dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/13/84)
% Dick Dunn
% > Paul DuBois
% The parent article (from Paul DuBois) is one of the more shamelessly
% distorted postings I've seen in this newsgroup. It's got a typical lead-in
% for some bad reasoning:
Yikes!
% > 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),...
%
% This sets the attitude: It's completely irrelevant to the rest of the
% posting; a gratuitous "up-yours" to evolutionists. The idea, in case it's
% not evident, is that you're not allowed to criticize any creationist for
% bogus use of a technique (in this case, careless extrapolation) unless you
% are willing to abandon the technique entirely (whether used right or
% wrong).
No, not at all. Go ahead and criticize him. I already did, if you
remember:
If his research was faked, I'm certainly not going to defend it.
That's reprehensible.
Crticize me (or my arguments) if you like. I'm COMPLETELY willing
to have my postings questioned and criticized. Isn't that one
reason we're here, to test out our ideas on a hostile audience,
which is more likely to expose errors in our thinking than a
sycophantic audience?
In any case, "the idea" wasn't evident, I guess, since you missed it.
The creationist fit a curve and extrapolated it. We all know that
this procedure is fraught with peril. Then some other people fit
the curve and extrapolated it, with different results. In the
absence of any reasons why the latter extrapolation was any
more valid (and no reasons were given, I think), BOTH extrapolations
are EQUALLY rubbish. If there are reasons why one should have any
more confidence in one than the other, fine. State them.
% The subject:
% > "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 few excerpts from the article explain that a child was born with some
% manner of tail-like appendage. It turns out to be a little off-center, and
% doesn't have skeletal structure in it. The author of the article comments
% on how this occurrence brings home, quite graphically (my words) the
% "reality of evolution."
%
% > Got that, creationists? "Tangible and inescapable." That means
% > you're blown out of the water. Give it up!...
%
% The article, of course, was not an attack on creationism. I'm not sure
% what the big deal is, but a caudal appendage is certainly tangible; whether
% it's inescapable evidence for evolution (or something like it) is a
% conclusion we, as readers of Dubois' posting, have been mercifully spared
% by Paul's gracious omission of most of the significant parts of the
% article.
(i) It's tangible that caudal appendages are not a completely uncommon
occurrance. Ledley gave references to other instances.
(ii) It's tangible that there are NO well-documented cases of caudal
appendages containing caudal vertebrae or an increased number of
vertebrae in the medical literature.
(iii) It's tangible that there is NO zoological precedent for a
vertebral tail without caudal vertebrae.
(iv) It's tangible that the appendage was NOT in the right place.
Now, except for (i), all of these observations were quoted in my
article. READ IT. Better yet, read the original. It shouldn't
be hard to find, and it's only four pages, and it contains a
picture of the appendage, which you can examine for yourself.
% However, the author of the original article was actually somewhat careful
% in presenting his data:
%
(*)
% >"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...
% >...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."
%
% If you study this, what you see is that the author is trying to be careful
% to qualify what he has observed so as to allow a reasonable set of
% alternate interpretations and to avoid attaching too much (or wrong)
% significance to the data. This is a laudable trait for a scientific
% person. What sort of response does it elicit from DuBois?
Sure, he was careful in presenting his DATA. He was wild in
drawing his CONCLUSION. There's a difference. What struck me
as especially incongrous was that after hedging his bet so much
in the previous quote (*), he makes his final conclusion
so strongly ("tangible and inescapable"). Would you be impressed
if a creationist did that? Of course not. You weren't impressed
when the 'c' creationist did it.
% > In other words, it's not a tail after all. It consisted of a
% > "fibrous, fatty core, with normal skin...", but no bones.
%
% The straw man has been set up and knocked down, or so DuBois thinks. He
% can't fathom that a reappearance of the core and skin over a tail might not
% be a perfect copy of what it was millions of years ago. Why shouldn't this
Can you fathom that it might not be? Do you really think it was?
% one-in-a-billion genetic abnormality follow the model of the tails of other
% vertebrates from which our evolution diverged so long ago?
Because of what I had already noted previously in my article.
NO ZOOLOGICAL PRECEDENT.
P.S., your statements beg the question ("what it was millions of
years ago", "our evolution diverged").
% (I have to digress. Are the sacrum and coccyx really functional in humans,
% and not the vestige of a tail--or were they just put there to confuse
% evolutionists and other faithless ones?)
You might try having yours removed. Very difficult to sit properly.
(although it's great if you're into pain). Don't forget to ask the
same question about the appendix.
---
All the same, my apologies if you were offended.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
"A nose, and two nostrils. That proves it."