human tails and the midriff - hiccups, what are the creatonist theories about them?

I'll turn tue question over. If our ancesotrs did have a functionnal tail that could be used as some primates use theirs these days, why did we lose it ?I mean, seeing the many advantages that it would have brought us to have a functionnal tale which could act as a 'third hand', why would any of ancestors who would have lost his tail, or have a shorter one, been advantaged by natural selection ?This is a bit of a humoristic question, but an answer is needed. Becuase you can't claim that we have lost a tail through evolution without saying why evolution would have made us lose it.

Well, I was more thinking about we humans, but I understand what you mean.Now my question may stem from a miscomprehension of the human evolutionnary lineage, but if the OP said that the extra tail is a vestigial organ, it means that our ancestors had tails. And so our closest relatives, the great apes you mentioned, should also probably have vestigial tails also. And even probably should have kept their tails also as having a tail should be favored as compared to not having one.Obviously, my opinion is that this phenomenon is just a medical thing, where a patient would simply have his coccyx grow way too long. I mean, some people are born with extra large skulls, or extra long femurs, or extra long fingers, and no one claims any of these cases are vestigial remnants of our evolutionnary past. So I don't quite see how an extra long coccyx would be any different. (I am not an anatomist, so maye bit is is not the coccyx).

Well I'm not a professional on the evolutionary lineage of tails, but according to the mainstream idea of the evolutionnary tree, was it prehensile or not ?And if the tail of a dog isn't useful, why didn't they lose theirs ? (There is no jelousy in this question ... oh well maybe a little haha)

I knew next to nothing about all this when coming into this discussion, my question was more like 'having a tail would be freakin' nice, why did we lose it ?'Of course, I was thinking of a prehensile tail, but my only memory of anything on this was a high school video we had in history class who showed our ancesotrs with prehensile tails. Needless to say, it wasn't the best source hehe.Now it seems that the ancestor of old world monkeys did not have a prehensile tail I checked on 'Ida' which is the latest fossil that made some waves in the human lineage a couple of weeks ago, and the only one that I remembered had a tail, it turned out that it wasn't prehensile.

Of course, I agree completely. But I do think there was a nuance between my question and the 'creationist argument from undesign' in that my question was not of the style: ''Why didn't evolution give us this or that organ/capacity ?'' but rather ''Why did we lose this or that organ/capacity that our ancestors had ?''.Because of the difference between the two questions I do think mine was legitimate. But if this medical anomaly is indeed a vestigial organ of a tail, than it means our ancestors had a tail. Which means the ancestors of Old world monkeys (the ones we have in common, of course) should also have had a tail.Technically also, old world monkeys should also have some rare individuals with such vestigial organs. So does the advantaged of having a tail outweigh the disadvantages of having a tail ?We know that for our ancestors who did have a tail, it was advantageous to have a tail, or else they would not have developped one in the first place. Since we also know it was not prehensile (because of 'Ida', more info on this would be nice), the advantage was not to help them hang in trees. If this advantage was for balance (which is the only alternative I see), they would still not have lost it when becoming ground-dwelling since the tails of other ground-dwelling mammals are advantageous.Now the other important step in human's evolutionnary lineage is when we become bipedal. Would a 'balance tail' become disadvantageous at that point ? Maybe, its pretty hard to tell. But even then, it would not explain why the other old-world monkeys, who stayed on all four, would have lost theirs ...

I think we are pretty much on the same line here. Only maybe on one little bit I want to clear a misunderstanding: Of course, I didn't mean that a balance tail is vital for a ground-dwelling animal. It is just that if it is advantageous, than there is no reason we would have lost ours considering that our ancestors had one.Because I do think that someone cannot legitimately claim that these medical anomalies are vestigial organs of a tail our ancestors had, if you cannot explain why it would have become vestigial in the first place.Of course, I restate that I am creationist, and so I do not believe any of our ancestors ever had a tail. I thus suggested that perhaps this was a simple outgrowth of the coccyx. Now considering sywen's post no27, I do not think this is the answer anymore. Now I have done some research on all this, and it seems that the human embryo does develop a tail-like structure during development, and I would certainly bet that some embryos, due to a mutation, simply keep that tail-like structure during adulthood.Of course, the fact that embryos develop a tail does in no way mean our ancestors had tails (Unless you want to argue for Haeckel's embryonic recapitulation theory ...). Embryos develop many structures that are not representative of structures possessed by our ancestors, such as a post-anal gut, which clearly none of our ancestors had. The same applies to the tail structure.

I'll have to say that this is starting to go beyond my scope of bilinguilism, especially since biology is not my strong point. I had typed 'Human tail' in the search section of creation.com, and it gave me this article: The human umbilical vesicle ('yolk sac') and pronephrosAre they vestigial? - creation.com. Which said this:

quote:

---

There are just too many anomalies for the recapitulation idea to work: The tail in the human embryo does not mean that we descended from tailed animals. In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing?

---

I have to disagree that the Theory of Evolution implies this. What we are discussing here is Embryonic recapitulation, it is the theory that states that evolutionary changes tend to occur in the later stages of development and are gradually pushed back into embryogenesis, with the result that embryonic development bears the imprint of past evolution (in Ernst Haeckel’s words, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). Darwin believed this to be true.I do not find this to be a necessary to Evolution. NeoDarwinism can do without it. I agree, and of course humans also have a mouth at one end and an anus at the other, without a post-anal gut. [/qs]Third, I knew that, by contrast, chordates and our closest cousins the tunicates (in their laval stage) are distinguished by a post-anal tail.This led me to see where the post-anal gut had to fit into all this. Surely the most parsimonious explanation is that the development of the post-anal tail was the result, not of the tail being tacked on behind and dorsal to the anus, but that the anus migrated forward along the ventral surface of the body of the ancestral line, so that (so to speak) chordates don't so much have a post-anal tail as a pre-tail anus (if you see what I mean).[/qs]This is a bit unclear to me; are you suggesting that chordates have a tail next to their anus, or directly connected into, or on, their anus ?Because maybe it is my understanding of post-anal gut that is wrong, but I understand it as that in the embryological stage the embryo has mouth-stomach-anus-gut, and that along the development it becomes mouth-stomach-gut-anus. (Or maybe it is Mouth-stomach-gut-anus-gut). And so saying they have a post-anal tail gives me the image of an embryo with mouth-stomach-anus-tail ...I'll have wait for a bit of a clarification on all this. It may sound stupid, but I'm very visual when speaking biology and so maybe a good image of what a post-anal gut is would be helpful.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

My previous statement was not to say ''Stop using compicated words!''. While typing my response, I did look up every words I did not understand, because I totally agree with you that if we are discussing a certain topic, then we have to use the right words.My previous statement was more to say ''While discussing this, their may be some misunderstandings from my part''. Neo-Darwinian evolution does not predict that if my ancestor has a tail, then my embryo should have a tail. Neither does it predict that if I observe that my embryo has a post-anal gut, then my ancestor should have a post-anal gut. These are predictions of an auxiliary hypothesis which is in relation with Darwins Thoery of evolution, namely embryonic recapitulation. The answer to your question is right in my previous post. I did have an idea of what a post-anal gut was. When I read about it, I had the image that is was attached directly after the anus in the digestive system; as in if anything was to go out of the anus, it would end up in the post-anal gut.Now I asked what was your image of what it was because, when reading your post, it did not seem to fit with what I had in mind.Anyhow, my brother is in MedSchool and so I'll probably ask him if he can explain to me what it is or if he has a book from one of his Medicine classes that talks about it. WHen I put in doubt the theory of evolution, I do not do it on my own authority. I do it based on statements made by biologists. Now the thing is, these biologists do not seem to be recognized as such by you. But in fact, when you look at it closely, there is but one difference between them: their view of the theory of evolution. So in fact, when you claim:

quote:

---

So if there was any fact in biology that refuted evolution, biologists would be the first to know, wouldn't they? If the facts of biology refuted evolution, then biologists would be its most vehement opponents, rather than its biggest supporters, wouldn't they?

---

It is fallacious, because the biologists that do think that Neo-Darwinian evolution doesn't fit the facts are in fact being redefined as not being biologists.

I'm not an embryologist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know that each major group of animals have a distinct cleavage pattern, and so my ancestors of another group could not have had the same cleavage pattern as my ebryo had. (Of course, you can argue that this is not a 'structure', which was the word I used. Nevertheless, this is a feature of our embryo)O have no doubt an embryologists would probably have more examples of features our embryos have which are not to be found in our evolutionnary lineage.On a side note, I know you did your best with that drawing of a post-anal gut, but I'll ask my brother about it before discussing this particular case in more detail ...Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Does it say why it sometimes occur and sometimes it doesn't ? So, according to evolution, every feature and structure of the embryo should also be found in it's ancestors ? What is the theory of evolution's conception of embryonic recapitulation, and how is it different from Haeckel's conception of it ?Because, what Darwin has said regarding embryo's and their relation to his theory of evolution seems strickingly familiar to the concept that Haeckel elaborated.I'll let the discussion lead in that direction by not responding to the rest, which is a bit Off-topic.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

No comment about the cleavage pattern in the early embryonic stage ??I could also add, it seems, the embryonic step just after cleavage. The gastrulation patterns are very different in the major groups of animals, including the different classes of vertebrates.And of course, we will be discussing the post-anal gut to see if it is really the representative of an ancestral structure.There is also a very simple reason that justifies my belief that an embyologists could point out to many aspects of our embryology that do not represent our evolutionnary lineage: I have never heard of any embryologist that has endorsed any kind of embryonic recapitulation, either be it in Darwin's days or today. Simply put: if embryology would confirm evolution so much, then embryologist would promote it.EDIT: From Dr. Wayne Fair, who has a M.A. in embryology: Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

We'll have to continue this discussion later on this week, or maybe next week even. because I'm moving to my new appartment in montreal. (university starts next week) Don't know how many articles he published in embryology, but his MA research thesis was published (W. Frair and G.L. Woodside, Effects of 8-azaguanine on Early Chick Embryos Grown in Vitro, Growth 20:9—18, 1956.)And his PhD is in biochemical taxonomy, not theology hehe That's not exactly what Dr. Fair says. He says that Dr. Woodside 'declared' to him. It is not just an impression from Dr. Faire, as you imply. If we were talking about Kent Hovind, I would agree that he is both an idiot and a liar. However, just because some creationists lie, does not mean all creationist have a tendency to lie. Furthermore, I can also provide examples:Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE. evolutionary True Believer and educator:

quote:

---

You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.

---

quote:

---

If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?

---

Here is an evolutionists saying that it is OK to lie if it gets them to believe in evolution. How disgusting is that ?Of course, the point is that generalisations are rarely good. CMI is a serious creationist organization which takes much care in not perpetrating false claims.

Thanks. I​

See previous post. Hope it answers some. This comment of yours comes in sharp contrast to a previous comment from Modulous in the 'kinds are not related' thread (message no5, sorry I don't know how to link messages), where he accuses creationists of not wanting to define what a kind is. Yet here we have a scientist with a PhD in biochemical taxonomy who worked his whole life in defining what a kind is, and what were the original kinds from a scientific point of view through genetics etc., and you seem to condemn him for doing so.I would suggest that you and Modulous sort this out as what you would want creationist to do: continue to use the word 'kind' without defining it or studying exactly what they mean when they use the word kind. You can't really have it both ways. Are you suggesting that presuppositions are not an integral part of how science works ?

From Darwin' origin of species:

quote:

---

the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state

---

This not only looks a lot like the idea Haeckel developped later on, it is also in stark contrast with Von Baer' 4th law:

quote:

---

Fundamentally, the embryo of a higher animal form never resembles the adult of another animal form, such as one less evolved, but only its embryo.

---

My knowledge on all this is far from complete, and so I readily accept any further development from your part on this. Nonetheless, I have the impression that although Darwin was influenced by Von Baer (which is logical, since he was the father of embryology),the links he made between embryology and his theory of evolution were the foundations that Haeckel later developped upon. [/qs]And of course, such an old quote could be quite untrue if applied to the current situation[/qs]The point was that because of Haeckel's frauds and the impact it had on embyology, modern embyologist do not readily relate their field with evolution anymore. How is my interpretations different from what he did say ??:

quote:

---

It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall.

---

Actually, I have been reading their website as much as I have been reading the talkorigins.org site, and I can tell you that the proportion of errors both those sites contain are pretty much proportional, and inside the realm of normal unvoluntary errors done by faillible humans.About the example you came up with, are you suggesting that the lack of transitional fossils is not what inspired ponctuated equilibrium to professor Gould ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.