Evolution as it relates to Religion

[Dan From Smithville]

How does a fetus having a piece of skin that he grows into somehow equal a useful tail? It doesn't have anything to do with an actual tail.

Once again, vestige. How many times does that have to be defined for you. I've seen others provide the definition or summary of what vestigial means. That is the point, we don't have tails, but sometimes an atavistic feature like a vestigial tale shows up providing evidence that our ancestors did have tails. What other explanation do you have that is better than the scientific explanation? Sometimes God wants a baby to have a tail to confuse us?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Don't you know the evidence? You make claims denying it. I didn't want to assume you were just denying without knowledge.

The tail itself is evidence. And that there are genes for tails in people. Why are they there? Is it some sort of ruse to make us think we evolved from something with tails?

Fetus have temporary " tails"... not because of some vestigial ‘tail DNA’; it is a critical stage of programmed human embryonic development as the notochord and neural tubes extend throughout most of this tail-shaped structure.

None that I know of—are actual tails.—Michael Egnor (Director, Pediatric Neurosurgery, State University of New York).
“None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails. A tail has vertebrae, is a continuation of the coccyx, has developed muscles, nerves and other soft tissues, etc. The appendages described in the literature, and all of the appendages on which I have operated, are dysmorphic mesenchymal tissue, often epithelialized exophytic dermal sinus tracts, that bear a superficial resemblance to a ‘tail’. None have the structure of a tail, even in rudimentary form, and none of the ones I have operated on were attached to the coccyx in the way that a tail is.”25

 

[Wildswanderer]

Once again, vestige. How many times does that have to be defined for you. I've seen others provide the definition or summary of what vestigial means. That is the point, we don't have tails, but sometimes an atavistic feature like a vestigial tale shows up providing evidence that our ancestors did have tails. What other explanation do you have that is better than the scientific explanation? Sometimes God wants a baby to have a tail to confuse us?

Lol, yeah a few years ago they thought fetuses had gills and said that was evidence for evolution too. Made no sense whatsoever, just like this claim.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What other explanation do you have that is better than the scientific explanation? Sometimes God wants a baby to have a tail to confuse us?

They are obviously just birth defects... like all such odd growths anywhere in the body.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Birds with teeth aren't uncommon even now.
Wiggling ears somehow equals birds teeth? What?

Human tails, birds teeth, and wiggling ears are all vestigial. There are lots of vestigial structures in nature.

Teeth are very uncommon in birds to the point that they do not exist in modern birds. We are not talking about serrations on the beak, but actual teeth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, yeah a few years ago they thought fetuses had gills and said that was evidence for evolution too. Made no sense whatsoever, just like this claim.

I know that you don't really have an argument and this is the best you can do, but is this really the best you can do?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are obviously just birth defects... like all such odd growths anywhere in the body.

There are psuedotails that fit that description, but the tails that are actual tails have a genetic basis. Once again, the question your avoid is why would we have genes for tails while not having tails. The answer. Our ancestors in the remote past had tails.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are obviously just birth defects... like all such odd growths anywhere in the body.

I gotta go out into the woods. Good talking to you. We'll talk more I'm sure.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I know that you don't really have an argument and this is the best you can do, but is this really the best you can do?

So you deny that they thought babies had gills or are you just deflecting?

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are psuedotails that fit that description, but the tails that are actual tails have a genetic basis. Once again, the question your avoid is why would we have genes for tails while not having tails. The answer. Our ancestors in the remote past had tails.

I guess you didn't read the part about none of them being actual functioning tails. Again bare claims with no evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you deny that they thought babies had gills or are you just deflecting?

I don't deny it. I recognize it as irrelevant. You are attempting to falsely make equivalent a mistaken conclusion that the gill slits in human embryos were actual gills with the observed and supported existence of vestigial structures in humans including tails.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess you didn't read the part about none of them being actual functioning tails. Again bare claims with no evidence.

That is the point of being recognized as vestigial. Do you not get that?

Again, vestigial does not mean exactly like the original and with no function. It is less than the original and whatever function a vestigial structure may have it is not that of the original structure.

 

[rational experiences]

As human men as he him his theory as just men thinkers. Observe natural life is what they all do. Tell fake stories.

In natural life's human memories we once were very tall humans. As ice mass was less on earth.

So dna and the bone body has adapted. As so has animal bodies bones.

If you say the theist a human wants to pretend ground mass chemical dusts reacted and had began life's processes.

We are mainly just water by percentage. As biology not mass chemical quotes.

So water is our historic God parent in human sciences. And in biology it has to be nature oxygenated. Nature hence has to be present in any terms telling truth.

Which is not your thesis. Human science was theoried exact.

A living human is only observed as human science. Side by side position.

Then animals and nature is by the side of just one human thinking.

As observation only science first.

Thinking looking at dusts in a fixed place. Is the present human only.

On the earth. You can't talk about dusts anywhere else.

So scientist what type of pre body mass changed earths dust? Sun burning rock mass falling star did.

Did that position destroy what earth first position had owned?

Yes he says.

What human thinking is as lying.

As that converting model is direct themes to a machines body only.

Not biology.

The theist wants everyone to believe his he him his thoughts about human science existed before biology of human life had.

Which is a human confession of a the ist.

Satanist.

Scientist.

Human not an ist.

To list by human thinking.

T heist. Meaning + I use half the addition cross. T value. I minus it leaving half. My addition.+. The cross first by humans say so.

Reason he lives in the half of mass first. Himself as the human. A gas body heavens with space and not mass.

As the teaching was about humans consciousness why it changed and then became by science machine life's destroyer.

So he lies.

T heist science as human thoughts a criminal the advice said. Heist...Steals from God.

O earth and it's heavens. Was exact.

So if humans take lies life's water to apply artificial melt then cooling themselves by choice only....what changes heavenly.

Lie...remove life by word human only inferred taught.

Where water as mass lays and is space stretched by pressures?

Pressure changes. Waters positions change.

Why could huge boned dinosaur creatures move around? With the earth's garden nature present.

Due to the amount of water mass pressures the heavens owned.

So dna was lost as water changed. Holy water holy life.

You ask where did it go?

I was shown in visions earth owns huge massive underground tunnels. As water fresh is beneath the sea.

It fills up those tunnels when ice melts. How could I get such visions? Because the human designer of causes just a human changed earths body.

The exact and only reason.

Men of science quote O earth is balanced. Naturally.

Ships use ballast and water to remain upright.

Why scientists said earth itself is a stone ark. A ship of stone.

If islands land mass has increased instead of flooding. Science is told earth is shifting it's water mass.

Flooding is part of ice melts keeping life saved by cooling burning gas.

Underground fresh water hence comes back out somewhere else. So some land masses prove it's tidal flooding is higher. Water has shifted mass.

Underground tunnels are filling up.

Previously empty tunnels.

Science as just humans thinking first keep predicting earth could roll over...change its poles.

Humans quote I theory to tell stories to predict warnings.

Just humans thinking chose to dig up old earth evidence. Instant snap frozen machine parts. God earth put the machine back into its natural metal pressure position.

God did it to man.

Humans look at DNA by choice too. What are you trying to prove as life's warning's? Humans only as the human who owns as the human by being human...human DNA?

Do you ever think your own human consciousness wants to warn you?

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is the point of being recognized as vestigial. Do you not get that?

Again, vestigial does not mean exactly like the original and with no function. It is less than the original and whatever function a vestigial structure may have it is not that of the original structure.

Our spine doesn't protrude from our bodies. It's not like a tail in any way.

 

[Jose Fly]

I realize this is probably a waste of time (creationists tend to just ignore inconvenient information), but the claims and info @Wildswanderer has been posting is simply wrong.

On atavistic tails....

Atavisms are a concept similar to vestigial structures. But atavisms take it a few steps further. Atavisms are the reappearance of a characteristic not present in the parents or even in recent evolutionary relatives. IOW, let’s say you are an amphibian that evolved from a species of fish that existed millions of years ago. An atavistic structure would be if a recent amphibian individual were born with pelvic fins like those of its piscine ancestor.

Similarly, if humans share an evolutionary past with other primates, the types of atavistic structures we have should reflect this evolutionary past. More specifically, our evolutionary past allows us to predict the types of atavistic structures in humans we should find and shouldn’t find. We shouldn’t see a baby born with fully functional wings for example.

So, is this what we see in nature?

Of course. The most famous example of atavisms in humans is the appearance of fully functional tails (also known as "coccygeal process," "coccygeal projection," "caudal appendage," and "vestigial tail”). The existence of these true tails are extremely well documented in the medical literature, with multiple published examples.

Keep in mind, these are REAL tails, complete with adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs. They are covered by normal skin, complete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands. And guess what else? These things actually work! They contract and move just like regular tails we see in other primates!

Rare disease: An infant with caudal appendage - PMC (nih.gov)

And its genetic basis...

All primates have a tail at 4-5 weeks of gestation. At this stage there are 10-12 developing tail vertebrae that extend beyond the anus and legs, and are greater than 10% of the length of the whole embryo. The tail is made up of many complex tissues including a spinal cord, a notochord, a mesenchyme, and a tail gut. In the monkeys, this goes on to form the various types of tails present in adult monkeys. But as we know, the great apes (including humans) do not have tails. In the great apes, the 6-12 vertebrae undergo “cell death” and disappear, and the 5th and 4th vertebrae are reduced. It has been shown that regulation of a single gene (Wnt-3a gene if you need to know) is the mechanism behind this curious process (thus the cases of the atavistic tails I mentioned earlier are likely due to a mutation in this gene). I say “curious process” because this data leads to the obvious question: Why develop a tail as an embryo that you’re not going to have as an adult?

This is a very good example of how evolutionary common descent of all primates provides a very good explanation for the data. Without an understanding of common descent, the ontological development and loss of a tail as an embryo in all apes would be very strange and difficult to explain. But when we view this data in light of common ancestry, it makes perfect sense. At one time, all primates had tails as embryos that went on to develop into adult tails. But sometime after the great ape line split off, a common ancestor to all apes developed a mutation that resulted in the embryonic degeneration of the tail, and that mutation and trait was inherited by all its descendants, humans included.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Keep in mind, these are REAL tails, complete with adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs

Real tails have tail bones.

 

[Jose Fly]

Real tails have tail bones.

So you're arguing that these are not actually atavistic tails? Then what are they?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you're arguing that these are not actually atavistic tails? Then what are they?

It’s an abnormality in embryonic development, nothing uncommon about it. It's never going to be a functioning body part.

Even critically important organs such as the thymus and parathyroid glands were once considered to be vestigial simply because their functions were not understood.

To call a birth defect evidence for evolution is just nonsense.

 

[Jose Fly]

It’s an abnormality in embryonic development

It is.

nothing uncommon about it.

Actually they're pretty rare.

It's never going to be a functioning body part.

That's not the point. The point is, why tails? Why not wings or antennae? And why do humans share the same embryonic and genetic pathways by which the tails develop and then die in the embryo?

Evolutionary common ancestry gives the answer.

Even critically important organs such as the thymus and parathyroid glands were once considered to be vestigial simply because their functions were not understood.

This is not about vestigial tails, this is about atavistic tails.

To call a birth defect evidence for evolution is just nonsense.

Your mere "Nuh uh" isn't a valid rebuttal.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your mere "Nuh uh" isn't a valid rebuttal

First you have to explain why this isn't just a birth defect. The burden of proof is on you.
Yes, this particular one is rare but birth defects are common. There's no reason to think it's anything else unless one has a preconceived idea. There's been babies born with hair in their back that looks like wings too, does that mean he had a bird for an ancestor?
Two of my four kids had abnormalities, one had a short leg and the other had a birth mark.. again nothing uncommon.