Jump to content


Something Fishy About The Global Flood


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#161 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 11 March 2010 - 11:11 PM

The xray given regarding the "tail" appears to show the tail end bones INSIDE the body, but what about the external hanging appendage itself?

Are we to believe that a rare overgrowths like this must mean that we once had tails? Personally, I am far from convinced.

It looks to me like a few prominent evolutionists also know better than to push this forward as evidence that we all once had tails.

http://www.yecheadqu...g/shame.29.html

What about human tails?
by Robert B.

Sometimes evolutionists claim that the rare malformation during embryological development, which results in a protruding clump of skin near the buttocks, is a throwback to when our evolutionary ancestors had tails. But is this really a true tail which develops, or is it merely an embryological deformity caused by a genetic mistake?

Well, these appendages are certainly not true tails, and are usually a fatty tumor having absolutely no relationship with a monkey tail whatsoever. For example, the Indian Tribune reported a case where a Muslim baby in India was born with one of these so-called "tails." They reported that many were flocking to this child because they thought he was a reincarnation of a monkey God within the Hindu religion. Sometime later, doctors were asking to examine the child, because they said it was probably a tumor, and the child's life could be in danger. Not a tail at all, but a dangerous tumor!

Most of the reported "tails" are little more than fatty tissue with no vertebrae. Even if there are bony segments within the appendage, it still relates to genetic mistakes (e.g., certain genes relating to the development of the vertebrae column are erroneously replicated too many times during the developmental process, which results in an artificial "tail" like structure). Most of the time these appendages can be surgically removed without any problems, and that is what's recommended by most doctors.

Many of the prominent and more educated evolutionists usually know better than to tout these abnormal growths as evidence of evolution, because they know it's simply not true. For example, well known evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education or NCSE, said this in a radio debate with Dr. Hugh Ross about alleged human tails:


"Actually, that's [human "tails"] not an evolutionary issue at all ... It's a matter of developmental biology; it's a matter of what happens when that sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldn't give you the exact precise biochemical explanation but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times, by mistake. It was a faulty transmission of information, so to speak. And this particular individual just ended up getting a few extra vertebral segments. And this doesn't happen very frequently, but, you know there are glitches in the genetic material that produce things like this, just as there are glitches in the genetic material that produce people with six fingers. But if somebody was born with six fingers, you don't think 'Oh no! That takes us all the way back to Acanthostega', with the earliest amphibians some of them had six fingers. It's not really an evolutionary issue." -Eugenie Scott, 10-11-1999 on "The Mike Rosen Show"
Dr. Scott, who is an ardent proponent of evolution, knows that this issue doesn't relate to the evolution debate at all. If such a passionate supporter like Dr. Scott doesn't consider this relevant to evolution, then one wonders why others continue to flaunt this malformation as "unequivocal evidence" of evolution. It leaves you to wonder if they are simply trying to play on people's ignorance, and "wow" them with an artificial resemblance of a tail. If an evolutionist resorts to human "tails" as evidence of evolution, then you can probably be sure that they are desperate in their attempts, because they are not tails at all, and they are certainly not evidence of evolution in the slightest.



#162 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 12 March 2010 - 05:15 AM

Healthy...maybe.

Normal...absolutely not...(unless you can statistically prove that the majority of humans have tails.)

View Post

Tp clarify, I am saying that, contrary to the Talk.Origins page, the tailbone itself of the 6 year old girl in the x-ray was perfectly normal and healthy. Directly from the original paper (top of second page [p. 509])

Case 2. Two years later, in 1979, a three-month-old Jewish baby was referred to our Outpatient Department because of a “ tail” above the
anus. On examination there were no pathological findings except a soft protrusion in the coccygeal region (Fig. 1). A lateral radiograph of the lower vertebral column showed three well-developed coccygeal vertebrae (Fig. 2).For aesthetic reasons the infant was operated on and the
protrusion together with part of the coccyx excised. Progress after operation was uneventful.

Case 3. One month later, a six-year-old girl came to our Outpatient Department with the same anatomical and radiographic findings (Fig. 3). Since she has no pain nor any cosmetic complaint she remains under observation, without surgical intervention, for the time being.

The ‘soft appendage’ is certainly not normal, either anatomically or statistically. But neither is it in any sense a ‘tail’. In case 2, it is mentioned that, for aesthetic reasons that 'the protrusion together with part of the coccyx excised' (though it was not in case 3). It seems that it was a simple, slight 'over-growth' of the otherwise perfectly normal Coccygeal vertebrae. Indeed, on the third page of the paper (p. 510), we find this:

Miller (1881) reported the case of an Army officer who had an elongated coccyx which made a bulge under the skin and caused him great difficulty in riding a horse.

Note that there were no 'extra' coccygeal vertebrae, they were simply 'elongated'. On this count, Bex makes an excellent point:

Are we to believe that a rare overgrowths like this must mean that we once had tails?

View Post

Exactly.

Even assuming the general idea of evolution for the sake of argument, why could this not be a new mutation as opposed to echoes of our evolutionary past?

Even after all of your reply...it is still an atavistic tail.

View Post

The very use of the word 'atavistic' (and the whole concept of 'atavism') presumes evolution rather than provide evidence for it. The same might be said for evolutionists insistence on referring to such overgrowths as 'tails'.

#163 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 12 March 2010 - 05:23 AM

I have seen this photo several times, it seems to be the iconic shot of the human vestigial tail.  The markings on the kid's head suggest Hindu so I guess they must be in India or Nepal.

Important photo - parents in the West would get the tail surgically removed and in many places it could easily be just chopped off.

View Post


There are other images...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Peace




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users