[net.origins] Evolution and the human tail

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