Why did god create man with nipples?

[yinyinwang]

What for?

[Marquis de Carabas]

God wanted to keep the nipple-clamp manufacturing industry busy.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
What for?

To give women something to brag about.

Just kidding.

To give women something to pinch when a knee is just too drastic.

Just kidding still.

On the serious note, the question assumes facts not in evidence.

[Piscivore]

There are so many replies to this OP that are inappropriate for a family-friendly board. :D

Not to mention they would call into question my own moral fibre. Even if I do make most of them up.

ETA:
Originally posted by Rob Lister
To give women something to pinch when a knee is just too drastic.

Just kidding still.

Just kidding? You're not married, are you? ;)

[Lisa Simpson]

Uncle Cecil's response (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_093.html)

[TeaBag420]

Buzz Burbank has sensitive nippolinos.

Might as well ask why god (who doesn't exist) created women with clitorises.

Ontegeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Phil sucks.

Tim sucks.

[neutrino_cannon]

Is this the same God fellow who did the plumbing job through my prostate gland? The same fellow who left me with a vitamin C pseudo-gene? The one-and-only-God who ran the blood vessels in my eye in front of the macula? The very God who equiped me with that appendix I had get removed? The self-same God who ran my vagus nerve all the way *down there* so a misplaced ice cube might stop my heart?

I'll tell you why men have nipples, it's because God is a miserable failure at engineering anything.

Edited to add joke:



An electrical engineer, a chemical engineer, a structural engineer and a civil engineer are at an anatomy exhibit debating the nature of God, naturally.

"It is self-evident,: says the electrical engineer, "that God is an electrical engineer. The subtleties of the nervous system are so intricate and precise that God must be the very patron of electrical engineers, and we electrical engineers the very disciples of God's own profession."

"You have it bass-ackwards my friend," said the chemical engineer, "The nervous system is impressive, but there are far more finely balanced chemical reactions in the human body, some yet to be discovered. Why, your precious nervous system would not even function without the precise balance of chemicals!"

"All that would be an interesting soup were it not for the fact that God is a structural enginner." Said the purveyor of that profession.
"Bones, ligaments and muscles in many ways have higher strength than anything we can come up with. The skeleton is a work of art, God is clearly a structural engineer."

The three who had spoken turned to look at the civil engineer, who had a smug grin on his face.

"God is so very obviously a civil engineer." He said.

"How do you know?" Asked the others.

The civil engineer replied smoothly,
"Only a civil engineer would even dream of putting a sewer through a playground."

[Johnny Pneumatic]

It's not only Male humans that have them either. All male mammals that come to my mind escept maybe whales and the dolphin family have them. I'm not sure if the latter two do though. I never had the chance to check. A really good question to ask a creationist would be what purpose do the eight nipples male cats have serve? Or the four that male cows have? Male mice? Male bats? Male beavers?

[Phil]

Male nipples are like the tail fins on a 1950s Cadillac. They don't really do anything, but we'd look silly without them.






Originally posted by TeaBag420
. . .

Ontegeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Phil sucks.

Tim sucks.

A biological myth followed by two instances of wishful thinking.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Phil
[B]Male nipples are like the tail fins on a 1950s Cadillac. They don't really do anything, but we'd look silly without them.


That's only because we know human males have them. If we didn't have them we wouldn't know the difference. I think they look funny on me. I know you're just joking though.

[Scot C. Trypal]

I’ve often wondered how creationists explain superfluous nipples, let alone male nipples. One of my kids has the most adorable 3rd nipple and one of my old friends, who’s now an ardent Mormon, has 5 nipples total. They appear on humans right down the middle in parallel lines as they do on dogs. Why did God put in that extra bit of beastly code?

As for why men have nipples, that’s kind of clear, if by “God� one means nature. We’re all actually female by default. Block a few androgens from that diminutive chromosome from working and we’d all be much more girly. But no need for evolution to put in the extra biological effort of altering men where they need not be altered.

[TragicMonkey]

Why did god create man with nipples? For once, I'm going to take a leaf from the believers' book, and say that we don't need to understand the reasoning behind this act, but just enjoy the results.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
It's not only Male humans that have them either. All male mammals that come to my mind escept maybe whales and the dolphin family have them. I'm not sure if the latter two do though. I never had the chance to check. A really good question to ask a creationist would be what purpose do the eight nipples male cats have serve? Or the four that male cows have? Male mice? Male bats? Male beavers?

The devil put 'em there!

[Tricky]

Because God, in His wisdom, anticipated transsexuals.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
I’ve often wondered how creationists explain superfluous nipples, let alone male nipples. One of my kids has the most adorable 3rd nipple and one of my old friends, who’s now an ardent Mormon, has 5 nipples total.

Female? Do they "work"? When touched, to they feel like the (presumably) 2 regular ones?

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
What for?

Because God is a tits man.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Flaherty
Because God is a tits man.

In which case he would have given men breasts, not just nipples. It looks like the Creator is just a nipple freak.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by Beerina
Female? Do they "work"? When touched, to they feel like the (presumably) 2 regular ones?

Nope, he’s a dude. For social sensibilities, I’d bet you’d come across this more with men, or maybe it’s just that I’ve had very little occasion to see a topless woman :halo:.

The two below his main (?) nipples are quite distinct, looking like some sort’a half-nipple (I’ve never asked about how they feel or if I could to touch them [titter] :) ). The 5th nipple is lower but in line and is a more subtle and smooth circular discoloration.

My son has that subtle sort but even more so; we’d hadn’t even noticed it until our pediatrician said "Look, here's a third nipple".

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
[B]Nope, he’s a dude. For social sensibilities, I’d bet you’d come across this more with men, or maybe it’s just that I’ve had very little occasion to see a topless woman :halo:.

That's makes me think of something new. What if a woman did have another set or more of nipples? In the US would they have to have a special bikini top made?

[kuroyume0161]

This is all rather interesting. Here's something to think about (having done no research, mind you):

Why is it that there seem to be many cases of people with extra nipples, but few if any cases of women with extra breasts (mammary glands)?

I don't remember ever having seen a woman with, for instance, three breasts. The answer to this may bear heavily on the genetic construction of such features.

Robert

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
God wanted to keep the nipple-clamp manufacturing industry busy.

What he said!

:p

[ktesibios]

Way back in my younger daze I *ahem* knew a woman who had a pair of supernumerary nipples. They were located about an inch and a half below her "primary" ones, small (perhaps 1/4" in diameter), pink, smooth and only slightly raised from the surrounding skin.

On first encountering them it took me a few minutes to grasp what I saw ( I was, you understand, somewhat distracted). She was very surprised that I knew what they were and knew the term for them.

I thought they were kinda cute. ;)

[espritch]

All I know is "The Male Beaver Nipples" would be a great name for a rock band.

[wipeout]

Men have undeveloped female bits for the same reason women have undeveloped male bits and that reason is everybody starts off with the same bits.

Women have an undeveloped penis, prostate and muscles for ejaculation. Anyone who says that both boys and girls start off as girls will have trouble explaining those little details... ;)

If nature didn't do things this way, then women would lack male bits and almost certainly be incapable of orgasm, so women should be rather glad that men have nipples.

It's a common mistake that people think that boys starting off with internal genitalia makes them girls at first.

Internal genitalia is very common for adult males in many animals like birds, reptiles, etc. and is a default characteristic during development for them and for mammals, probably as a result of our common origin.

The mammalian characteristic of external male genitalia develops later, much like other characteristics like fur do as well.

So boys are never girls. :)

[Scot C. Trypal]

Eek! I’ve been called out :).

I probably should have used some better qualifiers, but after looking for the article from which I was remembering, a review article on scientific literature regarding hermaphrodites (Intersex, BJU International, 2002, 90, 769-776) I find again:

There is compelling evidence that internal and external prenatal sex development is constitutively female.

The author then goes on to describe Jost’s experiments:

XX--->castrate--->Female Phenotype
XY--->castrate--->Female Phenotype
XY--->castrate--->Testosterone--->Wolffian ducts + Mullerian ducts
XY--->castrate--->Testis--->Wolffian ducts

If I’m reading this correctly, the Wolffian ducts go on to become the seminal ducts, vas deferens and so on in the presence of androgens. The Mullerian ducts become the uterus, fallopian tubes and so on without anti-Mullerian hormones.

In the end, in the absence of sex hormones both genetic males and genetic females end up with the female phenotype, not just internal genitalia.

It's a common mistake that people think that boys starting off with internal genitalia makes them girls at first.

Internal genitalia is very common for adult males in many animals like birds, reptiles, etc. and is a default characteristic during development for them and for mammals, probably as a result of our common origin.

That is a good point about internal genital. Still, there are clear sex differences among those creatures. It’s not just the placement of the genitals, but a number of other structures and their functions. Admittedly, I’ve read nothing about hermaphroditic penguins :), for example, but in humans you can get XY people with a vagina, fallopian tubes and so on, if the Y isn’t all there.

So boys are never girls. :)

I’m not doubting code useful to only men may exist on other chromosomes, but what we call female includes that code and the resulting anatomy. So to me it still stands that our basic design gives us the female phenotype and that design is altered with the extra code on the Y to make men (ignoring castration, a person with only one sex chromosome, X, will be a female). Furthermore, if you have genes on the Y not working, or a XX/XY mosaic human, you can get a human somewhere in between man and woman, sometimes even with both testicular and ovarian tissue.

[wipeout]

I must say that I haven't looked in any detail at the possible genetic and internal combinations and variations. One reason is that I'm studying physics and I'm having enough trouble understanding the widely misunderstood in physics right now to want to get any deeper into biology. :D

However, my main reason for not looking in more detail is that the common "female phenotype" includes a clitoris which appears to be an undeveloped penis, the Skene's glands (g-spot) which appear to be an undeveloped prostate, and muscles which contract at climax which appear to be exactly like ejaculatory muscles, not to mention climax itself having no obvious evolutionary purpose, so that with all this in mind, it seemed clear to me that the "female" phenotype isn't entirely female. ;)

So whatever other possibilities there were in development, the theory that everyone starts off like girls cannot be correct if girls have parts which are suspiciously male in form and function and which make no sense for females to have.

Of course, there is no reason why different hormones (or lack of) might not skew development one way or the other later on, but the existence of undeveloped male features in girls means that to start off with, boys and girls must be a similar mixture of features. :)

It's certainly an interesting subject and one I will studying in more detail at a later date. I'm particularly interested in overlap not just in physiology but in behaviour.

For example, parthenogenic female whiptail lizards mount each other and this stimulates the release of eggs. Could it possibly be that the male part of their brain causes this mounting behaviour, the male part resulting from an initial state of mixed-gender not just in body but in mind? I think it just might be so.

Meanwhile, I'd better go back to learning about summing up the individual histories of every particle in the entire history of the universe so that they cancel out to give the odds of whether a single particle will go left of right through one of two slots. Ah... quantum physics... land of the truly mad. :D

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by wipeout
I must say that I haven't looked in any detail at the possible genetic and internal combinations and variations. One reason is that I'm studying physics and I'm having enough trouble understanding the widely misunderstood in physics right now to want to get any deeper into biology. :D

Funny, I’ve always tried, unsuccessfully though, to keep a comfortable distance from both Physics and Biology, in the predictable and sane world of chemistry :p.

However, my main reason for not looking in more detail is that the common "female phenotype" includes a clitoris which appears to be an undeveloped penis, the Skene's glands (g-spot) which appear to be an undeveloped prostate, and muscles which contract at climax which appear to be exactly like ejaculatory muscles, not to mention climax itself having no obvious evolutionary purpose, so that with all this in mind, it seemed clear to me that the "female" phenotype isn't entirely female. ;)

I see your point. It’s funny, the different ways one could look at this. The g-spot is an underdeveloped prostate, or the prostate is an overdeveloped g-spot :). But sure, I’d concede that there are parts of our genes and anatomy in both sexes which are more useful to men than women.

I’m just saying the basic design for each of us is female, even with structures that may have more use in men, and from there the organism is altered to make a man. If denying a XX and a XY fetus the extra action of sex hormones created two anatomical men or something in between then I’d think differently. Instead it makes two adult anatomical women, one XX and one XY.

One thing though, how do you mean climax has no evolutionary purpose?

It seems to me to be a very common and convincing motivation to procreate. I mean, tell that to all those children of shotgun weddings, who’d not be in the next generation if not for a wild and careless hope for climax.

It's certainly an interesting subject and one I will studying in more detail at a later date. I'm particularly interested in overlap not just in physiology but in behaviour.

I very much agree. For example, genetic human females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, an enzymatic defect resulting in an excess of androgens, will nearly always be sexed at birth as female by physiology. But, in their behavior, you’ll find a greatly disproportionate number of tomboys, bisexuality, and homosexuality among the group.

For example, parthenogenic female whiptail lizards mount each other and this stimulates the release of eggs. Could it possibly be that the male part of their brain causes this mounting behaviour, the male part resulting from an initial state of mixed-gender not just in body but in mind? I think it just might be so.

That’s a very interesting case as well. I’ll have to look it up in the library, or I’m sure there’s a whiptail lizard lesbian website out there :).

Meanwhile, I'd better go back to learning about summing up the individual histories of every particle in the entire history of the universe so that they cancel out to give the odds of whether a single particle will go left of right through one of two slots. Ah... quantum physics... land of the truly mad. :D

Good luck. :)

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Funny, I’ve always tried, unsuccessfully though, to keep a comfortable distance from both Physics and Biology, in the predictable and sane world of chemistry :p.

Quantum physics will be always be lurking around somewhere in chemistry labs, babbling mad things to those foolish enough to listen long enough. :D

I see your point. It’s funny, the different ways one could look at this. The g-spot is an underdeveloped prostate, or the prostate is an overdeveloped g-spot :). But sure, I’d concede that there are parts of our genes and anatomy in both sexes which are more useful to men than women.

What I believe is that a complex non-functioning gland or organ wouldn't spontaneously develop in one sex and just happen to be extremely useful to the other. Seems a bit unlikely to me that an apparently useless prostate, etc. would spontaneously develop in females and just happen to be very useful to males, so I feel that the women do indeed have a masculine side. ;)

I’m just saying the basic design for each of us is female, even with structures that may have more use in men, and from there the organism is altered to make a man. If denying a XX and a XY fetus the extra action of sex hormones created two anatomical men or something in between then I’d think differently. Instead it makes two adult anatomical women, one XX and one XY.

I'd need to check the details but to what you say I'd repond that both genders could start off with male and female parts and then female parts develop and the male parts remain undeveloped when the action of the male hormones is not present.

Boys with the correct hormones would never have been girls but boys without the correct hormones go from the mixed state to a default female state with female parts developing and male parts left undeveloped.

They start mixed and then go to a default female state.

Hence, in a way, we both could be right. :D

One thing though, how do you mean climax has no evolutionary purpose?

It seems to me to be a very common and convincing motivation to procreate. I mean, tell that to all those children of shotgun weddings, who’d not be in the next generation if not for a wild and careless hope for climax.

I mean in females possibly capable of it in some species and the distinct lack of concern about it shown by males of those species. ;)

I very much agree. For example, genetic human females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, an enzymatic defect resulting in an excess of androgens, will nearly always be sexed at birth as female by physiology. But, in their behavior, you’ll find a greatly disproportionate number of tomboys, bisexuality, and homosexuality among the group.

Very interesting. I'd heard the name but didn't know of the meaning and effects. I'm speculating that in each gender's minds lurk the opposite genders behaviours and characteristics, possibly dormant or less prominent.

That’s a very interesting case as well. I’ll have to look it up in the library, or I’m sure there’s a whiptail lizard lesbian website out there :).

It has a little fame, as lizards go.

Good luck. :)

I need it, believe me. ;) Fundamental physics has the emphasis on the "mental" (in a psychiatric sense). :D

[jan]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Why did god create man with nipples? What for?

According to Augustine of Hippo, for aesthetic reasons. It's one of Augustine's examples of the benevolence of God.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by yinyinwang

What for? And, albeit it's the sperm that determines our sex (through our father), we still inherit nipples from our mothers?

[jan]

No, nipples are inherited from both parents. The size of your penis (assuming you are male) is also inherited from both your mother and your father.

[Mason]

Apparently, nipples are there for feeding offspring...

http://english.pravda.ru/fun/2002/11/12/39402.html

http://www.babycenter.com/expert/baby/babybreastfeed/8824.html

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/nursingfather.html

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/milkmen.htm

[Batman Jr.]

Men have nipples so that Edvard Munch wouldn't have had to have "sinned" when he painted the famous face of the central figure in "The Scream."

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Why did god create man with nipples? For once, I'm going to take a leaf from the believers' book, and say that we don't need to understand the reasoning behind this act, but just enjoy the results.
enjoying something without knowing what is going on?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
enjoying something without knowing what is going on?

If we knew the dark and sinister reasons behind nipples, we'd be overcome with horror!

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If we knew the dark and sinister reasons behind nipples, we'd be overcome with horror!
You got to have some wild mind to link nipples with horror.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Why did god create man with nipples? Because god made man in his own image.

God has them because his mum and dad did.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
To give women something to brag about.

Just kidding.

To give women something to pinch when a knee is just too drastic.

Just kidding still.

On the serious note, the question assumes facts not in evidence.
lots of crimes commited without evidence seen.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


I'll tell you why men have nipples, it's because God is a miserable failure at engineering anything.

Edited to add joke:
Is god that bad?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Is god that bad?

Absolutely. God is just about the most careless engineer I've seen. While a few things here and there are works of art, a thousand pandas would strangle the twit if their "thumbs" weren't so poorly designed.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
What for?

This is just a guess but maybe.....

We share nipples with a common ancestor, who procreated asexually and when this species became male and female and started procreating sexually, the males were left with nipples for it's asexual predecessor.

Since nature never seems to spend more energy than it has to, why spend extra energy to get rid of nipples? They're great for sexual arousal too - which most women find beneficial to their pleasure as well! :)

Just a guess.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Absolutely. God is just about the most careless engineer I've seen. While a few things here and there are works of art, a thousand pandas would strangle the twit if their "thumbs" weren't so poorly designed.
Can anyone make any better version than god now?

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by ktesibios
Way back in my younger daze I *ahem* knew a woman who had a pair of supernumerary nipples. They were located about an inch and a half below her "primary" ones, small (perhaps 1/4" in diameter), pink, smooth and only slightly raised from the surrounding skin.

On first encountering them it took me a few minutes to grasp what I saw ( I was, you understand, somewhat distracted). She was very surprised that I knew what they were and knew the term for them.

I thought they were kinda cute. ;)
Are you sure. That is news.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
What for?

Because it's fun. I suppose that explains the clitoris also.

Why assume a coldly logical God who only creates the absolutely necessary?

Strong atheist myself, but let's have no divine straw-men to argue against.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Can anyone make any better version than god now?

Every time a surgeon takes out an inflamed appendix, then they're redesigning for the better.

I've got the stamp of that modification printed irrevocably on my lower abdomen, and I never regreted the decision, even though it hurt like a ******* at the time.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
..."God is so very obviously a civil engineer." He said.

"How do you know?" Asked the others.

The civil engineer replied smoothly,
"Only a civil engineer would even dream of putting a sewer through a playground."

Either that or God wants us to take the advanced class in human sexuality......

[Beerina]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
That's makes me think of something new. What if a woman did have another set or more of nipples? In the US would they have to have a special bikini top made?

I recall an ancient medical story that described a woman not just with an extra nipple, but a complete extra breast on her hip. When she had a baby, it even gave milk.

On that skin flaws website, they describe extra nipples as looking sometimes like large, crinkled moles. So if you have one of those, that could be it too.

[Beerina]

I’m just saying the basic design for each of us is female, even with structures that may have more use in men, and from there the organism is altered to make a man.

Which, of course, makes perfect sense evolutionarily.

First sexual reproduction was two equal hermaphroditic types impregnating each other (this no doubt the result of long evolution from some single-celled interactions.)

In any event, all the time there would be instances of one of the pregnancies not "taking" (whether by accident or because of defect), yet the the DNA of both is passed along.

When the advantages of masses of children start to be outweighed by the simple reproduction itself, defects start to accumulate. Down the gradient descent you go to a different local minima. Next thing you know, with lots of children you get little pretty boy males. With large, fewer children (much greater resources usage), you get large, angry males dominating each other.

[wipeout]

From what I know, I believe this initial mixed-gender state exists across all complex animals like reptiles, birds, fish, etc.

This suggests a very, very ancient common origin. It's impossible to know quite why it exists. It would also be a mistake to think everything that exists in nature, exists for a practical reason.

I often read the ideas of biologists who apply evolutionary theory to implausible levels, thinking every characteristic must have -- or must have had -- some advantage and they then try to figure out what it is or was.

Anyway, the idea that boys start off female can't be right as girls have undeveloped male characteristics just like boys have undeveloped female characteristics.

And with this initial mixed-gender state, one of the female characteristics boys keep is undeveloped breasts.

So that's why men have nipples.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Every time a surgeon takes out an inflamed appendix, then they're redesigning for the better.

I've got the stamp of that modification printed irrevocably on my lower abdomen, and I never regreted the decision, even though it hurt like a ******* at the time.
How do you know it is better?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
How do you know it is better?

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/9481.html

I concievably could have died had God's egregious design oversight not been corrected after the infection started.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/9481.html

I concievably could have died had God's egregious design oversight not been corrected after the infection started.
Are you going to blame god for all human diseases?

[singlemalt]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
What for?

Why did god create man with nipples?

Actually we need to back up a step or two. Somewhere it was written down ( after many, many millenia of Russian telephone) that man was created in gods image.

What the hell did god need nipples for?



It is better to curse the darknes than to light a candle and give away your position. Gunny Gunn (never got promoted after that too good for the corps to mess with).

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by singlemalt
Why did god create man with nipples?

Actually we need to back up a step or two. Somewhere it was written down ( after many, many millenia of Russian telephone) that man was created in gods image.

What the hell did god need nipples for?



It is better to curse the darknes than to light a candle and give away your position. Gunny Gunn (never got promoted after that too good for the corps to mess with).

Russian telephone? I thought it was Hebrew.

I do not believe that God exists, but this is no argument at all.

If there is a God, He (or She) created male nipples (and clitorises) to be nice.

Why have a problem with that concept?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Are you going to blame god for all human diseases?

Not as such, but to debate in this thread requires suspension of disbelief in a god.

Suspending said disbelief, I do hold the almighty responsible for his own work. He did after all, claim to make it all. If everything is the result of some prime mover god, then he'd darned well better be accountable for his work, i.e. everything. That includes my easily inflamed and otherwise useless appendix.

God has also got some 'splaining to do regarding the design of my testicles. I realize that for viable sperm to be produced, slightly lower temperatures than normal are required. Still, plenty of mammals have internal testes, and they seem to be reproducing quite fruitfully.

Why did He have to make those things so darned sensative and vulnerable? If I'm really created in is image, I think I'd like to give Him a nice knee-to groin regarding his engineering skills.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
That includes my easily inflamed and otherwise useless appendix.

God has also got some 'splaining to do regarding the design of my testicles. I realize that for viable sperm to be produced, slightly lower temperatures than normal are required. Still, plenty of mammals have internal testes, and they seem to be reproducing quite fruitfully.

Why did He have to make those things so darned sensative and vulnerable? If I'm really created in is image, I think I'd like to give Him a nice knee-to groin regarding his engineering skills.
From a system point of view, there are always pros and cons.
,high temp make the brain works better but hurts the sperm.,etc.
The appendix is not useless and the inflation rate is also not irrationally high. Maybe it just serves some function we just do not know yet or you can have you most parts cut by half and still function, or some part removed, but that does not mean the cut-off part is useless.
And we have even worse case, the dna can get wrong and some freaks can get produced, blame god?

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Why have a problem with that concept?
It is not a problem since nipples are there already, it is just human nature to ask why.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
From a system point of view, there are always pros and cons.
,high temp make the brain works better but hurts the sperm.,etc.
The appendix is not useless and the inflation rate is also not irrationally high. Maybe it just serves some function we just do not know yet or you can have you most parts cut by half and still function, or some part removed, but that does not mean the cut-off part is useless.
And we have even worse case, the dna can get wrong and some freaks can get produced, blame god?

Do you realize that the appendix is the most monstrously concieved divine conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids?

According to everything I've read, there is no evidence that the human vermiform appendix has any purpose, furthermore, it appears to be a textbook case of a vestigal organ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html#disproof). Removal of the "organ" has no ill-effects, save they botch the operation. All evidence points to the vermiform appendix being maladaptive, suboptimal and stupid in humans.

Most organs cannot function properly if damaged in some way, the liver is a rare exception. You can certainly try to remove parts of your heart and lungs, but I don't recomend it.

Certainly worse things have happened to people than the existance, infection and subsequent removal of my appendix, and, once again suspending my disbelief in a god, I do blame to mad fool. If God is the progenitor of all things, God is culpable for all things.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
[B]
According to everything I've read, there is no evidence that the human vermiform appendix has any purpose, furthermore, it appears to be a textbook case of a vestigal organ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html#disproof). Removal of the "organ" has no ill-effects, save they botch the operation. All evidence points to the vermiform appendix being maladaptive, suboptimal and stupid in humans.
That is the general idea about human appendix, which I disbieve, Like the seemingly useless male nipples.

Most organs cannot function properly if damaged in some way, the liver is a rare exception. You can certainly try to remove parts of your heart and lungs, but I don't recomend it.

I said most, not any and all, and function not as good as normal, but not going to die instantly.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
That is the general idea about human appendix, which I disbieve, Like the seemingly useless male nipples.


On what basis do you posit a function of my late appendix? On what basis do you posit a function of male nipples?


I said most, not any and all, and function not as good as normal, but not going to die instantly.

Lessee...

Intestines... ain't gonna work if you cut them in half, you'll die of sepsis.

Stomach... ain't gonna work, the digestige juices will disolve (a good part of) you.

Brain... I suppose you can remove a bit here and there, so that's one.

Lungs... Stated above, you can try. You'll die.

Heart... Ain't gonna work. You'll die.

Liver... another exception, but it could put you at risk.

spleen... you can try, but I'll laugh and videotape it.

gallbladder... I'll laugh.

Bladder... I'll laugh really hard. You might die of sepsis.

No,it would appear that most human organs cannot be mutilated without losing their function. I'm curious why you said that.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

On what basis do you posit a function of my late appendix? On what basis do you posit a function of male nipples?
Just in case you need some little female stimulants, for example.




Lessee...

Intestines... ain't gonna work if you cut them in half, you'll die of sepsis.
Any operation will have this risk, so no absolute link between the two.

Stomach... ain't gonna work, the digestige juices will disolve (a good part of) you.
I know a man with 3/4 of it disappearing and still moving around, the joice can be controlled by drugs.

Brain... I suppose you can remove a bit here and there, so that's one.
Better not touch it.

Lungs... Stated above, you can try. You'll die.
Lots of lungs cancer get removed, yes, will die but how long?

Heart... Ain't gonna work. You'll die.
Not suitable.

Liver... another exception, but it could put you at risk.
Another exception? How many exceptions have you got?

spleen... you can try, but I'll laugh and videotape it.
schistosome carrier get all of it cut-off, I know some of them personally.

gallbladder... I'll laugh.
A typical treatment for gallblader calculi


Bladder... I'll laugh really hard. You might die of sepsis.
See the first reply.

No,it would appear that most human organs cannot be mutilated without losing their function. I'm curious why you said that.
The most important ones like heart, brain do not apply. But better not cut all of them in a operation.

[Jyera]

Why did god create man with nipples?

Interesting question ...

Since God is perfect, and created man first, without knowing he'll need a woman. He should have created a nippleless man.
And later created a nippled woman and designed the nipple for breast feeding.

Since Evolution is false and God's design is flawless,
Man as he is now, is exactly like when God first created him.
Implies God created a man with useless nipple.

Doesn't make sense....

I think existance of nipples on man proves that God did not created man.

[richardm]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Are you going to blame god for all human diseases?

If you're going to take a fundamentalist viewpoint, then yes, of course. God is omniprescient and omnipotent. He created the universe and everything in it, and he knows ahead of time everything that's going to happen in it.

Who else are we going to blame? :D

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by richardm
If you're going to take a fundamentalist viewpoint, then yes, of course. God is omniprescient and omnipotent. He created the universe and everything in it, and he knows ahead of time everything that's going to happen in it.

Who else are we going to blame? :D
What about yourself?

[Camillus]

Originally posted by wipeout
...muscles which contract at climax which appear to be exactly like ejaculatory muscles, not to mention climax itself having no obvious evolutionary purpose...

The female orgasm does have a well defined evolutionary purpose: it aids conception. The physiology is fairly straightforward (and easy to observe with the right equipment and a suitable volunteer).

At orgasm the muscles of the vagina begin to contract, which serves to move semen closer to the cervix. The cervix itself dilates slightly and then moves forward and down toward the dorsal aspect of the vagina. In this position it dips into the semen that has been deposited. After a few moments it begins to move back into position, taking semen with it and increasing the amount that enters the uterus. Think of it as a more efficient version of the tucking a pillow under your bum to aid conception advice.

[richardm]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
What about yourself?

What about myself? I'm not the one who created the universe and everything in it. I'm hardly going to hold myself responsible when Neutrino_Cannon's appendix perforates and kills him, am I?

Now, I don't know whether you're a fundamentalist Christian or not. But if you were, it would be interesting to see how you could say that God created everything, yet somehow is not responsible for human disease. It sounds like the worst sort of apologetics to me.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Camillus
The cervix itself dilates slightly and then moves forward and down toward the dorsal aspect of the vagina. In this position it dips into the semen that has been deposited.

I have actually seen this happen in real life - it's quite remarkable to see the cervix dipping up and down like that.

By real life, I mean on film. And by on film, I mean a proper, educational film for educational purposes. Not that sort of film. Yes, really.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by richardm
What about myself? I'm not the one who created the universe and everything in it. I'm hardly going to hold myself responsible when Neutrino_Cannon's appendix perforates and kills him, am I?

Now, I don't know whether you're a fundamentalist Christian or not. But if you were, it would be interesting to see how you could say that God created everything, yet somehow is not responsible for human disease. It sounds like the worst sort of apologetics to me.
I told you to stay away from the sockets but you mess up with them.
I design twice a week but you want to shoot like a machine gun.
We are working with human, not another god.
Every bit of free will I allow you, you mess up with it.

[richardm]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
I told you to stay away from the sockets but you mess up with them.
I design teice a week but you want to shoot like a machine gun.
We are working with human, not another god.

I see. Nobody's ever explained it quite as clearly as that before.

And I don't mean that in a good way.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by richardm

And I don't mean that in a good way.
That is why you should be blamed.

[richardm]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
That is why you should be blamed.

Are you aware that what you're saying is indistinguishable from raving? I'm just checking. If you want to rave, that's fine. I just want to make sure you know you're doing it.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Camillus
The female orgasm does have a well defined evolutionary purpose: it aids conception. The physiology is fairly straightforward (and easy to observe with the right equipment and a suitable volunteer).

At orgasm the muscles of the vagina begin to contract, which serves to move semen closer to the cervix. The cervix itself dilates slightly and then moves forward and down toward the dorsal aspect of the vagina. In this position it dips into the semen that has been deposited. After a few moments it begins to move back into position, taking semen with it and increasing the amount that enters the uterus. Think of it as a more efficient version of the tucking a pillow under your bum to aid conception advice.

Yeah, I've heard of this theory and I don't believe it. :)

If there was an advantage in the cervix being down there, it'd have evolved to be down there already, and if there was an advantage for men to make the woman have an orgasm after the man had an orgasm to increase the chances of pregnancy, men wouldn't become so much less interested in sex after one.

I believe instead that any physical changes in women before, during or after climax are simply a result of the combination of developed female and undeveloped male genitalia in women behaving in ways that are unlikely to have an evolutionary purpose as the advantages appear too slight.

[sorgoth]

You're assuming that evolution is perfect, or even logical.

Not necessarily so...maybe it just happened that way for a woman, and hey, she had lots of babies because of it. It's possible there were never mutations that brought it down more, even though this would have been better.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Just in case you need some little female stimulants, for example.




Any operation will have this risk, so no absolute link between the two.


I know a man with 3/4 of it disappearing and still moving around, the joice can be controlled by drugs.


Better not touch it.


Lots of lungs cancer get removed, yes, will die but how long?


Not suitable.


Another exception? How many exceptions have you got?


schistosome carrier get all of it cut-off, I know some of them personally.


A typical treatment for gallblader calculi

See the first reply.

The most important ones like heart, brain do not apply. But better not cut all of them in a operation.

The question was never whether these organs could be removed, and your statement that they can is a red herring which serves only to distract from your previous erroneous statement that:

you can have you most parts cut by half and still function, or some part removed, but that does not mean the cut-off part is useless.

Which is clearly untrue. You can try cutting your organs in half, and when they don't even function partially, I'll laugh cruelly because I'm just the slightest bit low on empathy right now.

I'm also curious about your assertion that the appendix has a function. Praytell, what do you know about human anatomy that several doctors and medical studies have failed to turn up?

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by richardm
Are you aware that what you're saying is indistinguishable from raving? I'm just checking. If you want to rave, that's fine. I just want to make sure you know you're doing it.
I am sorry, I do not mean that in a bad way.
Human upset god too often and I am just trying to imitate.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
[/size]

I'm also curious about your assertion that the appendix has a function. Praytell, what do you know about human anatomy that several doctors and medical studies have failed to turn up?
It may have some influence on the laughing function.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
It may have some influence on the laughing function.


yinyinwang...

Lunatic or jester?

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
yinyinwang...

Lunatic or jester?
I just can not resist the idea after seeing you laughing stangely with your appendix missing.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
I just can not resist the idea after seeing you laughing stangely with your appendix missing.

It was, naturally, a false dichotomy.

Welcome Herr Lunatic Jester.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
It was, naturally, a false dichotomy.

Welcome Herr Lunatic Jester.
More lunatic than your funny laughs?

[AWPrime]

Why does man have nippels???


Maybe god is Bi.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
More lunatic than your funny laughs?

I'll stick with pillory, actually. I think he's got a patent on the genre, and he's got a lot of erm... style.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by wipeout
From what I know, I believe this initial mixed-gender state exists across all complex animals like reptiles, birds, fish, etc.

This suggests a very, very ancient common origin. It's impossible to know quite why it exists. It would also be a mistake to think everything that exists in nature, exists for a practical reason.

Similarity does not leads to a common origin, at least not enough for such a conclusion.
The practical reason may be there for a quite while, and the reason has gone but not the organ, it shrinks.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
You got to have some wild mind to link nipples with horror.

You should read about "the Witch's teat" or "Satan's teat" during the European witch hunts, and the practice of "pricking the Witch". The belief gave those nice Inquisition chaps an excuse for intimate body searches and inflicting unimaginable torture on innocent women.

Extra teats were supposed to have been used to suckle Satan, or the Witch's 'familiar'.

So, having extra teats might once have led to an innocent being humiliated, debased, tortured and hanged or burnt at the stake. Horror!

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
You should read about "the Witch's teat" or "Satan's teat" during the European witch hunts, and the practice of "pricking the Witch". The belief gave those nice Inquisition chaps an excuse for intimate body searches and inflicting unimaginable torture on innocent women.

Extra teats were supposed to have been used to suckle Satan, or the Witch's 'familiar'.

So, having extra teats might once have led to an innocent being humiliated, debased, tortured and hanged or burnt at the stake. Horror!
I was not prepared for extra human teats, since they are so unusual, people gets nervous in some way.

[Operaider]

I'd love to hear 1 in Christ's take on this

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Why does man have nippels???


Maybe god is Bi. Hey, c4ts proved he was a she-male a while back.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
I was not prepared for extra human teats, since they are so unusual, people gets nervous in some way.

Hmmm. Extra teats? Reminds me of a proverb:

"What some seem as a difficulty, others see as an opportunity."

[Beerina]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
That's only because we know human males have them. If we didn't have them we wouldn't know the difference. I think they look funny on me.

I think nipples would look awesome on avatar.php?userid=5058&dateline=1083198425. What in the heck are you talking about? :alc:

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Because it's fun. I suppose that explains the clitoris also.


Actually there is more truth to this than meets the eye.

A purely "rapist" pre-history with no female desire in it would quickly lose out to couples with eager participation of the female.

The easiest thing to do is just maintain, at least partially, the same sensors in the same organ, if very miniature in size.

In fact, the size of the clitoris could not grow too large, or else females could (and thus would) successfully copulate with other females (pleasure only, no reproduction obviously) thus shearing off that genetic line. No, not all, but some, which puts it at a disadvantage evolutionarily.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Hmmm. Extra teats? Reminds me of a proverb:

"What some seem as a difficulty, others see as an opportunity."
The horrorable thing is not the teat but the way people look at it. A horror mind can turn anything into horror.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
The horrorable thing is not the teat but the way people look at it. A horror mind can turn anything into horror.

Lol. I had hoped you realized that previous post of mine was a joke. I have no sinister views about nipples; frankly, I think they're pretty neat.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Lol. I had hoped you realized that previous post of mine was a joke. I have no sinister views about nipples; frankly, I think they're pretty neat.
Your face does not tell that.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Your face does not tell that.

My monkey just has an exceptionally wide smile.

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
This is just a guess but maybe.....

We share nipples with a common ancestor, who procreated asexually and when this species became male and female and started procreating sexually, the males were left with nipples for it's asexual predecessor.

Since nature never seems to spend more energy than it has to, why spend extra energy to get rid of nipples? They're great for sexual arousal too - which most women find beneficial to their pleasure as well! :)

Just a guess.
With extra organs, the body won't get energy efficiency either.