Detecting design or intent in nature

[BlackMason]

Prediction and development are not the same thing. Development occurs even when we are incapable of prediction. If we're calling (or implying that) nipples are a feminine characteristic, useless or purposeless on a male....those are manufactured long before manly bits, and there are no further instructions to get rid of them - the manly bits themselves are modified what, again?

I never called nipples a female characteristic, neither did I imply they were. I merely stated in my argument they have no purpose on men. Besides nipples, are there any other patently female parts that are not male parts in the development of a foetus before sex prediction can be 100%? If so what?

It is flawed reasoning to classify a body part to one sex because it serves no purpose in another.

---

Do you think that nipples are insignificant? I think that's your issue. If so I see where you're coming from.

On it's own, my argument appears weak. But I could strengthen my position if I formulated more such arguments. This is the similar to reductio ad absurdum. This is argument by negation.

By the way your 747 analogy doesn't work because the seats still perform their function. The seats are an analogy for nipples on men which do not perform their function. This is a false analogy.

Oh and I can decide to define things the way I want. My definition for nature is perfectly fine. An important part during debates and discussions is defining key terms. If you don't like the definition you can always walk. Perheps you can fault me on not defining nature in my original argument. I thought my use of it was how most use it.