For those that don't believe in evolution - why do men have nipples?

[bocablkr]

Just like the title says - For those that don't believe in evolution - why do men have nipples?

[yukoncpa]

Here's the straightdope (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.html) under the exact same title: Why do men have nipples.

[hmkpoker]

Because they're fun.

However I'm pretty stumped by tailbones and appendixes.

[bocablkr]

Yuk,

I saw that site - but it states the reason is evolutionary as do I. I am aking those that don't believe in evolution how do they explain male nipples.

[luckyme]

I heard it was so guards would have a place to attach the electrodes after the testicles were burned off. Doing gods work is tough.

luckyme

[Skoob]

All human embryos begin as female. Later stages of development release hormones that effectively change the gender of the embryo from female to male. The nipples have already been formed by that time.

I believe in evolution, but I don't understand how your analogy proves your point.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
All human embryos begin as female. Later stages of development release hormones that effectively change the gender of the embryo from female to male. The nipples have already been formed by that time.

I believe in evolution, but I don't understand how your analogy proves your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

What analogy? I am stating that you can explain the existence of male nipples if you understand evolution. If you don't believe in it then why do we have them? Why did God create man with nipples?

[alphatmw]

just do a google search. theres all sorts of questions like these which chrisitans have already devised answers to.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in evolution, but I don't understand how your analogy proves your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's just pointing out that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a creationist standpoint that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

But hey, if God wants people to have gills...

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they're fun.

However I'm pretty stumped by tailbones and appendixes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tails. Appendixes, though... I'm sure I could come up with a few pseudoreasons. Gizzards?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
All human embryos begin as female. Later stages of development release hormones that effectively change the gender of the embryo from female to male. The nipples have already been formed by that time.

I believe in evolution, but I don't understand how your analogy proves your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Begin as female" might be a little misleading, but yeah. If certain genes (SRY for example) are turned on certain changes occur that lead to masculinization, if they remain off certain changes occur which lead to feminization. But changes still (obviously) must occur for anything resembling a normal sexual development. They both start out androgenous is probably more accurate.

[liquidboss]

FYP

[ QUOTE ]
just do a google search. theres all sorts of questions like these which chrisitans have already devised ridiculous answers to.

[/ QUOTE ]

[carlo]

Zeus Hermaphrodite but also a combo of Hermes and Aphrodite. Precursors of humans prior to sexuality.

Whoops, what type of evolution? Inorganic to organic-no. Human to inorganic-yes.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he's just pointing out that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a creationist standpoint that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

[/ QUOTE ]

ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny...

[MidGe]

My suspicion is that christians would say they are made in the image of god and s/he has them. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

Eh. He probably thought nipple piercings were predestined.

[evolvedForm]

I think the fact that men go bald is enough to stop believing in God.

And I have a full head of hair- but I'm compassionate.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think he's just pointing out that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a creationist standpoint that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

[/ QUOTE ]

ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Not perfectly, if that's what you mean, but close enough.

[traz]

maybe god loves nipples

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe god loves nipples

[/ QUOTE ]

don't we all

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]


Tails. Appendixes, though... I'm sure I could come up with a few pseudoreasons. Gizzards?

[/ QUOTE ]

What, God wanted us to be available as an ingredient for Turkey stuffing? I'm reminded of a certain Twilight Zone episode...

[FortunaMaximus]

Given that several cultures still practice cannibalism, who knows.

There's junk RNA threads in our genetic code. Maybe the appendix had an use when h. sap was eating grasses and similar roughage when they couldn't catch their prey. So it's a junk body part.

I don't know, maybe the organ's redundant now, but perhaps it wasn't always.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think he's just pointing out that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a creationist standpoint that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

[/ QUOTE ]

ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny...

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean, I guess. But yeah, it basically does. I have pharyngeal arches and no gills, but no need to be a nit.

[madnak]

Those are evolutionary explanations, though. If humans were created by God as they are now, the explanation doesn't fly.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are evolutionary explanations, though. If humans were created by God as they are now, the explanation doesn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Read not too long ago that men were capable of producing breast milk. Found that strange. Involves a lot of massaging apparently, and proximity to a baby. I'm sure I don't know what that's about either.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those are evolutionary explanations, though. If humans were created by God as they are now, the explanation doesn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Read not too long ago that men were capable of producing breast milk. Found that strange. Involves a lot of massaging apparently, and proximity to a baby. I'm sure I don't know what that's about either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh...I didnt think men have lactiferous ducts/glands. Maybe they do, and probably gynecomastic guys do. I'd bet that a normal, non-gynecomastic guy could not be induced to give milk, and certainly not by just massaging and baby-crying. I will look into this, you've piqued my interest.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those are evolutionary explanations, though. If humans were created by God as they are now, the explanation doesn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Read not too long ago that men were capable of producing breast milk. Found that strange. Involves a lot of massaging apparently, and proximity to a baby. I'm sure I don't know what that's about either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh...I didnt think men have lactiferous ducts/glands. Maybe they do, and probably gynecomastic guys do. I'd bet that a normal, non-gynecomastic guy could not be induced to give milk, and certainly not by just massaging and baby-crying. I will look into this, you've piqued my interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Artefact of my memory is that I retain a lot of facts, just not in depth. Do remember that it is a pretty rare occurence, but it is possible for some men to develop the capability to do so.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those are evolutionary explanations, though. If humans were created by God as they are now, the explanation doesn't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Read not too long ago that men were capable of producing breast milk. Found that strange. Involves a lot of massaging apparently, and proximity to a baby. I'm sure I don't know what that's about either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh...I didnt think men have lactiferous ducts/glands. Maybe they do, and probably gynecomastic guys do. I'd bet that a normal, non-gynecomastic guy could not be induced to give milk, and certainly not by just massaging and baby-crying. I will look into this, you've piqued my interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like I was basically right. Apparently its not very rare for pubescent boys to give some milky discharge, but then again, its also not very rare for pubescent boys to be gynecomastic and I think these are the cases they are talking about. Wiki states that there is at least one documented case of a man suckling a child.

[vulturesrow]

"I had-- I had no idea you could milk a cat.
Oh, yeah, you can milk anything with nipples.
I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"

/images/graemlins/grin.gif