Would that prove that evolution occurs?

Question

If I were to have a son born without nipples?

Males of any species have no need for nipples and therefore they will eventually evolve away from having them.

Answer 1

How about the millions of years of fossilised remains that have been carefully studied and analysed over hundreds of years?

Answer 2

All species 'evolve' within their own species. This has been proven and isn't in dispute. Feet get bigger or smaller, jaws get less or more prominent, and so on. This has never been in question. What's never been proven and is therefore in debate is that one species can morph into another. That's what's never been proven because scientists have never found conclusive proof of this' occurring.

Having a boy born without nipples would never prove that one species can become another over time. If it 'proved' anything, it would only 'prove' something we already accept and know to be fact. One such child would never prove anything, anyway. He'd simply be an anomaly -- and one who'd always want to be on the 'shirts' teams!

Answer 3

No

All humans and possibly all mammals are conceived FEMALE. Documented (Mary Jane Shiffery, MD, the nature and evolution of female sexuality)

ALL fetuses have female organs up until the 7th week when the X genome takes effect in turning the fetus into a male. At which point the blueprint of the Genome starts making alterations to the physical structure.

I repeat. ALL human fetuses have vulva, vagina, uterus, clitorus, fallopian tubes, nipples and ovaries until the 7th week.

This is documented.

All the body does is grow these in different ways based upon the GEnome blue print.

Answer 4

Not necessarily. (to the "eventually evolve away from nipples" remark, not the "would this prove evolution?" remark)

If the genes controlling nipple formation are close to vital genes, then mutations may risk damaging essential genes. Not to mention that if (like many things) the formation of nipples is a multigenic trait, then point mutations and such will have a difficult time elliminating nipples without producing harmful byproducts.

The persistence of nipples indicates an evolutionary degraded, yet persistent genomic profile.

EDIT: "Macroevolution" has been shown time and again through documented speciation events...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Answer 5

They will continue to get the nipple gene from both parents. Evolution effects entire species, not just the male or female of the species.

Answer 6

"Males of any species have no need for nipples" - True

"Therefore they will eventually evolve away from having them" - False

Natural selection selects from the alternatives presented to it. Natural selection does not cause genetic change. Genetic change happens, animals compete, those who have best adapted survive to produce future generations.

Answer 7

If men take estrogen, they can nurse just like a women. There is still a point to male nipples. It's just that nobody likes to think about it.

Besides, men and women aren't different species. Nipples are a commonality of homo sapiens.

Answer 8

In order for someone to be born without nipples they'd have to be a different species so that would never happen.

Answer 9

The question is:

why does evolution take place in certain species and does not take place on certain species: alligators for example.

Those things have been the same for a long time now: oh about a couple of million years lol

And mosquitos. Those havent changed either.

What about ants?

The list is long.

But why is THIS question on here?

And dont people realize that when people like yourself are against evolution, youre simply against the evolution of a new species from a different one?

Answer 10

You don't "prove that evolution occurs." You observe evidence and form conclusions based on what verifiable evidence indicates. Evolution is just a process that is taking place, which can be observed and confirmed by overwhelming accumulation of evidence, in much the same way that gravity is a reality and the rotation of the Earth on its axis is a reality.

Scientific claims and theories describe what is actually happening in the physical universe.

All scientific claims and theories are tentative, subject to being rejected if they are found to be conrtradicted by new evidence. Absolute claims that can be "proved" etranlly correct are not scientific statements; they belong in mathematics, theology, logic, or whatever.

The problem with fundies is that they do not want to accept conclusions from evidence. They want to cling to old beliefs that are comfortable, so they get their knickers in a knot when more and more evidence comes to light showing that their creationism is incorrect.

So, as you may notice, they do not attempt what they cannot do - that is, show evidence that their view is correct. You will see how much energy they instead put into trying to discredit evolution.

It is characteristic of science that any theory is held tentatively subject to further testing by evidence, and it will be rejected if shown false by evidence. Try asking a fundie if he is ready to give up his faith in Genesis if evidence comes to light contradicting it. I have yet to meet a fundie who will reply to that question with a clear, unequivocal, honest YES.

So "proving that evolution occurs" is not quite a proper question. "Proof" applies to deductive statements arrived at by applying logic to premises. Scientific statements are inductive, arrived at as conclusions from observation of evidence.

Answer 11

I disagree with you. Males have been shown to be able to produce milk for a child when the mother dies suddenly and the child NEEDS are not being met. It happens.

So, your son wont ever be born without nipples...

But, I am completely convinced of evolutionary theory.