dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/17/84)
--- I posted this a short while ago, and have received requests from several sites indicating that it got mangled. Here it is again. Also, Dick Dunn posted a response which should be read. --- While we're all getting a chuckle over the variable-c creationist who engaged in the disreputable practice of curve-fitting (which evolutionists never do, natch), I thought perhaps the following interesting item might enthrall us similarly. However, I should warn any creationists in the crowd that you probably better not read this, as it will devastate you and perhaps result in severe stress on your mental well-being. This is because you are about to be faced with incontrovertible and irrefutable evidence for evolution. The rock-solid nature of this case will make you run for cover if you dare to read it, so quit now while you can! So we know where we are, here's the reference: "Evolution and the human tail: a case report", Fred D. Ledley, M. D. The New England Journal of Medicine, 306(20), May 20, 1982, 1212-1215. A child was born with a caudal appendage, 5.5 cm long, 1.5 cm to the right of midline adjacent to the sacrum. In other words, with a tail. Some quotes from the article: "The human tail serves as an example of modern concepts of ontogeny and phylogeny and presents a striking clinical confrontation with the reality of evolution." Final conclusion of the article: "Even those who are familiar with the literature that defined our place in nature - from Darwin's _The Descent of Man_ to Wilson's _On Human Nature_ - are rarely confronted with the relation between human beings and their primitive ancestors on a daily basis. The caudal appendage brings this reality to the fore and makes it tangible and inescapable." Got that, creationists? "Tangible and inescapable." That means you're blown out of the water. Give it up! Remember, one of the reviewers of this article was Stephen Jay Gould. Of course, when the excitement begins to die down a little bit, one begins to notice other, *slightly* conflicting statements in the article, such as: "However, it is evident that there are major morphologic differences between the caudal appendage and the tails of other vertebrates. First of all, the caudal appendage does not contain even rudimentary vertebral structures. There are no well-documented cases of caudal appendages containing caudal vertebrae or an increased number of vertebrae in the medical literature, and there is no zoological precedent for a vertebral tail without caudal vertebrae... Secondly, the appendage is not located at the caudal terminus of the vertebral column." "It is possible that this structure is merely a dermal appendage coincidentally located in the caudal region. This possibility cannot be excluded." In other words, it's not a tail after all. It consisted of a "fibrous, fatty core, with normal skin...", but no bones. So, how is it a "tangible and inescapable" demonstration of the link between man and ape? That is certainly an odd conclusion to make after observing such large differences between real tails and the "tail" of this child. Anyway, I suppose this doesn't prove a whole lot, except that we sometimes see an excess of zeal on both sides of the fence. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35