Why do men have nipples?

[tarekabdo12]

In the 1880s, in Castenedolo, Italy, G. Ragazzoni, a geologist, found fossil bones of several Homo sapiens sapiens individuals in layers of Pliocene sediment 3 to 4 million years old. In 1913, the German scientist Hans Reck found at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, a complete anatomically modern human skeleton in strata over 1 million years old. In 1979, researchers at the Laetoli site, Tanzania, in East Africa discovered footprints of modern humans in volcanic ash deposits over 3.6 million years old. In an article in the March 1990 issue of Natural History, R. H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago confessed that ‘we are left with somewhat of a mystery.’ In 1965, Bryan Patterson and W. W. Howells found a surprisingly modern humerus (upper arm bone) at Kanapoi, Kenya. Scientists judged the humerus to be over 4 million years old. Henry M. McHenry and Robert S. Corruccini of the University of California said the Kanapoi humerus was ‘barely distinguishable from modern Homo.’ All these anomalous discoveries, which have been conveniently ignored by the mainstream evolutionists because they do not conform to their proposed theoretical models, support the contention that modern human beings must have appeared at least 5.5 million years ago, at the beginning of the current ‘Kalpa’. In addition to human remains, various types of man-made artifacts point to the immense antiquity of man. Miocene tools (5-25 million years old) were found in the late nineteenth century by Carlos Ribeiro, head of the Geological Survey of Portugal. At an international conference of archeologists and anthropologists held in Lisbon, a committee of scientists investigated one of the sites where Ribeiro had found implements. One of the scientists found a stone tool even more advanced than the better of Ribeiro's specimens. Crude paleoliths were also found in Miocene formations at Thenay, France. S. Laing, an English science writer, noted: "On the whole, the evidence for these Miocene implements seems to be very conclusive, and the objections to have hardly any other ground than the reluctance to admit the great antiquity of man." In 1880, J. D. Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. The implements, including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, in formations that geologists now say are from 9 million to over 55 million years old!

The Official Graham Hancock Website: Forum


So can humans be too old even preceding the transitional fossils you previously cited? What do you think Mr. Jose?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Every single living species on the plant 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.

Of course, not all of them will evolve by random mutations. Some will and some won't as random mutations aren't a magical wand.

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?

Over these millions and millions of years of gradual....gradual .... gradual evolution and all these creatures perished? Also, the cited creature is so developed to be near to the Austr. So no great change occurs during this vast period then through a little time-compared to that between it and Austr. came humans so rapidly? It's not plausible.

 

[idav]

Over these millions and millions of years of gradual....gradual .... gradual evolution and all these creatures perished? Also, the cited creature is so developed to be near to the Austr. So no great change occurs during this vast period then through a little time-compared to that between it and Austr. came humans so rapidly? It's not plausible.

The mutations humans have compared to chimps from their shared common ancestor is no greater than chance.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tarek,

While I realize you're busy, if you're going to continually ignore my posts, then I fail to see why I should continue to put up more posts to you. Throughout this thread we've repeated this pattern where every time I think we're getting somewhere, you ignore my last post to you and start off on different subjects, usually via a copy and paste from some website. Then after a few back and forth posts, you go away for a while only to come back and forget/ignore my last few posts to you. So....

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

I think that's a good idea.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

It also shows how very subtle mutations can have profound and even beneficial impact.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

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.

Good luck with exams!

(and I totally agree about the time killing addictive nature of internet forums )

wa:do

 

[tarekabdo12]

Good luck with exams!

(and I totally agree about the time killing addictive nature of internet forums )

wa:do

Thanks wolf.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course, not all of them will evolve by random mutations. Some will and some won't as random mutations aren't a magical wand.

Do you not understand that evolution is a constant process? Everything is constantly evolving provided there is a niche to fill. Evolution doesn't just "stop" for some things. As long as living things reproduce with variation and environmental niches need to be filled, species continually change.

Over these millions and millions of years of gradual....gradual .... gradual evolution and all these creatures perished?

They didn't perish - all the creatures that are currently on earth evolved from them.

Also, the cited creature is so developed to be near to the Austr. So no great change occurs during this vast period then through a little time-compared to that between it and Austr. came humans so rapidly? It's not plausible.

Like I said "tens of millions of years" is not "rapidly", and you have presented no facts whatsoever that support the assertion that it isn't plausible. It's perfectly plausible, because that's precisely what all the fossil and genetic evidence indicates.

 

[MapMistress]

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?

I really didn't expect to see a Wikipedia link to pasties.

But actually on the scientific reason as to why men have nipples. Usually but not always....
Females are two XX chromosomes
Males are one X and one Y chromosomes

The Y chromosome is only 1/4 the size of the X chromosome because all the Y chromosome does is modify or change the structures on the X chromosome.

To explain this....think about it with a 45-chromosome person with a single X chromosome. This genetic disorder is called Turner's Syndrome since most humans have 23 pairs or 46-chromosomes total. In the case of a 45-chromosome human with the second gender chromosome missing--or only one X-- they are ALL FEMALE. That means that the X chromosome in and of itself is female. Sometimes single X Turner's syndrome females only have one ovary instead of two ovaries, but an ovary by definition makes one a female.

If you tack on the last chromosome as a Y, from a Turner's syndrome female---then you get a male. The Y chromosome modifies the ovaries and changes them into testes. All the internal female structures on the X chromosome get modified to internal male structures with the Y chromosome. All the external female structures that exist on the X chromosome get modified into male structures by the Y chromosome. And being a newbie I'm not certain which medically correct structures (anatomical) that I'm allowed to post.

So REALLY all men are a Turner's Syndrome female (45 chromosomes-with only one X) with a male Y on top modifying female structures on the X chromosome into male structures.

Which means FEMALE came first. Asexual reproduction was all female. And when two gender reproduction evolved it was male that evolved from female. Hence why the male Y chromosome is only 1/4 the size of the X chromosome (X being female in and of itself)

Nipples are on the X chromosome and since all men have at least one female X chromosome--all men have nipples.

 

[johnhanks]

Asexual reproduction was all female.

With respect, I'll nit-pick with you on this one. Asexual reproduction was (still is) sexless; to say that any individual that sprouts an offspring all by itself is de facto female is to remove meaning from the word. (Parthenogenesis is a separate issue, of course.)

And when two gender reproduction evolved it was male that evolved from female...

Again, not really. The most 'primitive' modes of sexual reproduction we see today are isogamous (as in the conjugation of morphologically identical cells seen in sundry protoctists), where neither of the fusing cells can be called male or female. By implication, anisogamy and later heterogamy arose from this as selection favoured division of labour between the fusing cells. On this basis, neither sex can claim to have preceded the other.

 

[painted wolf]

Not to mention that most multicellular asexual reproducing species are hermaphroditic, having working male and female organs.

I think MM may be confusing human embryonic development with the evolution of sex. Humans start out "female" in the womb.

wa:do