Male Nipples

[Christopher Carrion]

Male nipples. Useless fucking things. I'd like someone who entertains "creationist" beliefs to explain them to me, along with the appendix, that has no other function than to go sceptic, rupture and poison my insides. Dog's eye-claws are another niggly issue, along with bat's next to useless eyes, the whale and dolphin's land-fairing mammal's respiratory system, etc etc and so on and so forth.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Male nipples. Useless fucking things. I'd like someone who entertains "creationist" beliefs to explain them to me, along with the appendix, that has no other function than to go sceptic, rupture and poison my insides. Dog's eye-claws are another niggly issue, along with bat's next to useless eyes, the whale and dolphin's land-fairing mammal's respiratory system, etc etc and so on and so forth.

 

Prediction of fundie points that will be brought up:

 

Man was created in God's image; God has nipples so he can tweek them during sex with his nuns, definition of "God's Image", the vermiform appendix is used for God's punishment, call it a remote detonition bomb, not sure what the problem is with the dog.

[Ouroboros]

CC, I've asked the same question to a whole bunch of Christians that have come here to this site, and all of them but one even tried to give an answer. Most of them said "invalid question" or "hmm... now you got me thinking" or "what does science say", but the person that gave an answer said God did it by design. Which is basically just escaping the question. He meant that God did it because it was "art" or something.

 

Anyway, to add to your info that, not only have male nipples, but we do have milk glands too. And a long time ago I heard that some of the reproductive organs that women have, is also found in men, but I haven't been able to find a source that confirms it. (actually I haven't searched for it, so if you like to do it, go ahead. )

 

Another question to ask is why do we have hair in ears and nose when we get older. What kind of design is that, what's the purpose? If it does have purpose, why doesn't it grow faster when we're babies, but instead its like weed when we're older? Weird.

 

And another question, why is men "created" with foreskin, when God demands it to be cut off??? Didn't he put it there? Or do we have foreskin because of Adam's sin?

[Lycorth]

And another question, why is men "created" with foreskin, when God demands it to be cut off??? Didn't he put it there? Or do we have foreskin because of Adam's sin?

 

Yeah... menstrual blood, nipples, male foreskins, testicles - ever notice just how many scripchahs there are about these topics? And homosexuality, fornication, prostitution, incest, rape - Yahweh is a worse pervert than I am

 

But seriously, I wonder that, too. All it seems to suggest to me is that male and female humans (probably much like other species) evolved from ancestors more similar to each other, or perhaps from single-gender beings. Some people posit that the only gender was female to begin with, others that it's all because we developed from the same single-celled organisms.

 

Either way, it's fascinating, and really can be good for the ego. Think of it - we can either believe that Biblegodzilla made us perfect and we're just degenerating, or that we have developed from the original lesser beings that the human race started out as, and as such represent the highest development thus far of our kind.

 

It's a no-brainer. But male nipples are still pointless - I don't get any special sensations from mine. Now female nipples - that's a whole 'nother subject...

[Ouroboros]

I believe too that male and femal evolved from an organism with one gender or both genders, like frogs. And at some point the surviving speices were the ones that you had two parents, with one out hunting for food, and the other home protecting the offspring (not trying to be sexist or homophobe here). Since the animals that only could do one thing, hunting or protecting were more likely to be extinct, this two roles evolved even more in their separate genetic path, but both originally came from one gender.

[Lycorth]

I believe too that male and femal evolved from an organism with one gender or both genders, like frogs. And at some point the surviving speices were the ones that you had two parents, with one out hunting for food, and the other home protecting the offspring (not trying to be sexist or homophobe here). Since the animals that only could do one thing, hunting or protecting were more likely to be extinct, this two roles evolved even more in their separate genetic path, but both originally came from one gender.

 

I do like that explanation, and have often leaned towards a similar one myself. In truth, I think that has a lot to do with it. Nature always leans towards whatever works best, and does away with that which does not work as well.

 

[rant]

Off topic: It's not sexist or homophobic in the slightest to say what you did. A lot of people would be upset with that, though, but they need to get the chips off their shoulders. I hate when people try to scream "sexism!" just because there are many people who fit best into and feel most comfortable with "traditional" gender roles. Did it ever occur to them that not everyone thinks like they do?

[/rant]

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I believe too that male and femal evolved from an organism with one gender or both genders, like frogs. And at some point the surviving speices were the ones that you had two parents, with one out hunting for food, and the other home protecting the offspring (not trying to be sexist or homophobe here). Since the animals that only could do one thing, hunting or protecting were more likely to be extinct, this two roles evolved even more in their separate genetic path, but both originally came from one gender.

 

I do like that explanation, and have often leaned towards a similar one myself. In truth, I think that has a lot to do with it. Nature always leans towards whatever works best, and does away with that which does not work as well.

 

[rant]

Off topic: It's not sexist or homophobic in the slightest to say what you did. A lot of people would be upset with that, though, but they need to get the chips off their shoulders. I hate when people try to scream "sexism!" just because there are many people who fit best into and feel most comfortable with "traditional" gender roles. Did it ever occur to them that not everyone thinks like they do?

[/rant]

 

Kind of has to be that way if we evolved from single celled organisms. Cells don't have a sex, so the only question would be..when?

[Ouroboros]

Kind of has to be that way if we evolved from single celled organisms. Cells don't have a sex, so the only question would be..when?

I've been asking the same question. Which one of our ancestors were androgyne or gynandromorph?

[Fweethawt]

I've answered the nipple question before...

 

 

Men have nipples so that they can get sucked on

every now and then by whoever we're doin' in bed.

 

Quite a simple answer actually.

[redneck22]

Male nipples.

 

 

They are the result of an efficient plan of embryonic development. Human embryos are sexually dimorphic at first (i.e. contain characteristics of both sexes), because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy.

 

For example, in all human embryos, at first both the Müllerian duct system (female) and the Wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’. The subsequent differences are the result of designed chemical signals that control the expression of the information. E.g., a gene set usually found on the Y chromosome controls the levels of testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone (DHT) secretion.

 

Above a certain level, these hormones suppress the development of the Müllerian duct system and promote the Wolffian duct system, so the embryo takes on masculine characteristics. Below a certain hormone level, the opposite happens, and the embryo takes on female characteristics.

 

The commonly held evolutionary belief is that at one stage we may have been all female, but genetics indicates males have XY chromosones and women XX, mathematically Eve would have come from Adam and not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

"the appendix",

 

Evolutionists may continue to promote the "useless vestigals" way of thinking, but given time and additional research, the true function of each and every organ will become clear. We must understand that without “vestigial organs,” it is much more difficult for evolutionists to claim that all animals are similar, and thus have descended from a common ancestor.

 

As Dr Wysong noted:

 

Not too long ago man was imputed to have 180 vestiges. Organs like the appendix, tonsils, thymus, pineal gland and thyroid gland were on the list. Today, all former vestigial organs are known to have some function during the life of the individual. If the organ has any function at any time, it cannot be called rudimentary or vestigial.... As man’s knowledge has increased the list of vestigial organs decreased. So what really was vestigial? Was it not man’s rudimentary knowledge of the intricacies of the body? (p. 397).

 

Dr. Wysong’s point is well made. It turns out that scientists actually used the word “vestigial,” not to mean a “useless” organ, but instead to say, in reality, “we’re ignorant of what this organ’s function is at this point in time.” As our ignorance wanes, so, ironically, does the number of alleged vestigial organs.

 

As late as 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica described the appendix in the following manner: “The appendix does not serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time” (p. 491).

 

However, the importance of this alleged “vestigial organ” was being discussed in medical textbooks as long ago as 1976. As one scientist admitted: “The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism” (Bockus, 1976, p. 1135).

 

Current medical textbooks describe the appendix as a “well-developed lymphoid organ” (Moore, 1992, p. 205) whose “mucosa and submucosa…are dominated by lymphoid nodules” and whose “primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system” (Martini, 1995, p. 916). Even with this knowledge, the appendix still is mentioned in some evolutionary literature as being vestigial. But this reasoning begs the question: If our ancestors used an appendix in some earlier function, from which ancestral stock did it “devolve”? The “old” and “new” world monkeys must be more highly evolved than humans, because they do not possess an appendix—which leaves one to rationalize that monkeys must have evolved from humans!

 

 

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2050

Bockus, Henry L. (1976), Gastroenterology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders).

Martini, Frederic H. (1995), Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Martini, Frederic H. (1995), Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

The commonly held evolutionary belief is that at one stage we may have been all female, but genetics indicates males have XY chromosones and women XX, mathematically Eve would have come from Adam and not the other way around.

 

Please clarify.

 

 

 

 

"the appendix",

 

However, the importance of this alleged “vestigial organ” was being discussed in medical textbooks as long ago as 1976. As one scientist admitted: “The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism” (Bockus, 1976, p. 1135).

 

That's a little silly, would have to see more reasons to say that.

 

Current medical textbooks describe the appendix as a “well-developed lymphoid organ” (Moore, 1992, p. 205) whose “mucosa and submucosa…are dominated by lymphoid nodules” and whose “primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system” (Martini, 1995, p. 916). Even with this knowledge, the appendix still is mentioned in some evolutionary literature as being vestigial. But this reasoning begs the question: If our ancestors used an appendix in some earlier function, from which ancestral stock did it “devolve”? The “old” and “new” world monkeys must be more highly evolved than humans, because they do not possess an appendix—which leaves one to rationalize that monkeys must have evolved from humans!

 

The entire system of large and small intestine are profuse with lymphoid organs, nodes and vessels, I fail to see how just isolating one small part of the alimentary canal, the vermiform apendix, can constitute it, alone, as part of the lymphatic system. In that case, so is my armpit. This is just more apologetic crap. Every good lie has a shred of truth.

[Ouroboros]

This is design economy.

Bullshit. Nipples are not a design economy. What you described was just a scientifc observation of "what is", not the "why". Design economy would have been if we all were the same gender with all parts exactly the same, then "god" didn't have to make multiple designs. A smart and efficient design is either two completely separate genders, or one gender, but never something that's in-between.

 

When we build computers, we don't put in chips that were used for calculaters 30 years ago, but are not used in the design, and we don't because of design economy. We redesign and improve, and unnecessary parts are completely removed to 100%, that is design economy. We do not leave trace pieces because we're lazy, because it would be to costly in production. The nipples are clearly a proof of evolution and not design, because they're not helpful in any way for reproduction or sustaining life.

 

But thanks for actually daring to answer the question. You're the first Christian that actually took the step.

[Lycorth]

This is design economy.

 

An all-powerful being who can do absolutely anything he so chooses logically has no need of economizing on anything. He could have had it any way he wanted. It'd be a different story if your god was not all-powerful and all-capable, etc, and only had a limited amount of powers and resources from which to create - then I could understand an economy of design possibly being needed, but for the reasons HanSolo stated above, design economy simply doesn't make sense - nor does it make sense that an all-knowing god, who would've known the health problems his creations would suffer, would've made us so susceptible to disease and injury.

[godlessgrrl]

I figure male nipples are purely decorative.

[Christopher Carrion]

As already stated, the notion of a "perfect" and "limitless" designer being restricted to a "design eceonomy" is absurd. Were he the infallible entity he is advertised as then the restrictions that necessitate the development of male nipples would not be in place. As for the argument that "without redundant organs evolutionists would have no argument" tosh, yes, in the same way that without the convenient curvature of the horizon the "spherical earth" theory would have no basis. The raw fact of the matter is that these redundant organs exist; they are physically present within every human body, and in cases such as the appendix do absolutely nothing. They excrete nothing, they remain largely motionless, therefore the notion that their "function" may some day be discovered is ludicrous. They can be removed without incident to any internal biological system. They are redundant, and therefore proof positive that, even if humanity happens to be the product of some creative intelligence, it is far, far from perfect.

 

You might also want to explain phenomena like the achaeopteryx to me. Just to clarify, this is a prehistoric creature that shared characteristics of both birds and reptiles. Its beak had vestigial teeth, it had scales on its body that, in places, sprouted patches of feathers. It even had vestigial and utterly useless stubs of fingers sprouting from its wings. How do we know this? Because fossils of the COMPLETE CREATURE have been found in both Mexico and certain parts of Asia.

 

And just for the record, a well-worded and even a well-reasoned argument in itself is not proff positive of one's convictions.

[Ouroboros]

The argument for "design economy" is just a cop-out answer creationists can use when they don't have any real answer. Like when kids asks question you don't want to answer or don't know the answer for:

 

Q- "Why is the sky blue sometimes?"

A- "Because of design economy"

 

Q- "Why is the sky red sometimes?"

A- "Because of design economy"

 

Q- "Why is the sky black sometimes?"

A- "Because of design economy"

 

Q- "Why don't you answer my questions?"

A- "Because of design economy"

 

You see, it's an answer that doesn't require explanantion.

 

Consider everything being a perfect design, wouldn't the heart placed in the left side of the body then be a "perfect design'? Why then are some babies born with the heart on the right side? Design Economy? Is it really an "intelligent design", when the design changes, and it doesn't matter what it changes too? It's rather a chaotic, uncontrolled and random flux design.

[texmex2003]

What about the placement of the male prostate where it encircles the urethra? As men age, it becomes larger and starts restricting urine flow. An Intelligent Designer should have perceived this and placed it where it would not encircle the urethra.

[redneck22]

The commonly held evolutionary belief is that at one stage we may have been all female, but genetics indicates males have XY chromosones and women XX, mathematically Eve would have come from Adam and not the other way around.

 

Please clarify.

 

 

 

 

READERS DIGEST PRINTS (September 2000, USA edition, p. 85) "Without Testosterone, humans would essentially revert to the default, which is female. The Book of Genesis is therefore wrong. It isn't women who are made out of men. Men are made out of women. Testosterone, to stretch the metaphor, is Eve's rib."

 

 

Males produces testosterone due to the fact that they receive a Y chromosome from there father, whereas the woman did not. She got the X. Women are not the default sex, they are XX and men are XY - totally different from the point of conception and only possible because X and Y chromosomes have differing DNA, a factor that cannot come about from evolution in any way.

 

Secondly, when God made Eve from Adam - it was an easy process - He didn't have to make anything new. Eve could be made from Adam who possessed both X and Y chromosomes. In this way Eve and Adam would literally be one flesh in the beginning. The reverse however, to make Adam from Eve, is not possible, without inventing a new Y chromosome - so Adam and Eve would not be one flesh.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Secondly, when God made Eve from Adam - it was an easy process - He didn't have to make anything new. Eve could be made from Adam who possessed both X and Y chromosomes. In this way Eve and Adam would literally be one flesh in the beginning. The reverse however, to make Adam from Eve, is not possible, without inventing a new Y chromosome - so Adam and Eve would not be one flesh.

 

 

Ok, that just makes me want to giggle, something I'm not prone to because I am male. Could it be because I produce estrogen? Women produce testosterone and estrogen just like males do, but to varying degrees in both sexes. You are basically saying that testosterone, because it is in a male in large amounts and estrogen exists in small amounts in a male doesn't count because it comes from the female. Crap, crap, crap, sexist crap, religious, sexist, male dominating biblical junk science crap.

[Ouroboros]

Let's turn the table on this "mathematical" argument.

 

It would be just as easy to produce the Y chromosome from the X, because the Y chromosome is shorter than X.

 

Just take (in the same spirit of pseudo-science) an X chromosome and chop of a bit, then you have the Y chromosome.

 

What about the multitude of unique alleles? Did Adam carry all of them too? If so where?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Let's turn the table on this "mathematical" argument.

 

It would be just as easy to produce the Y chromosome from the X, because the Y chromosome is shorter than X.

 

Just take (in the same spirit of pseudo-science) an X chromosome and chop of a bit, then you have the Y chromosome.

 

What about the multitude of unique alleles? Did Adam carry all of them too? If so where?

 

In his third and fourth testicle that eventually shrank into earlobes. I swear, some of the things that Creationists come up with. I almost didn't reply to the post up there because it was just so silly and sexists. All androgens exist in both sexes so saying one came from the other because one is male and one is female is just absurd.

[Lilith]

The commonly held evolutionary belief is that at one stage we may have been all female, but genetics indicates males have XY chromosones and women XX, mathematically Eve would have come from Adam and not the other way around.

 

Please clarify.

 

 

 

 

READERS DIGEST PRINTS (September 2000, USA edition, p. 85) "Without Testosterone, humans would essentially revert to the default, which is female. The Book of Genesis is therefore wrong. It isn't women who are made out of men. Men are made out of women. Testosterone, to stretch the metaphor, is Eve's rib."

 

 

Males produces testosterone due to the fact that they receive a Y chromosome from there father, whereas the woman did not. She got the X. Women are not the default sex, they are XX and men are XY - totally different from the point of conception and only possible because X and Y chromosomes have differing DNA, a factor that cannot come about from evolution in any way.

 

Secondly, when God made Eve from Adam - it was an easy process - He didn't have to make anything new. Eve could be made from Adam who possessed both X and Y chromosomes. In this way Eve and Adam would literally be one flesh in the beginning. The reverse however, to make Adam from Eve, is not possible, without inventing a new Y chromosome - so Adam and Eve would not be one flesh.

 

 

I'm still dizzy from the fact that he was able to take a direct quote from one of the most trustest sources in print, and completely turn it insideout it to fit his agenda. Wow. Kudos for that.

[chefranden]

Male nipples. Useless fucking things. I'd like someone who entertains "creationist" beliefs to explain them to me, along with the appendix, that has no other function than to go sceptic, rupture and poison my insides. Dog's eye-claws are another niggly issue, along with bat's next to useless eyes, the whale and dolphin's land-fairing mammal's respiratory system, etc etc and so on and so forth.

 

 

1. My wife found some interesting uses for them over the years.

 

2. But of course male nipples exist because God is a Girl.

[I Broke Free]

I figure male nipples are purely decorative.

 

 

Agreed, I rather like male nipples. I don't have any sensation in mine like some guys do, but I think are rather cute and they add a kind of nice symmetry to the torso. Perhaps they evolved purely so gay men can enjoy them. I’ve never heard a gay man question them.

 

I have met a few men who play to ruff with their little friends. They end up distended and enlarged, kinda gross if you ask me.

 

My $0.02 IBF