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

ApostateAbe presents...Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindredhttp://img.photobucket.com/...469/apostateabe/smokingcat.jpg Episode II: TailsIf humans share ancestry with other primates, then we should expect to see remnants of that common ancestry in our genes. For example, tails. According to current evolutionary theory, the ancestors of humans lost their tails about 25 million years ago, when apes (tail-less primates) diverged from monkeys (tailed primates). It takes a heckuva long time of evolutionary build-up to construct a fully-functioning limb like a monkey's tail. But it takes only a slight change in the DNA to remove it. So the question is: do you and I still have a large chunk of the genetic blueprint for a tail in our genes after 25 million years? Let's find out.Never mind. You already know the answer is yes.Not only do you have the genes for a tail. You had a tail in the first few weeks after your conception. Look at the following two embryos. As titled, the one on the left is your cat. The one on the right is you. You had the same kind of tail your cat did. The difference is that your cat kept the tail and you didn't.Shut up and listen a little longer, because this is only the beginning of the smoking-gun evidence. In a very small segment of the human population, mutations cause the genetic blueprint of the tail to be completed enough so that the embryos keep the same thing your cat keeps, and some babies are born with tails. I know that sounds whacked out, sucka, but check this: I have pictures. * Virtual Hospital, Persistence of the Tail. Pay close attention to the comparison of the tail in extended and contracted positions.
* A collection of images from VisualEvolution.com and AetherOnline.com.
* 'Reincarnation of a Hindu God' as reported by Ananova.com and the Chandigarh Newsline.Yeah, I know. Outrageous, isn't it?There are over 100 cases of human tails in medical literature. Most tails contain little more than skin and fat. But there are still plenty which contain:--> grooved muscle
--> blood vessels
--> nerves
--> fat
--> skin
--> hair
--> cartilageDr. Douglas Theobald of TalkOrigins.org even shows an x-ray of a six-year-old child's tail with three bones of the vertebral column. He cites Bar-Maor et al. 1980, and he asserts that "in this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five."Now what could young-Earth creationists possibly muster up in response to this? Young-earth creationists say:

quote:

---

Cases of babies with "tails" surface occasionally. A paper in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1982 by Dr. Fred Ledley was titled "Evolution and the Human Tail."

​

But these "tails" are not real tails. They don't have any bones in them and don't have a nerve cord either. Do they have anything to do with the idea that humans and monkeys may be related? Not in the slightest. They are just skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.

---

--Creation TipsApostateAbe says:This argument seems to be the only young-Earth creationist line used to counter the smoking-gun evidence that human tails give us. Search all of the creationist literature addressing human tails and you will find that their criticism is directed almost exclusively against Dr. Ledley's paper, which gave only an example of a "pseudo-tail." This narrow counter-argument started with Duane Gish in 1983, and it reproduced itself all over the creationist noise network ever since, with almost no adaptation to the reality that there are plenty of examples of true human tails with more than just fatty tissue and skin. CONCLUSION:Yet another smoking gun hidden in the DNA of every cell in your body. CREDITS:--- Douglas Theobald of TalkOrigins.org
--- WinAce of Christian Forums
--- Artists of Batman graphic novels, comics, and films
--- Carolina Biological / Visuals Unlimited
--- NobelPrize.org
--- ApostateAbe, atheist extraordinaireThis message has been edited by ApostateAbe, 02-05-2005 08:20 AMThis message has been edited by ApostateAbe, 02-05-2005 11:53 AM

Hey, Abe! Good to see you over here!
Well-done, even though Ms Berry made a more fetching Catwoman than your gal.

I was going to use Halle Berry, but then I found that awesome picture with a smoking gun that fit exactly what I needed.

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.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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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".

"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?

quote:

---

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).

---

But atavisms do exist.This is somewhat like a crime scene. Let's say that the detectives on a murder case have a suspect, a sort of scientific hypothesis. The detectives would not predict that fingerprints would be found at the crime scene, but what they would predict, using their hypothesis, is that if fingerprints are found they will be either the victims or the suspects. If another set of fingerprints are found then their hypothesis is possibly falsified.Such is the same with atavisms. Evolution does not predict that atavisms will be present, but what evolution does predict is the pattern of atavisms if they DO exist. Atavisms do exist and they exist in a pattern consistent with the theory of evolution, just as fingerprints and other physical evidence can confirm or falsify a suspects involvement in a crime.

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.

"... 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.

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.

"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.