Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[Junior]

I never said it was a vestigal tail. The fellow asked for a picture of one and additional information regarding thereto. This I supplied. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of internet literature on the nature of the tails, or even if they are true tails, such as those possessed by our lesser brethren, the monkeys. For all I know, it could be a really long mole.

[Nebullis]

Okay. I was remembering a long-ago conversation.

For all I know, it could be a really long mole.

I think you might be right.

[Nebullis]

See #1140. It should have been posted to you.

[Nebullis]

On the other hand, many of the macroevolutionary changes are all about simple numbers controlled by one or a few genes. It's not that all modular-type changes are not related to evolution. It's the notion of dormant vestigial characteristics, particularly ones which are controlled by genes that control multiple features at once, which raises a flag.

[Nebullis]

...the mutation turned on his existing tail vertebrae genes

Actually, my #1140 should be for you!

[scripter]

Actually, my #1140 should be for you!

I saw it, thanks. I'm no scientist, but if I could have described my gut feel for that tail, it would have been just what you posted. Thanks.

I'm trying to arrive at my own conclusion with evolution.

Someone said: I have yet to hear how creationists deal with
1) vestigal organs like the appendix (except to claim they're not vestigal)
2) the hipbone of whales, and,
3) birth defects such as an occasional baby with a tail.

So to me, #3 or at least what we've seen of it here, doesn't "qualify." #2 I've never heard of (any pointers?). And #1... I thought vestigial organs when out with recapitulation. Pointers? URLs?

[Nebullis]

These examples were given in a discussion of common descent. Vestigial tails in humans may not be a good example, but the other two examples are. What's more, the evidence at the molecular level is vast and very powerful. VR linked a good example for you. This example was discussed in two recent threads, linked earlier on this thread.

Recapitulation is not out. Organisms with similar bodyplans go through similar stages during development. And it's because development and bodyplans are controlled by the same genes.

[VadeRetro]

I only got one monkey-bite, catching an escapee from someone else's experiment. Little SOB also pulled a bunch of snap-leads off of the control panel for the rat experiment I and my partner were doing.

Our Experimental Psych. prof killed a bunch of rats trying to implant electrodes in their heads. He evidently lacked "touch." The biggest killer was some kind of rat distemper which messed up a lot of people's courses as their assigned (and assiduously trained) rats died in mid-semester.

I don't know what I ever saw in that stuff.

[VadeRetro]

I can't decide if the thing is off-center or not. I didn't question because of this:

He is reported to have a 4in 'tail' caused by genetic mutations during the development of the foetus.

If the thing were just soft tissue, no one would have made too much of it but removed it. Thus I suspect it contains vertebrae although that's not based on any more than I've said.

[VadeRetro]

The preceding is not to disagree with the rest of your post 140. The case for human origins was not based on vestigial tails.

[Nebullis]

If the thing were just soft tissue, no one would have made too much of it but removed it. Thus I suspect it contains vertebrae although that's not based on any more than I've said.

The medical literature doesn't yield any cases of tails with vertebrae. Even the much touted Ledley case report was of a boneless structure.

Someone in my family recently returned from India where young children were sporting enormous tumorous structures on various body parts while begging on the streets.

[Nebullis]

The case for human origins was not based on vestigial tails.

Precisely.

[VadeRetro]

Even the much touted Ledley case report was of a boneless structure.

[Scratchy, old-woman voice:]

NE-ver mind! :)

[AndrewC]

Someone in my family recently returned from India where young children were sporting enormous tumorous structures on various body parts while begging on the streets.

Was that close to Bhopal?

[Nebullis]

Was that close to Bhopal?

Close to Delhi. Not to belittle the Bhopal incident, tumors can be a prized possession for the poor.

[PatrickHenry]

... tumors can be a prized possession for the poor.

Bump. (I can't resist a tasteless pun.)

[Nebullis]

A benign pun.

[AndrewC]

... tumors can be a prized possession for the poor

[Tares]

Please decide.

Change your tone, please.

How could I be so rude to a paragon of civility such as yourself? No one posting to FreeRepublic is less sarcastic, acerbic, or demanding toward fellow Freepers than yourself. Often is the time when you so kindly overlook the equivocating statements of others. Many a Freeper has testified to your unceasing civility and sensitivity.

O PatrickHenry...won't you please, pretty please, respond to post 1108?

[VadeRetro]

You give him three chances or until the cock crows, whichever comes first. That's seems to be traditional.

By either criterion, something is going on here.