Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!spp1!johnston
From: johnston@spp1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Tones on Tails
Message-ID: <151@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 19:01:53 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.151
Posted: Thu Jan 24 19:01:53 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jan-85 05:19:09 EST
References: <373@cadovax.UUCP>
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 81

> [.......]
> 
> 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).
> 
Before I talk about this excerpt, I'd like to comment on the rest of the
article briefly. If you'll remember it tried to tie creationism with
religion. This seems an unfair way to address an issue considering that
quite a bit of creationism material is devoid of any trace of religion.
Many of the better papers deal with fitting evidence today with
creationism precepts and are done so quite professionally. If an
individual wishes to use biblical quotes to confirm the theory to himself
or other believers in the bible, I see nothing wrong with that.

About the embryonic tail, the reference refers to it as an anomoly. I
don't believe it need be explained by one of the origin theories and is better
explained by genetic abnormalities within a species.

Since the "tail" is really only the last part of the vertabrae, then we
all have a tail only it isn't always visible. That the spine develops
first makes sense since it function is analogous to a frame for a house
which is built first. If you are delivered 41 foot planks to cover the 40
foot frame you've already built, you nail on the planks as is and then cut
off a foot.

I think it weakens the evolutionist argument to be looking at embryo
development and attempting to see evolutionary history.

If (and this is hypothetical) you were to look at the embryonic
developmnet of a cat and not see a tail until near the end of gestation,
could you say that cats evolved from a tailless creature.

What I think you really want use to show common ancestory is the spine
itself not its extension.

As far as the gills go, I believe that evolutionist themselves threw that
one out when it was learned that the structures only looked like gills and
actually served other functions.

Did you know that in the not to distant past, some scientist, looking at a
sperm cell through a microscope, concluded that there was a miniature baby
in each cell. This was widely accepted at the time. I'm glad it was
refuted. It takes little imagination to wonder what would happen if he saw
a tail there and if a theory similiar to evolution could be postulated
on that basis.

			Mike Johnston