Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are human tails an example of macroevolution?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 61 (354858)
10-06-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by bernd
10-06-2006 1:43 AM


Re: regarding reference to apostacy.
This is not my second reply. Just a quick clarification please.
Did you mean"apoptosis" when you wrote
quote:
apostasis
or was the lettered ("apo")prefix what was intended with
On the contrary it’s probably due to a mutation of a regularity gene which controls the apostasis of the tail in embryonic development.
? If the latter did you have some meaning of stasis that you might reliquish please? Pretty please with sugar on top?? Can you refer to some paper or discussion of regulatory genes that feed forward the "apostatic" state?
Edited by Brad McFall, : sentence tense
Edited by Brad McFall, : "?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by bernd, posted 10-06-2006 1:43 AM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bernd, posted 10-07-2006 6:45 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 32 of 61 (354957)
10-07-2006 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brad McFall
10-06-2006 5:13 PM


Re: regarding reference to apostacy.
Hello Brad,
yes, I mean apoptosis. Thanks for pointing this out.
-Bernd

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2006 5:13 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 10-08-2006 2:55 PM bernd has replied

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 33 of 61 (354961)
10-07-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Brad McFall
10-06-2006 4:15 PM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
Hello Brad,
With reference to my phrase:
When the human tail is not a vestigial organ, as creationists claim, how do they explain the development of this complex trait more than 33 times in this century?
you answered:
You seem to be starting from the thought that creationists have the idea FIRST that the tail is a vestigial organ for humans. I have tried to present a different path of possible creationist thought.
When I first started posting on the ICR web forum, before I was posting here, I noticed there was a tendency to speak about "vestigiality" a bit much. If ICR still has its discussion forum cached it might be possible to see how I dealt with this issue post by post, but I have not seen the Forum since then (about 1998).
If your issue REALLY has to start with a "vestigial organ" then the ANSWER has to do with the notion of "WILD TYPE." Is this the direction you are going (or wait till I post a second time to see an alternative).
Probably I have misled you by inexact wording. What I tried to express was that human tails are atavistic structures, in the sense that they are the “reappearance of a trait that had been present in a lineage in the past, but which had been absent in intervening generations”.
(see Atavism - Wikipedia) . Creationists don’t accept that a tail is a trait which has been present in our lineage in the past, therefore they have two options: to claim that the tail is created de novo in each of the 33 cases which has been observed, or that there is a normaly repressed developmental pathway for tails in humans. Both options are difficult to harmonize with the creationist viewpoint, the first implies that mutation frequently generates complex features, the second is not only difficult to reconcile with the idea of an intelligent designer but would also be evidence for a shared ancestor of great apes and humans.
But maybe there are options that I don’t see in the moment. I’m looking forward to your second post.
-Bernd
Edited by bernd, : typo
Edited by bernd, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2006 4:15 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 34 of 61 (355159)
10-08-2006 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
10-04-2006 7:19 AM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
Hello Brad,
sorry for the late answer but I’m not familiar with the writings of Erasmus Darwin, so it took some time to compose this message.
All the following quotes from E. Darwin are taken from “Zoonomia,
Vol. I Or, the Laws of Organic Life” which can be downloaded from this link: Zoonomia; Or, the Laws of Organic Life, Vol. I by Erasmus Darwin - Free Ebook
Lets start with your first question:
Brad writes:
I do not think it is difficult to "read" the Grandfather's use of the word "filament" as a precursor idea to Charles' use of "common descent"? Yes???
E. Darwin has formulated common descent as hypothesis, so far I agree. But I don’t think that this idea is somehow included in the term filament as you seem to claim in your sentence:
Brad writes:
Now look CLOSELY at how Erasmus thought out the transformation and notice how the Elder Darwin leads his "mind" to the notion of a "filament" as a conclusion and unity of the thought of biological form-making and translation in space
Let’s examine two quotes:
E.Darwin writes:
I shall only add here, that it is probable, that this sympathy does not depend on any communication of nervous filaments, but on habit; owing to the various branches of this system having frequently been stimulated into action at the same time
E.Darwin writes:
The whole animal system may be considered as consisting of the extremities of the nerves, or of having been produced from them; if we except perhaps the medullary part of the brain residing in the head and spine, and in the trunks of the nerves. These extremities of the nerves are either of those of locomotion, which are termed muscular fibres; or of those of sensation, which constitute the immediate organs of sense, and which have also their peculiar motions. Now as the fibres, which constitute the bones and membranes, possessed originally sensation and motion; and are liable again to possess them, when they become inflamed; it follows, that those were, when first formed, appendages to the nerves of sensation or locomotion, or were formed from them. And that hence all these solid parts of the body, as they have originally consisted of extremities of nerves, require an apposition of nutritive particles of a similar kind, contrary to the opinion of Buffon and Needham above recited.
Lastly, as all these filaments have possessed, or do possess, the power of contraction, and of consequent inertion or elongation; it seems probable, that the nutritive particles are applied during their times of elongation; when their original constituent particles are removed to a greater distance from each other. For each muscular or sensual fibre may be considered as a row or string of beads; which approach, when in contraction, and recede during its rest or elongation; and our daily experience shews us, that great action emaciates the system, and that it is repaired during rest.
In this two examples Darwin uses the tems fibre and filament as defined in anatomy - obviously without connotation of common descent.
More interesting is his use of the term “living filament”. For example here:
E.Darwin writes:
1. I conceive the primordium, or rudiment of the embryon, as secreted from the blood of the parent, to consist of a simple living filament as a muscular fibre; which I suppose to be an extremity of a nerve of loco-motion, as a fibre of the retina is an extremity of a nerve of sensation; as for instance one of the fibrils, which compose the mouth of an absorbent vessel; I suppose this living filament, of whatever form it may be, whether sphere, cube, or cylinder, to be endued with the capability of being excited into action by certain kinds of stimulus. By the stimulus of the surrounding fluid, in which it is received from the male, it may bend into a ring; and thus form the beginning of a tube. Such moving filaments, and such rings, are described by those, who have attended to microscopic animalcula. This living ring may now embrace or absorb a nutritive particle of the fluid, in which it swims; and by drawing it into its pores, or joining it by compression to its extremities, may increase its own length or crassitude; and by degrees the living ring may become a living tube.
The “moving filaments” which Darwin describes are probably sperms, he thinks that the mother only provides the nutrients for the embryo. He contends that his concept can be generalised:
E.Darwin writes:
All animals therefore, I contend, have a similar cause of their organization, originating from a single living filament, endued indeed with different kinds of irritabilities and sensibilities, or of animal appetencies; which exist in every gland, and in every moving organ of the body, and are as essential to living organization as chemical affinities are to certain combinations of inanimate matter.
He argues then that a process which transforms a simple filament into an organism, may also form the diversity of warm blooded animals, given that they share a similar structure (that's a simplification but it should do within the context of this thread)
E.Darwin writes:
Fourthly, when we revolve in our minds the great similarity of structure, which obtains in all the warm-blooded animals, as well quadrupeds, birds, and amphibious animals, as in mankind; from the mouse and bat to the elephant and whale; one is led to conclude, that they have alike been produced from a similar living filament
Please note that "mankind" is included in the warm-blooded animals. A similar argument is made for cold-blooded animals:
E.Darwin writes:
The cold-blooded animals, as the fish-tribes, which are furnished with but one ventricle of the heart, and with gills instead of lungs, and with fins instead of feet or wings, bear a great similarity to each other; but they differ, nevertheless, so much in their general structure from the warm-blooded animals, that it may not seem probable at first view, that the same living filament could have given origin to this kingdom of animals, as to the former. Yet are there some creatures, which unite or partake of both these orders of animation, as the whales and seals; and more particularly the frog, who changes from an aquatic animal furnished with gills to an aerial one furnished with lungs.
After discussing plants he poses the question:
E.Darwin writes:
Shall we then say that the vegetable living filament was originally different from that of each tribe of animals above described? And that the productive living filament of each of those tribes was different originally from the other? Or, as the earth and ocean were probably peopled with vegetable productions long before the existence of animals; and many families of these animals long before other families of them, shall we conjecture that one and the same kind of living filaments is and has been the cause of all organic life
The following paragraphs suggest that he believes that all organic life comes from one living filament. He goes even further:
E.Darwin writes:
The late Mr. David Hume, in his posthumous works, places the powers of generation much above those of our boasted reason; and adds, that reason can only make a machine, as a clock or a ship, but the power of generation makes the maker of the machine; and probably from having observed, that the greatest part of the earth has been formed out of organic recrements; as the immense beds of limestone, chalk, marble, from the shells of fish; and the extensive provinces of clay, sandstone, ironstone, coals, from decomposed vegetables; all which have been first produced by generation, or by the secretions of organic life; he concludes that the world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution of the whole by the Almighty fire.”What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of THE GREAT ARCHITECT! THE CAUSE OF CAUSES! PARENT OF PARENTS! ENS ENTIUM!
An additional remark. The word “PLAN” doesn’t occur in the whole text.
Considering what I have listed above, I don’t follow your observation that Darwin speaks of a “PLAN” only with respect to warm-blooded creatures nor that snakes or humans are somehow treated specially. I’m not quite sure what you tried to express with “E. Darwins restricted reference to taxonomy”, but from the text it's clear that he speculates about universal common descent.
Finally I would ask you to rephrase your last two sentences, I do not understand, what you are trying to say. (What does “beling” mean? Or did you intend to write "belong"?) I hope this will clarify the basic question whether and in which way your message deals with the topic at hand: Are human tails an example of macroevolution.
-Bernd
Edited by bernd, : No reason given.
Edited by bernd, : No reason given.
Edited by bernd, : spelling,syntax,clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2006 7:19 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 10-08-2006 3:18 PM bernd has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 61 (355221)
10-08-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by bernd
10-07-2006 6:45 AM


work in process
It was not as simple as just sitting down and deciding what I think especially because you raised the particular notion of APOPTOSIS and I assume even though you did not mention it that when you wrote “regularity” gene you also had meant regulatory gene.
Yes indeed
EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
Modulous is correct there are strong similarities between my own ideas and Gould’s.
I am having to read Gould’s 6 or 7 pages below
quote:

as to ACTUALLY what I think about Gould’s distinction about rates vs direction in evolutionary change in the footnote on page 1030. As the Pastor at my Church
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.firstpresithaca.org/10_01_06.htm
is in his second week, past, lecturing/sermonizing on Job and has gotten to the THREE critics of Job today I can “observe” that where Gould wanted to get to “urge”, “compel”, or “make” in the BIBLICAL footnote on page 1026 he might have better thought “pray.”
It is nice that you are asking the question in terms of post-modern science rather than 60s conceptuality so please bear with me while I make some permanent mental decisions about this chapter of Goulds’. I have thought my way through the chapter a couple of times already but I have not put out my ideas in black and white, (rather in colored sand) which is what is required by my contrary Nursery Ryhme that you have called for an answer from. The garden grows nontheless.
As a hands down, heads up I am also looking strictly at the following texts.
quote:

quote:

Edited by Brad McFall, : wrong ref label on pic
Edited by Brad McFall, : removed "is"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bernd, posted 10-07-2006 6:45 AM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bernd, posted 10-09-2006 11:11 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 61 (355225)
10-08-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by bernd
10-08-2006 8:34 AM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
Ok, then I will have to DEFER to I.Newton where he "figures" the formation we have in the letter "X" between the eyes and the brain (anatomically or metamorphically but not cladistically)where you note E.Darwin denoted "filament."
I will refer back to your excellent communication via E.Darwin in a later reply and back to my own attempt at
quote:
Without a discussion of clade geometry which is not found in E.Darwin and single leveled by C.Darwin except in diversification despite the appearence in the words beling form-making it really only expresses translation in space (hence the puncutations etc.).
with a rewrite. Part of the delay in my response is that depending on how one squares out with Gould on rate vs direction there is an implication for me (maybe not you? I dont know yet)as to a narrowing or widening of the canalization concept (which I left open for purpose of communication in this thread)I am working on reading through POSITIVE notions of constraint.
Sorry for the word "beling" I had meant the word "belie", "indicate" or "give rise to."
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
(belying)
Also you might be able to confirm if I am correct that it was GGaylordSimpson who first worked out the notion of throw-back or atavism BUT IN MAMMALS only?? That is what I recall.
Edited by Brad McFall, : atavism-throwback

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bernd, posted 10-08-2006 8:34 AM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by bernd, posted 10-09-2006 10:06 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 37 of 61 (355361)
10-09-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brad McFall
10-08-2006 3:18 PM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
Hello Brad,
you asked:
Also you might be able to confirm if I am correct that it was GGaylordSimpson who first worked out the notion of throw-back or atavism BUT IN MAMMALS only?? That is what I recall.
Simpson didn’t introduce this term. It was already in use when Charles Darwin wrote The variation of animals and plants under domestication , as you can see by the first sentence of chapter 13:
THE great principle of inheritance to be discussed in this chapter has been recognised by agriculturists and authors of various nations, as shown by the scientific term Atavism, derived from atavus, an ancestor; by the English terms of Reversion, or Throwing-back; by the French Pas-en-Arrire; and by the German Rckschlag, or Rckschritt.
With regard to the notion of atavism have a look at chapter 5 of The origin of species. Darwin describes an example of a reversion (or atavism) in horses and pigeons. His concluding remarks are:
What now are we to say to these several facts? We see several very distinct species of the horse-genus becoming, by simple variation, striped on the legs like a zebra, or striped on the shoulders like an ass. In the horse we see this tendency strong whenever a dun tint appears-a tint which approaches to that of the general colouring of the other species of the genus. The appearance of the stripes is not accompanied by any change of form or by any other new character. We see this tendency to become striped most strongly displayed in hybrids from between several of the most distinct species. Now observe the case of the several breeds of pigeons: they are descended from a pigeon (including two or three sub-species or geographical races) of a bluish colour, with certain bars and other marks; and when any breed assumes by simple variation a bluish tint, these bars and other marks invariably reappear; but without any other change of form or character. When the oldest and truest breeds of various colours are crossed, we see a strong tendency for the blue tint and bars and marks to reappear in the mongrels. I have stated that the most probable hypothesis to account for the reappearance of very ancient characters, is-that there is a tendency in the young of each successive generation to produce the long-lost character, and that this tendency, from unknown causes, sometimes prevails. And we have just seen that in several species of the horse-genus the stripes are either plainer or appear more commonly in the young than in the old. Call the breeds of pigeons, some of which have bred true for centuries, species; and how exactly parallel is the case with that of the species of the horse-genus! For myself, I venture confidently to look back thousands on thousands of generations, and I see an animal striped like a zebra, but perhaps otherwise very differently constructed, the common parent of our domestic horse, whether or not it be descended from one or more wild stocks, of the ass, the hemionus, quagga, and zebra.
(original without bold face)
-Bernd

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 10-08-2006 3:18 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 10-09-2006 8:59 PM bernd has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 38 of 61 (355367)
10-09-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 12:29 PM


Re: The tale of a tail
There is no musculature, nerve endings, or ligaments attached to these anamolies.
Where do you get this information? Everything I have read about them seems to suggest that they are physiologically an underveloped tail with muscles and everything else.
I guess I am asking for evidence for your claim please.
Aside from which, if humans developed atavisms that are not normally expressed alleles, one might expect to see traits that are more current to the evolutionary timescale. What I mean to say is that if humans are indeed primates and we trace our lineage back to primates with tails, we are taling about hundreds of millions of years in between. Why wouldn't excessive body hair be a more prominent atavism than tails when there has been a hundreds of millions of years of disparity in between?
IIRC, humans don't have any less hair than apes, it is just not as thick or long.
Also, an "atavism" from a recent ancestor may not be an atavism at all. The more recent it is the more it is likely to just be a normal part of our variation. It is only when some trait has been lost for a considerable amount of time and returns in a very strange and underveloped form does it even qualify to be called an atavism.
Hence you have whales and dolphins with legs. I have yet to here a creationist take any effort in trying to explain that one.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 12:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 10-09-2006 4:14 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 39 of 61 (355368)
10-09-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 6:17 PM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
What is "anchored" to the whale legs? How exactly do they aid in mating? Do you have any evidence to present?
I believe you might be confusing the whale vestigal hip to the atavistic legs. A whales man parts are anchored to his hips not his legs.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 40 of 61 (355369)
10-09-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brad McFall
10-08-2006 2:55 PM


Re: work in process
Hello Brad,
thank you for your interesting excerpts. While you are preparing your second post - please take your time - maybe you find the following links helpful.
About the development of the vertebrate tail:
The vertebrate tail is an extension of the main body axis caudal to the anus. The developmental origin of this structure has been a source of debate amongst embryologists for the past century. Some view tail development as a continuation of the morphogenetic processes that shape the head and trunk (i.e. gastrulation). The alternative view, secondary development, holds that the tail forms in a manner similar to limb development, i.e. by secondary induction. Previous developmental studies have provided support for both views. Here I revisit these studies, describing caudal morphogenesis in select vertebrates, the associated genes and developmental defects, and, as a relevant aside, consider the developmental and evolutionary relationships of primary and secondary neurulation. I conclude that caudal development enlists both gastrulation and secondary induction, and that the application of recent high-resolution cell labelling technology may clarify how these discordant programmes interact in building the vertebrate tail.
from
Concordia discors: duality in the origin of the vertebrate tail
About apoptosis of the embryonic human tail:
During normal human development a number of transient structures form and subsequently regress completely. One of the most prominent structures that regress during development is the human tail. We report here a histological and ultrastructural study of cell death in the cranial and caudal (tail) parts of the neural tube in 4 to 6-week-old human embryos. Initially, the human tail is composed of tail bud mesenchyme which differentiates into caudal somites, secondary neural tube, notochord and tail gut. Later on, these structures gradually regress by cell death. During the investigated period, we observed two morphologically distinct types of dying cells. The well-described apoptotic type of cell death was observed only in the cranial neural tube that forms during primary neurulation. The other type of cell death characterized by necrotic morphology was observed in the tail mesenchyme and in the caudal neural tube that forms during secondary neurulation. This morphological diversity suggests that besides differences in origin and fate there are different mechanisms of developmental cell death between two parts of the human neural tube. We can speculate that the apoptotic type of cell death is associated with the precise control of cell numbers and that the other morphologically distinct type of cell death is responsible for the massive removal of transitory structures
from Morphological diversity of dying cells during regression of the human tail
About canalisation:
Progress on canalization
Waddington's canalization revisited: Developmental stability and evolution
Have a nice day!
-Bernd

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 10-08-2006 2:55 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 41 of 61 (355423)
10-09-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jazzns
10-09-2006 11:04 AM


Re: The tale of a tail
It appears that there are clinical attempts to morphologically differentiate two kinds of human "tails". This is what Bernd was pointing out with his first picture.
shortened link
The Gish article that I linked to stresses the "pseudo"tail end from the descriptions.
We had pictures of a human tail on EVC before that I and perhaps NJ might have been refering to.
EvC Forum: Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails
The issue physiologically as Bernd has been linking to has to do with neuralation and the relation of cell death along an axis or causal with neurualation but this does not necessarily speak sufficiently for the apparent distinction of Great Apes without tails (for me when the issue comes to heritibility) with/without some critical interpreting and from which the creationist as opposed to the clinitian is likely to procline.
Edited by Brad McFall, : letter "u"
Edited by Brad McFall, : small errors
Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jazzns, posted 10-09-2006 11:04 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 61 (355469)
10-09-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by bernd
10-09-2006 10:06 AM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
Thanks for that particular information. This closes off some of the questions I had had in the first thread on the "human" tail I linked in this thread. I think that I was most impressed by Simpson's use of the word "throw-back" (in an issue that Gould misread at first as a young up and coming something)but as you can see the notion of atavism came up in the first thread on this topic. I did not participate much as the question went quickly to frog eyes rather than primate tails.
Although all of the thoughts and data are not in ( I saw some claims on the web about humans having mouse genes for tails or at least that was the implication but I could not find anything but a few hyped sentences so far, which seemed no different than Gould's older useage of "regulatory gene hierarchies") it seems that the thread has moved off any potential disagreement between you and I, on the fully historical-functional side as illustrable by Gould's figure 10-10 below ( I have labeled where I am guessing the difference between us lies, but is is only guess).
That kind of placement was my intention, at least so far in representing the creationist position, for if one takes ANY angle from the left horizontal towards the historical as Gould had it there would be NO WAY that a creationist position could be true. There still might be a black and white difference among our contributions though not digramable as I have highlighted a difference if there are rigid positions on the INTENT of the difference between homology and homoplasy. This might not come up for us however or anyone else who wants while participating in this thread to place their name in the traingle.
If you think this use of Gould's figure is a little premature, a simple indication such, will have me work out a more extensive critical position.
quote:

Edited by Brad McFall, : removed extra url reference

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by bernd, posted 10-09-2006 10:06 AM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bernd, posted 10-10-2006 3:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 43 of 61 (355665)
10-10-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brad McFall
10-05-2006 5:08 PM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
Hi Brad- you're welcome.
quote:
As for me using a simple link to creationist literature this time, well, that is all that was called for.
No, I didn't mean you use links, (I never mentioned links). What I meant was that when I finally get the point of your post, it is both illogical and unduly complicated.
Post #16 is similar in that it bring up a red herring (the question of whether human tails today are useful to humans today). That's been addressed by Bernd in post 25 anyway.
I wish you the best, even though I probably won't be discussing a lot with you. Take care-

-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 10-05-2006 5:08 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 10-10-2006 5:37 PM Equinox has not replied

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 44 of 61 (355671)
10-10-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Brad McFall
10-09-2006 8:59 PM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
Hello Brad,
You wrote:
If you think this use of Gould's figure is a little premature, a simple indication such, will have me work out a more extensive critical position
No, at the moment I have no problems with that figure. Let’s go on with our discussion. I am looking forward to your second post. Besides, thanks again for your quotes from Gould: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
-Bernd

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 10-09-2006 8:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 10-10-2006 7:48 PM bernd has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 61 (355704)
10-10-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Equinox
10-10-2006 3:01 PM


Re: A radiograph of a human tail
woah there EQ.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
I was lead to stress the current use of Human Tails because of the wording Bernd created in the FIRST POST in this thread.
You allege "illogicy" but I feel burdened to render completely logical ALL MY POSTINGS together on EVC. In this case I was starting out to have to aver my own sense of my lack of posting in the earlier thread on "tails." What you call "unduly" complicated is really an example of how involved THE WORK of creationism can be to extend evolutionary thought. I have not gotten to this part in this thread as of yet. Bernd seems to realize and understand this and is patient beyond a daily internet "fix." Look if Bernd had not posted that he was OK with my situating a difference between him and me then I would have to re-write from a backward discussing inclination. The complexity of my posts start out this way to ensure I can get to the parts that I would need to if I am misunderstanding who I am posting to. It is just courtesy. I am feeling very bad from Robin just now, so I am not in the mind to carry this conversation further today.
You say that it doesn’t matter what the human tail means for humans today but if you would wait for the discussion on cell death IT WILL MATTER as to how far the "structuralist" component is relevant. I sense instead that you would feel that one should be arguing more purely for a heritable complex allele mutation that natural selection caused which I feel, despite or due to the complexity of my inveighing herein, I think I need no longer address.
Do you really "get" the Point of my post?
Here is a quicky of where this thread is going for me. Gould divided nationally, formalism and functionalism in biology but within the current evolutionary use of homoplasy he did not work out for his own conceptual system the possiblity that a MORE FORMAL AND MOLECULAR view could render his notion of "clumped morphospace" NOT dependent on (Platonic) archetypes.
This same intellectual Pavloffianism shows up in pure math as well, when addressing sets. Only in biology there is no simple way around Aristotle as there is in theology. I read biology BEYOND the simple words TO THE FORMS of creatures themselves, so in the end it is the organisms that dictate, no matter how hard I try to retrodict. Once I get "all complicated and the like" it is usually fairly easy for me to imagine from that place a given creationists complaint. It was Bernd not me who suggested Cell Death in this case and if you look a little bit at the pages I copied about ideas on the origin of cell death this is going to make the case in general for the tail being a clear result of heritable homology harder not easier to maintain as the LEVEL of the cell's causality will needed to be worked in, independently of the genes or the organisms or the populations. This is what hierarchy is all about. So unless you reject hierarchicalization out right meaning it is all out "wrong" then I do not understand how you can lay claims of illogicism and unfortunate complexity to my contributions on or off the page.
This thread is really going somewhere. Let's not let the rest stop and may Robin rest in peace, stop, the rest of us. All the best, Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Equinox, posted 10-10-2006 3:01 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024