Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails

Abe:I'm not sure what you find to be outrageous here. No evolutionist ever made this prediction, and if there were no observed tails then evolution would not be questioned, so your premise seems rather weak. But let's assume that tails in humans is a prediction of evolution as you seem to think. It does not therefore follow that evolution is proved by the observation of tails in humans. This is a fallacy (affirming the consequent). It seems that the only thing "outrageous" here is your understanding of how science works.--John

"The prediction of evolution is the types of atavisms that we do see."No, this is not a prediction of evolution. No evolutionist ever predicted this, and with good reason. As you yourself said "it is possible." Yes, it is possible that some weird mutations would cause some humans to grow tails. It is also possible that weird mutations would not cause some humans to grow tails. Evolution has no problem with either outcome. The problem here is the web has spawned a new brand of pseudoscience.

"It would be a problem for evolution if a human were born with two stubby wings on its back."Science is abused so easily. Imagine if none of these "atavisms" were ever manifested. Evolution would feel no pain. It would not be falsified. Evolutionists routinely resort to mental gymnastics to explain why genes disappear (or appear) in species. They would have no problem explaining the absence of atavisms. Therefore, they are not a prediction of evolution.If you want to examine the science here, then you'll want to note that atavisms are a development error (our existing tails are extended in this case). In general, development patterns violate evolution (ie, homologous structures do *not* share homologous development or genes). This one should have falsified evolution a long time ago, but it didn't. So don't fool yourself that evolution would be falsified if there were no atavisms.

"However, a person being born with wings would be a challenge for either the theory of evolution or modern genetics. Unless you can provide an explanation for the presence of wings that is consistent with the theory of evolution "You mis-read. The critical point you seem to be missing is that evolution would not be falsified if no atavisims were known, as they could be explained by gene loss, for example (a typical explanatory mechanism). Here's an experiment you can try. Explain to an evolutionist that development is not conserved (ie, homologies often do not share homologous development patterns or genes), a well known fact that he will already be aware of. Ask the evolutionist if this falsifies evolution. I have not once been given an affirmative response, even though a prediction of evolution is that homologies share homologous development patterns and genes. What does this tell you?

"... no one disputes your point. But to what argument is this point critical? How is this relevant to discussing evolution? Our argument is that atavisms do exist. Seeing that they do exist, the theory of evolution explains why they exist (and providing the excuse to call them atavisms), and predicts which ones are possible and which ones are impossible. It is the fact that we do see atavisms and that the atavisms fit a pattern that is the confirmation of the theory of evolution."No, this is not a confirmation of evolution. This is why the point is relevant: the observation of X is not a successful prediction of theory Y if theory Y does not predict X. Yes, atavisms exist and yes evolution explains why they exist. Evolution could also explain why they don't exist if that were the case. We cannot conclude "Yes, but atavisms do exist, therefore evolution's prediction is confirmed" if this is not a prediction of evolution.

"Evolution does not predict that atavisms will be present, but what evolution does predict is the pattern of atavisms if they DO exist."Actually evolution does not predict a pattern. There could be zero, one, or many atavisms according to evolution. I think what you are trying to say is that there are some non existent atavisms that evolution predicts will not occur (eg, wings). We don't observe wings on people, and evolution predicts that we should not observe wings on people. This is hardly a meaningful prediction.On the other hand, development is not conserved but this is never counted against evolution by the prediction pundits. So it's funny how these "predictions" get tallied up. If I didn't know better I'd think there might be some bias in the counting.

"But given that atavisms do exist, the theory of evolution makes definite predictions as to the pattern that they should exhibit."Repeating, evolution does not predict a pattern. There could be zero, one, or many atavisms according to evolution. I think what you are trying to say is that there are some non existent atavisms that evolution predicts will not occur (eg, wings). We don't observe wings on people, and evolution predicts that we should not observe wings on people. This is hardly a meaningful prediction. In other words, evolution predicts that chaos will not occur, and sure enough, chaos is not occurring. There is some order and reason to biology. This hardly is a plus for evolution.

"This constitutes a potential falsification for evolution: if a human baby, for example, is born with clearly identifiable angel wings, then we have an observation that is contrary to what the theory of evolution predicts."OK, I think we agree. That's quite a prediction. Evolution passes with flying colors. Now, how about we move on to the falsification of evolution. Since development patterns and genes are not conserved, is evolution falsified? If you say yes, then the previous discussion about atavisms is moot. If you say no, then you are ignoring a falsification, and biased in your evidence evaluation.

"I don't know what this means. You'll have to be more explicit here. However, before you explain this, the moderators here hate it when a thread goes off-topic. So, is this question relevant to the atavism discussion? If not, it might be better if you start a new thread."Yes, I think it is relevant because unconserved development falsifies evolution (countering the claim of this thread), and it deals with embryonic development. Here is what it means: similar structures in related species (such as in the same genus), come from different genes and/or develop in completely different ways. This makes no sense on evolution, and it is rampant in biology.

"Do you have an example of this? What prediction does evolution make concerning this? How does this observation contradict the prediction? Is there an alternate explanation that is consistent with the theory of evolution?"An example that has been known for decades is the eye of the frog species Rana fusca and Rana esculents which determination and differentiation are completely different (in one the lens develops from the epidermis on the optic cup. In the other, the optic cup does not induce the lens to develop). This sort of thing is common, and not surprisingly we often find different genes involved. Evolution predicts that similar structures, in similar species, would be homologous. That is, they derive from the same structure that appears in their most recent common ancestor. Hence they should come from the same genes and development pathway. It would be very strange for two similar species of frog, in the same genus, to have evolved their eyes independently. Or, it would be equally strange for evolution not to evolve the eyes indendently, but while preserving the eye structure and design to change around how it develops and the corresponding genes. The only explanation I can think of is the latter, but that is quite weak. It amounts to blind faith in evolution. And this would have to happen quite frequently. It definitely falsifies a prediction of evolution (no one expected it by any means).

"Interesting claim. Do you have any links for this? Do you have any other examples of molecular mechansims for closely related species being different?"No I don't have links for this. This is not my area of expertise. I just read review articles which clearly admit that development is not conserved (eg, "it is the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states." Sys Zool, 34, 1985, 46). And I'm afraid the evolutionists would rather talk about all those successful "predictions" than discuss the problems. Another example is the anther cones of flowers in the nightshade family which appear to be identical, but have different developmental pathways. Speaking of eyes, Pax-6 is another interesting case. It is the master control gene for vision development. It is so widespread that it would have had to be present in a very distant ancestor, long before there were such complications as vision."My first question would be whether the different pathways in the development of the lens could be due to a simple genetic change. My knowledge of developmental biology isn't all that great, but I do know enough that often a very simple change in the early development process can lead to rather large difference in the end result."Beware of the "just add water" renditions of evolution. If a "very simple change" leads to "rather large differences" then the appropriate programming had to be there a priori.By the way, this non conserved development is only one of dozens of severe problems with evolution. Why does every new genome we transcribe have all kinds of new, unique/novel sequences? Why do we find the same designs in completely independent lineages? What about ultra conserved elements (100% conservation in human and mouse sequences!!)? Why is adaptation preprogrammed? Why do new fossil species appear abruptly and then persist without changing for eons? Why is it that evolution has failed to explain actually how structures are supposed to have evolved? I could go on and on. Oh but I forgot, evolution is a fact.