2006-07-20 05:00:57 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Functionally useless, that is?
2006-07-20 05:01:44 · update #1
No, it doesn't prove it. However, it does bode well for evolution and would be helpful, if one assumes evolution is correct, in expanding its theory. However, it is not conclusive proof.
2006-07-20 07:11:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. Male mammals do not have useless nipples. They are designed for sexual pleasure.
2. If they were useless, this would decidely not prove anything about evolving from a common ancestor. How did you arrive at this?
2006-07-20 05:03:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean to say that the common ancestor was a species that consisted of ALL females and no males?
No, it simply proves that all mammal fetuses start out as female, before a chain of hormones turn some of us into males. Does this prove a common ancestor, or does it prove that the designer uses a similar design for different models (I.E.: all GM cars have traits in common, etc.)
2006-07-20 05:09:42 · answer #3 · answered by Randy G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"I have nipples Greg. Could you milk me?" Robert DeNiro, Meet the Parents.
All fetuses start as females... the best overcome it.
Actually, your theory is not technically correct. It's like saying that bats, butterflies, and eagles all have wings, so they evolved from a common ancestor.
There are two different kinds of evolution: subvergent and divergent.
Subvergent evolution is two creatures that evolved from different ancestors but ended up with similar traits
Divergent evolution is two creatures that evolved from the same ancestor but ended up with different traits.
You theory could really be an example of either.
Also note that, while someone felt the need to use your question as proof against Creationism, no amount of scientific evidence has ever ruled it out. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive.
2006-07-20 05:09:29 · answer #4 · answered by MDPeterson42 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not proof (you can never prove any affirmative in science -- only negatives) but it is certainly suggestive. And, of course, that is not the only thing that all mammals have in common: they have pretty much the same bones, muscles, and internal organs as well. Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is a useful and pleasant discussion of these matters, and I have recommended it numerous times in this forum.
2006-07-20 05:05:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can basically make this argument for dirt as far as that goes. Dirt has all the same properties as the components of your body, does that have anything to do with how you came about? The complexity of the human body is such that for it to have morphed throughout time into what it is today by random chance would be impossible.
God said He made man in His own image, ask God why you have nipples.
2006-07-20 05:09:43 · answer #6 · answered by foxray43 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is flawed -
"Useless"?
When was the last time another male mammal told you his nipples were useless? And you believed him??? Fool . . .
2006-07-20 05:02:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It proves only one thing. Males have useless nipples.
2006-07-20 05:05:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who says they are useless? A man could have been a woman. They develop before the sex of the baby is determined.
BTW, Thank God for women's nipples!!!
2006-07-20 05:05:45 · answer #9 · answered by Velociraptor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. Most animals are female to a certain stage of development and then genetics changes them to male. By then certain things like nipples have already developed.
2006-07-20 05:03:48 · answer #10 · answered by Fantasy Girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All female mammals have mamory glands thats what makes us mammals. The nipples are because of those mammory glands. Indirectly; yes.
2006-07-20 05:03:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋