Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Tones on Tails
Message-ID: <373@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 19:03:25 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.373
Posted: Wed Jan 23 19:03:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 05:39:13 EST
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 86

[.......]

In 'Human Embryology' 1948, by Bradley M. Patten, Professor of Anatomy in the 
University of Michigan Medical School, p. 222 we find:

  Persistence of the Tail.

  A well developed tail will be remembered as one of the conspicuous
  charateristics of human embryos of the second month.  In the normal
  course of events, during the third month the tail disappears as an
  external feature.  This is due in part to regressive changes in the
  tail itself, and in part to the concealment of what is left of the
  tail in the crease between the rapidly growing buttocks.  Occasionally,
  the tail not only fails to regress but actually continues to grow in
  pace with the rest of the body.  Outside of the medical profession one
  is unlikely to know of the occurence of such an anomaly because the
  tail can be so easily removed surgically, and the patient and the
  family are reluctant to admit the possesion of such tangible evidence
  of their evolutionary history.

This text is accompanied by a artists rendition of two examples of human
tails.  The rendition's caption reads:

  Fig. 130.  Two cases of the persistence of a well-developed tail in
  human subjects.  A, Redrawn from a case reported by Harrison.
  B, Redrawn from a case reported by Shultz.  This tail, in a 12-year-old
  boy, was nine inches long.


This certainly would seem to be a phenomenon better explaned by evolution
than creationism.  In addition, this book presents minor implications of
other similar evidence of evolutionary history.   The early development
of the skull and some internal organs progress through stages that are
somewhat like that of simpler animal forms.  In addition, there is some
indication that gills and/or gill-like openings develop and occasionally
persist.  I would like to know how the creationists propose to explain
such phenomenon within the context of their theories ('because GOD said
so' is hardly an effective response).

I've noted that it seems that creationists seem to prefer to ignore certain
issues, and this may be one of them.  Punctuated equilibrium is another issue
that they seem to prefer to ignore, or explain away as a kludgey 'patch' to
evolutionary theory where it previously did not fit the facts.  Actually,
'patching' theories is not necessarily a bad technique or bad science. 
However the creationists seem to prefer to place this in a bad light as
it helps to paint the picture of evolution as a poorly supported kludge.


Personally, I think there are several underlying problems that the 
creationists have with evolution which are the real motivations behind
their attacks on evolution.  These are:

   1. Evolution may appear to be proof that GOD does not exist.

   2. An abhorrence to the thought that humans may not be 'special' and
      superior to animals.

First of all, #1 is totally unfounded.  Even if some ABSOLUTE proof of
evolution exists, this does not imply that a GOD does not exist, and did
not create it all.  Certainly evolution could just be the evidence of his
laboratory experiments.

#2 on the other hand, may be more difficult.  At first glance, it seems to
be akin to some form of racism, but there is probably more to it than that.
Both 1 & 2 are primarily emotional and not scientific issues, which may shed
some light on the nature of the creationists tack in these issues.

A possible example of #2 I have observed in my mother, who as a christian,
sees no conflict with evolution.  However, on any trips to zoos when I was
younger, she seemed to be bothered by the primates, would keep her distance
and express somewhat less than interest in them.  The only explanation I could
elicit was "they look too much like humans".

I expect however, that creationists don't agree with any of this.  I do wonder
however, if they'll choose to ignore this, indicating that they have no good
arguments, or if in fact they do have arguments, in which case I'd like to 
hear what they are.


Keith Doyle
{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something
because one wishes it to be so."
				   -Louis Pasteur