bone from the upper arm suggests it also had tree-climbing skills, but probably not enough to "hang" from tree branches or swing limb to limb.

The length of the bones show the creature was about the size of a modern chimpanzee, according to Brigitte Senut, a team member from the Museum of Natural History in Paris.

But it is the teeth and jaw structure which most clearly link Millennium Man to the modern human.

It has small canines and full molars - similar dentition to modern man and suggesting a diet of mainly fruit and vegetables with occasional opportunistic meat-eating.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news230.htm

It appears rather that they are humans, Is't it?
The jaws as they see is very human-like as well as other structures.

 

[tarekabdo12]

That is old school around the time we were mapping our entire genome.

As I pointed out earlier every cell contains all the genetic material. As Painted Wolf pointed out from the article, the cells simply activate a certain sets of those genes. In theory any cell can become any part we need in our body. And cells don't just become tissue or blood. Bones are cells too, just like our entire biological body, otherwise we could never grow or heal our bones.

Yes, she appears to be right. Pardon me but we are also learning not only debating.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Sorry if I'm late but I'm really busy during the current time as my final examinations are so near and I don't have time, I think I'll stop posting for the next 2 months and continue later after I finish because the forum consumes much time and effort as well as being addictive.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Mr.Jose, it appears that this creature is so ancient for the beginning of evolution and so well developed as regards human similarity so how do you interpret it?

Missing link found? Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae

Missing link found? Scientists unveil fossil of 47 million-year-old primate, Darwinius masillae - New York Daily News

If evolution of humans started millions of years ago as stated here so how can we not find millions-also-of creatures that are intermediate and alive? Are they all extinct?

In addition, it's not credible that it took this great period to reach a creature like Austr. then so rapidly came humans then from Ausrt. compared to the previous vat duration.

 

[tarekabdo12]

So you not only have a problem with evolution but you don't understand embryology either. Didn't you say you were a medical student?

I'm an undergraduate, I don't need to study embryology that deep. I only read about it from the internet.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If evolution of humans started millions of years ago as stated here so how can we not find millions-also-of creatures that are intermediate and alive? Are they all extinct?

Every single living species on the planet is an intermediate that branched off from us at some point in time. Of course our ancestors wouldn't still be around - because they evolved.

In addition, it's not credible that it took this great period to reach a creature like Austr. then so rapidly came humans then from Ausrt. compared to the previous vat duration.

Why is it not credible? This wasn't rapid - it took place over millions and millions of years? How long do you suppose it would have to take?