Feedback archive → Feedback 2000 and before

Male nipples prove evolution?

From Ted Krapkat of Queensland, Australia, who gave permission for his full name to be used. His letter is printed first in its entirety. A response by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International, also of Queensland, Australia, immediately follows his letter with point-by-point responses interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses (…) at the end of one of Ted Krapkat’s paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission.

“Your so-called ‘answer’ on male nipples simply side-steps the real question. Why would God create male animals with nipples? Did Adam have nipples? Surely not, as Eve hadn't even been thought about at that stage.

“Genesis 1 states that the animals were created before Eve. Did the males of the animal species created by God for Adam’s amusement have nipples? I believe that the creation ‘theory’ cannot explain male nipples at all, without attempting to fathom the mind of an invisible, unknowable creator. Evolution theory on the other hand easily explains male nipples.

“Surely decent with modification from a common ancestor would necessarily mean that at a certain stage in evolution there was only one precursor to both males and females. Hence both males and females possess the same common genes some of which are expressed more in females others more in males due to survival pressure and natural selection. Evolution has split animal species into male and female having common ancestral genes. Your explanation actually supports the evolutionary explanation rather than any biblical one.

“Sorry, good try but scientifically and logically … no points!

“Ted.”

Your so-called “answer” on male nipples simply sidesteps the real question.

Which answer? Was it ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove??

Why would God create male animals with nipples?

This sort of argument (‘Why would God have done X?’) is really a cheap rhetorical device rather than a real argument for evolution, although Darwin himself made frequent use of it. After all, even if a creationist could not think of a reason (not the case here), it proves nothing more than that a creationist doesn’t possess all knowledge of the Creator’s mind, which has never been a claim of creation theory! This appeal to pseudo-theology is a poor substitute for actually demonstrating that an organ arose by time, chance and natural selection.

Did Adam have nipples?

Quite possibly, since nipples are especially sensitive and are a source of sexual stimuli. Since they have a function, they are consistent with a design explanation. They do not seem analogous to the navel, which is simply a scar where the human was once attached via the umbilical cord to his or her mother. So Adam and Eve would probably have lacked navels because they didn’t have mothers.

Surely not, as Eve hadn’t even been thought about at that stage.

Not so — God by definition foreknew everything.

Genesis 1 states that the animals were created before Eve. Did the males of the animal species created by God for Adam’s amusement have nipples? I believe that the creation ‘theory’ cannot explain male nipples at all, without attempting to fathom the mind of an invisible, unknowable creator. Evolution theory on the other hand easily explains male nipples.

How so? The only explanations consistent with evolution are that humans evolved from an all-female species, or that males once helped to breast-feed their babies.

Surely decent [sic] with modification from a common ancestor would necessarily mean that at a certain stage in evolution there was only one precursor to both males and females. Hence both males and females possess the same common genes some of which are expressed more in females others more in males due to survival pressure and natural selection. Evolution has split animal species into male and female having common ancestral genes. Your explanation actually supports the evolutionary explanation rather than any biblical one.

Not only does it seem that you are (willingly?) ignorant of creation, but also of evolution, I fear. According to evolutionary theory, the male/female differentiation evolved much earlier than mammals are supposed to have evolved from reptiles. That is, there were allegedly already males and females long before females evolved breast-feeding.

No, the design explanation for male nipples makes more sense. But even if male nipples had no known use, there is another important reason why they exist in today’s males. That is, 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.

Sorry, good try but scientifically and logically … no points!

You would, respectfully, need to carefully study both science and logic before we could be expected to take your assessment seriously.