• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Okay Creationists, Explain These!

Skwim

Veteran Member
Background

Anatomical atavisms are closely related conceptually to vestigial structures. An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: (1) presence in adult stages of life, (2) absence in parents or recent ancestors, and (3) extreme rarity in a population (Hall 1984). For developmental reasons, the occasional occurrence of atavisms is expected under common descent if structures or functions are gradually lost between ancestor and descendant lineages (Hall 1984; Hall 1995). Here we are primarily concerned with potential atavistic structures that are characteristic of taxa to which the organism displaying the structure does not belong. As a hypothetical example, if mutant horses occasionally displayed gills, this would be considered a potential atavism, since gills are diagnostic of taxa (e.g. fish) to which horses do not belong. As with vestigial structures, no organism can have an atavistic structure that was not previously found in one of its ancestors. Thus, for each species, the standard phylogenetic tree makes a huge number of predictions about atavisms that are allowed and those that are impossible for any given species.

__________________________________

The Science


Humans are classified by taxonomists as apes; one of the defining derived characters of apes is the lack of an external tail. However, human embryos initially develop tails in development. At between four and five weeks of age, the normal human embryo has 10-12 developing tail vertebrae which extend beyond the anus and legs, accounting for more than 10% of the length of the embryo (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Moore and Persaud 1998, pp. 91-100; Nievelstein et al. 1993). The embryonic tail is composed of several complex tissues besides the developing vertebrae, including a secondary neural tube (spinal cord), a notochord, mesenchyme, and tail gut. By the eighth week of gestation, the sixth to twelfth vertebrae have disappeared via cell death, and the fifth and fourth tail vertebrae are still being reduced. Likewise, the associated tail tissues also undergo cell death and regress.

Using light and scanning electron microscopy, several detailed analyses of the embryonic human tail have shown that the dead and degenerating tail cells are ingested and digested by macrophages (macrophages are large white blood cells of the immune system which more normally ingest and destroy invading pathogens such as bacteria) (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Nievelstein et al. 1993; Sapunar et al. 2001; Saraga-Babic et al. 1994; Saraga-Babic et al. 2002). In adult humans, the tail is finally reduced to a small bone composed of just four fused vertebrae (the coccyx) which do not protrude from the back (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Sapunar et al. 2001) (see Figure 2.4.1).
______________________________________

The true atavistic tail of humans results from incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus (see Figure 2.4.1 and the discussion below on the development of the normal human embryonic tail; Belzberg et al. 1991; Dao and Netsky 1984; Grange et al. 2001; Keith 1921). Though formally a malformation, the true human tail is usually benign in nature (Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states (Baruchin et al. 1983; Dao and Netsky 1984; Harrison 1901; Keith 1921; Lundberg et al. 1962).

Although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae (see Figure 2.2.3; Bar-Maor et al. 1980; Dao and Netsky 1984; Fara 1977; Sugumata et al. 1988). However, caudal vertebrae are not a necessary component of mammalian tails. Contrary to what is frequently reported in the medical literature, there is at least one known example of a primate tail that lacks vertebrae, as found in the rudimentary two-inch-long tail of Macaca sylvanus (the "Barbary ape") (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23).

True human tails are rarely inherited, though several familial cases are known (Dao and Netsky 1984; Ikpeze and Onuigbo 1999; Touraine 1955). In one case the tail has been inherited through at least three generations of females (Standfast 1992).

As with other atavistic structures, human tails are most likely the result of either a somatic mutation, a germline mutation, or an environmental influence that reactivates an underlying developmental pathway which has been retained, if only partially, in the human genome (Dao and Netsky 1984; Hall 1984; Hall 1995). In fact, the genes that control the development of tails in mice and other vertebrates have been identified (the Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes; Greco et al. 1996; Prinos et al. 2001; Schubert et al. 2001; Shum et al. 1999; Takada et al. 1994). As predicted by common descent from the atavistic evidence, these tail genes have also been discovered in the human genome (Katoh 2002; Roelink et al. 1993).

It is now known that down-regulation of the Wnt-3a gene induces apoptosis of tail cells during mouse development (Greco et al. 1996; Shum et al. 1999; Takada et al. 1994), and similar effects are observed in humans (Chan et al. 2002). Additionally, researchers have identified a mutant mouse that does not develop a tail, and this phenotype is due to a regulatory mutation that decreases the Wnt-3a gene dosage (Greco et al. 1996; Gruneberg and Wickramaratne 1974; Heston 1951). Thus, current evidence indicates that the genetic cause of tail loss in the evolution of apes was likely a simple regulatory mutation(s) that slightly decreased Wnt-3a gene dosage. Conversely, a mutation or environmental factor that increased dosage of the Wnt-3a gene would reduce apoptosis of the human tail during development and would result in its retention, as an atavism, in a newborn.

_____________________

Criticisms:


The existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails. Gish claims these structures are not true tails for several reasons: (1) they lack vertebrae, (2) they are not inherited, and (3) the resemblance to tails is "highly superficial" and simply an "anomalous malformation". Menton further claims that (4) all true tails have muscles and can move, whereas human tails cannot. Each of these arguments are factually false, as explained above and as well-documented in the medical literature. Vertebrae and cartilage have occasionally been found in human tails. However, contrary to the claims of Gish, Menton, and ReMine, vertebrae are not a requirement for tails. M. sylvanus is a prime example of a primate whose fleshy tail lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23). Several cases are known where human tails have been inherited. Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them. Inheritance of the tail structure per se is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans. The "resemblance" to non-human tails is far from superficial, since all true human tails are complex structures composed of symmetrical layers of voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs, and they can indeed move and contract.
source

.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Are you actually suggesting that humans evolved from gorillas or chimpanzees? I have a good suspicion you are. :rolleyes:

.


Who? Me? :shrug: I would never suggest such a thing.....I believe in ID, remember....?

Its the scientists who suggest that apes are our relatives.

2aqB2JXiaKc5K2apExvGc8cu.jpeg
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
There are tons of such beneficial mutations which are new
It is my own opinion that God created nature so that there was room for adjusting to the needs nature made, e.g. cold climate, very hot, etc.

In this, while some atheists seem to argue that mutations are evidence of evolution; I simply take them as part of God's nature that is accounted for in the programming.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
It's not really a defect as it's in our genes.

We do have tail bones so it's not surprising to see in some cases tail still growing. It's just naturally phased out for the most part through the evolutionary process, but it hasn't completely gone away obviously.

It's not really a random mutation like birth defects although may be similar. Every person on the entire Earth has the genetics for tails. It's a question of dormancy and awakening the gene.


Yes every human has a tail bone, which runs from the back of their skull all the way down the middle of their backs to give support to their backs.

If you take away that tail bone, you wouldn't have anything holding you straight up.

So to say that tail bone has some evolutionary purpose, Is false, all animals have a tail bone which runs from the back of their skull down the middle of their backs, That give support to their back.
Therefore the tail bone has nothing to do with evolution. But everything to give support to their backs. Without the tail bone, you wouldn't stand up straight..
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Who? Me? :shrug: I would never suggest such a thing.....I believe in ID, remember....?

Its the scientists who suggest that apes are our relatives.

2aqB2JXiaKc5K2apExvGc8cu.jpeg

Of course they do because we're a form of ape ourselves.

"Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.

Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).

This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae).

The first apes evolved about 25 million years ago and by 20 million years ago were a very diverse group. Within the last 10 million years, however, many ape species became extinct as the earth’s climate cooled and dried and their forested environments changed to woodland and grassland. There are now only about 20 living species of apes and they are divided into two major groups. These are the:

Lesser Apes, containing the gibbons
Great Apes, containing the orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans

source

.
.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Yes every human has a tail bone, which runs from the back of their skull all the way down the middle of their backs to give support to their backs.

If you take away that tail bone, you wouldn't have anything holding you straight up.

So to say that tail bone has some evolutionary purpose, Is false, all animals have a tail bone which runs from the back of their skull down the middle of their backs, That give support to their back.
Therefore the tail bone has nothing to do with evolution. But everything to give support to their backs. Without the tail bone, you wouldn't stand up straight..
Errr . . . . .you might want to crack open an anatomy book or two.

"The coccyx, also known as the tailbone, is a small, triangular bone resembling a shortened tail located at the bottom of the spine. It is composed of three to five coccygeal vertebrae or spinal bones. The vertebrae may be fused together to form a single bone; however, in some cases, the first vertebra is separate from the others.

The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position."

source

.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Yes every human has a tail bone, which runs from the back of their skull all the way down the middle of their backs to give support to their backs.

If you take away that tail bone, you wouldn't have anything holding you straight up.

So to say that tail bone has some evolutionary purpose, Is false, all animals have a tail bone which runs from the back of their skull down the middle of their backs, That give support to their back.
Therefore the tail bone has nothing to do with evolution. But everything to give support to their backs. Without the tail bone, you wouldn't stand up straight..
Your knowledge of anatomy appears to be on a par with your knowledge of evolution, history and theology.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
It is my own opinion that God created nature so that there was room for adjusting to the needs nature made, e.g. cold climate, very hot, etc.

In this, while some atheists seem to argue that mutations are evidence of evolution; I simply take them as part of God's nature that is accounted for in the programming.
Why would your god produce so many neutral and harmful mutations then?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Of course they do because we're a form of ape ourselves.

"Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.

Who classified us as apes? Oh, that's right...the same ones who suggest that it "might be" or "could be" true. :confused:

Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).

"Most closely resemble"? Seriously? o_O

Again, we have to ask..."who says?" Does a "resemblance" constitute relationship? I resemble some other humans but I am not related to them at all. We are merely the same species.....human.

This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae).

So here's that "similarity" thing again. Platypus' and beavers share a similar body structure and could be mistaken for distant cousins.....but are nothing alike really...they don't even exist on the same continent. So much for "similarity".

Now if science can tell us that we as humans share DNA with bananas and fruit flies, then I'm sure that they can find a "similarity" with other creatures of a similar body structure. :rolleyes:

Look at the animal kingdom and see how many unrelated species "resemble" one another. Resemblance means nothing. Look at fish all swimming in schools in the oceans....they resemble one another too, but species remain separated because they are not programmed to breed with any other fish than their own "kind". We don't interbreed with apes for the same reason.

The first apes evolved about 25 million years ago and by 20 million years ago were a very diverse group. Within the last 10 million years, however, many ape species became extinct as the earth’s climate cooled and dried and their forested environments changed to woodland and grassland. There are now only about 20 living species of apes and they are divided into two major groups. These are the:

Lesser Apes, containing the gibbons
Great Apes, containing the orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans

source.

According to your source....

"The Great Apes
The Great Apes are named for their large bodies. They also have larger brains than other primates. Like Lesser Apes, the Great Apes are active during the day. There are four types of Great Apes – the orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans."

So how many of these apes can you provide pictures for with tails?

You quoted this...."The coccyx, also known as the tailbone, is a small, triangular bone resembling a shortened tail located at the bottom of the spine. It is composed of three to five coccygeal vertebrae or spinal bones. The vertebrae may be fused together to form a single bone; however, in some cases, the first vertebra is separate from the others.

The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position.
"

I'd say that the function of the coccyx is beautifully designed for all that it accomplishes. But that is just my faith and logic at work.....:D






 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Why would your god produce so many neutral and harmful mutations then?

He didn't.
no.gif
Mutations happen because we are no longer the perfect product of his original design. This is not a permanent state however, according to his communication with us....we will regain that perfection once the lessons are learned. Some unfortunately will refuse to learn anything, believing that reliance on human thinking can save the day, giving evolutionary science and its promoters the impression that they themselves are the greatest minds in existence. I'm sure the Creator finds that amusing.
171.gif
I know I do.

Since the vast majority of mutations are either neutral i.e. having little to no effect on any organism either way, and the harmful ones usually result in the creature dying out, how on earth does science explain all the supposed billions of beneficial mutations that it assumes have taken place in all of earth's billions of creatures? That is a lot of imagination at work in the estimations of evolutionary scientists IMO. o_O More unbelievable than anything ID supporters accept.
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
Why would your god produce so many neutral and harmful mutations then?
Some of the neutral ones, aren't. The fact that the blue eye color, or maybe red hair with sun sensitive skin (just speculating) may be from 'neutral' mutations actually isn't quite neutral in the sense of what it does in the social scheme of things. Surely, the northern peoples in whom this difference usually occur find this mark a racial difference from e.g. Spaniards, who usually have dark hair and perhaps brown eyes. In this way, some neutral mutations contribute to the making of races. Just saying.

As to harmful mutations: the whole point, which is totally rejected by unbelievers so that even talking about it - brings nothing but giggles, not useful thought - so, again, the whole point is that after the fall, mankind individually had a lifespan of more than 900 years and less than 1000 individually. After the fall, and during the flood and right after, it seems that God purposefully brought mankind under perhaps strong radiation, or mutation-ally causing periods so as to reduce our lifespan to what it is now, 50- 90, and thereabouts. This was done so that the events of today, the march of nations, God's plans, might take place quickly (in the sense of a few thousand years) rather than wait forever, or never - since societies that have such long lived individuals would not develop in the way our does with our short lives.

Another simple reason for mutations that are harmful is this: mankind alienated from God is shown that they cannot live without suffering when living in that state. That is one purpose. As we are promised:
Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God. 4 And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall not exist any more, nor grief, nor cry, nor distress shall exist any more, for the former things have passed away.​
This promise is dependent upon these people no longer alienating themselves from God.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Anyone ever hear of Photoshop? Do you know how many millions of fake pictures are all over the web? Has nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Just fake pictures.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Here's an interesting challenge for evolutionists...what is this?

images


And since we are talking about tails......

embryoes2116.jpg


All these creatures have tails....except us. All look surprisingly similar in their embryonic form....yet we are not related to any of them....and they are not related to each other except in the minds of those who want to suggest relationship.

Why would anyone make a diagram like this as if there was some substantiated relationship and call it "Evolutionary History"?

Seriously....:shrug: they treat us all like 'mushrooms'. o_O
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Here's an interesting challenge for evolutionists...what is this?

images


And since we are talking about tails......

embryoes2116.jpg


All these creatures have tails....except us. All look surprisingly similar in their embryonic form....yet we are not related to any of them....and they are not related to each other except in the minds of those who want to suggest relationship.

Why would anyone make a diagram like this as if there was some substantiated relationship and call it "Evolution History"?

Seriously....:shrug: they treat us all like 'mushrooms'. o_O
I think it's because some of "you people" behave like mushrooms.

.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
He didn't.
no.gif
Mutations happen because we are no longer the perfect product of his original design. This is not a permanent state however, according to his communication with us....we will regain that perfection once the lessons are learned. Some unfortunately will refuse to learn anything, believing that reliance on human thinking can save the day, giving evolutionary science and its promoters the impression that they themselves are the greatest minds in existence. I'm sure the Creator finds that amusing.
171.gif
I know I do.

Since the vast majority of mutations are either neutral i.e. having little to no effect on any organism either way, and the harmful ones usually result in the creature dying out, how on earth does science explain all the supposed billions of beneficial mutations that it assumes have taken place in all of earth's billions of creatures? That is a lot of imagination at work in the estimations of evolutionary scientists IMO. o_O More unbelievable than anything ID supporters accept.

Some of the neutral ones, aren't. The fact that the blue eye color, or maybe red hair with sun sensitive skin (just speculating) may be from 'neutral' mutations actually isn't quite neutral in the sense of what it does in the social scheme of things. Surely, the northern peoples in whom this difference usually occur find this mark a racial difference from e.g. Spaniards, who usually have dark hair and perhaps brown eyes. In this way, some neutral mutations contribute to the making of races. Just saying.

As to harmful mutations: the whole point, which is totally rejected by unbelievers so that even talking about it - brings nothing but giggles, not useful thought - so, again, the whole point is that after the fall, mankind individually had a lifespan of more than 900 years and less than 1000 individually. After the fall, and during the flood and right after, it seems that God purposefully brought mankind under perhaps strong radiation, or mutation-ally causing periods so as to reduce our lifespan to what it is now, 50- 90, and thereabouts. This was done so that the events of today, the march of nations, God's plans, might take place quickly (in the sense of a few thousand years) rather than wait forever, or never - since societies that have such long lived individuals would not develop in the way our does with our short lives.

Another simple reason for mutations that are harmful is this: mankind alienated from God is shown that they cannot live without suffering when living in that state. That is one purpose. As we are promised:
Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God. 4 And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall not exist any more, nor grief, nor cry, nor distress shall exist any more, for the former things have passed away.​
This promise is dependent upon these people no longer alienating themselves from God.
So if that is the case, why are all of the same harmful mutations seen in poor animals that had nothing to do with your alleged fall?

@Grandliseur you are right, nothing but giggles, all your claims are with evidence.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
So if that is the case, why are all of the same harmful mutations seen in poor animals that had nothing to do with your alleged fall?

You seem to forget man's impact on their environment.....largely thanks to science. o_O

If mutations occurred in the past, they were few and far between compared to what has been seen since the industrial revolution. Man treated his home like a massive garbage dump. The damage is now close to being beyond repair according to some scientists.

"Air Pollution Linked to Genetic Mutations

More than 10 years ago, Jim Quinn, a behavioral ecologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, determined that herring gulls nesting near steel mills around the Great Lakes displayed higher heritable mutation rates than their rural cousins. In May Quinn and one of his students, Chris Somers, were finally able to pin the blame on airborne particles just a few micrometers in diameter.

They found that offspring born from male mice exposed to industrial air pollution showed twice the mutation rate of those whose fathers breathed rural or filtered polluted air. The most likely cause, Quinn says, are small particles that can carry known mutation-causing compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, deep into the lungs. Because particulates as well as polycyclic hydrocarbons are found in cigarette smoke, it’s likely that smoking could cause similar mutations.

The changes that Quinn saw showed up in genomic segments once known as junk DNA because they do not appear to code for necessary life functions. However, many of these regions are believed to play a role in diseases such as type 1 diabetes and Huntington’s disease. A separate study that examined 18 years of data on the prevalence of neurological diseases worldwide concluded that environmental factors may also contribute to disorders like Parkinson’s disease."

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/air-pollution-linked-to-mutations


It appears as if most of the animal and human mutations (detrimental ones) occur most often in highly polluted or radioactive environments. It isn't God who is responsible for these 'mutants' but man selfishly pouring his poison onto the earth and in to our air and waterways. The result....?

images
images
images
images
images
images


This not what God created....this is what man has created. :(

Makes you proud huh?

ec84f27ea1faea5f6174a0f8a80ea78c--creepy-history-chernobyl-disaster.jpg
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
why are all of the same harmful mutations seen in poor animals that had nothing to do with your alleged fall?
You miss the point here:
II Peter 2:12:
But these, as natural animals without reason, made to be caught and destroyed, speaking injuriously in things they are ignorant of, shall also perish in their own corruption,​
God never intended for animals to have unending life if given food and water. Thus in his creation, in animals, we see all the things that we struggle with in our imperfection.

Again, our difference in paradigm dis-permits any intelligent dialogue. Your beliefs of Abiogenesis and Evolution are just as giggle inducing to me as our beliefs are to you. (He he, he thinks life originated in a bottle of mineral water. Probably made by Coca Cola. :D:D:D:D)

The forth and back discussions on these matters - produce nothing useful at all, but questions tend to want answers. For my sake, you may believe that your grandmother was a toad for all I care. At least, it is a higher life-form than the microbes that lived in the mud you seem to claim as ancestors.
 
Top