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

The prediction of evolution is the types of atavisms that we do see.Since humans evolved from tailed creatures, it is possible that some weird mutations would cause some humans to grow tails.On the other hand, no creature in the lineage to humans ever had wings. A birth defect that would result in clear wings (even if deformed and non-functional), indicating that humans had the genetic instructions for wings, would be problematic for evolution. Douglas Theobald's explains this a little more.

You don't seem to understand the point. What evolution predicts are the allowed atavisms as opposed to the disallowed atavisms. What tails in humans and legs on whales show is that atavisms are possible. But evolution predicts that one will never see wings suddenly appear on a human as a result of a mutation, nor will bats exhibit feathers, however deformed.Why do you see rudimentary tails in some humans, but never deformed wings? Because humans still carry the genetic legacy of tails from an early ancestor, but carry no genes whatsoever for wings since no human ancestor ever had wings.This is the prediction of the theory of evolution: that no mutation will produce wings in a human. No mutation will make feathers suddenly appear on a bat. No whale will suddenly appear with arthropod-like jointed legs. If any of these things would suddenly be seen, this would pose a problem for evolution.This is what evolution predicts: what atavisms are possible, and which are not. The appearance of tails in humans are no problem. Since very early ancestors of humans had gills, it would not be a problem for evolution (although very surprising to medical science) if a person was born with gills (even if rudimentary and deformed). It would be a problem for evolution if a human were born with two stubby wings on its back.

Merely asserting a "fact" does not make the "fact" true. If you want to actually provide some kind of evidence for your statements or to provide some sort of logical argument for your conclusions, then we can discuss this. But I see no reason to debate someone who is simply repeating vague statements he read on a website or a religious tract somewhere.I stand by my previous post. Evolution explains why we sometimes see tails in humans or legs in whales. Humans recently evolved from tailed ancestors and whales recently evolved from legged ancestors; the genes for producing these structures still exist, but are not usually active -- a relatively simple mutation or small number of mutations are all that is needed to reactivate these genes. In the same way, if a person were born with gills then that, too, could be explained by evolution.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 I have no reason to simply accept your assertian that the theory of evolution "would feel no pain".

quote:

---

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).

---

I see that I did read misread your post. My apologies. But 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.Just like the fossil record. The theory of evolution does not predict that there must be a fossil record; Darwin proposed his theory well before the fossil record was known to any great detail. As Darwin himself noted, the chances that any dead organism would be in a situation that would lead to its preservation would be very rare -- a lack of a fossil record would not be a surprise to anyone. However, there is a well-detailed fossil record. Given a detailed fossil record, the theory of evolution makes some definite predictions of the what we should and should not observe in it.The theory of evolution does not predict DNA -- the validity of the theory of evolution does not depend on the nature of how physical characteristics are inhereted. In fact, Darwin had no knowledge of how physical characteristics are passed on to the next generation. But it does predict that there must be a way for novel variations to come about. Sure enough, the DNA replication process is not perfect -- there can be "error" in the replication process (called mutations) that lead to new characteristics.

quote:

---

We cannot conclude "Yes, but atavisms do exist, therefore evolution's prediction is confirmed" if this is not a prediction of evolution.

---

That is true. But no one is making that conclusion. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Let me try to explain this again.It is true that the theory of evolution makes no predictions what-so-ever about the existence of atavisms. It is true, therefore, that neither the existence nor the absence of atavisms alone would be confirmation of the theory of evolution.But given that atavisms do exist, the theory of evolution makes definite predictions as to the pattern that they should exhibit. Therefore, given that atavisms do exist, the existence or absence of the predicted pattern would be a confirmation or falsification of the theory of evolution.To build on Loudmouth's excellent analogy, consider fingerprinting. The theory of fingerprints says that everyone has a unique fingerprint. The theory of fingerprints does not predict that criminals should ever leave fingerprints behind in a crime scene. The theory of fingerprints merely predicts that if there are fingerprints left at a crime scene, they should be unique enough to identify who was present at that location.So, you are correct: if there is a crime scene and a set of fingerprints are found, that does not confirm the theory of fingerprints. However, if someone is found with those very fingerprints, and that person admits that she was at that location, that is confirmation of the theory of fingerprints.

quote:

---

I think what you are trying to say is that there are some non existent atavisms that evolution predicts will not occur (eg, wings).

---

That is the pattern.There are whales that are born with legs. These legs are not functional, but they have bones and joints that look remarkably like the leg of an archetypal terrestrial mammal. So it is possible for rather complex organs and features, that are not typically present in a given species, to appear in the occasional individual, even if the feature is in a deformed, useless state.Yet, even though relatively complex organs can and do suddenly appear we never see wings appear on human babies. Why not? There is no rhyme or reason for what does appear and what does not appear -- it is chaos.Actually, it is chaotic unless we have a theory that points out the pattern and explains it. According to the theory of evolution, there should be a pattern to these atavisms, and we do see this pattern. So it is not chaotic -- but that is a plus for evolution, because it is only with the theory of evolution that we can identify the pattern. Without the theory of evolution, or any other theory, it remains reasonable to expect some babies to be born with angel wings, and a mystery why this should not be seen.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.

quote:

---

That's quite a prediction. Evolution passes with flying colors.

---

And that is exactly how all scientific theories are verified/falsified. They make predictions of what must occur, what may occur, and what cannot occur. Then we observe what does occur and what does not occur.--

quote:

---

Since development patterns and genes are not conserved, is evolution falsified?

---

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.

quote:

---

similar structures in related species (such as in the same genus), come from different genes and/or develop in completely different ways.

---

Do you have an example of this?--

quote:

---

This makes no sense on evolution, and it is rampant in biology.

---

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?

Pretty interesting. I tried to do a quick search on the internet, but couldn't find much more detailed information than you already gave. I really do think that you should start a new thread on this -- it would be interesting to hear the opinions of people who are more knowledgible in this field.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.

quote:

---

Beware of the "just add water" renditions of evolution.

---

I am merely pointing out that we don't know yet whether this is a problem for evolution.

quote:

---

Although I can see that it is unlikely, I don't really see why is it impossible for humans to one day evolve wings independently as the result of a genetic accident?

---

Well, it is remotely possible that humans will evolve wings, but if they do it would not be due to a genetic accident. It will be because the intermediate stages of "wingedness" offers some reproductive advantage to the individuals possessing them.

Um, JJ, the abstract that you are quoting seems to confirm that these are true tails. What is your point again?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt