keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/24/85)
[.......]
In 'Human Embryology' 1948, by Bradley M. Patten, Professor of Anatomy in the
University of Michigan Medical School, p. 222 we find:
Persistence of the Tail.
A well developed tail will be remembered as one of the conspicuous
charateristics of human embryos of the second month. In the normal
course of events, during the third month the tail disappears as an
external feature. This is due in part to regressive changes in the
tail itself, and in part to the concealment of what is left of the
tail in the crease between the rapidly growing buttocks. Occasionally,
the tail not only fails to regress but actually continues to grow in
pace with the rest of the body. Outside of the medical profession one
is unlikely to know of the occurence of such an anomaly because the
tail can be so easily removed surgically, and the patient and the
family are reluctant to admit the possesion of such tangible evidence
of their evolutionary history.
This text is accompanied by a artists rendition of two examples of human
tails. The rendition's caption reads:
Fig. 130. Two cases of the persistence of a well-developed tail in
human subjects. A, Redrawn from a case reported by Harrison.
B, Redrawn from a case reported by Shultz. This tail, in a 12-year-old
boy, was nine inches long.
This certainly would seem to be a phenomenon better explaned by evolution
than creationism. In addition, this book presents minor implications of
other similar evidence of evolutionary history. The early development
of the skull and some internal organs progress through stages that are
somewhat like that of simpler animal forms. In addition, there is some
indication that gills and/or gill-like openings develop and occasionally
persist. I would like to know how the creationists propose to explain
such phenomenon within the context of their theories ('because GOD said
so' is hardly an effective response).
I've noted that it seems that creationists seem to prefer to ignore certain
issues, and this may be one of them. Punctuated equilibrium is another issue
that they seem to prefer to ignore, or explain away as a kludgey 'patch' to
evolutionary theory where it previously did not fit the facts. Actually,
'patching' theories is not necessarily a bad technique or bad science.
However the creationists seem to prefer to place this in a bad light as
it helps to paint the picture of evolution as a poorly supported kludge.
Personally, I think there are several underlying problems that the
creationists have with evolution which are the real motivations behind
their attacks on evolution. These are:
1. Evolution may appear to be proof that GOD does not exist.
2. An abhorrence to the thought that humans may not be 'special' and
superior to animals.
First of all, #1 is totally unfounded. Even if some ABSOLUTE proof of
evolution exists, this does not imply that a GOD does not exist, and did
not create it all. Certainly evolution could just be the evidence of his
laboratory experiments.
#2 on the other hand, may be more difficult. At first glance, it seems to
be akin to some form of racism, but there is probably more to it than that.
Both 1 & 2 are primarily emotional and not scientific issues, which may shed
some light on the nature of the creationists tack in these issues.
A possible example of #2 I have observed in my mother, who as a christian,
sees no conflict with evolution. However, on any trips to zoos when I was
younger, she seemed to be bothered by the primates, would keep her distance
and express somewhat less than interest in them. The only explanation I could
elicit was "they look too much like humans".
I expect however, that creationists don't agree with any of this. I do wonder
however, if they'll choose to ignore this, indicating that they have no good
arguments, or if in fact they do have arguments, in which case I'd like to
hear what they are.
Keith Doyle
{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something
because one wishes it to be so."
-Louis Pasteurjohnston@spp1.UUCP (01/25/85)
> [.......] > > In 'Human Embryology' 1948, by Bradley M. Patten, Professor of Anatomy in the > University of Michigan Medical School, p. 222 we find: > > Persistence of the Tail. > > A well developed tail will be remembered as one of the conspicuous > charateristics of human embryos of the second month. In the normal > course of events, during the third month the tail disappears as an > external feature. This is due in part to regressive changes in the > tail itself, and in part to the concealment of what is left of the > tail in the crease between the rapidly growing buttocks. Occasionally, > the tail not only fails to regress but actually continues to grow in > pace with the rest of the body. Outside of the medical profession one > is unlikely to know of the occurence of such an anomaly because the > tail can be so easily removed surgically, and the patient and the > family are reluctant to admit the possesion of such tangible evidence > of their evolutionary history. > > This text is accompanied by a artists rendition of two examples of human > tails. The rendition's caption reads: > > Fig. 130. Two cases of the persistence of a well-developed tail in > human subjects. A, Redrawn from a case reported by Harrison. > B, Redrawn from a case reported by Shultz. This tail, in a 12-year-old > boy, was nine inches long. > > > This certainly would seem to be a phenomenon better explaned by evolution > than creationism. In addition, this book presents minor implications of > other similar evidence of evolutionary history. The early development > of the skull and some internal organs progress through stages that are > somewhat like that of simpler animal forms. In addition, there is some > indication that gills and/or gill-like openings develop and occasionally > persist. I would like to know how the creationists propose to explain > such phenomenon within the context of their theories ('because GOD said > so' is hardly an effective response). > Before I talk about this excerpt, I'd like to comment on the rest of the article briefly. If you'll remember it tried to tie creationism with religion. This seems an unfair way to address an issue considering that quite a bit of creationism material is devoid of any trace of religion. Many of the better papers deal with fitting evidence today with creationism precepts and are done so quite professionally. If an individual wishes to use biblical quotes to confirm the theory to himself or other believers in the bible, I see nothing wrong with that. About the embryonic tail, the reference refers to it as an anomoly. I don't believe it need be explained by one of the origin theories and is better explained by genetic abnormalities within a species. Since the "tail" is really only the last part of the vertabrae, then we all have a tail only it isn't always visible. That the spine develops first makes sense since it function is analogous to a frame for a house which is built first. If you are delivered 41 foot planks to cover the 40 foot frame you've already built, you nail on the planks as is and then cut off a foot. I think it weakens the evolutionist argument to be looking at embryo development and attempting to see evolutionary history. If (and this is hypothetical) you were to look at the embryonic developmnet of a cat and not see a tail until near the end of gestation, could you say that cats evolved from a tailless creature. What I think you really want use to show common ancestory is the spine itself not its extension. As far as the gills go, I believe that evolutionist themselves threw that one out when it was learned that the structures only looked like gills and actually served other functions. Did you know that in the not to distant past, some scientist, looking at a sperm cell through a microscope, concluded that there was a miniature baby in each cell. This was widely accepted at the time. I'm glad it was refuted. It takes little imagination to wonder what would happen if he saw a tail there and if a theory similiar to evolution could be postulated on that basis. Mike Johnston
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/28/85)
In article <151@spp1.UUCP> johnston@spp1.UUCP writes: > About the embryonic tail, the reference refers to it as an anomoly. I > don't believe it need be explained by one of the origin theories and is better > explained by genetic abnormalities within a species. The embryonic tail is not abnormal: its retention is. One of the strong points of evolutionary theory is that it explains a host of biological kludges in the development from egg to adult. Creationism can't offer more than "that's the way it is". > Since the "tail" is really only the last part of the vertabrae, then we > all have a tail only it isn't always visible. That the spine develops > first makes sense since it function is analogous to a frame for a house > which is built first. If you are delivered 41 foot planks to cover the 40 > foot frame you've already built, you nail on the planks as is and then cut > off a foot. The tail in the embryo is composed of several vertebrae which later invert and fuse together to form the coccyx (one small bone.) Your analogy doesn't make sense from the standpoint of an omnipotent creator: presumably he could do it right in the first place. > I think it weakens the evolutionist argument to be looking at embryo > development and attempting to see evolutionary history. Why? Embryonic development also had to evolve, if we weren't created. > As far as the gills go, I believe that evolutionist themselves threw that > one out when it was learned that the structures only looked like gills and > actually served other functions. No, because human embryos have gill slits, not gills. They do not perform the function of gills at any time, but they are hard to distinguish from the embryonic gill slits of other vertebrates. > Did you know that in the not to distant past, some scientist, looking at a > sperm cell through a microscope, concluded that there was a miniature baby > in each cell. This was widely accepted at the time. I'm glad it was > refuted. It takes little imagination to wonder what would happen if he saw > a tail there and if a theory similiar to evolution could be postulated > on that basis. Yes, and someone imagined canals on Mars. Did you know that these "discoveries" were hotly contested? Scientists are not as carelessly gullible as your comment would indicate. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/28/85)
[...............] In response to my original 'Tones on Tails' article: > .....I'd like to comment on the rest of the >article briefly. If you'll remember it tried to tie creationism with >religion. This seems an unfair way to address an issue considering that >quite a bit of creationism material is devoid of any trace of religion. >Many of the better papers deal with fitting evidence today with >creationism precepts and are done so quite professionally. If an >individual wishes to use biblical quotes to confirm the theory to himself >or other believers in the bible, I see nothing wrong with that. > Mike Johnston COME ON! Most if not ALL of the major proponents of creationism are directly tied with fundamentalist religious organizations. The Institute for Creation Research that harbours all our friends Morris, Gish, and their clan, is financed primarily by church money! In addition, 'scientific' creationism would seem to assume belief in a *deity* of some sort, as it proposes that such a *deity* exists and 'created' it all at some point (again note that this by itself is not in conflict with evolution, creationists make further points that it was all created more recently {so it agrees with the bible I expect} that the evolutionists estimate, and other such secondary points). Have you ever met either an atheist or agnostic who is a creationist? I would think they are mutually exclusive. It's fairly obvious that most mainstream scientists find the creationist rhetoric so preposterous that it dosen't even deserve much more than casual notice, and/or mild amusement. Unfortunately, it is not these scientists that decide what our child's schoolbooks should read, but here actually, the creationists may be doing themselves more harm that good. Many of the fundamentalist organizations like the ones financing the Institute for Creation Research have independently proclaimed that they want more control over the school environment. Some have even gone so far as to proclaim that they want to teach children 'what to think' instead of 'how to think'. Fortunately, the effect of legislation in some states to give evolution and creation 'equal time' has had the effect of removing EITHER teaching from the textbooks, inspiring teachers to teach the children 'how to think' as they have removed any 'what to think' out of the books entirely. This may actually be better in the long run as they may be better at making decisions for themselves. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"