The Coccyx

[PsychoSarah]

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

It might be in part because some of his drawings were weirdly close to being right, and at the time, getting images of actual fetuses into textbooks was problematic.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It is material you quoted. That makes you responsible for it.

Tghat is not what the following article indicates:

That is exactly what it indicates.

"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."

Snakes and lizards share more physical features than snakes and humans. When you compare how many traits species share, you get an objective nested hierarchy. Even more, when you compare DNA you get the same nested hierarchy, even though a large amount of each genome is not directly related to physical features.

The article on nested hierarchies clearly mentions

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

It also mentions the number of traits shared and how closely each species is related.

To non evolutionary creationists it merely indicates a creator who decided to make them immediately similar.

Why not decide to make a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Why couldn't a common creator mix and match features so that the don't form a nested hierarchy?

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.

The nested hierarchy does demand that we conclude common ancestry, as I have extensively discussed. NO ONE IS ASSUMING EVOLUTION. Linnaeus was not assuming evolution when he showed that life fell into a nested hierarchy.

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.

If we assume that leprechauns make rainbows, then the conclusion that rainbows are created by light diffraction doesn't seem inevitable at all.

Does that make sense to you?

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.

Sure looked like it to me.

Perhaps you could comment on the presence of pharyngeal pouches on both fish and human embryos?

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

It isn't a prenatal x-ray. As you say, she is six years old. She has a tail with bones in it. What more proof do you need?

So according to you it was given an evolutionary interpretation before the evolution theory was invented by Darwin?

Nowhere did I say that. Darwin was the person who demonstrated the mechanism that created the observed nested hierarchy. That mechanism is evolution through natural selection.

Even Linnaeus, who was once a staunch creationists and supporter of the fixity of species, started to lean towards common ancestry of genera. Once the pattern of similarity between species was understood, evolution was going to be an inevitable scientific discovery. That's probably why Alfred Russell Wallace discovered the theory of evolution completely independently and contemporaneously as Darwin.

Toward the end of his life he timidly advanced the hypothesis that all the species of one genus constituted at the creation one species; and from the last edition of his Systema Naturæ he quietly left out the strongly orthodox statement of the fixity of each species, which he had insisted upon in his earlier works. ... warnings came speedily both from the Catholic and Protestant sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus​

The nested hierarchy was discovered first, then the conclusion of evolution came second.

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

So it seems you were projecting when you talked about others being incapable of accepting evidence.

 

[Lulav]

Moved from Physical and Life Sciences
to
Creation and Evolution Forum​

 

[USincognito]

Doctor David Menton disagrees:

You mean the Creationist anatomist who is also an expert on physics and paleontology?

 

[USincognito]

BTW
Surgical removal of your coccyx would make normal movement for humans extremely difficult. Removal of a mere tail has no such effect.

Actually, the primary complication is infection. It does not make normal movement extremely difficult.

 

[USincognito]

The definition presupposes that the organ is vestigial or a remnant of one that was far less developed. In short, the definition presupposes evolution. Which means that the definition was written by people who accept evolution as fact. Which means that the definition is biased. In order for the definition to be unbiased, it has to use qualifiers.

Magical Creationist words...

Presupposition! POOF! (Except the evidence remains behind when the smoke clears)

 

[USincognito]

2. Like interpreting the human prenatal development as evidence of animal ancestry as Haeckle did.

Embryology is a powerful evidence in support of evolution. All the more so now that it has been merged with genetics under Evolutionary Development or EvoDevo.

Publishing papers to be evaluated by atheist evolutionists is illogical and a waste of time.

You keep using that phrase as if:
A. It were meaningful.
B. That religious scientists who accept evolution don't exist.

 

[USincognito]

But they do not form the base for a tail in humans.

Hey everyone! The forelimb bones don't form a reptilian arm on birds therefore... oh wait.. Pinniped hind flippers don't form legs therefore.... oh wait...

 

[pshun2404]

In all of your amazing creationist-friendly "research"...

You never came across the Extensor Coccygis?

"The Extensor coccygis is a slender muscular fasciculus, which is not always present; it extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibers from the last segment of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downward to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx. It is a rudiment of the Extensor muscle of the caudal vertebræ of the lower animals."

The EXACT thing you claim to have been looking for???

What an amazing coincidence....

The dorsal sacrococcygeus muscles which people convinced of the hypothesis will interpret as proof of vestigiality. Now it is true that in humans these and their counterparts are not developed as much as they are in animals of lower orders that have tails (such as monkeys) because there is no need for them to be more developed because we never had tails. They are however perfectly developed and adequate for our needs. Please note that there is a slight range of variation within human anatomy that should be expected as with any anatomical characteristic.

In all fairness, the extensor coccygis muscle in humans may indicate that at one time the associated fused section of vertebrae was once more flexible (but certainly does not indicate it was longer) and is slight because it is not used, but that does not mean it is indicative of a tail having been there, just more flexibility in the past.

Don’t forget we also see need based ‘under or over’ development within groups as well. People in areas where forever generations have required intense physical labor on average have much more developed and well defined deltoids, trapezius, biceps, etc., where in people whose environment required little or only light labor for generations, these muscles would on average be less developed but they do not disappear or become something other. We see it in the difference between aboreal and non-aboreal creatures in the structure of the feet. Humans NEVER had the separated big toe, rear thumb, or claws that we see in nonaboreal or semi-aboreal creatures. Now that does not mean humans do not or cannot climb trees. Have you ever seen the Filipino tree climbers? Amazing! They go way up almost smooth barked trees with only their hands and feet. Now yes, blah blah blah, some would say this is evidence we were once more apelike but that is absurd. It is simply an adaptation of that group of totally human beings.

We never needed tails, and did not have them, so it makes perfect sense these muscles though still needed for this organism's purpose would not have been as highly developed as they are in those creatures who had tails, but this does not mean that at one time we did have tails (though it would mean that if we had some actual examples to suggest it).

This only means that we as an organism do not have the same level of need for such muscles (though they still have function for humans as well), so we do not have the same form needed by those organisms which do. Each organism develops these anatomical peculiarities according to the blueprint in their genome.

YES! In all organisms there are anomalies and rare exceptions and genetic deformities (like the tail phenomena in humans) but that is all these are, rare anomalies, etc., and they should never be misconstrued to imply something they do not.

 

[pshun2404]

"Please stop brainwashing children with dopey tales of talking snakes and living inside of fish and man made from dust and world-covering floods requiring impossible genetics."

Well since I do not do that I guess this does not apply to me.

 

[pshun2404]

Um - what was that dodgery supposed to mean?

Was that really intended to respond/rebut the fact that I presented a direct refutation of you claim?


Here is what you wrote:

"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. "


Does not the presence of a muscle indicate "controllable movement"?

What do you suppose that muscle would have done? And why do tailed mammals have a more developed one?


Or are you just re-defining your way out of an obvious refutation of your desperate anatomically-uninformed rant?

And what an amazing coincidence that despite your 'research' using Gray's, you just, darn it, missed this one...

It still has its original human function of support for the coccyx. The point I made was that these COULD IMPLY more flexibility early on but that they DO NOT necessitate a longer length or different function (such as support for a tail) at some earlier point.

 

[pshun2404]

Please explain.

As an anatomist, I would like to hear what you have to say.

Most all alleged but not actual tails are removed days after birth and it has no effect on normal human ability to move, walk, etc., but if you removed the coccyx bones this would not be the case. As an anatomist you should know this. And this does not even address the issues this would raise with other functions dependent of the ganglia housed there.

 

[pshun2404]

What support does the coccyx need, exactly?

I am an anatomist by education and training (as well as a cell biologist). I dissected or observed the dissections of literally hundreds of human cadavers, and have also dissected all manner of vertebrate.

So I will be able to tell if your explanation has merit.

Then you should have actually written that.

Your actual "challenge" was met, and now you are making excuses.

Regarding the coccyx, I have heard all manner of desperate, anatomically idiotic, farcical and fanciful "functions" that are meant to make it not vestigial, but they all fall short of being rational.

It is where a ganglion is located. it is the 'anchor' for the nervous system. We need it to sit/stand/walk/run. It really hurts if you break it, so it MUST be necessary and thus not a vestige, Etc. Etc. etc.

All bogus.

The extensor coccygis has that name for a reason - due to its origin and insertion, when it contracts, it can ONLY do one thing - extend the coccyx.

You can NOT extend your coccyx volitionally because of the fact that it is embedded in fascia and ligaments and tendons and the E.C. generates such little tension that it cannot possibly overcome all of that resistance. The coccyx CAN extend passively, as in childbirth, but try as you might, you cannot extend it using the E.C.
And of course - not everyone even has one.

Must not be so crucial afterall...

.

"You can NOT extend your coccyx volitionally because of the fact that it is embedded in fascia and ligaments and tendons and the E.C. generates such little tension that it cannot possibly overcome all of that resistance. The coccyx CAN extend passively, as in childbirth, but try as you might, you cannot extend it using the E.C."

Thank you, really think about that and then carry it back to its logical historical implication (void the historical narrative so oft repeated to fit the theoretical hypothesis). Are you able to do that? And yes the E.C. is NOT always present. Are we saying their is evidence of vestigiality for the E.C.? I can agree with that.

 

[pshun2404]

Hey pshun - just wanted to remind you about these parts of the post that you deigned not to respond to before, just by accident I am sure:
Thanks!

Nathan, I hope you do not think I am disrespecting your intelligence. You are an anatomist and your knowledge of human anatomy far exceeds my own. In all respects you are an expert on "what is" when it comes to human anatomy. But that does not make you also an expert on what was or what might have been.

My expertise is in analyzing arguments, and I do have training and knowledge of science (I love it and was agnostic for decades), as well as psychology, anthropology, archaeology, and theology. I am by choice (from many years before God revealed Himself to me) a generalist not a specialist. I sought to absorb and ponder all that is human, all about people, their cultures, and development. I 100% had bought into all I had been taught and argued just as vehemently for that position for years.

Now this talk has been about the coccyx and whether or not it can be considered vestigial. In my opinion, by definition it cannot, because it cannot be demonstrated to ever have been anything other than what it is now. No matter how far back we go in human history (600,000 to 800,000 years) we clearly see that the coccyx is still no longer on average than it is at this time. When we look back even further into the alleged semi-human Habalis and Aferensis (1.9 million years) again we see that the coccyx is still short, and nearly identical to what we observe in our own time. In over all these 100s of 1000s of generations we see that there is zero change, zero transmutational morphological enhancement or degeneration.

You are an anatomist. You can see this with your own eyes if you just look at what it is (as opposed to believing what you are told this means).

So by the actual physical evidence we have, we can only conclude that the coccyx in the classification Homo, always having been exactly what it still is, negates vestigiality. It never was, as far as the physical evidence demonstrates (that we can observe), something that was much more which has degenerated, or atrophied, or became non-functional, or any other adjectives the very term “vestigial” implies.

This is not a "God" argument it is an evidence based observation.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is not a "God" argument it is an evidence based observation.

My observation, echoing that of NathanM, is that you seem to have entirely missed the point.

Homo sapiens does not have and never has had a tail. Our immediate homonid ancestors never had tails. Their common ancestor with the other apes never had tails. (Guess what - one of the characteristics of apes is the absence of tails.)

We haven't had tails for a very long time. We haven't had gills for an even longer time. From your perspective , since you like to focus on our current phenotype, humans have never had tails. Humans have never had gills. But then no one has said they did. But we carry the evidence within us that our ancestors did.

Case closed.

 

[pshun2404]

My observation, echoing that of NathanM, is that you seem to have entirely missed the point.

Homo sapiens does not have and never has had a tail. Our immediate homonid ancestors never had tails. Their common ancestor with the other apes never had tails. (Guess what - one of the characteristics of apes is the absence of tails.)

We haven't had tails for a very long time. We haven't had gills for an even longer time. From your perspective , since you like to focus on our current phenotype, humans have never had tails. Humans have never had gills. But then no one has said they did. But we carry the evidence within us that our ancestors did.

Case closed.

I did not lose on EC since it was not a contest. Whether we have an EC or not does not redefine our having a coccyx (the same basic size we have always had), or whether or not it was ever LONGER (as in a tail). It may indicate that at one time it was more flexible, but longer? Besides the coccyx NOT being vestigial does not mean other features or organs are not.

Whether we had or did not have tails does not do anything to my faith, which is also based on empirical evidence.

And what exactly is the evidence within us that our long lost imaginary ancestors had tails (or gills for that matter)?

Please site the long lost ancestor (so many site so many, let me know which one of the array you favor)?

 

[pshun2404]

Great! Progress.

If there is one vestigial structure, why not others?

Why is it OK to accept that the E.C. is vestigial, but to insist that the coccyx is not?

What about the palmaris longus? What about palmaric brevis? What about the auricularis group?

I don't know??? I agree with the last two, they could be vestigial (though there is no evidence that once upon a time all people could flex their ears and now some cannot) but the palmaris longus is simply there in most cases and not there in about 10% of the people...its genetics not phylogeny.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And what exactly is the evidence within us that our long lost imaginary ancestors had tails (or gills for that matter)?

On the genetic level, the presence of genes in our DNA which, if active, would promote the formation of a tail. That, and the fact that during embryonic development, human embryos develop tails. Later in development, these tail cells are signaled to kill themselves, which is why being born with a tail is very rare in our species. Human embryos also form gill flaps that perish in a similar fashion, never to become actual gills (these structures do become gills in embryos of animals with gills). These embryonic developments have no functional purpose and are not present in us when we are born (except in cases of defect). There is no reason for us to have genes for the formation of a tail or gills if we didn't have ancestors with those traits. In fact, forming the structures is a waste of time and energy.

I ask that you not bring up Haeckel, since these are observations made directly of human embryos using cameras inserted into the womb, as well as observations made via analyzing the anatomy of aborted babies. Same goes with the embryos of other animals.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't know??? I agree with the last two, they could be vestigial (though there is no evidence that once upon a time all people could flex their ears and now some cannot) but the palmaris longus is simply there in most cases and not there in about 10% of the people...its genetics not phylogeny.

-_- phylogeny is derived from variability in genetics. The palmaris longus muscle may be absent in about 14% of the people on this planet (I happen to not have the muscle in either arm), but in some populations, as many as 26% of the people lack that muscle.

Phylogeny is the diversification and development of a species (such as our own). The fact that some people have the muscle in both arms, some people have it in one arm and not the other, and some people don't have it at all is an example of diversity in our species. What did you think phylogeny meant? That the ratio of people that have the muscle and the people that don't is different between various human populations means that the frequency of the trait has changed over time.

Although, none of this has to do with the fact that the palmaris longus muscle is vestigial. And it well and truly is, there is no difference in grip strength between people that have it and people that don't, and removing it has no notable impact on the function of the arm. In all honesty, if the muscle did have a function, it would probably be less common for people to be missing it, because not having it would be a clear disadvantage for survival.

 

[pshun2404]

On the genetic level, the presence of genes in our DNA which, if active, would promote the formation of a tail. That, and the fact that during embryonic development, human embryos develop tails. Later in development, these tail cells are signaled to kill themselves, which is why being born with a tail is very rare in our species. Human embryos also form gill flaps that perish in a similar fashion, never to become actual gills (these structures do become gills in embryos of animals with gills). These embryonic developments have no functional purpose and are not present in us when we are born (except in cases of defect). There is no reason for us to have genes for the formation of a tail or gills if we didn't have ancestors with those traits.

Okay PsychoSarah you give a lot to discuss here. Your lines of evidence include:

a. The presence of genes that if active promote the formation of a tail.

b. Embryos develop tails (which are signaled later to self-destruct)

c. Human embryos form “gill flaps” which perish in a similar way

You conclude “There is no reason for us to have genes for the formation of tails and gills if we didn’t have ancestors with those traits.”

So okay regarding a, which genes are those and how do YOU know that these genes in humans are specified for this function?

See my later posts which refute this notion. Similar genes, out of sequence (a gene’s expression AND purpose AND function DEPEND ON the codons before and after them...genes express in context not uniquely), organisms requiring different genes to produce same results, and same genes in different organisms producing different results.

As for b, the number of vertebrate in humans is 33 at the end of the 8 week period of embryonic development we see “33 or 34 cartilaginous vertebrae arranged in flexion” (see The Journal of Anatomy, 1980 Oct; 131(Pt 3): 565–575, by O’Rahilly, Muller, and Meyer. You can see they are logically similar. Neither of which when the body grows to engulf them indicates a tail (either before or after development). The “APPEARANCE” of a tail is only due to the lack of development of the full body, and the potential vertebrate present in embryos is consistent with what we would expect. None of this is equivalent to repressed or altered tail development. The explanation is given to convince the student of the hypothesis based pre-supposed conclusion (IMO this is not due to bad science just indoctrinated “scientists” which is not the same).

The ALLEGED branchial clefts (gill) are actually pharyngeal (and now called that by most honest anatomists) because we KNOW they do not contain and we NEVER form brachia AND we have known this or some time, yet those pushing the myth still teach it as true (see Langman, J., Medical Embryology, 4th edition, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1981).

That is just for starters as I already post longwinded explanations for my positions and have received rebuke (so I break them up). SO I totally disagree with your conlusion. We DO NOT have genes for the formation of tails or gills (the embryo always and only receives its oxygen from the mothers blood)...

If you say we do please share what genes they are and how you know they express for or repress these functions, Thanks