Why do I have Nipples?

[BlackPower]

Honestly. I am a man. Why would i need 2 nipples? When did males ever breastfeed? What is the point of this? What is the evolutionary advantage of having silver dollar nipples as opposed to those real itty bitty tic tac nipples? explain.

[ydoaPs]

The nipples are formed before the Y chromosome does much, iirc.

[Tsadi]

What is more specific, and quite interesting, is that you are female before you are male. The genes choose what sex you will be.

[iNow]

yourdadonapogos nailed it.

 

 

http://menshealth.about.com/od/conditions/a/Nipples_Men.htm

The answer is that as embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay!

[trukrguy]

Perhaps just another example of genetic information, that is programmed in, but not used. Unused genetic info is found mostly in simpler creatures who have much of the same genetic info as humans. For example the sea urchin has the genetic info for a complex eye, and a sophisticated immune system. Isn't it interesting that this genetic info is found in the fossil record in the sea urchin 500 million years ago, yet the info was not expressed until hundreds of millions of years later in more complex creatures. Common designer?

[iNow]

Isn't it interesting that this genetic info is found in the fossil record in the sea urchin 500 million years ago, yet the info was not expressed until hundreds of millions of years later in more complex creatures. Common designer?

 

The much more likely and plausible explanation is a common ancestor. To posit a designer simply displaces the question, and one is forced to ask who/what designed the designer.

[Sayonara]

I'd like to see a reference being cited for "nipple gene extracted from half-billion year old soft tissue", personally.

[lucaspa]

Perhaps just another example of genetic information, that is programmed in, but not used. Unused genetic info is found mostly in simpler creatures who have much of the same genetic info as humans. For example the sea urchin has the genetic info for a complex eye, and a sophisticated immune system. Isn't it interesting that this genetic info is found in the fossil record in the sea urchin 500 million years ago, yet the info was not expressed until hundreds of millions of years later in more complex creatures. Common designer?

 

Where did you get this information? What I have found is that sea urchins have DNA sequences in common with humans, but they use the genes differently than we do. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;314/5801/908

 

Unused genetic information is subject to mutation. Any genetic information that was not used and, therefore, not subject to natural selection to prevent non-functional mutations from being kept would be inoperative after hundreds of millions of years.

 

This has been shown in other developmental pathways that are suppressed. Unrepress the pathways and you get some very weird creatures due to the mutations accumulating in the unused genes.

[MedGen]

Perhaps just another example of genetic information, that is programmed in, but not used. Unused genetic info is found mostly in simpler creatures who have much of the same genetic info as humans. For example the sea urchin has the genetic info for a complex eye, and a sophisticated immune system. Isn't it interesting that this genetic info is found in the fossil record in the sea urchin 500 million years ago, yet the info was not expressed until hundreds of millions of years later in more complex creatures. Common designer?

 

[BlackPower]

Trukrguy. I hear you with the design.

[Sayonara]

Trukrguy. I hear you with the design.

The mechanism that leads to males having nipples is relatively simple and well understood. "Design" is a flight of fancy which has no evidence behind it, and - more importantly - no functional necessity.

[BlackPower]

The nipples are formed before the Y chromosome does much, iirc.

 

yeah that makes sense. I should have put two and two together.

[lucaspa]

The mechanism that leads to males having nipples is relatively simple and well understood. "Design" is a flight of fancy which has no evidence behind it, and - more importantly - no functional necessity.

 

I think you are going too far. Female nipples are designed to dispense milk to the infant. Males have nipples for the reason you noted: the same genes are in males and they get turned on during embryonic development. They are not disadvantageous enough in terms of energy usage that natural selection has eliminated them.

 

But living organisms are designed. That is what Darwin recognized and realized he needed a mechanism for: getting the designs in organisms.

 

And that is what natural selection is: an unintelligent process -- an algorithm -- for getting design. If the steps are followed, design is inevitable. Sayonara, don't run away from "design" in biology. Dawkins made a huge mistake when he decided to coin the word "designoid". He ran away from the issue. Face the issue.

 

The real problem with "design" has been that unspoken prepositional phrase "by an intelligent entity". But "design" itself doesn't include that prepositional phrase. So yes, living organisms are designed ... by natural selection.

 

If you want a more detailed discussion of this, I refer you to Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea

[Sayonara]

That's all very well lucaspa, but trukrguy said "Common Designer?", and BlackPower replied with "I hear you with the design". I then put the word design in quotes. It is pretty clear in the context what kind of design I am talking about.

[lucaspa]

Sayonara: ""Design" is a flight of fancy which has no evidence behind it, and - more importantly - no functional necessity."

 

As you stated it, you were referring to "design" in general. There is no indication that you were including "design by an intelligent agent". If you were, then the arguments are faulty.

 

1. "There is no evidence" is an invalid argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know there are designs in living organisms. Absent any evidence, the proposal that those designs are by an intelligent entity is as good as any other hypothesis.

 

2. "functional necessity" doesn't work unless you note that natural selection is a means to get design. Since you didn't do that, you have no other mechanism to get what is "functionally necessary" -- the design of the female nipples.

 

The only way "functional necessity" is a valid argument here is if you mean that the word "design" in general has no functional necessity. Then you are denying that there are "designs" in living organisms. But that brings us back to my point: running away from the facts. It's better to face BlackPowder's "I hear you with the design" by saying: "yes, living organisms are designed and there is a "common designer". That designer is natural selection."

[Sayonara]

As you stated it, you were referring to "design" in general.

I know what I was referring to, thank you very much. You can disagree if you wish but you will be wrong.

 

There is no indication that you were including "design by an intelligent agent". If you were, then the arguments are faulty.

There is an indication lucaspa, it is the context of the posts 5, 6, 10, 11 in this thread as read in the correct order. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

 

1. "There is no evidence" is an invalid argument.

An argument for what? I said that [common] design has no evidence, and left it at that. And that statement is entirely true. You are trying to engage me in an argument which I have not in any way intended to broach, and you continue after I have already pointed this out. When did you start replying to random posts out of context, as if they had occurred in isolation as opposed to within threaded discussions?

 

2. "functional necessity" doesn't work unless you note that natural selection is a means to get design. Since you didn't do that, you have no other mechanism to get what is "functionally necessary" -- the design of the female nipples.

You misunderstand, probably because of my choice of vocabulary. What I intended to communicate was that nipples in males do not require [common] design in order to be explainable.

 

It's better to face BlackPowder's "I hear you with the design" by saying: "yes, living organisms are designed and there is a "common designer". That designer is natural selection."

I suggest that if that is YOUR preference, then that is what YOU should write in YOUR post. You know well enough that you do not need to lecture me on natural modes of design or attempt to rewrite my posts for me. To borrow the first line of your objection, "I think you are going too far".