Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[pitabread]

Christianity isn't a religion ... it is a relationship.

It's a religion. You don't get to rewrite the dictionary.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a religion. You don't get to rewrite the dictionary.

But science can change "child" to "fetus" and "miracle" to "magic"?

 

[Speedwell]

This reads confusing, are you saying that 2/3 of the Christians of the world do no believe in the God of the Bible? If this is what you are saying, I guess we'll assume you are God and therefore are able to speak authoritatively on this...

No, I am just going by their published doctrine. Most Christians in the world do not believe in "The God of the Bible" well-known code for the God of the literal and inerrant Bible, the God of fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants.

Do you find something incorrect with this definition? If you'd like to move the goalposts to redefine definition to mean something else, I'll pretend I didn't notice.

I just observed that it is not the same as the definition of "information" proposed by Claude Shannon, the originator of information theory, and I wondered where you got it. Did you just make it up yourself, or do you have a source?

I cited from the following article:
https://factsandtrends.net/2017/11/29/protestant-christianity-growing-fastest/

That article points to the growth of Protestant denominations, not necessarily the growth of fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant denominations. One of the fastest-growing Christian groups in Africa are the Anglicans, who are certainly not "Bible-believing" Christians--by your lights probably not Christians at all.

Again, we'll assume because you're omnipresent as well that you know exactly what is an what is not being taught there.

I have been to Africa frequently for extended periods and recently at that, and have attended churches there. No omnipresence required--just simple observation and an absence of fundy wishful thinking.

Hey, instead of trying to critique my believing that the Bible is true with regard to creation and the flood of Noah(which you feel is not true because in your view the evidence does not support this, which in turn.... drum roll... demonstrates I believe something without demonstrable historical accuracy --> hint hint hint, I have faith it happened, that God's word is true), why not help me here with showing those in this forum that don't believe in God, that in fact there is a God and there are many good reasons and more than enough evidence for believing in God.

Because this forum is not about the existence of God; not about theism vs. atheism, but about a cranky Protestant minority vs. everybody else, theists and atheists together. If you want to argue theism vs. atheism there are appropriate forums for it.

 

[NobleMouse]

Evidence please.

And then maybe address the OP.

I believe every example of where information is found, behind it is the mind of an intelligent being. If we think of a book, a computer, DNA, etc... Can you think of an example where information exists that was not not put there by a mind? Also, do you agree that DNA is information?

 

[pitabread]

But science can change "child" to "fetus" and "miracle" to "magic"?

Fetus has a more specific meaning than child; specifically one that is unborn and has also achieved a certain stage of biological development.

Miracle and magic have different definitions (depending on the context) although similar overall subject matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fetus has a more specific meaning than child;

That's like saying Klebold & Harris didn't shoot anybody -- they shot their individual body parts.

 

[pitabread]

That's like saying Klebold & Harris didn't shoot anybody -- they shot their individual body parts.

It's not like saying that at all.

Just out of curiosity, but is English not your first language? Not trying to make fun, genuinely curious since the English language and sorting out word meanings can be complex and nuanced.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not like saying that at all.

Actually I thought that was an excellent analogy.

Just out of curiosity, but is English not your first language?

No.

 

[Ophiolite]

Too much caffeine, Ophiolite?

Too much of your cynical posting. Shame on you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too much of your cynical posting. Shame on you.

Now ... now.

I'm just a clown who's out of a job.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But science can change "child" to "fetus" and "miracle" to "magic"?

-_- fetus describes a specific development stage (one at which point is almost never aborted unless there is a severe medical complication with the pregnancy). It's also a term that has been in use in English at least since the late 1500s. Which, by the way, means it predates the scientific method.

The words "miracle" and "magic" have always had very similar definitions, with "miracle" only being different by association with deities and being generally positive whereas "magic" is fairly neutral and isn't specifically associated with deities.

 

[HitchSlap]

-_- fetus describes a specific development stage (one at which point is almost never aborted unless there is a severe medical complication with the pregnancy). It's also a term that has been in use in English at least since the late 1500s. Which, by the way, means it predates the scientific method.

The words "miracle" and "magic" have always had very similar definitions, with "miracle" only being different by association with deities and being generally positive whereas "magic" is fairly neutral and isn't specifically associated with deities.

You really think he cares? You’re giving ‘what is holy to dogs.’

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- fetus describes a specific development stage (one at which point is almost never aborted unless there is a severe medical complication with the pregnancy). It's also a term that has been in use in English at least since the late 1500s. Which, by the way, means it predates the scientific method.

Why is it that when I bring up the child-to-fetus pluto, that academians respond by giving me the definition of fetus?

Is that supposed to change my mind or something?

 

[AV1611VET]

You really think he cares?

Ninja'd me on that one, didn't you?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is that supposed to change my mind or something?

No, you're too far gone... however, there may be more reasonable people looking at this. Not everything's about you, Av.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why is it that when I bring up the child-to-fetus pluto, that academians respond by giving me the definition of fetus?

Is that supposed to change my mind or something?

-_- no, but I feel the need to express how much you are complaining about nothing. Who honestly gives a crap? Call unborn babies to one year olds blubble gubbles for all I care, a "rose by any other name is still a rose", you know?

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- no, but I feel the need to express how much you are complaining about nothing.

Do fetuses have rights?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do fetuses have rights?

Do arms have rights?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

PART 2

In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species.​

In WHAT’S ‘paraympathetic stimulated phase’??? The coccyx? It is a bone. The ganglion impar? That is a SYMPATHETIC ganglion! A sympathetic ganglion does not GET parasympathetic stimulation! The coccygeal plexus? A network of nerves does not receive parasympathetic stimulation. Totally incoherent – the writing of a person that thinks they know more than they do.

It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites.​

That sentence makes literally no sense at all. For one, the author has clearly never taken freshman level biology. High School freshman. The direction of impulse transmission within a neuron is dendrite, cell body, axon, not ‘across the dentrites’ [sic].

Why do creationists pontificate on the nervous system when they are so uninformed about it? This is like that other creationist on here that claims the larynx receives motor input from the aorta and the gut via the recurrent laryngeal nerve in an attempt to claim that the RLN is 'good design...'

To sum up thus far – no reason to take any of the first part of that rant seriously.
This is a classic creationist bait and switch – the thread-starting post declared that it was ab out how the coccyx was not vestigial, yet thus far, all we have are (erroneous) depictions of what things NEXT TO the coccyx do. And even those depictions are misleading or outright wrong!

Moving on...

Roberto Spiegelmann, Edgardo Schinder, Mordejai Mintz, and Alexander Blakstein, in "The human tail: a benign stigma," Journal of Neurosurgery, 63: 461-462 (1985) explain that “True human tails are rarely encountered in medicine. At the time when Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of debate, hundreds of dubious cases were reported. The presence of a tail in a human being was considered by evolutionists as an example that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." ​

Do Roberto Spiegelmann, Edgardo Schinder, Mordejai Mintz, and Alexander Blakstein provide valid references for their claim “The presence of a tail in a human being was considered by evolutionists as an example that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."? Funny – there wasn’t one in what was posted. And when I searched for their paper – amazingly, it was behind a paywall. But also amazingly, I DID find the quote presented on ‘evolutionnews’, an ID creationist hack outfit’s site. Coincidence? Right…

But the theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been disproven in modern times. The main proponent of this notion was Ernst Heakel [sic] who had produced a document showing the similarity of embryos allegedly demonstrating that embryos represent a fish like stage of evolution. We know now that Heakel [sic] had perpetrated an intentional fraud, and that these drawings were enhanced to produce the illusion of support for the theory.​

We “know” this, do we? Do we know know to spell the name of the guy we are attacking?

"Haeckel: Fraud not proven"
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud%20not%20proven.pdf

And yes, I am aware of the hatchet job that some engineer and violin player from creation.com spewed forth against that article with help from Sarfati, but I was unimpressed. It is the usual creationist nitpicking in order to preserve their ad hominem attack on Haeckel – which seems to be about they have these days. And for crying out loud – Haeckel stated clearly in the first edition of his book that he had removed the yolk sacs for clarity!

Anyway…

The premise is not true. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.​

Yes, and so what? Who uses that as evidence for evolution?
The ether doesn’t exist either, are creationists going to attack the people that thought it did to try to make a point?

The alleged “gills” are just fat folds on the embryo and all non-egg laying animal embryos receive their oxygen through the blood of the mother, and in no other way.​

‘Fat folds’? From what uninformed source was that gem of ignorance copied? There is no fat in an embryo in a stage in which the pharyngeal apparatus is seen. And they are not “folds” as in ‘they are there because of folding’. The ‘folds’ are there because they house internal structures which make it appear, from the outside, to be ‘folds.’ Since this creationist is wrong in his depiction of the pharyngeal apparatus, shall we adopt their anti-vestige tactic and attack him as a fraud? And by the way – fish embryos don’t get oxygen from their “gill slits”, either. Weird that your engineer/violinist/creationist source did not mention this.

"Pseudotails" which are often found in other locations on the lower back, are obvious aberrations since they are often associated with anomalies (remember and do not be fooled, the exception is never the rule). What is considered a “true tail” (extending from the coccyx) is far more rare, and together (both kinds) have only been observed on around 100 occasions from among the many millions of births. Secondly, they are not even a real tail (they totally lack vertebrae). The Journal confirms this. In all studies done all these alleged tails lacked “…bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord.”



According to Allan Joel Belzberg, Stanley Terence Myles, and Cynthia Lucy Trevenen, in "The Human Tail and Spinal Dysraphism," Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 26: 1243-1245 (October, 1991), these extremely rare genetic abnormalities in humans have no spinal cord at all. After many surgeries they have determined they are nothing more than a “central core of mature fatty tissue divided into small lobules by thin fibrous septa. Small blood vessels and nerve fibers are scattered throughout. Bundles of striated muscle fibers, sometimes degenerated, tend to aggregate in the center.” This is nothing like any tail we would commonly find on any kind of ape (or any other animal for that matter) and NEVER have found this to be present in any demonstrable ancient ancestor.



And as far as the more common yet still extremely rare pseudo-tail formation, according to Se-Hyuck Park, Jee Soon Huh, Ki Hong Cho, Yong Sam Shin, Se Hyck Kim, Young Hwan Ahn, Kyung Gi Cho, Soo Han Yoon, "Teratoma in Human Tail Lipoma," Pediatric Neurosurgery, 41:158-161 (2005), it “has no embryological relationship to human tail development, but is any variable abnormal caudal tail-like structure or protrusion." Nothing more…not a tail…not indicative of some remote unfounded assumption about the past, not a degeneration, nor is it atrophied…​

Three paragraphs of paraphrased information from an evolutionnews essay and none of them are even about the coccyx, rather they are all about attacking Haeckel and this notion of humans with tails.

Shall I start a thread on the failure of creation science to produce evidence of the flood and spend the first half of my over-long post writing about people seeing images of Jesus in pancakes?

If these phenomena were truly vestigial in nature we should expect to see at least some vestige of vertebrae or controllable movement but alas we do not.​

Who said that humans with tails were vestiges? What is your rationale for declaring that is these atavistic human tails must have vertebrae in them in order to be considered vestigial? I thought this was supposed to be about the coccyx, not humans born with tails?

I guess when the creationist cannot impress us with evidence, they beguile us with BS.

Science offers no demonstrable evidence at all that the human coccyx is anything more than what it is, and likewise demonstrates no evidence whatsoever that it ever was anything other than what it is now.
​

Wow, that was quite the bait and switch – erroneous anatomy, silly diversions, character assassination, gibberish about humans born with tails not being evidence of tailed ancestors, all followed by a non sequitur!

Other than assertions and bait and switch antics, does creation/ID offer anything relevant?



Nope.

The entire alleged theory that it is a vestigial organ is a contrived myth (science fiction) based on the acceptance of the hypothesis alone. In the 2012 paper, “Spectrum of human tails: A report of six cases”, four out of the six of the alleged “tails” were higher in the lumbar region, and three of these babies sadly had spinal bifida, one had the appendage protruding from its buttock, and the another from the sacral region. And according to the report 5 out the six allegedly vestigial tails were not even connected to the spine.​

And more of the same!

Please stop brainwashing our children with this heinous fairytale. If you have been brainwashed by it please wake up now and simply look at the actual data and block the hypothesis based “interpretation” out of your thinking?​

That statement coming from a person that 1. Claims to accept evolution and that 2. Believes that the deity depicted in the bible created the universe and all ‘kinds’ of creatures, is both hilarious and pathetic.



The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.


Just another example of the quality of creationist argumentation.

How about one from the medical community?

"The coccyx has two main functions: (vestigial organs have no 'function').

• It bears weight when somebody is sitting down.
• Various muscles, tendons and ligaments are attached to it."

https://www.your.md/condition/coccydinia/

This should settle the argument.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do fetuses have rights?

-_- once they reach a certain age, yes. Also, I have to note the fact that when pregnant women are murdered, regardless as to the stage of pregnancy, it is usually counted as 2 murders, not 1.

Which is more rights than what the bible gives unborn children, by the way. Biblically, children have no value until they reach a year of age.