Human tail

[jjdoe]

http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm

Crowds are flocking to Indian temples to see a Muslim baby with a 'tail' who is believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god.

The 11-month-old boy has been named Balaji or Bajrangbali, another name for monkey-faced Lord Hanuman. He is reported to have a 4in 'tail' caused by genetic mutations during the development of the foetus.

Iqbal Qureshi, the child's maternal grandfather, is taking Balaji from temple to temple where people offer money to see the boy. Mr Qureshi says the baby has nine spots on his body like Lord Hanuman and showed them to journalists, reports Indian newspaper The Tribune .

 

[jjdoe]

Vestigial organs are structures now supposedly useless or unnecessary which were functional in imagined evolutionary ancestors. In the last century the German anatomist, Wiedersheim, claimed there were 180 such structures in the human body. Since that time, all but a handful of these structures have been proved to be functional. The classic example is the human appendix which allegedly has degenerated from an important organ in our hypothetical plant-eating ancestors to become a non-functional relic in modern humans. In recent years, however, it has been concluded that the appendix, rich in lymphoid tissue, serves to guard the body against infections, particularly in early years, being in this respect comparable to the tonsils and adenoids.

An example of rudimentary organs would be the rudimentary mammary glands is the human male. Charles Darwin made much of this supposed difficulty for believers in creation. One theory proposes that the males among our ancestors were able to nurse their young, but the notion is difficult to defend, for absolutely no supporting evidence exists. In the light of modern knowledge of genetics and embryonic development, the correct explanation is quite obvious and irrefutable. Although the male possesses in his chromosomal complement the genes for the female anatomical structures, the development of the male individual is controlled by the "X" sex chromosome to produce the normal male characters which include the non-functional rudimentary mammary glands. There is no difficulty whatever here for the creation viewpoint. Charles Darwin, having only the extremely limited knowledge of human genetics available in his time, thought he had in male rudimentary mammary glands a truly hard nut for believers in creation to crack. His argument has no merit today although it is still advanced by a few evolutionists who should know better.

Atavistic structures are supposed freak throwbacks to anatomical features possessed by hypothetical evolutionary ancestors. Occasionally a human baby is born with a tail-like appendage and this is said to be evidence that our ancestors had tails. Actually, such rare congenital deformities are usually a type of fatty tumor having no relationship to the tail of a monkey. Furthermore, the human coccyx or tail bone provide essential anchorage points for important muscles. Sadly, superficial knowledge has led to erroneous interpretation and even misrepresentation of the facts.

The most thorough treatment of alleged vestigial organs by Christian professional scientists is the 1990 book by Bergman and Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional.22 They consider a large number of such organs, including in humans the coccyx, tonsils and adenoids, vermiform appendix, thymus, the plica semilunaris in the eye, eyebrows and eyelashes, ear muscles, "Darwin's point on the ear, the embryonic yolk sac, the design of the pharynx, goose pimples, body hair, muscle and bone variations, and wisdom teeth. All of these, once dogmatically classified as vestigial, have now been shown to have important, even essential functions in the human body. Supposed vestigial organs in other species which Bergman and Howe discuss are claws or spurs on some snakes, hip bones and leg bones in whales, teeth in fetal whales, and splint bones in horses. These, too, are shown to have important functions. Blindness in cave fish likewise is discussed at length. The authors conclude that the argument from "vestigial organs" fails to provide proof for evolution. They observe that, nevertheless, this traditional evidence of the secularist opponents of the God of creation will continue to be used, for it is grounded in an a priori philosophical preference for a closed materialistic universe. In saying this we should not forget that we Christians also approach this issue with a faith commitment to the God the Creator and to the integrity of His Word, the Bible.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx7e.htm

Whoever points out the creationist flaws first, gets the cookie.

 

[Arikay]

The Human tail is a real tail.
They aren't just odd mutations. Everyone has a tail but it's development is stopped in most people when they are still an embryo and reabsorbed into the person.

"In fact, the genes that control the development of tails in mice and other vertebrates have been identified (the Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes; Greco et al. 1996; Prinos et al. 2001; Schubert et al. 2001; Shum et al. 1999; Takada et al. 1994). As predicted by common descent from the atavistic evidence, these tail genes have also been discovered in the human genome (Katoh 2002; Roelink et al. 1993). As discussed below in detail, the development of the normal human tail in the early embryo has been investigated extensively, and apoptosis (programmed cell death) plays a significant role in removing the tail of a human embryo after it has formed. It is now known that down-regulation of the Wnt-3a gene induces apoptosis of tail cells during mouse development (Greco et al. 1996; Shum et al. 1999; Takada et al. 1994), and similar effects are observed in humans (Chan et al. 2002). Additionally, researchers have identified a mutant mouse that does not develop a tail, and this phenotype is due to a regulatory mutation that decreases the Wnt-3a gene dosage (Greco et al. 1996; Gruneberg and Wickramaratne 1974; Heston 1951). Thus, current evidence indicates that the genetic cause of tail loss in the evolution of apes was likely a simple regulatory mutation(s) that slightly decreased Wnt-3a gene dosage. Conversely, a mutation or environmental factor that increased dosage of the Wnt-3a gene would reduce apoptosis of the human tail during development and would result in its retention, as an atavism, in a newborn."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

 

[Jet Black]

Vestigial organs are structures now supposedly useless or unnecessary which were functional in imagined evolutionary ancestors. In the last century the German anatomist, Wiedersheim, claimed there were 180 such structures in the human body. Since that time, all but a handful of these structures have been proved to be functional.

obfuscation error between the biological and medical definitions of vestigial. biological simply means reduced in som way from the original form, not useless. bird's forelimbs for example are vestigial arms.

The classic example is the human appendix which allegedly has degenerated from an important organ in our hypothetical plant-eating ancestors to become a non-functional relic in modern humans. In recent years, however, it has been concluded that the appendix, rich in lymphoid tissue, serves to guard the body against infections, particularly in early years, being in this respect comparable to the tonsils and adenoids.

most likely migration of cells from other parts of the body rather than an actual development in the appendix. still, it is a terrible structure. if it had been put there for a reason it could have been far better designed.

An example of rudimentary organs would be the rudimentary mammary glands is the human male. Charles Darwin made much of this supposed difficulty for believers in creation. One theory proposes that the males among our ancestors were able to nurse their young, but the notion is difficult to defend, for absolutely no supporting evidence exists. In the light of modern knowledge of genetics and embryonic development, the correct explanation is quite obvious and irrefutable. Although the male possesses in his chromosomal complement the genes for the female anatomical structures, the development of the male individual is controlled by the "X" sex chromosome to produce the normal male characters which include the non-functional rudimentary mammary glands. There is no difficulty whatever here for the creation viewpoint. Charles Darwin, having only the extremely limited knowledge of human genetics available in his time, thought he had in male rudimentary mammary glands a truly hard nut for believers in creation to crack. His argument has no merit today although it is still advanced by a few evolutionists who should know better.

never heard any evolutionists advance this argument.

Atavistic structures are supposed freak throwbacks to anatomical features possessed by hypothetical evolutionary ancestors. Occasionally a human baby is born with a tail-like appendage and this is said to be evidence that our ancestors had tails. Actually, such rare congenital deformities are usually a type of fatty tumor having no relationship to the tail of a monkey.

usually? what about the cases where they are not? typical creationist avoidance of the difficult issues.

Furthermore, the human coccyx or tail bone provide essential anchorage points for important muscles. Sadly, superficial knowledge has led to erroneous interpretation and even misrepresentation of the facts.

however it can be removed with no problem. what then about the extensor coccyxis? the muscle there to extend the coccyx which is now a fused lump of bone.

The most thorough treatment of alleged vestigial organs by Christian professional scientists is the 1990 book by Bergman and Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional.22 They consider a large number of such organs, including in humans the coccyx, tonsils and adenoids, vermiform appendix, thymus, the plica semilunaris in the eye, eyebrows and eyelashes, ear muscles, "Darwin's point on the ear, the embryonic yolk sac, the design of the pharynx, goose pimples, body hair, muscle and bone variations, and wisdom teeth. All of these, once dogmatically classified as vestigial, have now been shown to have important, even essential functions in the human body.

same old obfuscation and time wasting. nobody is saying that these organs are useless, simply reduced in function.

Supposed vestigial organs in other species which Bergman and Howe discuss are claws or spurs on some snakes, hip bones and leg bones in whales, teeth in fetal whales, and splint bones in horses. These, too, are shown to have important functions.

and again. rather alot of creationist distractions here aren't there?

Blindness in cave fish likewise is discussed at length. The authors conclude that the argument from "vestigial organs" fails to provide proof for evolution. They observe that, nevertheless, this traditional evidence of the secularist opponents of the God of creation will continue to be used, for it is grounded in an a priori philosophical preference for a closed materialistic universe. In saying this we should not forget that we Christians also approach this issue with a faith commitment to the God the Creator and to the integrity of His Word, the Bible.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx7e.htm

Whoever points out the creationist flaws first, gets the cookie.

well the vast majority of the rebuttal there was utterly irrelevant. perhaps if the author had checked the definition of vestigial, they might have saved us all some time.

 

[jjdoe]

obfuscation error between the biological and medical definitions of vestigial. biological simply means reduced in som way from the original form, not useless. bird's forelimbs for example are vestigial arms.

most likely migration of cells from other parts of the body rather than an actual development in the appendix. still, it is a terrible structure. if it had been put there for a reason it could have been far better designed.

never heard any evolutionists advance this argument.

usually? what about the cases where they are not? typical creationist avoidance of the difficult issues.

however it can be removed with no problem. what then about the extensor coccyxis? the muscle there to extend the coccyx which is now a fused lump of bone.

same old obfuscation and time wasting. nobody is saying that these organs are useless, simply reduced in function.

and again. rather alot of creationist distractions here aren't there?


well the vast majority of the rebuttal there was utterly irrelevant. perhaps if the author had checked the definition of vestigial, they might have saved us all some time.

wow, I left this train of thought days ago. but fine, you get a cookie.