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

The talkorigins article on tails is riddled with errors. I looked at the actual articles that were cited.I cite:Alleged human tails and alleged human "tail genes"
Home | CS Lewis

Here is what talkorigins stated:

quote:

---

More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988).

​

taken from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

---

But look at the actual article abstract and see what sloppy research talkorigins does:

quote:

---

Detailing the human tail.

​

Dubrow TJ, Wackym PA, Lesavoy MA.

​

Division of Plastic Surgery, Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, Torrance.

​

There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884. A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended.

​

taken from: Detailing the human tail - PubMed

---

I could continue but I would recommend readers take the rest of talkorigins tail talk with a grain of salt.

1/3 of a 100 is 66 and not 23. Talkorigins pumped up the numbers.They also didn't give the whole story.

I meant to say 100 - 1/3 (100) is 66 and not 23. Regardless, talkorigins pumped up the numbers and that is the main point. Plus there is the malformation/correlation.

Here is why the malformation correlation is important:

quote:

---

"Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.

​

Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001

​

One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely.

​

For more info on the tail bone click: coccyx tailbone evolution baby born with tail

​

quoted from: There are no such things as a Vestigial Organ creation or evolution tonsils Appendix wisdom teeth whales legs goose bumps creation vs. evolution baby born with tail

---

In short, pumped up numbers and deception by ommission.

Here is what talkorigins said again:More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988).
taken from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2Now this would mean 66 true tails but that is not what Dubrow said. Dubrow said 23 true tails if memory serves and there is the malformation/correlation mentioned previously which I believe talkorigins does not mention. In short, pumped up numbers and deception by omission.

I would suggest following the thread debate I cited earlier. It has a cell biologist in it. I don't think the tail argument is a good argument.

TO: Trixie100 "mixed tails" minus 1/3 (100) Pseudo tails = 66 True tails/non-psuedo tails.Plus you continue to ignore the malformation/correlation.TO: allI think it is in the biology that the whole argument breaks down. See the cell biologist debate thread alluded to earlier.

quote:

---

I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation.

​

quoted from: There are no such things as a Vestigial Organ creation or evolution tonsils Appendix wisdom teeth whales legs goose bumps creation vs. evolution baby born with tail

---

I believe it is merely a pathological malformation. TalkOrigins does not mention the malformation/correlation. Deception by omission.

quote:

---

Throughout history, people have been born with six fingers and toes, from the biblical Philistine, Goliath, to major league baseball player Antonio Alfonseca. Two out of 1000 babies born today have six fingers and toes, but often the extra appendages, which are often boneless, are severed or surgically removed. The medical term for having six fingers or toes is called hexadactyly.
http://www.librarising.com/misc/twelve.html

---

Do monkeys/apes have 6 toes? LOL Malformation.This message has been edited by JJMorgan, 01-15-2006 10:10 PM

I was born with 10 1/2 fingers. I never get banana cravings though or the urge to swing from trees. LOL

So far nobody has addressed the pathological malformation argument.

TO: AdminMooseI am using the general reply button sometimes because I am getting swarmed with respondents.

TO: ALLI will first cite this:

quote:

---

The accelerating pace of the discovery of genes has far surpassed our capabilities to understand their biological function--in other words, the phenotypes they engender.

​

TAKEN FROM: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...

---

First, there is no "tail gene" it is far more complex than that.Here is what a evolutionist and cell biologist said and I will give an excerpt:

quote:

---

The article referenced above makes it quite clear that the overall involvement of wnt-3a in tail formation is far more complex than indicated in the talkorigins.org argument. It also describes cdx-1 as under the control of wnt-3a....

​

The question of whether the lack of tails in humans and apes is due to a deficiency in wnt3a expression (possibly localized) cannot be answered definitively until some real data are available. I would regard the talkorigins.org statement as speculative.
Home | CS Lewis

---

Lastly, here is what I wrote at another forum:

quote:

---

I wish some evolutionist would attempt to tackle some of the questions Gish posed (see Gish link in first post). For example, like why do these "tails" seem to happen far more in males than females (about 3 to 1) when the sex of the child is reported (Gish asked if males are closer to monkey like ancestors than females.

​

Home | CS Lewis

---

This message has been edited by JJMorgan, 01-15-2006 10:36 PM {Shortened display form of URL in first quote box, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-15-2006 10:54 PM

I don't think Gish was as persuasive as the other gentleman but here is a portion of what Gish said:

quote:

---

Rijsbosch also notes that M. Bartels3 had collected 116 reports of "tail" formation in humans. In cases where the sex was reported, 52 were males and 16 were females. If the caudal appendage represents a back mutation to an ancestral state, the human male must thus be somewhat closer to his monkey ancestor than the female since the condition occurs three times more frequently in males than in females!

​

Warkany reports that while most persons with caudal appendages showed normal general development, caudal appendages have been associated with such malformations as meningocele, spina bifida, chondrodystophy, cleft palate, hemangiomas, syndactyly, hypodactyly and heterotopic anus.4 Can evolutionists identify ancestral states with any of these malformations?

​

If malformations may possibly be due to the expression of genes inherited from distant ancestors but long suppressed, one can think of interesting suggestions. For example, some human females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long-suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands, as a matter of fact, have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?

​

The Institute for Creation Research

---