Human Tails: Evolutionary Smoking Gun or Divine Practical Joke?

[WinAce]

Taken from here (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms):

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/tail.jpg

Exhibit B, X-ray image of an atavistic human tail. The subject is a 6-year old girl.

Note: pseudotails are an entirely different phenomenon and unrelated to real human tails. Pseudotails are merely abnormal protrusions of skin and muscle in the sacral region, whereas some real human tails have nerve ganglia, cartilage, additional vertebrae, specialized fine pressure centers, and can be consciously moved and contracted. In addition, cases have been reported where they've been inherited in families.

Human fetuses are also frequently covered in a minute fur (called lanugo) that becomes reabsorbed shortly before birth. Rarely, this feature is retained, resulting in what is known as Werewolf Syndrome by the press - a human covered in thick, animal-like fur.

This evidence more or less speaks for itself, but I'll offer a few additional comments. Atavisms are another empirical test for evolution's validity. The theory predicts only those atavisms that reflect traits in ancestral species will be found. This, for example, means that finding wing atavisms on a human, scales on a whale, fur on a fish, or some such, immediately and uncontrovertably falsifies evolution.

On the other hand, finding excessive fur on a human, hind leg protrusions in whales or snakes, or other atavisms totally consistent with their hypothesized evolutionary history is a strong confirmation.

[Frumious]

Human fetuses are also frequently covered in a minute fur (called lanugo) that becomes reabsorbed shortly before birth. Rarely, this feature is retained, resulting in what is known as Werewolf Syndrome by the press - a human covered in thick, animal-like fur.
You are referring to hypertrichosis. The best known examples are Danny and Larry Ramos-Gomez who work in a Mexican circus and suffer from an extreme X-linked variety of the condition.
http://www.circusfolks.com/apub/bio.html

http://www.geocities.com/okeedokay/apub/poleballet.jpg

You may not realize that every sebaceous gland on your skin is actually a pilosebaceous unit and has a tiny hair in it, even the ones on your nose. The reason we are much less hairy than apes is that these hairs are normally very tiny and normally don’t grow. Many serial sections of a biopsy may be required to find them but they are always there. These tiny hairs clearly don’t have the insulation function they have in other animals but they may have a function. The slow cycling stem cells (keratinocytes) that produce hair when it grows reside in a region of the follicle called the hair bulge. They are also there but inactive when the hair is in the resting phase. Bob Lavker’s group at Penn have shown pretty clearly that hair bulge stem cells are at least bi-potent and can produce epidermal skin cells, which may aid the reepithelialization of shallow wounds.

Taylor et Al. Cell 2000 Aug 18;102(4):451-61

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[Duvenoy]

I'm gonna go with, "Divine pratical joke" and a rather vicious one, at that. I had a girl friend who'd broken her's at, I think, C-1. It caused her a lot of pain that continues today.

Interesting, Fruminous. I've learned something.

doov

[Socrates]

The non-scientist WinAce spouts:... hind leg protrusions in whales... OK, where? Perhaps you mean a five-inch lump of bone found in a 60-foot sperm whale, as explained at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3316.asp ?

[TheFiveSolas]

:rofl:

Let me guess, the next thread you start will focus on abnormal growths near the temples which you will claim are atavistic horns! :teeth:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75002#post75002)
WinAce:

The theory predicts only those atavisms that reflect traits in ancestral species will be found. This, for example, means that finding wing atavisms on a human, scales on a whale, fur on a fish, or some such, immediately and uncontrovertably falsifies evolution.


Well, I've got to challenge you on a couple of points, here.

1) Scales on a whale? Aren't true fishes supposedly ancestral to reptiles, mammals, cetaceans? Reptiles have scales, ftm.
2) The molluscan eye is not a descendant of the mammalian eye, is it? I think that you underestimate the agility of evolution with regard to falsification criteria.

[QED]

Today @ 06:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75245#post75245)
Captain Ochre:



Well, I've got to challenge you on a couple of points, here.

1) Scales on a whale? Aren't true fishes supposedly ancestral to reptiles, mammals, cetaceans? Reptiles have scales, ftm.

Correct. Atavistic scales on a whale would be a big suprise and raise some interesting questions, but would not threaten common descent the way atavistic fur found on a fish would do.


2) The molluscan eye is not a descendant of the mammalian eye, is it?

Nope... and an atavistic mammalian eye arrangement would be akin to fur on a fish - only more devastating - if it appeared in a mollusk.


I think that you underestimate the agility of evolution with regard to falsification criteria.

I think "robust" is a better word than "agile".

[Bald Ape]

Socrates, TFS, and Captain Ochre,

With all due respect, none of your responses (or links) addresses the issue I'd most like to see addressed. Why are some humans, born with tail-like structures, able to voluntarily move the structure with muscular contractions? Is it because God works in mysterious ways (now go read your bible and pray)? Or could you do me the service of providing something with actual explanatroy power? Please don't waste bandwidth on anything less.

[WinAce]

Yesterday @ 09:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75135#post75135)
Socrates:

The non-scientist WinAce spouts:... hind leg protrusions in whales... OK, where? Perhaps you mean a five-inch lump of bone found in a 60-foot sperm whale, as explained at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3316.asp ?

The original article stated "Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits."

I haven't reviewed these papers myself yet, but since I know ICR tried to 'refute' the true human tail by focusing on abnormal fleshy protrusions (pseudotails) instead and claiming real tails don't exist, it's not exactly a site to be trusted.

Also, modern fish scales differ in some aspects from those of ancient fishes. Moreover, if only whales developed atavistic scales but other mammals didn't, you'd still have a problem. Nevertheless, the choice of scales as an atavism was probably a bit too ambiguous... Replace that with "whale hair atavisms on a fish".

[Bald Ape]

Why would a sperm whale have a leg-like structure with actual digits? By what rationale would a whale designer give a whale toes?

Got anything more than "God is a mystery, read your bible" responses?

[Socratism]

The answer to most of the questions on this thread is that we are only in a very early stage of understanding developmental biology and coming up with subjective "explanations" is a poor way to do solid science.

[Bald Ape]

Socratism,

Please describe the scientific method, as you understand it, without reference to subjective explanations (aka hypotheses). Thanks,

Bald Ape

[djnoz]

With all due respect, none of your responses (or links) addresses the issue I'd most like to see addressed. Why are some humans, born with tail-like structures, able to voluntarily move the structure with muscular contractions? Is it because God works in mysterious ways (now go read your bible and pray)? Or could you do me the service of providing something with actual explanatroy power? Please don't waste bandwidth on anything less.

It looks like some of the residual ancestral “junk DNA” from previous generations has been activated. This could occur via a local(somatic) or germline(global) mutation. This explanation is the most sensible scientific explanation for a working tail-like structure. Deny it by calling it “a divine joke”, and you might as well go and work for the Iraq information ministry.... :rofl:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator's Note- Socrates, with regards to post number 4 on this thread, the tone was not in keeping with WinAce's initial post. Please refrain from unnecessary rhetoric and using phrases such as "spouts" or "whinges" in every post. I am not saying you can never use them, but in every post to an opponent, it is too much and becoming disruptive. Not all posts deserve to be responded to in that way even if you (and I) disagree with the content. It is valid to point out lack of scientific credentials, but it could have been done differently. We are trying to improve the general tone here a bit. Thank you.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 02:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75658#post75658)
djnoz:



It looks like some of the residual ancestral “junk DNA” from previous generations has been activated. This could occur via a local(somatic) or germline(global) mutation. This explanation is the most sensible scientific explanation for a working tail-like structure. Deny it by calling it “a divine joke”, and you might as well go and work for the Iraq information ministry.... :rofl:

Wait a second here. You realize you've posed something that is falsifiable, don't you? I mean, this is really, really risky! First, it is a positive prediction that there exists a similar sequence of DNA shared by both whales and land dwelling animals which, upon a slight modification in whale zygotes, would lead to the development of leg-like structures and, upon disruption in zygotes of land dwelling animals, would lead to disruption of the formation of leg-like appendages. Second, you seem to be claiming outright that bizarre things like legged, toed whales COULD happen, but bizzarre things like feathered dolphins COULD NOT happen.

What do you call this tripe, full of subjective, predictive, and falsifiable explanations for observations about the world around us? Science???

Socratism, please tell this guy where he's gone awry.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape asked:


Why are some humans, born with tail-like structures, able to voluntarily move the structure with muscular contractions?


Claiming they are "tail-like" is very different from calling them atavistic tails. Without knowing the actual genes involved, such as whether or not a mutation occurred that caused extended growth or whether or not all of the genes were present but had been "turned off", I'm unable to see any scientific evidence that points one way or the other.

With regards to the muscular contractions, again I would have to know more. The coccygeal area normally has muscles attached that aid in defecation. Since defecation is a, for the most part, controllable muscular function I'm not convinced that an abnormal growth that offers some degree of muscle contraction is proof of a recurrance of an ancestral tail.

[QED]

FiveS ----

Would it help you make up your mind to know that the genes that code for tails in mice have been identified, and that very similar genes are found in the human genome?

How much would you be willing to bet against the proposition that the same genes as code for mouse tails regulate the development of tails in the primates that have tails?

Would it help to see a picture of one of these "tail-like" appendages?

http://www.ananova.com/images/news/india_babytail410x500.jpg

Is there any reason, any reason at all, to suspect that these things that have been identified as atavistic tails are something else? Is there any characteristic of them, or any evidence from genetics that you are aware of that would lead us to another conclusion about them?

The other evidence for the common descent of primates, including the fossil record, ERV's, pseudogenes, morphological similarities, etc.. does this not add any weight to the idea that these are atavistic tails?

[TheFiveSolas]

QED wrote:


How much would you be willing to bet against the proposition that the same genes as code for mouse tails regulate the development of tails in the primates that have tails?


Since tails are merely an extension of the vertebrae column I'm not surprised in the least.

You continued:


Is there any reason, any reason at all, to suspect that these things that have been identified as atavistic tails are something else?


Yes. A genetic mutation that causes the growth of the coccygeal area to continue past the point that it normally does.

You concluded:


The other evidence for the common descent of primates, including the fossil record, ERV's, pseudogenes, morphological similarities, etc.. does this not add any weight to the idea that these are atavistic tails?


I'm not convinced at all by the fossil record.
Here's just one reason why:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-286.htm

Pseudogenes have been dealt with adequately (see: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21091u.htm and http://www.trueorigin.org/pseudogenes01.asp and also http://www.mhrc.net/pseudogene.htm )

Homology has also been adequately addressed. (see: http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp )

[Bald Ape]

Since tails are merely an extension of the vertebrae column I'm not surprised in the least.
Would similar reasoning explain the existing of genetic sequencing for the development of leg bones (and sometimes even toes) in whales (closely matching the same sequences for the same structures in, say, horses)? Honestly, I don't know whether or not such a sequence exists, but I don't think either of us would be much surprised to find that it did.

An aside - Hey, I did it again, I went and used the theory of evolution to predict the outcome of a future measurement for a present set of circumstances! Is that observational or inferential science?

[WinAce]

Note: pseudotails are an entirely different phenomenon and unrelated to real human tails. Pseudotails are merely abnormal protrusions of skin and muscle in the sacral region, whereas some real human tails have nerve ganglia, cartilage, additional vertebrae, specialized fine pressure centers, and can be consciously moved and contracted. In addition, cases have been reported where they've been inherited in families.

If a 'mutation' can create a new organ, complete with specialized tail accessories, then you're an advocate of the Hopeful Monster hypothesis. :tongue:

Of course, that's still not an explanation of why people are never born with atavistic horns, feathers or pig snouts... is it?

Also, you do realize that posting links to articles that turn opposition arguments into strawmen lowers your credibility?

[TheFiveSolas]

Winace:
If a 'mutation' can create a new organ, complete with specialized tail accessories, then you're an advocate of the Hopeful Monster hypothesis.


First off, that was a non sequitur. I've seen mutations that caused the growth of a functional extra toe. However, that doesn't mean I subscribe to the "Hopeful Monster hypothesis". The information for such a structure was already in place.

Second, as I pointed out, the coccygeal area is an extension of the vertebrae column and already has controllable muscles attached (it also has nerve ganglia, cartilage, "pressure points", etc.). Therefore, if a mutation occurs that elongates the spinal column, does so in such a way as to leave the muscles (which were already coded for) intact, I'm not convinced that it is a "new organ", but is rather an error that caused a change in an existing one.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape:
An aside - Hey, I did it again, I went and used the theory of evolution to predict the outcome of a future measurement for a present set of circumstances! Is that observational or inferential science?


Inferential. :teeth:

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 08:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76065#post76065)
WinAce:
Also, you do realize that posting links to articles that turn opposition arguments into strawmen lowers your credibility?

I have little doubt that TFS has read the criticisms of the rebuttal he posted. He indicates here that he still finds the rebuttal to be a valid one, thus I hope he intends to defend it from said criticisms at some later time. It would only be by a refusal to do so, that my opinion of TFS's credibility would be lowered (e.g. at this point, I do not perceive him to be the type to link 'n run).

For what it's worth, TFS, I thought WA did a very thorough job of showing the rebuttal to be quite wanting, and I, too, look forward to you addressing his post.

[djnoz]

TheFiveSolas said:

Yes. A genetic mutation that causes the growth of the occygeal area to continue past the point that it normally does.

As we know, the tail in question is a functioning tail, which can be controlled by the central nervous system. The tail contains nerve ganglion cells, muscles, ligaments and articulating bone, these are all adapted to make the tail work.

Let's put that functioning tail through the scientific probability calculator.

Proposed possible outcome 1: A mutation occurs. This mutation makes several new genes appear at the same time. These genes cause a new tail to appear.

Proposed possible outcome 2: Some residual “junk DNA” from a previous generation is activated, most likely via a mutation in the nucleic acid chain. This mutation would affect a single codon or small sequence of codons in the chain. It is likely that an old codon on the chain would be changed to become a ‘start’ codon, which tells proteins in the nucleus where to start copying out mRNA strands. This change in a tiny amount of genetic information switches on the ‘junk DNA’, which is the ancestral DNA that codes for a tail.

About mutations - there are 4 things that can happen in a single mutation – these are taken out of a textbook:

Deletion – Genetic material lost.
Translocation – Genetic material removed and added onto another chromosome.
Inversion – Genetic sequences ‘flip’ over within a chromosome.
Duplication – Genetic material is copied and inserted into another chromosome.

I see NO ‘creation of large sequences of new dna’ in that list. Therefore, the probability of the first possible outcome is incredibly tiny, as it would have to involve several of the above happening at the same time.

I conclude TheFiveSolas was right in saying a tail could be produced by a genetic mutation. However, this genetic mutation could only of the kind that switches on ancestral ‘junk DNA’, ie. the scenario explained in possible outcome 2

[James]

I like to consider possible conflicting explanations for data in a form of preponderance of the evidence. I have to say, based on this thread alone, that the predictive explanation of reactivated genetic information coding for an atavistic tail is more robust than the ad-hoc explanation of an extended coccyx. The former explanation fits the evidence rather well, the second needs some genetic comparison between humans/primates, phylogenical evidence of tail formation, an analysis of the structure of the human atavistic tail, and a comparative genetic information analysis between individuals with and without tails.

[TheFiveSolas]

djnoz wrote:


As we know, the tail in question is a functioning tail


Functioning in what way? Having some muscle control, which I've pointed out is not unusual since the sacral/coccygeal area ALREADY contains muscles with that function? Sorry, this isn't very convincing. Now, if you wish to claim that a person that has been born with such a tail is able to wag it from side to side, well, I'd just love to see the scientific journal where that observation is published.

[TheFiveSolas]

James:
I like to consider possible conflicting explanations for data in a form of preponderance of the evidence. I have to say, based on this thread alone, that the predictive explanation of reactivated genetic information coding for an atavistic tail is more robust than the ad-hoc explanation of an extended coccyx. The former explanation fits the evidence rather well, the second needs some genetic comparison between humans/primates, phylogenical evidence of tail formation, an analysis of the structure of the human atavistic tail, and a comparative genetic information analysis between individuals with and without tails.


Its seems to me that the evolutionary hypothesis is the one that is ad hoc, not going by a detailed analysis, but rather by mere appearance.

As you pointed out, my skepticism leads to greater scientific inquiry (i.e., requiring comparing genetic information, analysis of tail structure, etc.).

[djnoz]

TheFiveSolas, you missed my point - I'd like to see you explain how a single mutation can cause an entire tail to appear. As far as we know, single mutations do not add entire lengths of new DNA into a chromosome.

A single mutation could only have a large effect if there is 'junk DNA' left behind. See explanation above.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape:
I have little doubt that TFS has read the criticisms of the rebuttal he posted. He indicates here that he still finds the rebuttal to be a valid one, thus I hope he intends to defend it from said criticisms at some later time. It would only be by a refusal to do so, that my opinion of TFS's credibility would be lowered (e.g. at this point, I do not perceive him to be the type to link 'n run).


Interesting attempt at psychological manipulation! I'm impressed. :lol:

Seriously though, I have NO idea what you are talking about. I've posted no links in this thread that Winace attempted a rebuttal to.

[James]

Today @ 10:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76123#post76123)
TheFiveSolas:

Its seems to me that the evolutionary hypothesis is the one that is ad hoc, not going by a detailed analysis, but rather by mere appearance.

To be fair, WinAce substantiated that an atavistic mechanism is predicted by evolutionary theory in his original post. The reason I referred to the enlarged coccyx explanation as "ad-hoc" is because it does not fit within the restrictive confines of theory prediction. Genetic, phylogenic, and ontological evidence would shed light on the validity of this mechanism.


As you pointed out, my skepticism leads to greater scientific inquiry (i.e., requiring comparing genetic information, analysis of tail structure, etc.).
Agreed. Does anyone have access to any relevant evidence about human tails or other atavistic features?

[TheFiveSolas]

To be fair, WinAce substantiated that an atavistic mechanism is predicted by evolutionary theory in his original post.


I must have missed this substantiation. Please show me where it is documented that atavistic tails were predicted PRIOR to evolutionists observing such structures. I'm quite certain that the "tails" were observed after which the theory claimed they were atavistic. This is post facto ad hoc.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 09:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76135#post76135)
TheFiveSolas:



Interesting attempt at psychological manipulation! I'm impressed. :lol:

Seriously though, I have NO idea what you are talking about. I've posted no links in this thread that Winace attempted a rebuttal to.
LOL - it does kind of read that way, but it wasn't meant that way. I believe WinAce was referring to the link you posted in the ERV thread (and your lack of response to his criticisms of that link). My comment was hinging on the hope that a response was forth coming. Of course, we all have lives (hopefully), and a qualified refusal (based on time constraints or some such) to respond to his criticisms would not be looked upon negatively at all.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape:
I believe WinAce was referring to the link you posted in the ERV thread (and your lack of response to his criticisms of that link).


Oh, I thought he/she was dismissing (with a wave of the hand) the links I posted above in my response to QED.

I haven't forgotten about the ERV thread, but I got the impression that Winace, as above, was merely dismissing things with a wave of the hand, and therefore wasn't going to waste my time. For instance, when Winace stated that he/she had dealt "specifically", in his/her opening post, with the arguments in the article I linked to I went back and re-read the original post only to find two sentences that, only in a vague way, dismissed some tangential points raised in the article.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that the ERV's are non-functional remnants from a retro-virus. In fact, the article I linked to contained several papers that have found functions, in the current organism, for them. This seems to indicate that ERV's are functional transposons, and original to the species at that, and not some viral leftover from germ cell infection.

[James]

Today @ 10:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76148#post76148)
TheFiveSolas:

I must have missed this substantiation. Please show me where it is documented that atavistic tails were predicted PRIOR to evolutionists observing such structures. I'm quite certain that the "tails" were observed after which the theory claimed they were atavistic. This is post facto ad hoc.
I don't have access to any relevant documentation of predictions, but it seems that current evolutionary theory allows for the creation and maintenance of noncoding DNA, which is then periodically reactivated in certain individuals via a point mutation. Atavistic tails would likely have been observed before Darwin even published "Origin of Species," or at least before the discovery of DNA, so I don't think that anyone could have actually predicted their existence before observation. I was specifically referring to the observations fitting within the predictions that evolutionary theory allows for if true, regardless of whether any biologist realized these predictions before they were observed.

I see it in the same light as Darwin's finches. Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection after observing its occurance in several finch species. Evolutionary theory does predict that natural selection leads to adaptation, but adaptation by natural selection was observed prior to the realization that the prediction existed.

In the case of atavistic tails, I think that DNA and atavistic evidence has contributed to the reformulation of evolutionary theory, enhancing its robustness. In this case, the evidence lead to the realization of the predictions. Now, evolutionary theory predicts that genetic information regarding tails should be shared between humans and other primates. It also predicts that mutations caused a reactivation of this ancestral non-coding DNA, and that a difference should be found in the genome between individuals with and without tails. An evaluation of this evidence would be a good analysis of the validity of evolutionary phylogenical predictions.

[djnoz]

The scientific theory supporting the activation of ancestral DNA is extremely robust. I have yet to see a YEC in this thread come up with a valid scientific explanation as to how a human tail can develop when there is no deactivated ancestral DNA material present.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=76111#post76111

[TheFiveSolas]

djnoz:
The scientific theory supporting the activation of ancestral DNA is extremely robust. I have yet to see a YEC in this thread come up with a valid scientific explanation as to how a human tail can develop when there is no deactivated ancestral DNA material present.


Argument by assertion.

Also, as I've stated before, a mutation that causes the development of the spinal column to not end where it should hardly constitutes an atavistic tail. Just as a mutation that causes the growth of an extra toe doesn't constitute an atavistic toe.

[WinAce]

Yesterday @ 10:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76104#post76104)
TheFiveSolas:

First off, that was a non sequitur. I've seen mutations that caused the growth of a functional extra toe.

Exactly right. What you haven't seen are mutations that cause the growth of functional horns, hoofs or other traits that evolution forbids will be found in humans. Have you wondered why that is? :shrug:


However, that doesn't mean I subscribe to the "Hopeful Monster hypothesis". The information for such a structure was already in place.

Yes, the information for a tail is in the human genome, a genome that doesn't normally express tails. Doesn't that make one wonder? :smile:


Second, as I pointed out, the coccygeal area is an extension of the vertebrae column and already has controllable muscles attached (it also has nerve ganglia, cartilage, "pressure points", etc.). Therefore, if a mutation occurs that elongates the spinal column, does so in such a way as to leave the muscles (which were already coded for) intact, I'm not convinced that it is a "new organ", but is rather an error that caused a change in an existing one.

Careful now... soon you'll be saying that hundreds of successive mutations can manipulate finger bones into fins. :teeth:

Now, let's see the image again:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/tail.jpg

Notice how the vertebrae in the tail aren't merely copied from the vertebrae in the backbone, but decrease in size and are carefully arranged that way, just like ordinary tails. Observe how the final vertebrae, C3, is but a tiny fragment and the tail overall is tapering, like those of other mammals.

Care to explain why we have the genetic code for a gradually decreasing series of vertebrae, complete with all associated complex paraphernalia, where other animals have functional tails? And why we have none of them that evolution forbids? ;)


Now, if you wish to claim that a person that has been born with such a tail is able to wag it from side to side, well, I'd just love to see the scientific journal where that observation is published.

Illustrated Encyclopedia of Human Anatomic Variation: Opus V: Skeletal Systems

Persistence of the Tail (http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.html)

http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19A.jpg

Also, argumentum ad linkum isn't really a valid form of argument. Bringing up the relevant points is customary, not just posting 20 links.

It's even worse if, like yours, pretty much all the points they brought up were strawmen and/or red herrings that have no bearing whatsoever on the actual argument ("but pseudogenes/ERVs/toenails on manatees might have a function!" is totally irrelevant to their use as an argument for evolution).

Finally, back the OP's TalkOrigins paper:


In fact, the genes that control the development of tails in mice and other vertebrates have been identified (the Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes; Greco et al. 1996; Prinos et al. 2001; Schubert et al. 2001; Shum et al. 1999; Takada et al. 1994). As predicted by common descent from the atavistic evidence, these tail genes have also been discovered in humans (Katoh 2002; Roelink et al. 1993).

Bada bing, bada boom. Why are we not surprised?

[TheFiveSolas]

Winace:
What you haven't seen are mutations that cause the growth of functional horns, hoofs or other traits that evolution forbids will be found in humans. Have you wondered why that is?


Evolution forbids it? If thats true, then how did they first arise in animals that have them if their growth is forbidden by the theory itself? :hrm:

Before you make unsupported assertions you need to check them to see if they will refute the theory you are desperately trying to prove.

You continued:


Yes, the information for a tail is in the human genome, a genome that doesn't normally express tails. Doesn't that make one wonder?


I never said that the information for a tail is in the human genome. I said the information for the sacral/coccygeal system, with accompanying contractible muscles, nerve ganglion, etc., is already present.

You continued:


Careful now... soon you'll be saying that hundreds of successive mutations can manipulate finger bones into fins.


Actually, if you look at the photo and compare it to a normal coccygeal/sacral section you will notice that there is a loss of complexity and specificity. Losses of information/specificity do not fins make.

You continued:


Care to explain why we have the genetic code for a gradually decreasing series of vertebrae, complete with all associated complex paraphernalia, where other animals have functional tails?


Well, for one, we already HAVE such a genetic code. The normal vertebrae column gradually decreases (and tapers) towards its final point.

In addition, the function of the coccygeal/sacral area is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from that of tails. For instance, it provides main support (through shock absorption) for sitting.

You added:


Also, argumentum ad linkum isn't really a valid form of argument. Bringing up the relevant points is customary, not just posting 20 links.


First, I posted three links.
Second, they were in reply to a one sentence list of "evidences" posited by QED. Therefore, I was responding in kind (i.e., by means of an extremely short list).
Third, the topic of this thread doesn't deal with; the fossil record, ERV, homology, etc. Therefore, discussing them in detail would have been inappropriate, especially in light of the fact that there are other threads currently (as you are well aware) dealing with the topics QED mentioned.

I challenge you to provide genetic proof that the alleged atavistic tail appears due to a host of genes that were dormant which are suddenly turned on. Your quoting from talkorigins without quoting the relevant literature doesn't constitute proof. In other words, the talkorigins claim that genes the control tail development in mice is also found in humans doesn't constitute proof. You need to provide the exact details as to what the referenced articles state. For example, its entirely possible that there are genes, similar in any animals with a vertebrae column that control its development.

In addition, if you can provide that, then you will also need to provide evidence of such a gene sequence in one of our ancestors that had such a tail. Merely assuming it doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

[Bald Ape]

TFS,

Let me shift gears here, because I think we (intentionally or not) are going to continue down ad hoc alley to a dead end otherwise. Could you give an explicit observation that would sufficiently differentiate a "random spinal cord extending mutation" from a reactivated ancestral tail? In other words, what observation of the tail-like structure (or of the genetics of people who have these structures) would it take to get you to [begrudgingly] admit that they were most likely the latter, not the former?

[Bald Ape]

In addition, if you can provide that, then you will also need to provide evidence of such a gene sequence in one of our ancestors that had such a tail. Merely assuming it doesn't constitute scientific evidence.
Surely you realize that you've created mile-high goal posts here - our tailed ancestors (direct ancestors, that is) are millions of years dead. Since DNA tends to decompose in just thousands of years, this seems like a rather disengenious attempt to demand evidence that cannot possibly exist (it would be akin to me saying "I'll accept Jesus' resurrection if you supply video footage of the event).

If the tail sequence in a mouse zygote could be identified, then either disabled, disrupted, or completely removed, and the resulting critter was a tailless mouse with an otherwise completely functional spinal column, would you agree that the disrupted sequence was for a tail? If we matched that sequence to a near-identical sequence in humans, and found a distinct difference in this sequence between "normal" humans and those with tail-like structures, what conclusions would you reach?

Again, I want to know this BEFORE I follow up on the actual study, to avoid another ad hoc explanation on your part.

[QED]

Today @ 02:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76053#post76053)
TheFiveSolas:

Since tails are merely an extension of the vertebrae column I'm not surprised in the least.

Fingers -- are they "merely" an extension of hands? What is "merely"?


You continued: "Is there any reason, any reason at all, to suspect that these things that have been identified as atavistic tails are something else?"

Yes. A genetic mutation that causes the growth of the coccygeal area to continue past the point that it normally does.

That would, indeed, be one reason we might suspect these are not atavistic tails, but the question remains: do you know of one? Has this mutation been identified?


I'm not convinced at all by the fossil record.
Here's just one reason why:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-286.htm

Whether or not you are convinced by the fossil record, I know you will show me human remains in reliably identified Creataceous sediment. I know there are numerous features of the fossil record that are quite ordinary and predictable if common descent is true, but must be explained away to avoid abandoning a creationist viewpoint.


Pseudogenes have been dealt with adequately (see: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21091u.htm and http://www.trueorigin.org/pseudogenes01.asp and also http://www.mhrc.net/pseudogene.htm )

Pseudogenes have been alternatively interpreted. This interpretation is not adequate, because it is ad hoc, because it is untestable as far as I know, and almost definitely untested. Another problem is that this interpratation speaks only to vague genaralities. I did not see any of these three links discussing the GLO "vitamin C" shared pseudogene... for instance. Would a gene whose non-functionality is so clear as that one be "adequately explained" by their responses? To see the difference between the ad hoc explanations and the predictive power of the evolutionary explanation, see this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/



Homology has also been adequately addressed. (see: http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp )

What do you mean, "adequately addressed"? Do you mean that you have found another explanation, and never mind that it has to go on the end of a long list of alternate explanations, all of which are needed to explain various phenomena that can be explained equally well or better by the one single explanation of common descent?

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape:

In other words, what observation of the tail-like structure (or of the genetics of people who have these structures) would it take to get you to admit that they were most likely the latter, not the former?


Let me elaborate on my earlier criticisms.

1) The photos listed in Winace's Post #37 above (of the baby with a tail-like protrusion) are taken from a report from 1901.

2) Winace didn't quote the relevant details (that support my above criticisms) found on the very page he/she linked to.



A well-developed tail is characteristic of the human embryo in the second month. Ususally during the third month the tail regresses and disappears as an anatomic external feature. [b]Occasionally the tail persists and grows with the rest of the body. Tails as long as 23 cm have been reported.


First, the "tail" is something that is ALREADY PRESENT in the development of the human vertebrae.
Second, the "tail...Occasionally persists and grows with the rest of the body."

Therefore, the "tail" is not a NEW structure that emerges (or reappears), but rather is an EXISTING structure that, due most probably, to a mutational error, PERSISTS.

In addition, a maximum 23cm "tail" HARDLY constitutes a re-emergence of a lost ancestral tail. Unless you want to claim that our ancestral tails were only about 8.5-9 inches in length. Heck, my dog (who is about 1/3 my size) has one at least two to three times that length.

Lastly, the original photograph posted by Winace in this thread shows that the saccral and coccygeal region do NOT have additional vertebrae, but rather have the coccygeal region unseparated instead of being fused AND have two of the three to five coccygeal bones larger than usual. (Note: the areas in the X-Ray designated by "S" are the normal Saccral bones, the areas designated by the "C" are coccygeal bones.

Therefore, my criticisms are not ad hoc, but rely on scientific observation of the data being put forth by Winace.

[WinAce]

Today @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76789#post76789)
TheFiveSolas:

1) The photos listed in Winace's Post #37 above (of the baby with a tail-like protrusion) are taken from a report from 1901.

And this has bearing on the argument how? Several dozen articles have been published on the subject, most notably the recent ones referenced by TalkOrigins.


2) Winace didn't quote the relevant details (that support my above criticisms) found on the very page he/she linked to.

First, the "tail" is something that is ALREADY PRESENT in the development of the human vertebrae.

So? It also contains structures unrelated to backbone formation, like striated muscle tissue and pressure centers.

Moreover, you're arguing nonsense. Do you expect a tail to magically sprout when the infant is born, and not before? Of course it's already present in the genome and embryonic formation, albeit it usually doesn't grow to its full potential.


Second, the "tail...Occasionally persists and grows with the rest of the body."

Therefore, the "tail" is not a NEW structure that emerges (or reappears), but rather is an EXISTING structure that, due most probably, to a mutational error, PERSISTS.

Yes, it's a structure that exists in our genome, normally doesn't grow as long or as complex but dies out early on, and can be reactivated via the same sequence that controls tail formation in mice and other mammals. And your explanation for this is ...?


In addition, a maximum 23cm "tail" HARDLY constitutes a re-emergence of a lost ancestral tail. Unless you want to claim that our ancestral tails were only about 8.5-9 inches in length. Heck, my dog (who is about 1/3 my size) has one at least two to three times that length.

Perhaps you missed the reference on TalkOrigins to the two-inch long rudimentary tail of Macaca sylvanus. But failing that, perhaps you could show me any of a number of peer-reviwed studies, articles or books that come out and say that such structures have a minimum length before they can be called tails.


Lastly, the original photograph posted by Winace in this thread shows that the saccral and coccygeal region do NOT have additional vertebrae, but rather have the coccygeal region unseparated instead of being fused AND have two of the three to five coccygeal bones larger than usual. (Note: the areas in the X-Ray designated by "S" are the normal Saccral bones, the areas designated by the "C" are coccygeal bones.

And if you'd bothered to read the link I posted instead of skimming thru it, you'd see this (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms):

The entire coccyx (usually three or four tiny fused vertebrae) is normally the same size as the fifth sacral vertebrae. In this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five.

So, what do we see here? The coccyx is unfused and tapering in this case, exactly as our hypothesized ancestors would have it. Other examples not only have it unfused, but with additional vertebrae connected below.

So, let's see the questions you've dodged so far. Maybe you'll answer them this time.

(A) DNA sequences of mice lacking tails are compared to those of mice with tails. A specific difference is identified. Per the paradigm of common ancestry, scientists predict the same gene will be linked to humans born with tails. This prediction is borne out.

Per the paradigm of creationism, scientists predict __________________. This prediction is __________.

(B) Human tails often contain additional, tapering vertebrae and cartilage, not to mention all the other cool paraphernalia associated with tails. The coccyx can be unfused and enlarged into seperate vertebrae, just as scientists would predict it once was from its vestigial status. The creationist explanation for this is ____________.

(C) A single case of a human born with a hoof, horns, snout, wings, or other phylogenetically barred atavism, as well as possessing those features in the womb, would falsify evolution. None of these examples (and thousands of others) have ever been found. Astronomically unlikely coincidence, divine deception aimed at convincing us evolution is correct, or the obvious explanation that explains thousands of other facts, predicts heretofore unknown observations, guides new research, remains unfalsified and is only objected to by people with religious motivations? You decide.

[TheFiveSolas]

And this has bearing on the argument how? Several dozen articles have been published on the subject, most notably the recent ones referenced by TalkOrigins.


I'm not sure if you have access to any, more convincing, photos of "atavistic" tails but posting one from 1901 doesn't help your argument.

Also, the photo showing a "contracted tail" is another piece of evidence that militates against your position. I know of not one true tail that "retracts" (partially) back into the body as the one in the photo appears to be doing.

IF the "tail" is atavistic, as you maintain, whose dormant genes are accidentally turned on then explain why:

1) The tail is not a full tail. The article you referenced speaks of none larger than 23cm.

Note: Your reference (more correctly talkorigins') to the Barbary Ape Macaque (i.e., Macaca sylvanus) is irrelevant. They only have a stub of about 2cm, which is most probably due to a genetic mutation that caused a loss of a full tail. In fact, they are called "tail-less monkeys". Then again, perhaps you are now retreating to a claim that our "ancestors" didn't have a tail but rather had a stub.

You continued:


It also contains structures unrelated to backbone formation, like striated muscle tissue and pressure centers.


I don't know where you come up with this. I'm getting the impression that you don't know what some of these terms mean (i.e., you are merely reiterating/regurgitating them after reading talkorigins). The term "striated" refers to skeletal muscles that can be controlled voluntarily. The formation of the backbone MOST CERTAINLY involves the generation of striated muscles and pressure centers. As does the coccygeal area (which I've already pointed out at least twice in earlier posts). Specifically, the striated muscles in the coccygeal area control defecation. A function that, for the most part, is controllable (i.e., voluntary, thus involving striated muscles).

You continued:


But failing that, perhaps you could show me any of a number of peer-reviwed studies, articles or books that come out and say that such structures have a minimum length before they can be called tails.


You hold the burden of proof in this. Provide any peer-reviewed study that shows that our alleged ancestors had a tail that "retracts" INTO itself (or the body), like the photos in your post, and is also only 2cm long.

You continued:


And if you'd bothered to read the link I posted instead of skimming thru it, you'd see this:

The entire coccyx (usually three or four tiny fused vertebrae) is normally the same size as the fifth sacral vertebrae. In this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five.


The referenced surgeons NOWHERE claim they are additional vertebrae. The coccyc usually consists of three to five vertebrae that, in most instances, are fused. In the cases discussed they are not fused, but are "malformed" and enclosed in normal skin.

You added:


The coccyx is unfused and tapering in this case, exactly as our hypothesized ancestors would have it.


The coccyx is currently tapered (as is the vertebrae column of ALL vertebrates) and sometimes is not fused. In addition, the coccyx has a completely different function from a tail (as I've pointed out in a prior post). Claiming that a "common tailed ancestor" is the reason begs the very question at hand.

You continued:


DNA sequences of mice lacking tails are compared to those of mice with tails. A specific difference is identified. Per the paradigm of common ancestry, scientists predict the same gene will be linked to humans born with tails. This prediction is borne out.


This is an unsupported assertion. What is the case is that similar genes have been identified in both mice and humans. Since tails are extensions of the vertebrae column its not surprising that we share some similarity since we too have a vertebrae column. What you have NOT proved is that we have dormant genes that code for a full tail AND are remnants of a common tailed ancestor.

You continued:


A single case of a human born with a hoof, horns, snout, wings, or other phylogenetically barred atavism, as well as possessing those features in the womb, would falsify evolution.


You are being naive. Evolutionists claim that NEW, never before seen in an ancestral line, structures have developed. Therefore, IF such a feature appeared in humans you would NOT take such an appearance as a falsification of your theory. Rather, you would rationalize by stating how amazingly creative chance mutations are.

I will now take your assertion and turn it on its head. Show me a an unambiguous example of an atavistic trait. NOT a malformed vertebrae (of which the vertebrae in question already exist). Rather, show me something akin to something an alleged ancestor has that we CURRENTLY have nothing similar to.
Such as;
1) Rodent-like whiskers ( vibrissae ), touch sensitive organs, that are used in a manner akin to fingers.
2) Claws such as those found on rodents.
3) A tail that exhibits grasping ability like those on certain primates.
4) Paws.

Etc.

[Frumious]

2) Claws such as those found on rodents.

I have a great picture of a guy with a cutaneous growth that looks for all the world like a cat's claw growing out of his nose. It's called cutaneous horn and it is the result of too much sun exposure. The epidermal keratinocytes forgot they were supposed to make skin and made a claw instead. Of course claws are made from the same basic material as skin, hair and human finger nail. Apparently keratinocyte stem cells are pluripotent. Make of it what you will.

Unforturnately, I have it in book and I don't think it's on the web. I don't have time or copyright permission to put it up. I'll be away for about a week. I'll look for a reference when I get back.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[TheFiveSolas]

Frumious,
Thanks for the clarification.

[Bald Ape]

3) A tail that exhibits grasping ability like those on certain primates.

Cool - are you claiming that you will accept (or at least consider as highly likely) the common descent of mankind and tailed primates if a child is born with a tail capable of grasping objects? Or would you, if given such evidence, again shift goal posts?

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape:
Cool - are you claiming that you will accept (or at least consider as highly likely) the common descent of mankind and tailed primates if a child is born with a tail capable of grasping objects? Or would you, if given such evidence, again shift goal posts?


I hardly consider asking for scientific evidence to be an example of "shifting goal posts."

In addition, you need to first provide evidence of such an appendage before I can comment on it.

Also, there is one major point that I had forgotten to bring up yesterday.

IF these appendages ARE TRULY atavistic (dormant genes that have been accidentally turned back on), WHY doesn't the coccygeal/sacral area form in ADDITION to the atavistic "tail"? If the genes for the tail are being "turned back on" you would still have the genes that code for the coccygeal/sacral vertebrae turned on, creating BOTH structures. Yet, NONE of the examples given have an additional structure reappearing.

[Bald Ape]

You are being naive. Evolutionists claim that NEW, never before seen in an ancestral line, structures have developed. Therefore, IF such a feature appeared in humans you would NOT take such an appearance as a falsification of your theory. Rather, you would rationalize by stating how amazingly creative chance mutations are.
TFS,
I expect better of this - and highly recommend reading Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable". The key word in your claim (emphasis added) is "developed." Compare these statements:

1) Evolutionists claim that NEW, never before seen in an ancestral line, structures have developed.

2) Evolutionists have never claimed that NEW, never before seen in an ancestral line, structures have popped into existence in a single generation.

You seem to be conflating evolutionary theory with the straw man representation of evolutionary theory (whereby the sequences of thousands of nucleotides needed for the development of wings, feathers, hair, tails, etc., just magically appear out of nowhere in one giant leap of improbability).

It appears this is not a deliberate strawman usage, and is perhaps born of ignorance of the actual mechanisms by which new structures are developed via evolution. If that is the case, I can completely understand why ID arguments, painted with the brush of "irreducible complexity", would seem convincing to you.

If you would like to correspond via PM, I'd be happy to mail my copy of CMI, which does a tremendous job of explaining the above principles...

[Bald Ape]

In addition, you need to first provide evidence of such an appendage before I can comment on it.
Why? I'd be perfectly happy to give my response to any hypothetical scenario you'd care to submit.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape:
It appears this is not a deliberate strawman usage, and is perhaps born of ignorance of the actual mechanisms by which new structures are developed via evolution.


Actually minor changes in a gene can create LARGE changes in morphology. Its a fact that similar genes can code for very different structures. Also, when it comes to evolutionists defending the theory I don't look to people like Dawkins.

You stated (in response to my request for evidence of your hypothetical tail that can grasp objects in ways similar to certain primates):


Why? I'd be perfectly happy to give my response to any hypothetical scenario you'd care to submit.


I asked for unambiguous evidence of an atavistic structure (as opposed to things that clearly are malformations of already existing structures). I gave a few examples, a tail akin to certain primates being one of them. Until I have more details on a real example of this I can't comment on it since "hypotheticals" cannot be examined, especially ones that have almost no content.

[Bald Ape]

Actually minor changes in a gene can create LARGE changes in morphology.
True. What I'm saying is that neo-darwinism rejects the notion that single-generation large-scale morphological changes are necessary or even capable of contributing to evolutionary change. If that's what you think evolution is, you do not understand the theory of evolution.


Also, when it comes to evolutionists defending the theory I don't look to people like Dawkins.
Actually, I recommended reading Dawkins because he might help you understand the theory of evolution, and make an informed decision to accept or reject it. Your comments betray an understanding of evolution that is accurate in the way I might get an "accurate" understanding of the story of Jesus' resurrection from an atheist's website.

I'm just suggesting you at least come to understand the actual theory, and then decide whether or not the evidence supports the theory. I'd be happy to help by sending you my copy free of charge (except return postage, of course). Or, if you'd prefer to not learn how evolution is theorized to work, by all means, I'll bugger off.

[RufusAtticus]

Don't read Dawkins, (at least at first). I suggest that if someone wants to learn more about what biology actually says about evolution, they read the Pulitzer Prise winning book The Beak of the Finch, by Jonathan Weiner. My department uses it in our undergrad introductory evolutionary biology course. It's easier to read than Dawkins and doesn't have much of the baggage that Dawkins comes with. We've put together a list over at IIDB of introductory books on evolution. It can be accessed here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44461)

Note: Mods if you consider this advertising, feel free to remove that last sentance.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape,
My double major at Rutgers was Biology/Chemistry. I'm pretty convinced that their teaching was (fifteen years ago) accurate when it came to evolutionary theory. In other words, I'm fairly well versed in it (or at least I was fifteen years ago).

My criticism of Winace's assertion that the appearance of "horns, hooves, wings, snouts, etc. would falsify evolution," was not due to an assumption that evolutionary dogma teaches that such structures (true ones) appear in one generation. I know that mainstream evolutionary theory doesn't teach such things.

Rather, my criticism stemmed from three observations:
1) Contrary to Winace's naive assertion, the sudden appearance of such features would in NO way bring him/her to deny evolution. Winace is philosophically committed to the evolutionary paradigm, and therefore would resist ANY interpretation of evidence that would appear to refute his/her theory. In fact, I'm convinced that IF a REAL wing appeared on a human being, Winace would claim that it was evidence that one of our ancestors had wings.
2) Winace has already, in this very thread, claimed that a birth defect is a "true tail", when in fact the evidence shows a mere malformation of the already genetically coded for vertebral column. In other words, any structure that "appeared" that even REMOTELY RESEMBLED a "snout, hoof, wing, etc." would be ASSERTED to definitely be such structures.
3) Minor genetic changes can cause major morphological changes. Therefore, the appearance of something that resembles a snout or a horn is ENTIRELY possible.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 02:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77719#post77719)
TheFiveSolas:

IF these appendages ARE TRULY atavistic (dormant genes that have been accidentally turned back on), WHY doesn't the coccygeal/sacral area form in ADDITION to the atavistic "tail"? If the genes for the tail are being "turned back on" you would still have the genes that code for the coccygeal/sacral vertebrae turned on, creating BOTH structures. Yet, NONE of the examples given have an additional structure reappearing.

You have forgotten that multiple genes underly such features. Even if we assume that there was a single master switch gene that controled other genes involved in tail formation was turned off in our evolutionary history, there is no reason to suspect that turning it back on in us would cause all the genes associated with tail formation to also turn back on. That is because in the time since adult tails were lost in our ancestors, the regulated genes have diverged and some of which have lost thier capacity to be regulated by the restored master gene.

However, since humans naturally lose our tails through the process of apoptosis (cells die off), I suspect that these children are born with tails because the apoptosis did not function in at least the soft tissue of the fetal tail. It is more complicated than thinking that the genes for tails are simply turned off. They're still there and active, there is just another set of genes that specify for the fetal tail to be reabsorbed.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77799#post77799)
TheFiveSolas:

Winace has already, in this very thread, claimed that a birth defect is a "true tail", when in fact the evidence shows a mere malformation of the already genetically coded for vertebral column.
Why then do most human fetuses have tails, which are typically lost during development?

Why in these examples were the tails not lost?

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:
You have forgotten that multiple genes underly such features.


Actually, I put my comments in such a simple-minded way in the hopes that an evolutionist like yourself would point out the flawed thinking inherent in the view that such structures are the result of one gene (or one set of genes). In other words, Winace had implied that the "atavistic tail" grows as the result of (a) dormant gene(s). However, this is naive. The growth of ANY such structure involves a HOST of genes that control all aspects of its growth. For instance, there might be genes that code for the production of bone tissue, others for ligaments, others for the number of vertebrae, others for the size(s), etc., on and on. A genetic ERROR in only ONE of these can cause the growth of an extended vertebral column like the one that Winace used to start this thread.

Thanks, I had hoped that my purposefully fallacious example would act as a catalyst prompting an evolutionist to point out this fact. Often, such things are more convincing coming from a "hostile witness".

[RufusAtticus]

TheFiveSolas,

Remember that I went on to discuss briefly the interactions of "master" genes with their regulated genes. One gene can act as a switch for a structure; however, it also doesn't specify the entire structure.

I suspect that atavistic tails do not originate from dormant genes being turned on, but rather from the active genes for apoptosis of the fetal tail being turned off.

[Warcraft3]

Just wanted to make a comment here.......

This whole topic is not exactly an easy one since there are many unanswered questions concerning embryo development, with that said I would like to give all of you a hearty
Good Job!!!

This exchange has so far been an excellent one with lots of info and very little foolish squabbling. Keep the discussion going!

:cheers:

Russ

[WinAce]

Awww, everyone already tore your post to shreds. How regrettable.


Yesterday @ 10:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77173#post77173)
TheFiveSolas:

You are being naive. Evolutionists claim that NEW, never before seen in an ancestral line, structures have developed. Therefore, IF such a feature appeared in humans you would NOT take such an appearance as a falsification of your theory. Rather, you would rationalize by stating how amazingly creative chance mutations are.

You think so? Or is that just another red herring to divert from the damning fact that you can't produce a single example of around tens of thousands of features that can't resurface in humans if evolution is correct?


I will now take your assertion and turn it on its head. Show me a an unambiguous example of an atavistic trait. NOT a malformed vertebrae (of which the vertebrae in question already exist). Rather, show me something akin to something an alleged ancestor has that we CURRENTLY have nothing similar to.

While you're at it, care to ask for a time-lapse video from 4 billion years ago? The use of qualifying phrases like "akin" and "nothing similar to" leaves open numerous avenues of shifting the goalposts when you're confronted with evidence.

Moreover, if we had nothing similar to such traits, they likely couldn't be able to form at all - if you have no receptive sites for fins to grow out of your feet, having the genetic code for it probably won't help much.


Such as;
1) Rodent-like whiskers ( vibrissae ), touch sensitive organs, that are used in a manner akin to fingers.
2) Claws such as those found on rodents.
3) A tail that exhibits grasping ability like those on certain primates.
4) Paws.
Etc.

I don't seem to recall our hypothesized ancestors having whiskers. Perhaps you're mixing up evidence for evolution with falsifications of evolution again?

Any "claws" you could rationalize away as an abnormal nail growth, even if we found that the genes coding for them were the same in rat claws (as you do with the tail).

And our tails can already be consciously moved, although only monkeys and a few other animals have ones that can be used to grasp things.


1) Contrary to Winace's naive assertion, the sudden appearance of such features would in NO way bring him/her to deny evolution. Winace is philosophically committed to the evolutionary paradigm, and therefore would resist ANY interpretation of evidence that would appear to refute his/her theory. In fact, I'm convinced that IF a REAL wing appeared on a human being, Winace would claim that it was evidence that one of our ancestors had wings.

Thanks for telling me what I would do in a hypothetical future situation that has about 0 chance of ever being brought up (as evidenced by your total failure to produce such examples in this thread). Perhaps with your impressive mind-reading and ESP skills, you could collect James Randi's $1,000,000 prize?


2) Winace has already, in this very thread, claimed that a birth defect is a "true tail", when in fact the evidence shows a mere malformation of the already genetically coded for vertebral column.

You think? And that's the reason some of the genes responsible for the tail are the same ones coding for a tail in mice and other animals? The reason why no such 'malformations' occur that would contradict evolution, as well, out of the tens of thousands that could?


In other words, any structure that "appeared" that even REMOTELY RESEMBLED a "snout, hoof, wing, etc." would be ASSERTED to definitely be such structures.

So bring them forth instead of piling on red herring on top of red herring. If you can additionally demonstrate that genes responsible for their formation are the same ones that regulate snout, hoof and wing formation in those respective species, I'll be all the more surprised and everyone here might have to rethink their beliefs.

As is, your unsupported assertions aren't really convincing anyone.


3) Minor genetic changes can cause major morphological changes. Therefore, the appearance of something that resembles a snout or a horn is ENTIRELY possible.

So bring one forth. It should be easy enough, right? ;)

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77799#post77799)
TheFiveSolas:

Bald Ape,
My double major at Rutgers was Biology/Chemistry. I'm pretty convinced that their teaching was (fifteen years ago) accurate when it came to evolutionary theory. In other words, I'm fairly well versed in it (or at least I was fifteen years ago).


Did you ever take a course specifically devoted to evolutionary biology? At my university bio majors don't have to take evolutionary biology if they take ecology. (It's one of those either or requirements.) Genetics majors on the other hand are required to take evolutionary biology. What was the situation at Rutgers 15 yrs ago?

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:
Did you ever take a course specifically devoted to evolutionary biology?


No, I didn't. I don't remember them even offering such a course at the time. Of course, I might have paid it no mind since it wasn't a requirement.



Winace:
I don't seem to recall our hypothesized ancestors having whiskers. Perhaps you're mixing up evidence for evolution with falsifications of evolution again?


Another piece of evidence that makes me think you haven't studied what you are currently preaching on.

"Scientist Map Mouse Genome"


Humans and mice last shared a common ancestor probably a small rodentlike mammal roughly 100 million years ago, but today retain similar-sized genomes and many of the same genes.

http://www.sciforums.com/archive/31/2002/08/1/9846



Winace:
Awww, everyone already tore your post to shreds. How regrettable.


:huh: Um, no one has rebutted my last critique of your view (Post #44). One person brought up a hypothetical and asked what my response to it would be. Another person challenged one of that last points and I responded by clarifying. How that constitutes "tearing my post to shreds" is beyond me.

And you wonder why I don't trust your interpretation in matters of fact. :teeth:

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:
Why then do most human fetuses have tails, which are typically lost during development?


I deny that it is a "tail" that is "lost during development". What we have here is an instance of apoptosis (programmed cell death) as opposed to necrosis (cell death due to injury, disease, etc.). In the words of eminent biologist Dr. John Kimball:



Programmed cell death is as needed for proper development as mitosis is.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Apoptosis.html

Since, the development of this structure undergoes apoptosis I'm convinced that it is a necessary transitory structure in the development of the lower part of the vertebral column.

In addition, the spinal/vertebral column develops faster than the rest of the body, giving the appearance of a "tail". However, as the central portion of the body elongates through growth, coupled with the development of the pelvic area and legs, the spinal/vertebral column gets "reabsorbed" as the rest of the body catches up.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78129#post78129)
TheFiveSolas:
Since, the development of this structure undergoes apoptosis I'm convinced that it is a necessary transitory structure in the development of the lower part of the vertebral column.

But why is a tail a necessary transitory structure in the development of an organism that eventually lacks a tail? Why is that omnipotent design looks like it is constrained by prior evolutionary history?


In addition, the spinal/vertebral column develops faster than the rest of the body, giving the appearance of a "tail".

Why does it only "appear" to be a tail? What features does the human fetal tail either have or lack that makes you conclude that it is not a true tail? How is its development different from other mammalian fetal tails, which are true tails?


However, as the central portion of the body elongates through growth, coupled with the development of the pelvic area and legs, the spinal/vertebral column gets "reabsorbed" as the rest of the body catches up.

What is your reference for this? Last I looked, the body did not catch up with the tail, the tail died off.


Sapunar D, Vilovic K, England M, Saraga-Babic M. "Morphological diversity of dying cells during regression of the human tail." Ann Anat 2001 May;183(3):217-22

Abstract:
During normal human development a number of transient structures form and subsequently regress completely. One of the most prominent structures that regress during development is the human tail. We report here a histological and ultrastructural study of cell death in the cranial and caudal (tail) parts of the neural tube in 4 to 6-week-old human embryos. Initially, the human tail is composed of tail bud mesenchyme which differentiates into caudal somites, secondary neural tube, notochord and tail gut. Later on, these structures gradually regress by cell death. During the investigated period, we observed two morphologically distinct types of dying cells. The well-described apoptotic type of cell death was observed only in the cranial neural tube that forms during primary neurulation. The other type of cell death characterized by necrotic morphology was observed in the tail mesenchyme and in the caudal neural tube that forms during secondary neurulation. This morphological diversity suggests that besides differences in origin and fate there are different mechanisms of developmental cell death between two parts of the human neural tube. We can speculate that the apoptotic type of cell death is associated with the precise control of cell numbers and that the other morphologically distinct type of cell death is responsible for the massive removal of transitory structures.


Fallon JF, Simandl BK. "Evidence of a role for cell death in the disappearance of the embryonic human tail." Am J Anat 1978 May;152(1):111-29

Abstract:
The development and disappearance of the human tail between stages 14 and 22 were studied using scanning and transmission electron microscopy, supravital staining and light microscopy. The tail is a prominent feature of the human embryo during stage 14 and is composed of paired somites, mesenchyme and extensions of the neural tube, notochord and gut. The tail grows with the embryo through early stage 17 when it extends more than a millimeter from the trunk. Overgrowth by the trunk at the base of the tail may account for the loss of part of its length during late stage 17 and stage 18. However, during stage 17 cells begin to die in all structures throughout the tail. Cell death continues in the succeeding stages reaching massive numbers by stages 18 and 19, and the tail becomes less and less prominent with developmental time. Most of the dead cells are phagocytosed. The debris-laden macrophages appear to migrate from the tail to the body. By late stage 21 or early stage 22 there is no free tail. We conclude that cell death has a major role in the destruction of tail structures and the concurrent loss of the human tail.



Saraga-Babic M, Lehtonen E, Svajger A, Wartiovaara J. "Morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of axial structures in the transitory human tail." Anat Anz 1994 Jun;176(3):277-86

Abstract:
Ultrastructural relationships between the notochord and neighboring spinal cord were examined during the regression of the human tail. Also, the presence of certain extracellular matrix components in the notochord was immuno-histochemically analysed in the 4th to 12th week old embryos. At the early stages, a close apposition of the notochord to the spinal cord exists in the entire tail region. The external surface of both structures is covered with a continuous basal lamina. The narrow tissue interspace contains interdigitating cell processes and both amorphous and fibrillar extracellular matrix material. With advancing embryonic age, separation of the two structures occurs in craniocaudal direction and the widening interspace becomes occupied by mesenchymal cells. During tail regression and spinal cord retraction, the appearance of large intercellular spaces and cell degeneration takes place in both tissues. With age, the extracellular matrix of the notochord, predominantly the perinotochordal sheath, increases in amount and antigenic complexity. While the intensity of laminin, collagen type IV and type III expression rises continuously during the period examined, the expression of fibronectin begins first at later stages, after the separation of the notochord from the spinal cord. The possible developmental significance of the described phenomena in the regression of the posterior end of the human tail remains to be elucidated.

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:

The possible developmental significance of the described phenomena in the regression of the posterior end of the human tail remains to be elucidated.
Quoted from, "Morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of axial structures in the transitory human tail."


As I stated earlier, this structure is a transient one that has a developmental purpose. The purpose simply isn't currently known. The fact that apoptosis (cell death) is occurring points to a developmental purpose since the "cell death" is programmed into the cells themselves (i.e., it is occuring on purpose).

On a relevant note, the first article mentions that apoptosis occurs at BOTH ends (cranial AND caudal) of the neural tube. If one wishes to claim that the structure experiencing cell death at the one end is atavistic, why not the other (cranial) as well? No, I'm convinced that BOTH are developmentally necessary and that NEITHER are atavistic.

One last thing. I'd like to put things into perspective. At the stage where there exists a structure that has a "tail-like" appearance the fetus is ONLY 1/4-1/2" in size, weighing between 1/1000 and 1/30 of an OUNCE. In addition, MAJOR morphological changes are going on. For instance, the heart is going from being an EXTERNAL organ to an INTERNAL one! So, structures exist outside of the body at this stage where they do not in latter stages.

[Socrates]

Great points TFS :thumb: Embryonic research was hindered by the destructive idea of recapitulation, and advanced when it was realised that many of the features have important ontogenetic functions rather than being phylogenetic vestiges.

[RufusAtticus]

04-25-2003 @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79167#post79167)
TheFiveSolas:

As I stated earlier, this structure is a transient one that has a developmental purpose. The purpose simply isn't currently known.

And this makes it not a tail how?


The fact that apoptosis (cell death) is occurring points to a developmental purpose since the "cell death" is programmed into the cells themselves (i.e., it is occuring on purpose).

The fact that apoptosis is involved tells us that the growth and regression of the fetal tail is part of normal human development. But this leaves us with the question of why would a competant, sentient designer give us such a transient structure to begin with. It makes complete sense if we are descended from tailed ancestors. However, no divine, competant designer should have been constrained by such things.


On a relevant note, the first article mentions that apoptosis occurs at BOTH ends (cranial AND caudal) of the neural tube. If one wishes to claim that the structure experiencing cell death at the one end is atavistic, why not the other (cranial) as well? No, I'm convinced that BOTH are developmentally necessary and that NEITHER are atavistic.

No one here has claimed that the fetal tail is an atavism. Adult tails in humans are atavisms. Neither has anyone claimed that apotosis signals atavism. I suggest that you review the thread, since I clearly posted the information on apotosis to show that your statements on tail development were wrong.


One last thing. I'd like to put things into perspective. At the stage where there exists a structure that has a "tail-like" appearance the fetus is ONLY 1/4-1/2" in size, weighing between 1/1000 and 1/30 of an OUNCE. In addition, MAJOR morphological changes are going on. For instance, the heart is going from being an EXTERNAL organ to an INTERNAL one! So, structures exist outside of the body at this stage where they do not in latter stages.

Yes, let's put things into perspective.
From an atlas of human development (http://www.bioscience.org/atlases/fert/htm/develhum/fetdev.htm), here are images of human fetuses in development.
Day 26
http://www.bioscience.org/atlases/fert/images/plates/4.jpg
Day 32
http://www.bioscience.org/atlases/fert/images/plates/6.jpg
Day 36
http://www.bioscience.org/atlases/fert/images/plates/8.jpg
Day 48
http://www.bioscience.org/atlases/fert/images/plates/11.jpg
Day 56
http://www.bioscience.org/atlases/fert/images/plates/15.jpg

As you can clearly see, the human fetal tail is not some minor feature that we simply mistake as a tail.

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:
And this makes it not a tail how?


The structure is a necessary (transient, as many others are)component of the developing embryo. It is not a tail, if it were it would develop into one.



RufusAtticus:
The fact that apoptosis is involved tells us that the growth and regression of the fetal tail is part of normal human development.


It ALSO tells us that the transient structure in question is NECESSARY for proper development. Programmed cell death happens for a reason.



RufusAtticus:
But this leaves us with the question of why would a competant (sic), sentient designer give us such a transient structure to begin with. It makes complete sense if we are descended from tailed ancestors. However, no divine, competant (sic) designer should have been constrained by such things.


Questing begging and prejudicial conjecture.

In addition, there are NUMEROUS transient structures that are NECESSARY for the development of the embryo. For instance, in the development of the fingers and toes we find transient structures. Ultimately it is the apoptosis of the cells between the fingers and toes that brings about the dividing of the digits. I also pointed out how the heart originally forms OUTSIDE of the body cavity.



RufusAtticus:
No one here has claimed that the fetal tail is an atavism.


Perhaps you weren't thinking very clearly when you made this assertion. In the immediately prior paragraph you wrote the following:



RufusAtticus:
...the growth and regression of the fetal tail is part of normal human development...It makes complete sense if we are descended from tailed ancestors.


The term atavism, when used in the context of biological development, refers to a reappearance of a trait found only in ancient ancestors. If you DIDN'T mean to imply in your above assertion that the "growth and regression of a tail" was atavistic then what in the world was the point you were trying to make? :huh:



RufusAtticus:
I clearly posted the information on apotosis to show that your statements on tail development were wrong.


I don't know what points you are claiming to have shown as being wrong. The only thing I can come up with is my assertion that the body elongates (which it does, and the site you linked to backs up) and also that the development of the lower extremities cause the lower backbone/tail area to get "reabsorbed" (which it does, though apoptosis also occurs, as it does at BOTH ends of the neural tube.

I will again put things in perspective. The images you posted (which are fantastic, by the way) cover a time when the developing embryo goes from about 1/8 of an INCH to about 1/2 of an INCH. A four hundred percent increase in size in a matter of only a few weeks. The images you posted also show how as the lower part of the body develops it passes the "tail" area. I assert that the area in question is being reabsorbed into the body in a way very similar to the heart, which is going through the exact same process at the exact same time (with apoptosis being a programmed and necessary part of this development).

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80514#post80514)
TheFiveSolas:

The structure is a necessary (transient, as many others are)component of the developing embryo. It is not a tail, if it were it would develop into one.

Solas,

It already develops into one. The fact that it is typically lost by the time of birth does not mean that fetus's don't have tails.


It ALSO tells us that the transient structure in question is NECESSARY for proper development. Programmed cell death happens for a reason.

It tells us no such thing. Programmed cell death happens because certain developmental features need to be destroyed. This does not translate into the fact that such developmental features are neccessary to begin with. Just because compensatory features are necessary, does not signal that what they're compensting for is.


In addition, there are NUMEROUS transient structures that are NECESSARY for the development of the embryo. For instance, in the development of the fingers and toes we find transient structures. Ultimately it is the apoptosis of the cells between the fingers and toes that brings about the dividing of the digits. I also pointed out how the heart originally forms OUTSIDE of the body cavity.

Equivocation. Please tell us what features requires a well developed, transitory fetal tail.


The term atavism, when used in the context of biological development, refers to a reappearance of a trait found only in ancient ancestors.

Correct, but a fetal tail is not found only in our ancestors. As the images I posted point out, it is also found in our species. A tail at birth on the other hand. . . .


If you DIDN'T mean to imply in your above assertion that the "growth and regression of a tail" was atavistic then what in the world was the point you were trying to make? :huh:

It's not an atavism, it is a historical constraint.


The only thing I can come up with is my assertion that the body elongates (which it does, and the site you linked to backs up) and also that the development of the lower extremities cause the lower backbone/tail area to get "reabsorbed" (which it does, though apoptosis also occurs, as it does at BOTH ends of the neural tube.

The claim that body elongation expains the disappearence of the fetal tail.


I assert that the area in question is being reabsorbed into the body in a way very similar to the heart, which is going through the exact same process at the exact same time (with apoptosis being a programmed and necessary part of this development).

But if you look at the abstracts I posted again, you will see that the apoptosis involved in tail development is not for simply shaping the tail, as it is in most other organs. It is for the removal of the entire structure. One of the abstracts mentions that there are two types of apoptosis operating in the tail, a minor one, and a major one. The latter being the one responsible for tail regression.

The images I posted, are to demonstrate that the fetal tail isn't some minor feature that can be easily mistaken because the fetus is small.

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:
It already develops into one. The fact that it is typically lost by the time of birth does not mean that fetus's don't have tails.


It is not a tail. As I've stated, if it were it would develop into one. Instead, it is a necessary part of the development of the neural tube. Since the nervous system is one of the most important systems it is one of the first to develop. Other structures then develop around it.



RufusAtticus:
Equivocation. Please tell us what features requires a well developed, transitory fetal tail.


You are not using the term equivocation properly. With regards to your question, I answered it above (i.e., neural tube, vertebrae column).



RufusAtticus:
But if you look at the abstracts I posted again, you will see that the apoptosis involved in tail development is not for simply shaping the tail, as it is in most other organs. It is for the removal of the entire structure. One of the abstracts mentions that there are two types of apoptosis operating in the tail, a minor one, and a major one. The latter being the one responsible for tail regression.


Irrelevant. The question is whether or not the structure in question is a tail, or a structure that is necessary for the development of the neural tube and vertebrae column (and possibly other structures). I maintain it is the latter. You maintain it is the former. However, merely repeating that it is a tail because it looks like one (or has a major apoptosis) doesn't constitute proof.

On the other hand I've pointed out the fact that the "tail-like" structure is part of the neural tube. I've also pointed out that further development of the structure involves apoptosis at BOTH ends. In addition, I've pointed out that programmed cell death indicates a purposed action, not a random chaotic event. I've also pointed out that the exponential growth of the embryo during this stage can EASILY give the appearance of "major apoptosis". The fact is that the body is straightening, elongating, and growing at an exponential rate.

Therefore, I challenge the assumption that the structure is a true tail that for some reason (which you have yet to enumerate) dies off. The burden of proof rests squarely with you. Provide evidence that the structure in question is NOT necessary for the development of the neural tube, vertebral column, and possibly other structures that we haven't yet linked to the one in question.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80601#post80601)
TheFiveSolas:
Irrelevant. The question is whether or not the structure in question is a tail, or a structure that is necessary for the development of the neural tube and vertebrae column (and possibly other structures).

False dichotemy.


I maintain it is the latter. You maintain it is the former. However, merely repeating that it is a tail because it looks like one (or has a major apoptosis) doesn't constitute proof.

It is a tail because it has all the features of a vertebrate tail: it is a post-anal extention of the notochord/vetebrae column. Now what you have failed to do is offer any explaination of why it isn't a tail, other than to say it is lost.


On the other hand I've pointed out the fact that the "tail-like" structure is part of the neural tube. I've also pointed out that further development of the structure involves apoptosis at BOTH ends.
Except for the fact that the caudal region involves two types of apoptosis, one specific to the gross regression of the fetal tail.


In addition, I've pointed out that programmed cell death indicates a purposed action, not a random chaotic event.

No one has claimed that the fetal tail is not a normal part of development.


Therefore, I challenge the assumption that the structure is a true tail that for some reason (which you have yet to enumerate) dies off. The burden of proof rests squarely with you. Provide evidence that the structure in question is NOT necessary for the development of the neural tube, vertebral column, and possibly other structures that we haven't yet linked to the one in question.

I've already given you the reasons why it is a tail: it's a post-anal extention of the neural column. The same way we identify tails in other organisms. The tail clearly is not necessary for the local neural tube etc. development, because such features get lost during the regression too.

I still await your explaination why sentient, divine design looks like it is contrained by prior evolutionary history. Why does an omnipotent designer need to use transient structures that look exactly like something we'd expect from evo-devo?

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:
It is a tail because it has all the features of a vertebrate tail: it is a post-anal extention of the notochord/vetebrae column. Now what you have failed to do is offer any explaination of why it isn't a tail, other than to say it is lost.


You are still begging the question. We are talking about a period of development that is prior to the emergence of full structures. Therefore, it is fallacious to point to a transient structure and speak of it as if it were a final one (in this case, a tail).

Next you claim that:



It is a tail because it has all the features of a vertebrate tail: it is a post-anal extention of the notochord/vetebrae column.


It does not have all the features of a vertebrae tail. For instance, bones aren't developed in this structure. Rather, it is for the most part only a neural tube. Therefore, it is NOT an extension of the vertebral column.

I also challenge your assertion that a true vertebral tail is an extension of the notochord. From my recollection in higher vertebrates the notochord is REPLACED by the vertebral column. In other words the notochord only exists during the embryo stage.

In addition, there exists no anus at this stage by which to judge that it is "post-anal".

You are reading things INTO the data that just aren't there.

[SLPx]

04-22-2003 @ 02:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75135#post75135)
Socrates:

The non-scientist WinAce spouts:... hind leg protrusions in whales... OK, where? Perhaps you mean a five-inch lump of bone found in a 60-foot sperm whale, as explained at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3316.asp ?

Whale embryos have hind limb buds.

Pinnipeds have two complete sets of hind limbs.

Thats some good creatin'.

[SLPx]

Two words:

extensor coccygis.

If the coccyx were not a vestigial tail, one should wonder why there is a muscles attached to it whose sole function would be to extend it.

Can you extend your coccyx? I can't...

[TheFiveSolas]

SLPx:
If the coccyx were not a vestigial tail, one should wonder why there is a muscles attached to it whose sole function would be to extend it.


Tails do not extend and contract. Some can grasp by means of curling. However, the ONLY example, given in this thread, of a human "tail" that moves showed movement RETRACTING the tail INTO the body. This is entirely UNLIKE any other tail, including EVERY SINGLE example of tails on primates.

On the other hand, the coccygeal area, as I've pointed out several times already, contains muscles that aid in defecation. Therefore, a deformation of this area, that UNFUSES the coccygeal vertebrae, could clearly lead to a "tail" that CONTRACTS and EXPANDS, etc.



SLPx:
Whale embryos have hind limb buds.


In this example a FIVE inch structure (with most examples being less than ONE inch in size) on a FIVE HUNDRED and TWENTY inch long creature is ASSERTED as DEFINITELY being "limb buds". As before, these "buds" do NOT develop into limbs, yet are claimed to be such, WITHOUT anything other than PURE CONJECTURE.

Another example of evolutionary bias/dogma IMPOSING an interpretation onto the evidence.

[Warcraft3]

As someone who has been considering theistic evolution for some time now I have been trying to keep up on these discussions. I must say I find this argument to be rather weak evidence for evolution, as I find all comparative embryology arguments (used to support either view).

I find the retrovirus argument and the shared psuedogenes to be much more compelling as evidence for evolution.




Russ

:rockon:

[SLPx]

Today @ 05:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80950#post80950)
TheFiveSolas:



Tails do not extend and contract.
For someone with a double major, one of which was supposedly in biology, your use of terminology is somewhat arbitrary and often incorrect.

Extension is the increase of the angle between articulating bones at a joint. The 'opposite' of this is flexion. I think perhaps you might have been thinking of retraction v. protraction.

So, yes, tails can in fact be extended, providing one uses the proper and appropriate terminology.


Some can grasp by means of curling. However, the ONLY example, given in this thread, of a human "tail" that moves showed movement RETRACTING the tail INTO the body. This is entirely UNLIKE any other tail, including EVERY SINGLE example of tails on primates.
And there is no relevance to what I wrote in your reply.

The interesting thing about the extensor coccygis is its points of attachment - if a person even has one (the latest version of even Gray's anatomy does not list it, whereas older versions do). Its origin is on the distal sacrum or proximal coccyx, and it inserts on the distal coccyx. It crosses one or more intercoccygeal joints.
Since muscles can only contract, the only possible action of the extensor coccygis would be to extend the tailbone. Animals that can extend a true tail - cats, for example - certainly have a homologue of this muscle.
By the way - do not use Bergman and Howe's sham description of the coccyx...



On the other hand, the coccygeal area, as I've pointed out several times already, contains muscles that aid in defecation. Therefore, a deformation of this area, that UNFUSES the coccygeal vertebrae, could clearly lead to a "tail" that CONTRACTS and EXPANDS, etc.
Irrelevant to what I posted, but interesting.

Of course, there is a congenital developmental anomoly called sacral agenesis, wherein the coccyx and distal sacrum (the extent varies) do not develop at all. This is often asymptomatic. Hardly what one would expect were the coccyx so important a structure...




In this example a FIVE inch structure (with most examples being less than ONE inch in size) on a FIVE HUNDRED and TWENTY inch long creature is ASSERTED as DEFINITELY being "limb buds".
What does the size of the structure have to do with it? Of course, a whale embryo is not 500 inches long. The structure is, in fact, a limb bud. A limb bud contains the embryonic tissues that in, for examle, a terrestial quadruped would develop into legs. I am asserting nothing - that is what the structure is, whether 5s likes it or not.


ore, these "buds" do NOT develop into limbs, yet are claimed to be such, WITHOUT anything other than PURE CONJECTURE.

No, they are called limb buds because they contain the same rudimentary structures that limb buds on terrestrial quadrupeds do. This seems to be little more than a terminology issue - are you going to complain with CAPS and repeated EMPHASIS that you don't like the fact that the bones associated with the reduced pelvi in whales is called a femur because it is propaganda?


Another example of evolutionary bias/dogma IMPOSING an interpretation onto the evidence.

Yes, that must be it. of course, it has nothing at all to do with anatomy or histology....

[SLPx]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80990#post80990)
steadele:

As someone who has been considering theistic evolution for some time now I have been trying to keep up on these discussions. I must say I find this argument to be rather weak evidence for evolution, as I find all comparative embryology arguments (used to support either view).

I find the retrovirus argument and the shared psuedogenes to be much more compelling as evidence for evolution.




Russ

:rockon:

Hi Russ,

I suggest you look into kidney development.
When I first taught embryology, I was astounded.
I can expand on this later....

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80678#post80678)
TheFiveSolas:

You are still begging the question. We are talking about a period of development that is prior to the emergence of full structures. Therefore, it is fallacious to point to a transient structure and speak of it as if it were a final one (in this case, a tail).

What's fallacious is to think that one can only identify neonate structures.

[qupte]It does not have all the features of a vertebrae tail. For instance, bones aren't developed in this structure. Rather, it is for the most part only a neural tube. Therefore, it is NOT an extension of the vertebral column.[/quote]

Bones have nothing to do with it. Sharks don't have bones but they do have tails. Sorry if I was being confusing earlier and playing loose with the terminological distinctions of notochords, nerve columns, vertebrate column, etc. Chordates share these four following characteristics even if in most species they are only viewable in development.
Notochord Dorsal nerve chord Pharyngeal arches post-anal tail that includes the notochord and nerve chord The human fetus, like all other chordates, clearly has all three of these.

Now a question I ask of you, 5S, how do you define "tail." How does your defination relate to biology's understanding of morphology?


I also challenge your assertion that a true vertebral tail is an extension of the notochord. From my recollection in higher vertebrates the notochord is REPLACED by the vertebral column. In other words the notochord only exists during the embryo stage.

I don't see how this is a challenge. For example, there are plenty of chordates, like sharks IIRC, which don't lose their notochords. Do you have a problem with them having tails?


In addition, there exists no anus at this stage by which to judge that it is "post-anal".

What gave you that idea? The gut tube evolves early in development by the forth week, and both the anterior openings(mouth) and posterior openings (anus) are established by then, although they're covered by membranes. Chordates are special because the posterior opening of the gut tube is not at the posterior end of the organism. Simply put, chordates have tails.

[TheFiveSolas]

SLPx:
For someone with a double major, one of which was supposedly in biology, your use of terminology is somewhat arbitrary and often incorrect.


Oh, pardon me for not remembering the precise terminology that I was taught over fifteen years ago. :doh: By the way, I mentioned that fact in the same sentence that I mentioned my backround. I find it revealing that you harped on the one, and ignored the other.



SLPx:
By the way - do not use Bergman and Howe's sham description of the coccyx...


I haven't. In fact, I don't even know who you are referring to.



SLPx:
The structure is, in fact, a limb bud. A limb bud contains the embryonic tissues that in, for examle, a terrestial quadruped would develop into legs.


So you claim, however, it doesn't develop into a limb. The reason is that the regulative genes for limbs are not present. Therefore, it is fallacious for you to call them limb buds. In fish structures in the same area develop into fins. Using your logic it would be valid to call the structures in whales "fin buds" since in fish that is what they develop into. No, this terminology is arbitrarily chosen due to the pre-committment to evolutionary dogma.

[James]

Forgive me if this is a terrible oversimplification, but I think the comparative embryology question is more one of noticing similarities instead of arguing terminology. Regardless of the terminology used, developing embryos between different species do look similar during certain points in development. Species who share a more recent common ancestor seem to have more developmental similarities than species who share a less recent common ancestor. Is this an unequivocal proof of common descent by mutation followed by natural selection? No, but it's an interesting observation in the context of these mechanisms.

[SLPx]

Today @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81164#post81164)
TheFiveSolas:



Oh, pardon me for not remembering the precise terminology that I was taught over fifteen years ago. :doh:
If you were unsure of the terminology, perhaps you should, in the future, refrain from being so erroneously condescending.


By the way, I mentioned that fact in the same sentence that I mentioned my backround. I find it revealing that you harped on the one, and ignored the other.
I find it revealing that you tried to puff up your credentials. and got shot down and ar enow trying to save face.




I haven't. In fact, I don't even know who you are referring to. Thats good.




So you claim, however, it doesn't develop into a limb.

Entirely the point. How do you explain that from a 'creation' standpoint?


The reason is that the regulative genes for limbs are not present.
If that were true, then the limb bud would not be present at all, would it? Fact is, they are present. Just a bit different.

Therefore, it is fallacious for you to call them limb buds.

In reality, it is fallacious to make such a pronouncement because you do not like the implications. It does not matter what the adult structurte is, the fact remains that in the embryonic form, a creature with no well developed hind limbs as an adult still possesses the embryonic precursors to them. the same embryonic precursors that in humans, for example, develop into legs.


In fish structures in the same area develop into fins.
Some do. By altering some HOX genes, researchers have been able to get what should have been the anal fins in zebrafish to develop into bone-contining appendages.

Using your logic it would be valid to call the structures in whales "fin buds" since in fish that is what they develop into.
My logic? You mean the logic of a graduate-level trained anatomist/molecular biologist? One that teaches college embryology? Fine with me...

Of course...

A whale is not a fish. It is a mammal (I know, I know, 15 years ago...). Therefore, it should be no surprise that whales have more in common developmentally and physiologically with, say, camels, than with manta rays or perch.


No, this terminology is arbitrarily chosen due to the pre-committment to evolutionary dogma.
Other than your prefabricated baseless assertion, do you have any evidence for this? Or is it your catch-all hand wave?

[TheFiveSolas]

SLPx:
If you were unsure of the terminology, perhaps you should, in the future, refrain from being so erroneously condescending.


:lol: The terminology I chose, though not "technically" correct, got my point across and is still a valid criticism of the idea that the muscles that control the malformed coccyx means that it is an atavism. in other words, the "control" of the "tail" is NOTHING like that found in functional tails of primates such as certain monkeys.



SLPx:
I find it revealing that you tried to puff up your credentials. and got shot down and ar enow trying to save face.


:rofl:
Mentioning that I pursued an undergrad double major over FIFTEEN years ago hardly constitutes "puffing up my credentials".

Let's take a look at what I originally wrote about my "credentials":



My double major at Rutgers was Biology/Chemistry. I'm pretty convinced that their teaching was (fifteen years ago) accurate when it came to evolutionary theory. In other words, I'm fairly well versed in it (or at least I was fifteen years ago).


Note the final sentence. Wow, such exaggerated hype! :teeth:



SLPx:
How do you explain that (limb buds) from a 'creation' standpoint?


Creationists don't deny that embryos at early stages have structures that might appear similar prior to full differentiation/development. What we deny is that the structures in question are remnants, that no longer fully develop, of ancestors that possessed legs/limbs/tails. I find it incredulous that such features start to develop and then for some reason reverse themselves. Rather, it makes MORE sense that they are transient structures that are NECESSARY precursors of the final structure.



SLPx:
In reality, it is fallacious to make such a pronouncement because you do not like the implications. It does not matter what the adult structurte is, the fact remains that in the embryonic form, a creature with no well developed hind limbs as an adult still possesses the embryonic precursors to them.


How can it be a precursor for a limb if it doesn't develop into one? What you are arguing for is that it is a "post"cursor. However, you have not proven your case. You've merely asserted it. Evolution happened, whales came from ancestors that had limbs, therefore, the buds MUST be postcursors of what were ONCE limbs. This is called arguing in a circle and is fallacious.

[SLPx]

My previous attempt to post a rebuttal was suppressed. I will re-write and resubmit soon, showing all of the flaws in the 5S's claims.

[SLPx]

04-29-2003 @ 04:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81561#post81561)
TheFiveSolas:



:lol: The terminology I chose, though not "technically" correct, got my point across and is still a valid criticism of the idea that the muscles that control the malformed coccyx means that it is an atavism. in other words, the "control" of the "tail" is NOTHING like that found in functional tails of primates such as certain monkeys.

Your terms were technically incorrect, that is true, and one of the themes running through the posts of the anti-science creationists on this board is an inability to use terminology appropriately, which may contribute to the many errors made.

I think you have confused my posts with others, for I not once mentioned atavisms or malformed cocces. However, that is that animals that can extend their coccyx (or caudal vertebrae) also have a well-developed extensor coccygis.




:rofl:
Mentioning that I pursued an undergrad double major over FIFTEEN years ago hardly constitutes "puffing up my credentials".

Let's take a look at what I originally wrote about my "credentials":



Note the final sentence. Wow, such exaggerated hype!\

Then why mention it at all? We see mention of qualifications (or supposed qualifications) of one form or another form several creationist posters on this board, and these are in attempts to 'argue from authority' - failed attempts all. If you acknowledge that your education is too far removed form the present to be of any value in this debate, again, why mention it at all?




Creationists don't deny that embryos at early stages have structures that might appear similar prior to full differentiation/development. What we deny is that the structures in question are remnants, that no longer fully develop, of ancestors that possessed legs/limbs/tails.
You can deny all you want and it will not make your denial a valid scientific position. The [i]facts are that whale embryos possess limb buds, whether you like that or not. The fact is that whale embryos begin to develop hind limbs, which then take developmental paths that lead them to producing rudimentary bones associated with the pelvic girdle.



I find it incredulous that such features start to develop and then for some reason reverse themselves.
I would too, if I had such a shallow understanding of development. They do not 'reverse' anything, they simply go down different developmental paths, just as male and female external genitalia both start out as identical masses of tissue. Or do you find that incredulous, too?


Rather, it makes MORE sense that they are transient structures that are NECESSARY precursors of the final structure.[quote]

In a sense, they are, and nobody ever said any differently. it is your grasp of the technical details that is lacking. The same limb buds that go on to form pelvic appurtanances in whales develop into hind limbs in humans.[quote]



How can it be a precursor for a limb if it doesn't develop into one?
See above. This line of semantics-arguing has no bearing on the facts.


What you are arguing for is that it is a "post"cursor.

No, I am arguig the evidence, you are arguing semantics.
However, you have not proven your case. You've merely asserted it.
Yes, I have asserted what is indicated by an objective review ofd the evidence, and you have asserted that which is rooted in your incredulity.



Evolution happened, whales came from ancestors that had limbs, therefore, the buds MUST be postcursors of what were ONCE limbs. This is called arguing in a circle and is fallacious.
No, it is called arguing the evidence. It is called actually understanding development, not claiming that because you had a double major 15 years ago that you know what you are talking about.

[TheFiveSolas]

SLPx:
...one of the themes running through the posts of the anti-science creationists on this board is an inability to use terminology appropriately, which may contribute to the many errors made.


Irrelevant. Whether or not the terminology was exactly correct has no bearing on whether the point being made was valid (i.e., that in the VERY few examples of human "tails", they do NOT function, in terms of muscular movement and control, in the same way true tails do).



SLPx:
I not once mentioned atavisms or malformed cocces.


This thread was started with the assertion that human "tails" are atavisms.



SLPx:
We see mention of qualifications (or supposed qualifications) of one form or another form several creationist posters on this board, and these are in attempts to 'argue from authority'...


My mentioning that I had double majored in biology and chemistry was, by no definition, an argument from authority. You misunderstand what makes an argument a fallacious appeal to authority.

In addition, the exact reason, which the context clearly shows, that I mentioned my backround was in direct response to Bald Ape's assumption that I wasn't familiar with what the general theory of evolution entails. I was simply rebutting with the fact that I was clearly taught evolutionary theory when I was pursuing my undergrad coursework.



SLPx:
The facts are that whale embryos possess limb buds, whether you like that or not. The fact is that whale embryos begin to develop hind limbs, which then take developmental paths that lead them to producing rudimentary bones associated with the pelvic girdle.


No, the fact is that whale embryos develop buds that are the precursors for "bones associated with the pelvic girdle." Bones that have a very important purpose I might add. What is NOT a fact is that these buds are ALSO atavistic remnants of hind limbs.



SLPx:
No, it is called arguing the evidence. It is called actually understanding development, not claiming that because you had a double major 15 years ago that you know what you are talking about.


Now that was a (subtle) argument from authority. Claiming that I don't understand development but that you do. My posts here have proven otherwise as any objective observer can see.

[SLPx]

SLPx:
...one of the themes running through the posts of the anti-science creationists on this board is an inability to use terminology appropriately, which may contribute to the many errors made.

5S:
Irrelevant. Whether or not the terminology was exactly correct has no bearing on whether the point being made was valid (i.e., that in the VERY few examples of human "tails", they do NOT function, in terms of muscular movement and control, in the same way true tails do).
No, it is quite relevant. Again, we see this distinct tendency of 5S to conflate points being made by different posters. I never once mentioned or referred to the occasional ‘tailed’ human. I have been quite specific and explicit about what I really have been trying to discuss. I have been referring to a muscle that some humans possess, that animals with freely movable tails also possess, that crosses either the sacrococcygeal joint or an intercoccygeal joint. I have not once mentioned atavisms or human ‘tails.’ If it is really that difficult for you to carry on two discussions on related topics without conflated them, then I suggest perhaps starting a new thread to discuss just this issue.



SLPX:
I not once mentioned atavisms or malformed cocces.

5S:
This thread was started with the assertion that human "tails" are atavisms.
Take a look at every thread on here and you will notice that none of them always stay exactly on topic. The points I have been raising are at least related to the issue of “Human Tails: Evolutionary Smoking Gun or Divine Practical Joke?”. That I did not and have not been commenting explicitly on the exact topic laid on in the thread opening post is what seems irrelevant to me.



Slpx:
We see mention of qualifications (or supposed qualifications) of one form or another form several creationist posters on this board, and these are in attempts to 'argue from authority'...

5S:
My mentioning that I had double majored in biology and chemistry was, by no definition, an argument from authority. You misunderstand what makes an argument a fallacious appeal to authority.
Yes, that must be it, because we all know that the moderators of this board are the true arbiters of all word definitions and usages by all people, as has been pointed on several subjects... Saying “I have such-and-such a degree so I know what I am talking about” is by no means an argument form authority…




In addition, the exact reason, which the context clearly shows, that I mentioned my backround was in direct response to Bald Ape's assumption that I wasn't familiar with what the general theory of evolution entails.

And his assumptions seems valid, even after reading about your supposed educational background.


I was simply rebutting with the fact that I was clearly taught evolutionary theory when I was pursuing my undergrad coursework.
Why is that clear? Not all biology majors are “clearly taught” anything about evolution. I never once had any class on evolution in my undergraduate experience, and only one as a graduate student as partial fulfillment of my minor requirement. Of course, even if you had been “clearly taught” evolution, that is no guarantee that you retained or even understood it.



SLPx:
The facts are that whale embryos possess limb buds, whether you like that or not. The fact is that whale embryos begin to develop hind limbs, which then take developmental paths that lead them to producing rudimentary bones associated with the pelvic girdle

5S:
No, the fact is that whale embryos develop buds that are the precursors for "bones associated with the pelvic girdle." Bones that have a very important purpose I might add. What is NOT a fact is that these buds are ALSO atavistic remnants of hind limbs.

Once again, I never mentioned atavisms. You can argue semantics all you want – that is what creationists tend to do. But that will not change the facts. You can also use bold, CAPS, underlining, etc, and that will not change the structures possessed by both whale and human embryos.
For didn’t you learn in your double major undergrad experience that "bones associated with the pelvic girdle” femurs? And you can add all you want – let me guess – that in some whales muscles associated with the reproductive system are attached to them, therefore, they are ‘necessary’ and therefore cannot be ‘vestigial’ and are therefore the product of Creation? I’ve heard – and not been convinced at all – by such pleading before.


SLPx:
No, it is called arguing the evidence. It is called actually understanding development, not claiming that because you had a double major 15 years ago that you know what you are talking about.


5S:
Now that was a (subtle) argument from authority. Claiming that I don't understand development but that you do. My posts here have proven otherwise as any objective observer can see.

On the contrary, it is clear from what I have read that your understanding is shallow at best. And it is true that I am not an objective observer, for I– a scientist, unlike you*
- have extensive experience in embryology and comparative anatomy and can tell this immediately.

*this is not an ad hom, according to Momma Dee Dee, and I will use this repeatedly to show that my opponents are underqualified to render judgements on any number of subjects.

[Warcraft3]

SLPx:


*this is not an ad hom, according to Momma Dee Dee, and I will use this repeatedly to show that my opponents are underqualified to render judgements on any number of subjects.

Actually SLPx you are wrong about everything because I am an Electrical Engineer who has personally solved the *two capacitor problem*, which not one of you "scientists" has ever even seen.

Therefore I claim I am correct by default and you must all yield to my genius. Allow me to illustrate the proper responce when you see me or talk to me (or even think of me).......
:bow:


:teeth: Sorry but I had to use this argument at least once....since I see alot of other people using similar arguments.


In SLPxs defense he has never once used my lack of qualifications to discredit me.



Russ

[djdavo]

04-28-2003 @ 10:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81190#post81190)
James:
Regardless of the terminology used, developing embryos between different species do look similar during certain points in development. Species who share a more recent common ancestor seem to have more developmental similarities than species who share a less recent common ancestor.

you do know that famous chart showing how similar embryos from different species are is a fake, don't you? a complete made up fraud...which still isn't corrected in some textbooks.
also, what look the same in many cases are not what evolutionists claim they are (the "gills slits" in human embryos are just folds of skin, for example)

[James]

Today @ 07:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85760#post85760)
djdavo:

you do know that famous chart showing how similar embryos from different species are is a fake, don't you? a complete made up fraud...which still isn't corrected in some textbooks.
also, what look the same in many cases are not what evolutionists claim they are (the "gills slits" in human embryos are just folds of skin, for example)

I think you're referring to the early drawings by Haeckel which were exaggerated (strict recapitulation), but embryos with more recent common ancestors are definately more similar than those with less recent common ancestors.

[Socrates]

James:I think you're referring to the early drawings by Haeckel which were exaggerated (strict recapitulation), but embryos with more recent common ancestors are definately more similar than those with less recent common ancestors.It wasn't just the faulty recapitulation that was promoted by forged drawings, but even the similarity. See the textbook embryo pix v the reality at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp

[SLPx]

05-02-2003 @ 08:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85542#post85542)
steadele:

SLPx:



Actually SLPx you are wrong about everything because I am an Electrical Engineer who has personally solved the *two capacitor problem*, which not one of you "scientists" has ever even seen.

Therefore I claim I am correct by default and you must all yield to my genius. Allow me to illustrate the proper responce when you see me or talk to me (or even think of me).......
:bow:


:teeth: Sorry but I had to use this argument at least once....since I see alot of other people using similar arguments.


In SLPxs defense he has never once used my lack of qualifications to discredit me.



Russ

All Hail Mighty Russ!
:pray:

All due respect Russ, unlike some othe rmembers of this board, you have not yet felt the need (or needed) to resort to credential mongering.

And, of course, I only did so out of sarcasm.

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86425#post86425)
Socrates:

James:I think you're referring to the early drawings by Haeckel which were exaggerated (strict recapitulation), but embryos with more recent common ancestors are definately more similar than those with less recent common ancestors.It wasn't just the faulty recapitulation that was promoted by forged drawings, but even the similarity. See the textbook embryo pix v the reality at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp

In reality, embryos do in fact exhibit much similarity, such as the LIMB BUDS that I have referred to.

Since socrates is a mere chemist with no expertise in biology, we can forgive his being duped by fellow creationist chemist (and Missionary, lets not forget) Russ Grigg's (who only has a master's degree, to boot!) AiG propaganda piece.

[SLPx]

05-04-2003 @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87468#post87468)
SLPx:



In reality, embryos do in fact exhibit much similarity, such as the LIMB BUDS that I have referred to.

Since socrates is a mere chemist with no expertise in biology, we can forgive his being duped by fellow creationist chemist (and Missionary, lets not forget) Russ Grigg's (who only has a master's degree, to boot!) AiG propaganda piece.


I was hoping to continue with this toppic. Anyone interested?