Are human tails an example of macroevolution?

Dear Bernd;Your reply seems well (enough) balanced.Yes, in a sense "the weight" of the literature slants in your direction. The best I can do is present what goes on in the(an) intuition that bends another way. If I was wedded to my own thought process I would be challenging just how much we know about the
"spontaneous movements"(lack thereof at a time needed) you indicated as falsifying my own conclusion.I rested with that post you quoted from because I was merely trying to point out an alternative way to think about the subject. I think you have seemed to have taken into account the heritability or potential of such at the family level (but you have not addressed this specifically). I think it is not an issue that if one was to objectively compare my own way of thinking biologically and some other way that is already instutionalized, I would loose, in the comparision. That is always a given however.So, INDEED, if my argument hinges on the "behavioral" movement of the embryo (and it was true that there is no actual movement as you assert) then yes it would not be unfair to say that there is more "supporting" evidence on your side.I will go back and try to read hoxology more critically because you seem destined to recall the conservation of hox genes in what I would otherwise simply think is the "topology" of tissue formation. Inother words, I will not consider this thread finished and I will try to show you once again that a structrual possibilty is not off the table. We will have to visualize cell divisions in this case. There is not a need to worry about the temporality of your postings. I am reasonable.I have been unable to find the post on EVC where I first started to discuss the topology of cell divisions from the zygote. What is important is to "see" how space(inside vs outside) becomes "a scarce commodity" after the first dozen or so divisions before and beyond blastulation. My intent will be to show that tail space is ALWAYS "outside" in a topology so describable and is thus in a different logical position than internal tissues when discussing the data of evo-devo (it is not simply another "section" as concieved from insect anantomy but is "terminal" and thus need not be subject to the same spatio-temporal chemical affects as can be resonable effected on the aggregate). In other words I do not take the vertebrate seriality and invertebrate sections as necessarily coincident as geometry would trend one to think from a common mouth. I will suspect that aspect of any instutionality of hoxology. Insects look more like hybrid plants than lethal genes to me. But that is just me.What is required is to seperate Bauplane and Plan. I feel that current elite biology on either Mayr or Gould's bird watch fails to distinguish trascendental reflexions of form from any meaning of plan readable in Carter here no matter the watchful thought of OT Isaiah. Notice that Carter speaks for a large history of German thought. Without intricate trichotomies of creationist thought the words "bau"PLANe and plan simply 'run together.' I think that the only way to draw the corrrect lingo would be to work with Woodger's "biology and language" of Russel (functors) but we will not be able to do this in this thread. Instead, we will get the chance to expand on interpreting evo-devo. I suggest that Gould's reading will not distiguish the reading from German "Natur(-E)-Philosophy" in the plan the sari of this thread woofs.The sentence I find conflated by the best of the best in all possible worlds of evolutionary thought was:

quote:

---

The structure of a segment of the insect body was thought to show the same structural elements as a segment of a vertebrate.

---

quote:

---

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.