Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ehud

Common Descent or Common Designer

59 posts in this topic

Hey D-9:

I've never heard of anyone being born with a real tail. As far as I know, most so-called tails are just abnormal growths that just happen to be near the lower back. They're not part of the spine. If there are any tails that are part of the spine, I would expect them to be examples of abnormal growth where the trunk didn't grow as long as the spine.

According to Wikipedia, "There have been several documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae." The source for this isn't online, so I have no way of evaluating if this is because of abnormal spine/trunk development or because a gene for a tail has been activated. Although, if five vertebrae is the best example, it doesn't look like very good for the Evolutionist. Monkeys have two to three dozen vertebrae in their tails.

Can you direct me to any example of a human with a real tail? If you can show me a human with a real tail, that would be powerful evidence for Evolution. If you can't, claiming humans are born with tails suggests to me how desperate Evolutionists are to support their theory.

In post #50 I have an x-ray of a six year old girl with a tail that has 3 tail vertebrae, I could see it when I first posted it but for some reason I can no longer view it. Here it is again, but if it still doesn't work you can go to the actual link and you should be able to find it easily. A lot of tails in humans are not true tails, just abnormal growths as you suggest, most likely over half the cases, but there are documented cases of real tails appearing and that is what I'm talking about. It may also be informative to mention that those with true tails can move them at will.

tail.jpghttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2

It is an evolutionary throwback, and given our last ancestor with monkeys was over 20 million years ago, we don't expect a perfect monkey tail to pop out upon a slight change in the regulatory genes. Since humans with true tails are born with varying amounts of vertebrae, and we know it is due to regulation of genes, change the regulation patterns and you get more vertebrae with longer tails etc. It might be interesting to note that all humans have tails while in the womb, but they are usually destroyed before birth.

I don't think it's the best evidence of evolution from an academic view, but it's evidence nonetheless, and one that has significant shock value to the general public and has gained the most interest in this thread. We are spending so much time on it because it is popular and of interest to the Worthy community. And it is a pretty neat atavism if I say so myself; in Hinduism they are known to revere humans with tails as incarnations of a monkey god.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff.

Actually, it all boils down to the suppression of an atavic capability. Turn that knob a little more and you can regulate the length and consistency of a human's tail. And this is the point, really. What is the reason to introduce a capability if it is not needed? I am not sure that this can be called design. If I do not want a function, I do not program it and then suppress it; that would be suboptimal.

After all, I don't think we have the potentiality to grow wings or become fluorescent, so the idea of a swiss army knife design that can do everything, but has most of its capabilities suppressed, can be discarded, too, and the only plausible explanation is inheritance from direct evolutionary lineage.

Ciao

- viole

That is a very good point. We don't have the genes for every trait imaginable, so when we do find genes that correspond to traits we see in our (supposed) recent ancestors it makes sense that we have these genes because of evolution. A similar scenario is the genes for teeth in birds, very hard to explain that without evolution IMHO.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an evolutionary throwback ..

No, it is an assumption made by evolutionists, so please don't assert something you cannot prove. If hands and feet can produce extra bones, tissues, skin and so on then so can the coccyx. If "genes for making stuff" were accidently being turned on after 20 million years or so then the entire animal kingdom would be riddled with such cases.

As I said, there are no "genes for making tails". Instead there are plenty of abnormalities that evolutionists can use to pick and choose among in order to provide "evidence of evolution".

Perhaps you think that the Indonesian "tree-man" has "genes for making a tree"?

That would be quite a "throwback"!

Edited by Citizenship
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do see atavisms in other animals. It is said that horses evolved from smaller, multi-hoofed ancestors, but now they only have one toe with a single hoof over it, normally. Sometimes you get a horse with three toes each with a hoof, an atavism. We aren't the only creatures to have these sorts of things happen.

Isn't it a bit odd that direct changes to the regulation of Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes results in tail formation in humans? Seems like these genes we have can make tails, why would this be the case?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... Isn't it a bit odd that direct changes to the regulation of Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes results in tail formation in humans? Seems like these genes we have can make tails, why would this be the case?

Well, It's No Suprise

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Genesis 3:17

For Sin Corrupts All Of Creation

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:21-22

Including The Godless Minds Of A Few "Great" Men Of Science

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

And If You Would Ever Desire To See Clearly

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5

Just Call Jesus

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Joel 2:32

And Believe

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do see atavisms in other animals. It is said that horses evolved from smaller, multi-hoofed ancestors, but now they only have one toe with a single hoof over it, normally. Sometimes you get a horse with three toes each with a hoof, an atavism. We aren't the only creatures to have these sorts of things happen.

Well a horse is a horse, of course, of course. And a chicken with teeth is a chicken... with teeth. And so on.

I didn't say that abnormalities, (that you call atavisms), don't occur in the animal kingdom. But simply because evolutionists play the "pin the tail on the abnormality that they think supports them and claim it in the name of evolution"-game doesn't mean that I find it particularly convincing. There are all kinds of bizarre deformities in the animal kingdom. Who decides which ones are atavisms and which are not?

Isn't it a bit odd that direct changes to the regulation of Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes results in tail formation in humans? Seems like these genes we have can make tails, why would this be the case?

Why would that be odd? Genes are used to control such things. Genes get damaged, resulting in abnormalities. You call it "tail formation". I prefer to call it by its correct anatomical name - a "coccyx". A coccyx has genes that control how long the coccyx should grow. These genes can be damaged just like any other gene in our body.

As far as I am concerned, humans have genes for making coccyx's, not tails.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~NEWSFLASH~

Based on available evidence, it appears that humans must have evolved from a recent common ancestor which had…would you believe it…SIX FINGERS! An extra finger (finger #6) at birth is reported in about 2 per 1000 children. Most of the time these extra digits are just “small bits of extra skin, but in some cases the bone structure is intact and the extra digits are fully functional.

Polydactyly_01_Lhand_AP.jpg

So it appears that scientists have found the genes for finger #6 in other organisms and we have them too. Every now and then these genes are no longer suppressed in us humans and we end up with finger #6. ToE provides the best explanation for why we have the genes to make finger #6. Science is all about making observations and coming up with the best explanation of them. We have the observation that humans have the genes for finger #6, and every now and then these genes are not suppressed and you have a human with finger #6 complete with bones and all. Either we inherited the genes for finger #6 from an ancestor that had finger #6, or our Designer decided to give us the genes for finger #6 because...... (fill in the blank).

Well…I hope everyone gets the point. That last paragraph is composed entirely of excerpts from D-9 (all of the text in green) except that all references to the tail have been replaced by finger #6...sounds about as convincing as the tail evidence...the only problem Evolution doesn't say we evolved from an ancestor with six fingers. The truth is, polydactylism (extra fingers and toes) is quite common among babies being born…in fact, I bet everyone reading this thread knows someone who had finger #6 at birth (though you may not realize it, because “finger #6” is usually surgically removed immediately after birth, for aesthetic reasons). There are several types of polydactylism depending on where the extra digit shows up, and it occurs in both hands (extra fingers) and feet (extra toes). However, learning about this common developmental problem is not the point of the post; it is the comparison that is vital. Notice the similarities between two disorders: the human extra finger is usually nothing more than a flap of tissue but occasionally has fully formed bones and is functional; the human “tail“ is usually nothing more than a skin protrusion, with nerves, and muscles and occasionally a vertebra or few. Just like finger #6 is produced by an abnormal continuation of the patterning that produced the normal 5 fingers, those extremely rare “tails” which contain a few vertebrae are simply an abnormal continuation of the patterning which produced the normal backbone. So why is one called an evolutionary throwback and the other a developmental disorder? Well, people get pretty desperate sometimes trying to support their worldviews. I suspect that the reason this weak evidence is commonly used is because of the “wow” factor. Humans with “tails”…this sounds like compelling evidence; Humans with an elongated backbone birth defect …not so much.

This alone is enough to discard the human tail as evidence for Evolution (unless Evolutionists are willing to say that we evolved from a six-finger ancestor). However, in my next post we will actually take a look at the science behind these misrepresented tail-growing genes.

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

P.S. Citizenship beat me to the punch on this one...as he first mentioned polydactylism, but I had this post written and decided to still post it anyways. I apologize for the redundancy, but it is an important point.

http://www.babymed.c...fingers-or-toes

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am completely ignorant on the subject, therefore I risk to say some nonsense. Hope D-9 will correct me.

I think that the sixth finger is not driven by a new gene, but by the reactivation of the same. A bit like a loop in a sw subroutine that counts six activations of a gene instead of five.

Therefore, I don't think that your example is relevant, since everybody knows that we have a gene to create at least one finger. But not everyone is aware that we have genes with the potential to create at least on tail ;)

Ciao

- viole

Good...I was hoping you would say this. So suppose the same genes which were used to build the rest of the backbone were used to build this so called "tail" would you discard this evidence? After all, "since everybody knows that we have a gene to create at least one" vertebra...why not a few more.

Ehud

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is closed for review. Your conversation lack any edifying to Christ, but seems to be doing just the opposite to me. To be even more honest, I cannot monitor a thread that I have no idea what is being said.

Taking this in review with others in ministry.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0