Why do men have nipples?

[FDRC2014]

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.

So then, does this mean you can answer any question with any answer with no supporting evidence, as you just did.
What is thunder?
Its god clapping his hands. It's a witch casting spells. It's a distant volcano erupting. It's clouds bashing together. It's rapid expansion of the air due to lightning. It's a plane disrupting the air-layers in the cloud. It's the sun causing the oxygen molecules to break up, creating a bang as they break.

Yes, you can just continue to go on and on. Only one though is a suitable theory. The rest are just made up.

Making up an answer isn't an answer to why!

 

[FDRC2014]

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.

Ok, yes...

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.

No it doesn't. In fact this could be said to be supporting evidence, that genetic variation could cause nipples to form. But i have no authority stating this as I dont know enough about nipple development. It certainly does not disprove evolution in any way.

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

True, but god could also create many other designs for stimulating organs.
It seems more plausible, that they were created in the same way as they were created for women.

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.

As you point out yourself, this is an invalid subjective statement. We look for what is 'normal', as part of our evolution to seek good genes.

So they have a function as it appears.

Apparently not, well, at least not an inventive one. Not a function like a finger or DNA or other useful thing does.

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.

hmm, yeh, the appendix may have it's uses. I'm not sure how this actually effects the end health of the individual. As as we know people without appendixes live fine, but so do people without one kidney, through it isn't ideal. I'm not sure if there are any papers out there studying this, that's why I haven't really raised the appendix issue.

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?!!!!

Well. You have pointed out these, you still fail to comment on the rudimentary organs i actually talked about (or Darwin did).
If you understand evolution, then you would clearly understand how a rudimentary organ strongly suggests evolution.
And this isn't even getting started on evolutionary genetics, which basically proved evolution, outright.

 

[FDRC2014]

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?

No, this doesn't make sense.
Our complementary sexual organs evolved when we came out the water, and there was no longer the water to hold the sperm in during fertilisation.
Obviously animals with more complementary genitalia were benefited, hence the ultimate formation of our genitals. And also, creating the complementary design is done using the same original body parts, basically a single part in development makes two different parts in females and males. For example the scrotum is homologous to the labia, and the glands to the clitoris. A hermaphrodite is a good example of seeing how this happens.

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?

The receptors have evolved. Although it was first though they had irreducible complexity, they don't. Also, it is the effect that the receptor has on the cell that is important. Females and males both have oestrogen and testosterone receptors (so just like any other receptor). It is other factors that produce the sexes. One major sexing stage is during puberty, and this is mostly to do with hormone level. Hormone levels can clearly evolve with the sexes.

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?

CHOOSING! Does an atom choose to decay?
It happens as part of our evolved development. Obviously having two cells performing different tasks is more beneficial to having two cells performing one task, or one cell performing two tasks. Any mutation silencing a gene during development when located in a certain position would be beneficial.
If you look at the human when it develops. We develop as a deuterostome (develop our anus first), look at the diagram here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Protovsdeuterostomes.svg). The different layers develop into different specialised tissue types, and the original differentiation starts with the positional information on receptors in the cell wall. Obviously the most advantageous configuration, development, and specialisation is the one that evolves.

I have a couple of questions for you:
1 -
If we are created, why don't we generally die fit? Why do we not just drop dead at our age to die? Why do you get arthritis as you get older? Surely if you are in good health at 20 you should be at 60. I.e. why do we age?

2-
You talk about proteins and receptors etc, but why are they used inefficiently if we had a designer of infinite ability?
One example is in the parietal cells of the stomach epithelium. To remove excess protons from the cell they use an Na/K-ATPase to create an electrochemical gradient, then use a H/Na exchanger to remove the excess protons, helping to maintain the pH. Now evolution explains that it is simpler just to adapt what is there (i.e. reducible complexity), as both Na/K-ATPase and the H/Na exchanger have already evolved. It would take longer to evolve a subtable H-ATPase. So if someone 'created' and 'designed' the system, why didn't they just make one - as, after all they are infinitely brilliant?

 

[Tenaka2]

Where else would I keep my bull dog clips?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So then, does this mean you can answer any question with any answer with no supporting evidence, as you just did.
What is thunder?
Its god clapping his hands. It's a witch casting spells. It's a distant volcano erupting. It's clouds bashing together. It's rapid expansion of the air due to lightning. It's a plane disrupting the air-layers in the cloud. It's the sun causing the oxygen molecules to break up, creating a bang as they break.

Yes, you can just continue to go on and on. Only one though is a suitable theory. The rest are just made up.

Making up an answer isn't an answer to why!

Well, you made up the question (with no supporting evidence I might add), and you asked why did god.

You did not ask why did the witch, clouds, or anything else.

And the answer is obviously - god wanted to do it like that. There is no other answer to the question, and there is no further why, because every other question is answered "god wanted to do it like that."

 

[Gunfingers]

Surely there would still be the question of why god wanted it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Surely there would still be the question of why god wanted it?

Well, it can be asked.

And the answer is obviously, "because god wanted it that way."

Even if we were able to get more specific than that, god would have still wanted it like that. It's the underlying cause of everything that god does.

A basic theological principle: god doesn't do anything that god doesn't want to do. Or - everything god does, god wants to do. So if god does it, then god wanted to do it. That's why.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So then, does this mean you can answer any question with any answer with no supporting evidence, as you just did.
What is thunder?
Its god clapping his hands. It's a witch casting spells. It's a distant volcano erupting. It's clouds bashing together. It's rapid expansion of the air due to lightning. It's a plane disrupting the air-layers in the cloud. It's the sun causing the oxygen molecules to break up, creating a bang as they break.

Yes, you can just continue to go on and on. Only one though is a suitable theory. The rest are just made up.

Making up an answer isn't an answer to why!

You're falsely equivocating between two definitions of "why".

On the one hand, there's the physical, proximate cause: men have nipples because of the physical processes that happen during fetal development. I don't think that's at issue here.

On the other hand, there's the overarching purpose for the outcome: what purpose do men's nipples serve? To that question (and when it's taken as a given that it's some purpose appointed by God), I don't see how it's unreasonable to answer that they fulfil a desire of God.

I don't think it's a particularly informative answer, since it's basically a re-stating of the givens of the initial question ("why did God want to do 'X'?" "Because he wanted to do it"), but I don't think it's wrong in this context.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're falsely equivocating between two definitions of "why"

(Moving goal posts)

 

[painted wolf]

No, this doesn't make sense.
Our complementary sexual organs evolved when we came out the water, and there was no longer the water to hold the sperm in during fertilisation.

Incorrect... it predates vertebrates coming onto land. It's a feature that evolved a few times in fact, and has little to do with water. It has more to do with reproductive competition.

Obviously animals with more complementary genitalia were benefited, hence the ultimate formation of our genitals. And also, creating the complementary design is done using the same original body parts, basically a single part in development makes two different parts in females and males. For example the scrotum is homologous to the labia, and the glands to the clitoris. A hermaphrodite is a good example of seeing how this happens.

Actually what is really interesting are serial hermaphrodites and the fact that sex started as a hermaphroditic enterprise that later divided labor between two distinct sexes. But I'm sure this isn't supposed to be a thread about the evolution of sex.

The receptors have evolved. Although it was first though they had irreducible complexity, they don't. Also, it is the effect that the receptor has on the cell that is important. Females and males both have oestrogen and testosterone receptors (so just like any other receptor). It is other factors that produce the sexes. One major sexing stage is during puberty, and this is mostly to do with hormone level. Hormone levels can clearly evolve with the sexes.

A lot more has to do with the mothers hormone levels as well as environmental factors... sex and gender are complicated developmental processes. The major determinants of sex/gender happen in the womb... secondary sexual characteristics happen in puberty.

CHOOSING! Does an atom choose to decay?
It happens as part of our evolved development. Obviously having two cells performing different tasks is more beneficial to having two cells performing one task, or one cell performing two tasks. Any mutation silencing a gene during development when located in a certain position would be beneficial.
If you look at the human when it develops. We develop as a deuterostome (develop our anus first), look at the diagram here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Protovsdeuterostomes.svg). The different layers develop into different specialised tissue types, and the original differentiation starts with the positional information on receptors in the cell wall. Obviously the most advantageous configuration, development, and specialisation is the one that evolves.

I have a couple of questions for you:
1 -
If we are created, why don't we generally die fit? Why do we not just drop dead at our age to die? Why do you get arthritis as you get older? Surely if you are in good health at 20 you should be at 60. I.e. why do we age?

why should we die fit? Generally having your body wear out is a pretty good way to make sure you die. It also gets you wondering about your mortality and encourages group bonding by caring for the sick and infirm.

Indeed, one of the most interesting (and significant) moments in human evolution was when we started to care for our post-reproductive group members. We are in a very exclusive club of species to do so, far more exclusive than the tool users club.

2-
You talk about proteins and receptors etc, but why are they used inefficiently if we had a designer of infinite ability?
One example is in the parietal cells of the stomach epithelium. To remove excess protons from the cell they use an Na/K-ATPase to create an electrochemical gradient, then use a H/Na exchanger to remove the excess protons, helping to maintain the pH. Now evolution explains that it is simpler just to adapt what is there (i.e. reducible complexity), as both Na/K-ATPase and the H/Na exchanger have already evolved. It would take longer to evolve a subtable H-ATPase. So if someone 'created' and 'designed' the system, why didn't they just make one - as, after all they are infinitely brilliant?

If evolution was the method of creation, why should it be perfect? Also, why must "God" be infinitely powerful?

wa:do

 

[tomato1236]

That's easy. So that people wouldn't wonder what they're for in general, He made it so women feed babies with em, etc...
Cuz in the afterlife, we'll all be shooting lasers out of them for self-defense, and turning them like dials to set the time and date for our desired time-travel destinations.
The possibilities are really endless.

 

[bain-druie]

I was informed by an ex-boyfriend that they are merely decoration. In which case, their performance level is extremely variable. :yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

The fact that we find nipples in various places goes directly to a couple of the facts of evolution (decent with modification and mutation).

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

Sexual gratification in men can be sought without nipples so your answer does not answer why a god would put them there.

In addition, Nipples in the chest have a cosmetic effect

Nonsense. If it were natural for men to not have nipples then it would be seen as the norm.

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]

No it doesn't. In fact this could be said to be supporting evidence, that genetic variation could cause nipples to form. But i have no authority stating this as I dont know enough about nipple development. It certainly does not disprove evolution in any way.

I didn't say it disproves evolution I said it doesn't prove it. In addition, I don't know what you want to prove? Do you want to prove that males used to suckle ifants in the past? or You 'd like to prove that males evolved from females? If males evolved from females , so how did a complex multicellular female reproduce asexually? May be by budding?!!

Furthermore, males and females share the same autosomes, so the same genes become translated. During embryonic development the genes for the nipple will be translated in both males and females which explains the presence of the nipple as well as other sexual organs which become modified during development by testosterone. This causes some organs to become rudimentary in one sex where it's not needed as they don't complete their development . The nipple is like these organs it becomes less functional and developed in males as well as the breast yet they don't dissappear - like the round ligament of the uterus- as they become already expressed by autosomes and formed before full action of testosterone takes place. This mechanism doesn't promote evoltion theory as it includes no gaining of genetic information.
Also, the atrophy of the nipples in males can't be attributed to disuse as they is no evidence that phenotypes can be transferred into genotypes. So if you assume that males originated from females then stopped using their breasts actually science didn't prove that this disuse can lead to atrophy in further generations. If this had occured so it would be logical to say that all males should be born with fully developed breats which then atrophy may be after forties when they don't give birth to babies - like their wives who will probably give birth and lactate in the 3rd or 4th decades - so eventually the breast will atrophy . But this doesn't occur and if it occures their sons would be born - according to laws of genetics - with large breasts not atrophied ones . Actually there are females who don't lactate for their whole lives and still retain large boobs.

True, but god could also create many other designs for stimulating organs.
It seems more plausible, that they were created in the same way as they were created for women.

Well the presence of a nipple as an additional source of sexual stimulation in males means it's functional not rudimentary, as you must consider a part rudimentary if it totally has no function.In addition, having more sites for sexual stimulation is something good and pleasurable so why to be cancelled from a male if it poses more pleasure for him, the sane mind says leave it for him. Why to be removed?!!!!

The unity of the design as mentioned before is because both sexes share the same autosomes which is essential for reproduction to occur through fusion of similar gametes during fertilization, If the autosomes differed in orientaion fertilization would be impossible.

Furthermore, Why to change a design if it is functioning in a great way. The one who created design created it in a perfect way so they is no more than perfectness.

The unity of the pattern of the design proves the presence of creator not the opposite. If all creatures shared the same composition of DNA. More complex classes of the animal kingdom are all composed of fleh, blood, bones and etc. This means that there is one creator. If they evoluted by chance this doesn't explain the presence of one 1ry form(DNA) with similar basic composition.
Why didn't DNA evolute in many other composition? Why didn't it evolute in a more simple form that can be explained by simple chance? Why only on earth these great extraordinary chances occur? The presence of excellent atmosphere with it's layer fuctioning together, every layer maintain a certain function to promote life on earth? Did the atmosphere also want to create a good world like fish that wanted to invade land? Water, wind , balance between prey and predators, etc.

If chance was the cause multiple forms of DNA would be present, because the probability that created one form would simply create other forms even more simple than the current complex model. And before this DNA would walk up the stairs to make a complete cell,other forms would have been formed as well which would probably be very simple- different composition of bases, using other bonds rather than phosohate bonds. You must take in mind also that the nature of earth at the time of DNA formation didn't support the development of DNA in such way.

As you point out yourself, this is an invalid subjective statement. We look for what is 'normal', as part of our evolution to seek good genes.

Yes, it is subjective as well as everything concerned with beauty , so beauty is judged according to the view of most people not all of them. Furthermore, Not all organs are as important as others. You can't say that the building decoration is as important as the pillars but still it's a fine touch.

Apparently not, well, at least not an inventive one. Not a function like a finger or DNA or other useful thing does.

so you think they are intelligent and brilliant even more than current invention as the camera , television , computer, airplanes , etc

So, I don't think you believe that a camera or a computer can be found without a designer , inventor , manufacturer inspite that the human brain and eye are much more complex?!!!

THAT's because they are brilliant inventions. I can't imagine that a sane person can say that a camera- despite that it was originally stolen from the design of the God-made eye- can be formed by chances and natural forces( Collected by wind and rain I think>>>> or may be the plastic and iron was extracted and formed by earthquakes)

In addition,[FONT=&quot]Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. [/FONT]

hmm, yeh, the appendix may have it's uses. I'm not sure how this actually effects the end health of the individual. As as we know people without appendixes live fine, but so do people without one kidney, through it isn't ideal. I'm not sure if there are any papers out there studying this, that's why I haven't really raised the appendix issue.

Well you can remove one and a half kidney and still being healthy, because the body gives reserve.
In addition, we can't say that all organs are essentiall for life but still they have functions. You can have one arm cut and still living well , Does this mean the other arm doesn't have function or the other kidney is useless. It's a body reserve, more immunity and better functioning isn't something bad.

Well. You have pointed out these, you still fail to comment on the rudimentary organs i actually talked about (or Darwin did).
If you understand evolution, then you would clearly understand how a rudimentary organ strongly suggests evolution.
And this isn't even getting started on evolutionary genetics, which basically proved evolution, outright.

Actually , it's nearly impossible to prove that an organ is totally useless, because it can have functions that are not understood now but may be understood later. Previously many organs were put on the list of functionless organs but later on most of these organs were removed from the list
and their functions were discovered -whether vital or minimal still they have fuctions like a car the mirror isnot as important as the engine but still has functions -. Some organs may be like accessories but still they have functions.

In addition, the absence of a certain organ doesn't provide evidence for active formation of new organs, a part of genetic material -coding for a certain organ or part of it-may be lost and if this loss isn't in a vital organ the creature will survive and reproduce, however this doesn't explain active formation of complete new organs required for life in different medium by just mutation.

read : Vestigial Organs - Creation Studies Institute


For example, the transition of life from water to land must be accompanied by a complete change of all organs and all genes at the same time which seems logically impossible. If only a leg appears it would be useless in water and will offer no advantage for the mutating creature for natural selection- if you suppose that even this could happen-. The development of a limb require a mutation involving multiple sequences for nerves , muscles , bones, vessels , etc and in addition all this must be designed in a perfect way with no faults- which also appears to a sane mind nearly impossible. furthermore, for single mutations to have time to form a complete organ, it would take a huge transitional time during which the organism will have no advantage at all in natural selection as it doesn't have a more powerful organ.

In addition all these messy mutation should exceed the capability of extermely efficient DNA repair system.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Well. You have pointed out these, you still fail to comment on the rudimentary organs i actually talked about (or Darwin did).
If you understand evolution, then you would clearly understand how a rudimentary organ strongly suggests evolution.
And this isn't even getting started on evolutionary genetics, which basically proved evolution, outright.

IN addition, ....

In order for the evolutionist claim concerning "homology" to be taken seriously, similar (homologous) organs in different creatures should also be coded with similar (homologous) DNA codes. However, they are not. Similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA) codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs.
Michael Denton, an Australian professor of biochemistry, describes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis the genetic impasse of the evolutionist interpretation of homology: "Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology." 166
A famous example on this subject is the "five digit skeletal structure" of quadrupeds which is quoted in almost all evolutionist textbooks. Quadrupeds, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on their fore- and hindlimbs. Although these do not always have the appearance of five digits as we know them, they are all counted as pentadactyl due to their bone structure. The fore- and hindlimbs of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel or a monkey all have this same structure. Even the bone structures of birds and bats conform to this basic design.
Evolutionists claim that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and they have long cited pentadactyl limb as evidence of this. This claim was mentioned in almost all basic sources on biology throughout the 20th century as very strong evidence for evolution. Genetic findings in the 1980s refuted this evolutionist claim. It was realised that the pentadactyl limb patterns of different creatures are controlled by totally different genes. Evolutionist biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way:
The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the "pentadactyl" limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down...167
Another point is that in order for the evolutionary thesis regarding homology to be taken seriously, the periods of similar structures' embryological development-in other words, the stages of development in the egg or the mother's womb-would need to be parallel, whereas, in reality, these embryological periods for similar structures are quite different from each other in every living creature.
To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research has proven that the concept of homology defined by Darwin as "evidence of the evolution of living things from a common ancestor" can by no means be regarded as any evidence at all. In this respect, science can be said to have proven the Darwinist thesis false time and time again.



from

Evolution Deceit. com - This website is the interactive version of the book "Evolution Deceit" by HARUN YAHYA

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT="]Our complementary sexual organs evolved when we came out the water, and there was no longer the water to hold the sperm in during fertilisation.
Obviously animals with more complementary genitalia were benefited, hence the ultimate formation of our genitals. And also, creating the complementary design is done using the same original body parts, basically a single part in development makes two different parts in females and males.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
You are easily saying the word " just evoluted" but the question is "How?!"
The complex cell, organs , genes are explained by " just evoluted">>>>>[/FONT]
If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by coincidence, then there is
nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story
of a town:
One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet
after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff,
resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow
smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits
under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on
until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place.
However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although
exposed to storm, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the
bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the
same determination for other bricks to form.
When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged
sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of
natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement
or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions", with perfect timing, and creep between the
bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is
shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed
with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials,
carpentry, and installations intact.
Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How,
then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of
materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is
erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams,
water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of
"natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the
installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the
blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are
arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called
glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to
leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which
are also later to be formed by coincidence. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences"
and "natural conditions" produced a perfect design.
If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have
no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks,
substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If you possess
technical knowledge and are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an
extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary
process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures". You may well be
honoured with academic awards for your clever studies, and may consider yourself a genius,
shedding light on the nature of humanity.
The theory of evolution, which claims that life came into existence by chance, is no
less absurd than our story, for, with all its operational systems, and systems of
communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than a city.

The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time,
ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be
convincing enough.
The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has
revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we
know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell,
factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all
the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex
transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place
to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials
into their useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and
outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.
W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary
type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine
yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."
A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot
produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all
attempts to do so have been abandoned.
The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the
intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came
into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. To give another
example, the probability of forming of a cell by chance is about the same as that of
producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing-house.
The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar
comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although
an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have
emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard
might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.107 This means that it is not
possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely
have been "created".
[FONT=&quot]
( Evolution Deciet , Haroun Yehia)


you still didn't explain how it just evoluted, random mutations can't explain how it just evoluted as well as natural selection which allows environmental forces to select already present characters however it can't created new character and DNA codes.

[/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]I

t happens as part of our evolved development. Obviously having two cells performing different tasks is more beneficial to having two cells performing one task, or one cell performing two tasks.

I still can't understand the relation of these words to the mechaism of specialization of the originaly undifferetiated stem cells, how is the embryonic cell guided to differentiate into different organs in a specific proportion required to complete such organ? and Why does each cell choose to translate only certain specific codons inspite that they originated from one undifferentiated stem cells having all the required information for the fuction of all body organs? Does these cells have a working mind or a map? It must be the guide of the creator.

If you look at the human when it develops. We develop as a deuterostome (develop our anus first), look at the diagram here ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Protovsdeuterostomes.svg[/FONT][FONT=&quot]). The different layers develop into different specialised tissue types, and the original differentiation starts with the positional information on receptors in the cell wall. Obviously the most advantageous configuration, development, and specialisation is the one that evolves.

Yes how does it specialize, also by random way. Unfortunately this would lead to a mess not a complete system. It's God's creation, system and guide and can't be explained in a materialistic way? If it is the most advantageous specialization so How does the mindless cells guide this miracelous differentiation? How does similar cells each develop differently in a specific location and predefined proportion then stop development after the organ reaches the required stage?

If we are created, why don't we generally die fit? Why do we not just drop dead at our age to die? Why do you get arthritis as you get older? Surely if you are in good health at 20 you should be at 60. I.e. why do we age?

Like the car coming out of the factory, at firs it's perfect as - as the designer, manufaturer were keen on making it perfect- then when subjected to wear and tear, natural forces it gets damaged and not adequately repaired.

The next question that you want to say is " Why not to make the design more stable against wear , tear and natural question?"

Simply, because it's not the eternal life , it's a site for examination entailing happiness and pain, however later on the body will be created in a way that it lives forever whether in eternal happiness or pain. And if God wanted to create life on earth to be eternal God would have simply done it as God had already created the whole world before from nothing. I think that evolution can just explain how the world originated before the presence of atoms and before the big bang? From where did the atoms come from?


Second the complexity of the receptors explain that there is a creator behind them . If they had just evoluted it would be more plausible if they were simpler.

And if You try to say that they evoluted on parts, I'd simply tell you that this can't occur because the random mutation is never a creator, In addition, if they took years to develop the human race would have died already before their development of iron deficiency anemia and protein malnurition, as well as multiple other causes as much of the body pump as renal tubular is also as complex. So the humans would have already died before their evolution . This prove that the whole must be present at a time for the organism to survive.[/FONT]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

To play with them, of course.:flirt:

 

[FDRC2014]

PART 1

I didn't say it disproves evolution I said it doesn't prove it. In addition, I don't know what you want to prove? Do you want to prove that males used to suckle ifants in the past? or You 'd like to prove that males evolved from females? If males evolved from females , so how did a complex multicellular female reproduce asexually? May be by budding?!!

There are many articles on exactly how sexes arose. They are scientific papers and supported by evidence; mostly genetic.

Furthermore, males and females share the same autosomes, so the same genes become translated. During embryonic development the genes for the nipple will be translated in both males and females which explains the presence of the nipple as well as other sexual organs which become modified during development by testosterone.

Yes... But if we had a designer, he would just have the nipple genes after the same promotors of female sex genes, hence only females would exhibit them.

This causes some organs to become rudimentary in one sex where it's not needed as they don't complete their development . The nipple is like these organs it becomes less functional and developed in males as well as the breast yet they don't dissappear - like the round ligament of the uterus- as they become already expressed by autosomes and formed before full action of testosterone takes place. This mechanism doesn't promote evoltion theory as it includes no gaining of genetic information.

The development of any sex related organ or tissue (such as the ligament), arose from genetic drift, and an original mutation. It's not just one mutation forms a ligament, it will be a more complex genetic change, based upon what is beneficial to the organism - the ligament will probably have originated from another ligament somewhere else, but this can only be hypothesised, as I cant see the genetics of it.

Also, the atrophy of the nipples in males can't be attributed to disuse as they is no evidence that phenotypes can be transferred into genotypes.

I don't understand what you are saying here, the phenotype is based on the genotype? Any hereditable morphological trait is genetic, obviously.

So if you assume that males originated from females then stopped using their breasts actually science didn't prove that this disuse can lead to atrophy in further generations.

To a degree, atrophy will take place. The disuse of a once advantageous trait will cause atrophy. This is because of the disadvantage the trait causes to the development (i.e. men having breasts would be a disadvantage).
And im not really saying men evolved from women, it was just advantageous devision of labour, and increased genetic diversity (being able to reproduce sexually).

If this had occured so it would be logical to say that all males should be born with fully developed breats which then atrophy may be after forties when they don't give birth to babies - like their wives who will probably give birth and lactate in the 3rd or 4th decades - so eventually the breast will atrophy . But this doesn't occur and if it occures their sons would be born - according to laws of genetics - with large breasts not atrophied ones . Actually there are females who don't lactate for their whole lives and still retain large boobs.

No, you don't seem to understand. Men don't have breasts because they aren't and advantage. Nipples are an advantage to females, but the mutation occurs on the autosomes, so men get them as well. But nipples aren't an overall disadvantage to males, so they remain expressed. Increased lactation is usually suppressed in males as it would be a disadvantage.

Well the presence of a nipple as an additional source of sexual stimulation in males means it's functional not rudimentary, as you must consider a part rudimentary if it totally has no function.In addition, having more sites for sexual stimulation is something good and pleasurable so why to be cancelled from a male if it poses more pleasure for him, the sane mind says leave it for him. Why to be removed?!!!!

Well, the last sentence explains this. You ask why to be removed? That is a question an evolutionist would ask! If you are designing something, you add things as needed. If you need a point of sexual stimulation on a man, you make one. And i can think of many better designs for sexual stimulation points on men, but they would have no resemblance to a female nipple (is it just coincidence that they look the same, and are suspiciously designed to have a baby suck on them?). Clearly mens nipples are to do with breast feeding in women, not sexual stimulation.

The unity of the design as mentioned before is because both sexes share the same autosomes which is essential for reproduction to occur through fusion of similar gametes during fertilization, If the autosomes differed in orientaion fertilization would be impossible.

Just have less autosomes and more sex chromosomes? An autosome which is different in both sexes would just be a sex chromosome.

Furthermore, Why to change a design if it is functioning in a great way. The one who created design created it in a perfect way so they is no more than perfectness.

Again, you talk about changing the design, this is something an evolutionist would say. You are creating the design (and you are infinitely amazing), you would design each sex on its own, the best way you could. Obviously i cant argue against someone saying that an apparent illogical design in our eyes, is perfect in gods eyes, but that is unfalsifiable, and a pointless argument.

The unity of the pattern of the design proves the presence of creator not the opposite.

Well, it strongly supports evolution. Phylogentics predicts that we should have similar elements in our DNA, hence be similar. But if i was the designer of two paintings, they might not be similar.

If all creatures shared the same composition of DNA. More complex classes of the animal kingdom are all composed of fleh, blood, bones and etc. This means that there is one creator. If they evoluted by chance this doesn't explain the presence of one 1ry form(DNA) with similar basic composition.
Why didn't DNA evolute in many other composition? Why didn't it evolute in a more simple form that can be explained by simple chance? Why only on earth these great extraordinary chances occur? The presence of excellent atmosphere with it's layer fuctioning together, every layer maintain a certain function to promote life on earth? Did the atmosphere also want to create a good world like fish that wanted to invade land? Water, wind , balance between prey and predators, etc.

Well. DNA has to be common throughout all life, as it all evolved form a single ancestor, where DNA and The Central Dogma came about.
The Central Dogma is common thought life as, if you change any steps in it, its stops working.
There are certain elements of it that have changed, and are different in organisms, such as rDNA, and rRNA. As well as the evolution of a degenerative code etc. The basic structure of DNA (i.e. the phosphate, sugar base), hasn't changed because it works, so there is no need to change it.
I would ask, though, if we had a designer, why he didn't design the life coding system differently?

 

[FDRC2014]

PART 2

If chance was the cause multiple forms of DNA would be present, because the probability that created one form would simply create other forms even more simple than the current complex model.

Well yes, true, if your DNA is different, you cant survive, hence why it doesn't evolve. The overall structure cannot just jump to another life coding system entirely, as any intermediate wouldn't be beneficial.

And before this DNA would walk up the stairs to make a complete cell,other forms would have been formed as well which would probably be very simple- different composition of bases, using other bonds rather than phosohate bonds. You must take in mind also that the nature of earth at the time of DNA formation didn't support the development of DNA in such way.

The formation of DNA is not well known, people can only hypothesise. This is not evolution in itself. What likely happened is just simple molecules forming within a lipid bilayer (that form naturally). If you have 10^10 molecules, and favourable conditions (which primordial earth would have been like), then the chances are one life linage will formed. Anything that can happen by chance, you have to presume happened, as we could be anywhere in this universe, asking the same questions.

Yes, it is subjective as well as everything concerned with beauty , so beauty is judged according to the view of most people not all of them. Furthermore, Not all organs are as important as others. You can't say that the building decoration is as important as the pillars but still it's a fine touch.

The trend of beauty (when acting animalistic), is in search of good genes.
A set of chemical reactions.

so you think they are intelligent and brilliant even more than current invention as the camera , television , computer, airplanes , etc
So, I don't think you believe that a camera or a computer can be found without a designer , inventor , manufacturer inspite that the human brain and eye are much more complex?!!!

Computers, aeroplanes, and televisions are irreducible complexity. Life isn't. Also life breads and has genetic information, therefore can evolve. Aeroplanes can't. It's not the complexity of something that shows if it has a designer or not.

THAT's because they are brilliant inventions. I can't imagine that a sane person can say that a camera- despite that it was originally stolen from the design of the God-made eye- can be formed by chances and natural forces( Collected by wind and rain I think>>>> or may be the plastic and iron was extracted and formed by earthquakes)

This is not how evolution works, lol. You are being ignorant now. Each mutation can perhaps cause a phenotypical change, which might be beneficial. There is no doubt that beneficial mutations happen, look at sickle cell, or the MCM6 gene causing lactose tolerance.

In addition,[FONT=&quot]Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. [/FONT]
Well you can remove one and a half kidney and still being healthy, because the body gives reserve.
In addition, we can't say that all organs are essentiall for life but still they have functions. You can have one arm cut and still living well , Does this mean the other arm doesn't have function or the other kidney is useless. It's a body reserve, more immunity and better functioning isn't something bad. Actually , it's nearly impossible to prove that an organ is totally useless, because it can have functions that are not understood now but may be understood later. Previously many organs were put on the list of functionless organs but later on most of these organs were removed from the list
and their functions were discovered -whether vital or minimal still they have fuctions like a car the mirror isnot as important as the engine but still has functions -. Some organs may be like accessories but still they have functions.

I understand this. Obviously the use of something is not determined by removing it. This is not relevant to our conversation. This is why there are still rudimentary organs. It is, as you say, difficult to say if an organ is totally useless, but out could always say, we just haven't found it yet. But again, if another alternative explanation explains it's presence better then science usually accepts that theory. I.e. evolution explains rudimentary teeth in some animals, better than an unknown use that might be there.

In addition, the absence of a certain organ doesn't provide evidence for active formation of new organs, a part of genetic material -coding for a certain organ or part of it-may be lost and if this loss isn't in a vital organ the creature will survive and reproduce, however this doesn't explain active formation of complete new organs required for life in different medium by just mutation.

Do you understand mutations. A mutation isn't necessary a single base pair, but can be the duplication of a whole section of DNA. This is how our trichromatic vision is thought to have evolved.

read : Vestigial Organs - Creation Studies Institute

This just provides example of parts of the body thought to be rudimentary. Whether an organ is rudimentary or not, it still is a good pointer to evolution

For example, the transition of life from water to land must be accompanied by a complete change of all organs and all genes at the same time which seems logically impossible. If only a leg appears it would be useless in water and will offer no advantage for the mutating creature for natural selection- if you suppose that even this could happen-. The development of a limb require a mutation involving multiple sequences for nerves , muscles , bones, vessels , etc and in addition all this must be designed in a perfect way with no faults- which also appears to a sane mind nearly impossible. furthermore, for single mutations to have time to form a complete organ, it would take a huge transitional time during which the organism will have no advantage at all in natural selection as it doesn't have a more powerful organ.

Does any more need to be said? Gills can easily be adapted to lungs (oxygen is easier to acquire from air). Organs evolve as stated below.

In addition all these messy mutation should exceed the capability of extermely efficient DNA repair system.

Are you denying mutations happen here?
Although we have a good repair system, it's not perfect.
Also, large chromosomal changes which are the type of mutation (where whole genes are duplicated and moved), are probably what caused the most significant changes. This is how our genome has changed sizes.