- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 3,999
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
PART 1
Creationists are seemingly programmed to deny the very existence of vestigial structures, and engage in all manner of intellectual gymnastics to prop up their case. They will do this even to the point of embarrassing themselves in their zeal to deny that, darn it, the coccyx is vestigial.
They will often start by re-defining vestigial, or by emphasizing some part of the accepted definition while downplaying or ignoring other parts.
One local creationist, for example, started a thread on the topic and the OP started thusly:
Emphases in original.
The thread starter then triumphantly continues:
So simple, so devastating.
So.... out in left field.
Let us start with "this feature was never a tail, never atrophied, or “degenerated” from something longer. Even in the alleged earliest human species the coccyx is short..."
The earliest HUMAN ancestors were tailless, this is true. But earlier Primate ancestors were not. Most non-anthropoid primates have tails. I say most as there is at least one species - the Barbary Macaque - that is tailless:
One wonders how the creationist explains this tailless primate? Where is the intermediate between a tailed Barbary macaque ancestor and the extant tailless kind? Did the Barbary macaque never have a tail, even as all the other macaques did/do? If so, WHY? Inquiring minds want to know (how creationists spin their way out of that one!)
In HUMANS, yes, the coccyx 'was never a tail, never atrophied, or “degenerated” from something longer.' But our ancestors had tails. Which is sort of the point.
But b)...
b) is a hoot:
"b) because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites."
Where to start? It is, as some might say, 'fractally wrong'.
What, exactly, does "support" mean? Does it mean that the ganglion (ganglia is plural) rests upon the coccyx? If so - so what? There are people born with no coccyx (that generally experience no symptoms), do they not have this 'ganglia'?
And a plexus is not a 'ganglia' - this is freshman level stuff (literally - I teach this in freshman anatomy! ) - a plexus is a network of nerve fibers, a ganglion is a cluster of neuron cell bodies. And they are not 'covered in gray matter' - by definition, cell bodies (and unmyelinated fibers) ARE gray matter.
Wait - it gets better:
Not. Even. Close. "Connective source" is contradictory - it is the source, or does it connect to?
No matter - both are wrong. To avoid being asked for sources later, this site explains it:
The coccygeal plexus does send fibers to, and accepts fibers from, the sacral plexus, which in turn contributes to the sciatic nerve. However:
"Autonomic urogenital functions"
Nope.
This is all wonderful, but this is NOT THE COCCYX.
And there is more:
Creationists are seemingly programmed to deny the very existence of vestigial structures, and engage in all manner of intellectual gymnastics to prop up their case. They will do this even to the point of embarrassing themselves in their zeal to deny that, darn it, the coccyx is vestigial.
They will often start by re-defining vestigial, or by emphasizing some part of the accepted definition while downplaying or ignoring other parts.
One local creationist, for example, started a thread on the topic and the OP started thusly:
Ves·tig·i·al
adjective
synonyms: remaining,
surviving, residual, leftover, lingering
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
adjective
- forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable.
synonyms: remaining,
surviving, residual, leftover, lingering
- In BIOLOGY
Emphases in original.
The thread starter then triumphantly continues:
Thus, the coccyx is not a vestigial tail at all because
a) as far back as we can go this feature was never a tail, never atrophied, or “degenerated” from something longer. Even in the alleged earliest human species the coccyx is short, and
b) because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites.
a) as far back as we can go this feature was never a tail, never atrophied, or “degenerated” from something longer. Even in the alleged earliest human species the coccyx is short, and
b) because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites.
So simple, so devastating.
So.... out in left field.
Let us start with "this feature was never a tail, never atrophied, or “degenerated” from something longer. Even in the alleged earliest human species the coccyx is short..."
The earliest HUMAN ancestors were tailless, this is true. But earlier Primate ancestors were not. Most non-anthropoid primates have tails. I say most as there is at least one species - the Barbary Macaque - that is tailless:
One wonders how the creationist explains this tailless primate? Where is the intermediate between a tailed Barbary macaque ancestor and the extant tailless kind? Did the Barbary macaque never have a tail, even as all the other macaques did/do? If so, WHY? Inquiring minds want to know (how creationists spin their way out of that one!)
In HUMANS, yes, the coccyx 'was never a tail, never atrophied, or “degenerated” from something longer.' But our ancestors had tails. Which is sort of the point.
But b)...
b) is a hoot:
"b) because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites."
Where to start? It is, as some might say, 'fractally wrong'.
" the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus)"
What, exactly, does "support" mean? Does it mean that the ganglion (ganglia is plural) rests upon the coccyx? If so - so what? There are people born with no coccyx (that generally experience no symptoms), do they not have this 'ganglia'?
And a plexus is not a 'ganglia' - this is freshman level stuff (literally - I teach this in freshman anatomy! ) - a plexus is a network of nerve fibers, a ganglion is a cluster of neuron cell bodies. And they are not 'covered in gray matter' - by definition, cell bodies (and unmyelinated fibers) ARE gray matter.
Wait - it gets better:
"...[the 'ganglia'] is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions."
Not. Even. Close. "Connective source" is contradictory - it is the source, or does it connect to?
No matter - both are wrong. To avoid being asked for sources later, this site explains it:
No mention of the sciatic nerve. Nothing about "autonomic urogenital functions".
The coccygeal plexus does send fibers to, and accepts fibers from, the sacral plexus, which in turn contributes to the sciatic nerve. However:
"Autonomic urogenital functions"
Nope.
Gray's anatomy for students, Philadelphia, Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone, p. 423, tells us that the ganglia attached and supported there contribute to the innervation of the pelvic and genital organs. The nerves “regulate the emptying of the bladder, control the opening and closing of the internal urethral sphincter, motility in the rectum as well as sexual functions.” Thus they maintain their function.
This is all wonderful, but this is NOT THE COCCYX.
And there is more:
Last edited:
