The Coccyx

[Jimmy D]

He says he should imagine! That's a very typical modus operandi which is employed regularly when the need arises and the need arises very often within atheistic circles..

BTW
What Catholic branch do you represent? The reason I ask is because I was thinking of attending the Catholic Church and your views seem excessively eccentric. In fact, they seem to border on the pro-atheist anti-biblical. Not that they are-of course. Just an impression that I get from your statements against the traditional biblical views.

It was a turn of phrase Radbrook, nothing sinister or underhand. I'll rephrase it if you like.....

It is in no way relevant in this day and age with modern imaging techniques and what not. Whether or not his studies are accurate, bringing 100+ year old drawings into the debate is straw-clutching at best.

 

[Radrook]

You're going to cite Jonathan Wells? The disciple of Myung Son Moon, who thinks he's an improvement on Jesus Christ? The guy who got caught faking research on peppered moths?

C'mon. Tell you what. Take one claim out of that word salad that you think is most convincing and we'll have a look at it. If you can't find one, then that's how it goes with most people.

A statement of fact stands or falls on its own merit and not on the reputation of the person who makes it. Even the Devil spoke truth on occasion as is evident from his quotation of scripture when he tested Christ's integrity.

Should the scriptures he quoted b considered false because the Devil quoted or referred to them? Actually, that is ad hominem. The same applies to Haeckle who was deemed a hypocrite and a liar. My duty as a truth-seeker is to evaluate what he presented and not reject it merely because the man was deemed a hoaxer.

 

[Radrook]

It was a turn of phrase Radbrook, nothing sinister or underhand. I'll rephrase it if you like.....

It is in no way relevant in this day and age with modern imaging techniques and what not. Whether or not his studies are accurate, bringing 100+ year old drawings into the debate is straw-clutching at best.

I don't need to clutch at straws because my belief in an ID is firmly based on solid ground. But is it indeed irrelevant to bring up Haeckl's drawings as an example of a pattern of chicanery that keeps cropping up? That's tantamount to saying that I can't provide an example of sadist behavior by referring the Vlad the Impaler because Vlad lived centuries ago.
The time period that it took place is totally irrelevant to the attitude of deceit that is being illustrated via the reference to Haeckle.

As to imaging techniques which prove his ideas correct-was the area which he claimed were remnants of gills actually proven to be remnants of gills? Was the similarity in outward appearance of a tail actually a tail and not simply an extension of the spinal column common in all prenatal mammals? Photographs are open to interpretations and atheists have a habit of interpreting everything they see as evidence of some kind or another for their beliefs.

 

[Radrook]

Vestigial features can have rudimentary function, as we have said repeatedly. Vestigial does not mean it has no function at all.

I did not claim that vestigial means that the organ or body part has absolutely no present function. I merely claimed that my previous statement concerning the importance of the Coccyx was based on what that article which portrays the coccyx as very essential for coordinated muscular movement.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

There is no solid ground on which to base ID.

Personally I would of thought that the deaths of countless people from simply choking on food would be a big clue. Why use the same passage for consumption and breathing? What kind of botched design is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't need to clutch at straws because my belief in an ID is firmly based on solid ground.

Yet you can't produce any evidence to support that belief, and must ignore the evidence we do have.

But is it indeed irrelevant to bring up Haeckl's drawings as an example of a pattern of chicanery that keeps cropping up?

Since the theory of evolution is in no way based on those drawings, I really don't see how they are relevant to begin with. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was Haeckel's own theory.

The time period that it took place is totally irrelevant to the attitude of deceit that is being illustrated via the reference to Haeckle.

The deceit in this thread is the insistent claim by creationists that vestigial features must lack all function. The deceit is the continued inability of creationists to deal with the observed nested hierarchy. The deceit is the continued attempts to ignore evidence on the part of ID/creationists.

As to imaging techniques which prove his ideas correct-was the area which he claimed were remnants of gills actually proven to be remnants of gills?

The same structures develop into gills in fish.

Was the similarity in outward appearance of a tail actually a tail and not simply an extension of the spinal column common in all prenatal mammals?

Yes, it is a tail. The tail vertebrae are actually removed and absorbed back into the body during development.

Photographs are open to interpretations and atheists have a habit of interpreting everything they see as evidence of some kind or another for their beliefs.

What good are facts without interpretation? It isn't enough to say that facts are interpreted. You need to show that those interpretations are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not claim that vestigial means that the organ or body part has absolutely no present function.

Then why do you point to rudimentary functions as a falsification of vestigial features?

 

[Radrook]

Then why do you point to rudimentary functions as a falsification of vestigial features?

What vestigial features are you referring to?

 

[Loudmouth]

What vestigial features are you referring to?

The coccyx. Here is a quote from a section in one of your posts:

"Rather than leaving the reader with the impression that the coccyx has no real function in human beings, Dr. Menton points out “that most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the ‘inescapable fact’ of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions."--post #18 [emphasis mine]

 

[Radrook]

Yet you can't produce any evidence to support that belief, and must ignore the evidence we do have.

Evidence is usually dismissed as non evidence in order to avoid having to provide a logical rebuttal because their is no logical rebuttal.

Since the theory of evolution is in no way based on those drawings, I really don't see how they are relevant to begin with. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was Haeckel's own theory.

I never claimed that the theory of evolution is based on Haeckel's drawings.

The deceit in this thread is the insistent claim by creationists that vestigial features must lack all function. The deceit is the continued inability of creationists to deal with the observed nested hierarchy. The deceit is the continued attempts to ignore evidence on the part of ID/creationists.

I never made that claim and am not responsible for any type of claim made by any other type of creationist.

The same structures develop into gills in fish.

The same analogous structures in mammal embryos turn into elephant trunks, bovine hooves and horns, cow udders, pig snouts, and kangaroo legs? After all, all mammals have four legs, mammaries, a nose-right?

Considering the clear fact that the structures have a function completely unrelated to gills, the logical conclusion would be that the resemblance in mammals is merely coincidental.

Yes, it is a tail. The tail vertebrae are actually removed and absorbed back into the body during development.

So you are claiming that there are EXTRA vertebra which represent a tail during human development and which are suddenly reabsorbed. Very interesting!
Can you please provide a source for that statement.

Thanks!

What good are facts without interpretation? It isn't enough to say that facts are interpreted. You need to show that those interpretations are wrong.

No, I am not against interpretation. Interpretation of data is part of the scientific method and I am not anti-scientific method. True, stating that a statement of what is considered to be a fact is wrong isn't enough. One has to demonstrate how that statement is illogical. That is exactly what atheists don't do whenever the argument in favor of an ID is presented. Instead, they either go off on an irrelevant tangent, go into the inconsistency of policy mode-or else immediately proclaim themselves unable to see things that the had been readily able to see before.

 

[Radrook]

The coccyx. Here is a quote from a section in one of your posts:

"Rather than leaving the reader with the impression that the coccyx has no real function in human beings, Dr. Menton points out “that most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the ‘inescapable fact’ of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions."--post #18 [emphasis mine]

I posted that and clearly explained the purpose was to show where I derived the notion that if a person's coccyx is removed he cannot move around normally. It was in response to a correction which proved otherwise. It wasn't intended to be an endorsement of her definition of vestigial organ. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence is usually dismissed as non evidence in order to avoid having to provide a logical rebuttal because their is no logical rebuttal.

Examples?

I never claimed that the theory of evolution is based on Haeckel's drawings.

Then why did you bring it up?

I never made that claim and am not responsible for any type of claim made by any other type of creationist.

You are responsible for those statements when you present them as supporting your position.

The same analogous structures in mammal embryos turn into elephant trunks, bovine hooves and horns, cow udders, pig snouts, and kangaroo legs? After all, all mammals have four legs, mammaries, a nose-right?

The actual term is homologous, and no, the pharyngeal arches don't develop into any of those features.

So you are claiming that there are EXTRA vertebra which represent a tail during human development and which are suddenly reabsorbed. Very interesting!
Can you please provide a source for that statement.

"Using light and scanning electron microscopy, several detailed analyses of the embryonic human tail have shown that the dead and degenerating tail cells are ingested and digested by macrophages (macrophages are large white blood cells of the immune system which more normally ingest and destroy invading pathogens such as bacteria) (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Nievelstein et al. 1993; Sapunar et al. 2001; Saraga-Babic et al. 1994; Saraga-Babic et al. 2002)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex4

No, I am not against interpretation. Interpretation of data is part of the scientific method and I am not anti-scientific method. True, stating that a statement of what is considered to be a fact is wrong isn't enough. One has to demonstrate how that statement is illogical. That is exactly what atheists don't do whenever the argument in favor of an ID is presented. Instead, they either go off on an irrelevant tangent, go into the inconsistency of policy mode-or else immediately proclaim themselves unable to see things that the had been readily able to see before.

You have not been able to ever explain why an ID would design life so that it falls into a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is a fact, and you continue to ignore it.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't need to clutch at straws because my belief in an ID is firmly based on solid ground.

You are free to believe whatever you like.

I still don't know why Haeckel's drawings and ideas are so important. Science moves on, that's the beauty of it, if ideas can be shown to be wrong in the light of new evidence they can be discarded.

I'll leave your embryology question to The Barbarian as he has studied the subject. I'm sure that you wouldn't enjoy it but Neil Shubin's TV series and book 'Your Inner Fish' discusses how our embryonic development shows signs of our evolution. It's worth a watch for us laymen.

 

[Radrook]

You are free to believe whatever you like.

I still don't know why Haeckel's drawings and ideas are so important. Science moves on, that's the beauty of it, if ideas can be shown to be wrong in the light of new evidence they can be discarded.

I'll leave your embryology question to The Barbarian as he has studied the subject. I'm sure that you wouldn't enjoy it but Neil Shubin's TV series and book 'Your Inner Fish' discusses how our embryonic development shows signs of our evolution. It's worth a watch for us laymen.

There is the crux! Despite the fact that his drawings were declared bogus by other evolutionists they were not discarded but were still used in textbooks as evidence. The attitude is totally unscientific. That is all I said. Thanks for the reference. Sounds like an interesting video. Will look it up on youtube

 

[Jimmy D]

There is the crux! Despite the fact that his drawings were declared bogus by other evolutionists they were not discarded but were still used in textbooks as evidence. The attitude is totally unscientific. That is all I said. Thanks for the reference. Sounds like an interesting video. Will look it up on youtube

No problem. As I mentioned, I'm new to the topic of Haeckel's drawings but I'm not sure that they've been declared totally bogus, rather that he exaggerated certain features to emphasize his pet theory (which I believe was influenced by Darwin's Book). Can you tell I've been looking at wikipedia?

I do agree that we shouldn't be using 100 year old drawings in textbooks however.

 

[Radrook]

Examples?

That would be an exercise in futility.

Then why did you bring it up?

You are responsible for those statements when you present them as supporting your position.[/quote]
Insisting that I attempted what I did not and that I hold a belief that I don't is irrational.

The actual term is homologous, and no, the pharyngeal arches don't develop into any of those features.

I am familiar with the term homologous since it is very often employed in discussions and textbooks on evolution.
One way that it is employed is to show that just because two organisms share similar structures it doesn't prove ancestral connections but is referred to as convergent evolution. That's what I was referring to when I referred to the fact that similarity doesn't mean ancestry even within the evolutionary theory and that the concept is basic. I was simply to lazy to refresh my memory to make sure that it was actually the appropriate term by using Google or or my personal library. So I simply expressed it in a less concise manner.

BTW
I didn't say that the pharyngeal arches develop into those features.

"Using light and scanning electron microscopy, several detailed analyses of the embryonic human tail have shown that the dead and degenerating tail cells are ingested and digested by macrophages (macrophages are large white blood cells of the immune system which more normally ingest and destroy invading pathogens such as bacteria) (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Nievelstein et al. 1993; Sapunar et al. 2001; Saraga-Babic et al. 1994; Saraga-Babic et al. 2002)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex4

Thanks! I don't see them saying that there were extra vertebrae involved. The term: Tail cells might be in reference to soft tissue which is deemed "tail" by the evolutionist investigators. So let me check and see what te rest of the article claims.

After going to the website:


Sorry but that isn’t the normal developmental stage of all embryos. It is simply a six-year old girl with an anomaly. There are other anomalies such as extra breasts, I suppose that people who grow horns are showing their bovine ancestry? Or women with multiple breasts their dog ancestry? Or the Elephant Man elephant-like epidermis was atavistically indicating his elephant ancestry? Or people born with mermaid like fused legs are displaying their mermaid ancestry? Or the people who look like wolves with excessive hair growth are showing their wolf ancestry? There is a child in China who can see in the dark just like a cat-has the same reflective tissue. Cat ancestry? Others inherit an ability to contortion their bodies as flexibly as snakes do-snake ancestry? These can be understood to be simply errors in the DNA caused by our imperfection.

Other suggested viable possibilities which need not to include evolution from animals:

Demonic tampering with the human genome in order to give the appearance that humans are not in God’s image but are really just sophisticated beasts as evolution teaches.

Adamic possession of a tail that was lost after the fall from grace and the passing on of the tailless defect to us who retain traces of it in our genome.

Purposeful misinterpretation of available data in order to support the evolutionary claim.

BTW

Prior to evolution idea the terms used for the elongated cocyx did not include the word “vestigial.

( "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage)

The term atavistic is base on the presupposition that it is related to an ancestor who had a tail. In other words the conclusion is based on something that hasn’t been proven but is accepted as fact in order to interpret the anomaly that way.

It is similar to assuming abiogenesis when life is discovered anywhere in the universe.
Similar to the fallacy of wishful thinking.

You have not been able to ever explain why an ID would design life so that it falls into a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is a fact, and you continue to ignore it.

No, I am not ignoring it at all. After reading the article which explains exactly what "nested hierarchies are, I reached the conclusion that the term "nested hierarchy" is simply an interpretation of what evolutionists believe to be ancestrally-related organisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is the crux! Despite the fact that his drawings were declared bogus by other evolutionists they were not discarded but were still used in textbooks as evidence.

Still clutching at straws, I see.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would be an exercise in futility.

The truth is that you have no such examples, which is why you can't present any.

Insisting that I attempted what I did not and that I hold a belief that I don't is irrational.

YOU PRESENTED THAT MATERIAL AS SUPPORT FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

For crying out loud . . .

You just get done with claiming how evil scientists are for using false drawings, and now you are using false statements and won't own up to it. Go figure.

One way that it is employed is to show that just because two organisms share similar structures it doesn't prove ancestral connections but is referred to as convergent evolution.

We are not arguing that just sharing a feature evidences common ancestry.

Let me repeat that, in case you missed it.

We are not arguing that just sharing a feature evidences common ancestry.

Please stop misrepresenting our position. Think you can do that?

What we are arguing is that common ancestry and evolution are evidenced by the PATTERN of homologous and derived features. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. If homologous features were shared in a non-nested hierarchy in animals, we would all agree that shared features are not evidence for evolution.

Now, do you think you can actually address the nested hierarchy, the actual bit of evidence that we are putting forward? Or will you continue to ignore it?

BTW
I didn't say that the pharyngeal arches develop into those features.

You: As to imaging techniques which prove his ideas correct-was the area which he claimed were remnants of gills actually proven to be remnants of gills?

Me: The same structures develop into gills in fish.

You: The same analogous structures in mammal embryos turn into elephant trunks, bovine hooves and horns, cow udders, pig snouts, and kangaroo legs? After all, all mammals have four legs, mammaries, a nose-right?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Thanks! I don't see them saying that there were extra vertebrae involved.

Those segments of the post anal tail do develop into vertebrae, as shown in some individuals where the post anal tail is not reabsorbed:

S1-5 are the usual tail bone vertebrae in humans. C1-3 are caudal vertebrae, and that is a human x-ray. Those are extra vertebrae as part of a tail, and those are what develops from the portion of the human embryonic post-anal tail if it is not reabsorbed.

No, I am not ignoring it at all. After reading the article which explains exactly what "nested hierarchies are, I reached the conclusion that the term "nested hierarchy" is simply an interpretation of what evolutionists believe to be ancestrally-related organisms.

Then you are wrong. The nested hierarchy was first observed and described by Linnaeus in the 1700's, before Darwin was even born. It is not an evolutionary interpretation.

Once again, you are avoiding the evidence.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't at all accurate about Haeckel's drawings, Radrook. The creation-science people started a vicious rumor that he faked his data, etc. None of that is true.

 

[Radrook]

The truth is that you have no such examples, which is why you can't present any.

YOU PRESENTED THAT MATERIAL AS SUPPORT FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

For crying out loud . . .

You just get done with claiming how evil scientists are for using false drawings, and now you are using false statements and won't own up to it. Go figure.

I have repeatedly explained that was not the feature of the article I was referring to and that it was in response to one of my previous statements which had nothing to do with the issue you are referring to.

We are not arguing that just sharing a feature evidences common ancestry.

Let me repeat that, in case you missed it.

We are not arguing that just sharing a feature evidences common ancestry.

Please stop misrepresenting our position. Think you can do that?

That is not what the following article indicates:

Understanding Evolution
Nested Hierarchies


In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_16

The article on nested hierarchies clearly mentions

1. shared traits
2. shared common traits
3. shared inherited traits
4. share traits in common

as the reason for considering common ancestry conspicuous.

To non evolutionary creationists it merely indicates a creator who decided to make them immediately similar. Please note that there is nothing in similarity that demands we conclude common ancestor among all living things unless we first assume a gradual evolution from unicellular to multicellular plant and animal life. Once that process is assumed to have happened everything else is interpreted to fit within its parameters.

However, if we assume a creator who created animals without having resorted to the evolutionary roundabout process, then that seemingly inevitable conclusion doesn’t seem inevitable at all.

What we are arguing is that common ancestry and evolution are evidenced by the PATTERN of homologous and derived features. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. If homologous features were shared in a non-nested hierarchy in animals, we would all agree that shared features are not evidence for evolution.

Now, do you think you can actually address the nested hierarchy, the actual bit of evidence that we are putting forward? Or will you continue to ignore it?

You: As to imaging techniques which prove his ideas correct-was the area which he claimed were remnants of gills actually proven to be remnants of gills?

Me: The same structures develop into gills in fish.

You: The same analogous structures in mammal embryos turn into elephant trunks, bovine hooves and horns, cow udders, pig snouts, and kangaroo legs? After all, all mammals have four legs, mammaries, a nose-right?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I never claimed that the area which turns into gills in fish turn into horns, hooves, mammaries, snouts, trunks or anything of that kind. That is your interpretation.

Those segments of the post anal tail do develop into vertebrae, as shown in some individuals where the post anal tail is not reabsorbed:

S1-5 are the usual tail bone vertebrae in humans. C1-3 are caudal vertebrae, and that is a human x-ray. Those are extra vertebrae as part of a tail, and those are what develops from the portion of the human embryonic post-anal tail if it is not reabsorbed.

That photograph isn't of normal prenatal development, It is a photo of a six yer-old girl with an anomaly.

Then you are wrong. The nested hierarchy was first observed and described by Linnaeus in the 1700's, before Darwin was even born. It is not an evolutionary interpretation.

So according to you it was given an evolutionary interpretation before the evolution theory was invented by Darwin? What is your source for that claim?

Once again, you are avoiding the evidence.

Not at all, I just don't find it as compelling as you do.


Not avoiding anything:

Understanding Evolution
Nested Hierarchies


In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life's hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_16

The article on nested hierarchies clearly mentions

1. shared traits
2. shared common traits
3. shared inherited traits
4. share traits in common

as the reason for considering common ancestry conspicuous.

I responded that to creationists it merely indicates a creator who decided to make them similar.
Please note that there is nothing in similarity that demands we conclude common ancestor among all living things unless we first assume a gradual evolution from unicellular multicellular plant and animal life. Once that process is assumed to have happened everything else is interpreted to fit within its parameters.

However, if we assume a creator who created animals without having resorted to the evolutionary roundabout process, then that seemingly inevitable conclusion doesn’t seem inevitable at all.