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

Doesn't follow.If my cousin and I share very specific genetic sequences, that is evidence for common descent from our grandparents.I don't see how it would indicated that we were individually designed and not in any way related.(I'm still waiting for a real response in the "Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)" thread; though I don't expect I'll ever get one...)This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 12-08-2005 12:32 AM

The argument, for example, for molecular studies to indicate common descent and nested heirarchies is that the only reason for genetic similarities is due to common ancestry.So we see analogous structures, which would have been considered homologous, except evos cannot manage to fit them into a proper evolution sequence and so the claim is convergent or parallel evolution.WK says there is a "deep homology" because of similar gene sequences, but all that really shows is that similar genes produce similar forms and features. So since we know these features are not the result of a common ancestor passing the forms down, according to everyone since evos state there was convergent evolution at work, well, then what we have is the fact that similar genes can occur with convergent evolution.In other words, similar genes are not necessarily the result of common ancestry. The beleif that similar features meant common ancestry undergirded evolution, but some examples didn't fit. So evos speak of convergent evolution. The same features can simply be the result of converent evolution.Well, now we see the same thing with genes. The same genes can be the result of convergent evolution, or perhaps evolution isn't really the answer at all.If similar genes and similar features don't necessarily mean a common ancestor passing down these traits, then the whole basis of assumptions for evolution is very iffy.What we have left is a clear case of design. Similar genes are just the result of similar design, and similar design, even according to evos, can emerge independently, and so it seems similar genes can to.Why then assume similar genes and similar design are the result of common descent?It'd be a stronger argument for evolution if identical features in convergent evolution were the result of different genes.This message has been edited by randman, 12-08-2005 02:46 AM

You still aren't getting it. There is a continuum between modern species and their ancestors. Even if the animals in between the modern species and its ancestor have all died out by now, at some point there was an animal that you probably couldn't easily put in either the old or the new species. The population at that time could be thought of as being in a transition. The transitional also breeds only transitional animals like itself.If there is a transition, there is no need for humans to breed anything but humans and no need for apes to breed anything but apes. Instead, you have a human-like ape breeding other human-like apes. After some more mutations build up, the human-like ape becomes more human, like with a pelvis better adapted for upright walking, and a bigger brain. Even more time passes, and the brain is much larger than before, and upright posture is perfected. It isn't really clear where to draw the line and say "Okay, this fossil is a human," because the fossils are too similar. They definitely show a progression from more ape-like to more human-like, but you can't see where the ape ends and the human begins.Paleontologists classify their finds into species partly just so that they have a handle to talk about them with. With fossils, it is impossible to tell what could breed with what. So if a fossil seems different from the known fossils in a significant way, it is grouped into a new species. There is often some debate as to where it should be classified, because it is hard to tell whether or not it is different enough to warrant a new species designation. So maybe Homo erectus could breed with Homo heidelbergensis, and the two are actually in the same species. There is no way for us to find out anymore.

Because of the specific similarities in the sequence. Many different sequences of amino acid can perform the same task, although not in all cases, a protein with a totally different amino acid or DNA sequence which performed the same task would be analogous. The genes are substantially different in many cases, the degrees of similarity correspond with startling regularity to hypothesised phylogenies based on purely morphological features. If all of the genes were identical then it might argue for some artificial process. As it is the patterns of similarities and discrepancies accords surprisingly well with other methods of organising the relatedness of species. As it stands this is just vacuous speculation, do you have a suggestion for how one could test this?TTFN,WK

The flight structures of insects and birds were never considered homologous. I’m sure we both agree that birds did not evolve from flies. Early insects actually did not have wings. So it should be clear that flight developed independently in these two cases. Both of these fit extremely well into evolutionary sequence.Evolutionists do not often invoke the concept of convergence, but if the shoe fits . I suppose what you’re trying to say here, is that if the structures arose due to convergence, then surely the genes arose independently as well.Well, you’re basically right, IF you’re talking specifically about the gene’s functional ability to produce wings . that possibly did arise independently.But not if you’re talking about the gene sequence. The genes themselves are not the result of convergent evolution; they were present before flight in birds or insects evolved. If you examined the flightless ancestors of both birds and insects you will most likely find a homologue in them as well. This homologue was present in the last common ancestor of birds and insects, most likely some form of arthropod. It was passed down through both lineages, where it independently mutated, first in insects, then in birds, to create wings.

---

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

No, we don't have that at all, related genes are often found in many organisms which lack the specific forms and features with which they are associated in other organisms, the Pax, Eyes-absent and other genes associated with gene networks involved in development of the vertebrate sensory apparatus but also found in Ciona intestinalis being the obvious example (Mazet, et al., 2005). Some evidence to back up such a huge assertion would be nice. Certainly in a similar genetic background under the same pressures the same mutations may be frequently selected, even between quite sizable taxonomic groups (Hall, et al., 2005). To show that this is the case given unrelated starting sequences for a complex feature would be very impressive. No it wouldn't, that would be a stronger argument for convergent evolution in that particular case.TTFN,WK

I don't think the explanation can be anything so simplistic. The conserved elements of the network of genes involved in the patterning of the drosophila wing and the vertebrate limb is far more complex than a single gene. Far more likely is that the same network has another role in patterning something which was present in the common ancestor of flies and birds and that this patterning network was co-opted in both cases for the patterning of the limbs.TTFN,WK

Yes, WK, you're right and i am aware of this.however, i thought that it might be easier for Randman to understand if i just stuck to the core concept, and left out any complexities.what i was trying to get across is how convergent evolution and common descent aren't in conflict.

---

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

Wounded King already did an excellent job answering your post, but let me add... The best explanation for many types of genetic similarity is, indeed, common ancestry. This is because many types of genetic sequences are non-functional, or if they are functional/coding, a range of sequence variability produces the exact same protein. I'm sure you understand that genetic sequence codes for amino acid building blocks of proteins in three base codons. There are 64 possible codon combinations that output to 22 possible results - 20 amino acids + 1 start signal + 1 stop signal.What follows is that multiple codons can code for the same amino acid.If convergence (or even design) was the reason for interspecies similarity of a specific gene, then these various codon possibilities would appear randomly across a phylogeny. However, the opposite is true - the trend is that codon usages are found clustered within related groups in the phylogeny.That is, even though all of the genes in the phylogeny code for the absolutely identical protein, the genetic sequence coding for the genes are variable, and cluster within the phylogeny.Such data strongly suggests common ancestry, and makes convergence highly unlikely.(And this doesn't even begin to get into shared pseudogenes, broken genes that code for nothing at all. Why do chimps and humans have the identical broken GLO gene sequence, but guinea pigs and fruit bats each have a different broken GLO gene sequence? It is because the GLO gene was broken in the common ancestor to chimps and humans, from which both inherited it, while separate distinct mutations occurred in the pigs and bats. )

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

Hi JJM, welcome to EvC.One of the Forum Guidelines states: Please discuss the issue in your own words. We are a debate board and do not debate websites.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

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.

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

Would you like to point out which parts you consider sloppy? I don't see anything in the abstract which contradicts the statement you attribute to talkorigins.If you are calling a lack of data sloppy, well, that's what you expect in an abstract. To get the data you have to read the entire paper.Can you clarify where the sloppiness is please?

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