How creationism explains babies with tails

Pretty misleading statement. The original hedgehog gene was identified in Drosophila, it is more arguably the vertebrates that have a diversified derivative gene family with many hedgehogs indian, desert and sonic.How badly conserved does a protein need to be before you decide it is a distinct but analogous chemical?TTFN,WK

Hi WK,Okay, I got that bass ackwards. Clearly I'm not going to argue with you over molecular biology. Even I am not that stubborn. My main point was simply that the ubiquity of the "hedgehog" signalling molecules point to an ancient evolutionary inter-relatedness between diverse animal groups.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Arguably none, there is no reason why a mutation has to be an atavism (reversion to an ancestral state). Mutations occur producing embryos with 2 heads, that doesn't mean 2 headed organisms were part of those embryos' evolutionary lineage. The answer depends on what question exactly you are asking. If you mean did ancestral species of great apes commonly posess extra digits the answer is no. If you mean did our ape ancestors also suffer from the sporadic appearance of supernumerary digits, the answer is almost certainly yes.If you go further back in the evolutionary history of tetrapods though you find many examples of primitive limbs with many more digits than modern tetrapods, principal ones being Acanthostega and Icthyostega with 8 and 7 digits respectively.Considering the additional ossification and the webbed fingers the most likely developmental pathway to have been affected is probably BMP (Bone morphogenetic protein) which is associated with bone growth, obviously, and also with the regulation of apoptosis in interdigital regions which is responsible for removing the tissue that is present there in the early embryo. As for frog ancestors, certainly an amphibian ancestor is on the cards, again something along the lines of Acanthostega.TTFN,WK

Granny M,Thanks for the welcome!

quote:

---

"If I'm right about that, then the chances are that your son has his extra digits on the "thumb/big toe" side of the feet

---

Right you are - though they have been removed. I have done a little reading about the sonic hedgehog genes.

quote:

---

"Mutations in the genes that keep sonic in check can lead to over-expression of certain traits, including fingers and toes."

---

Exactly, these mutation have nothing to do with evolutionary ancestors. They are merely mutations in regulatory genes. Babies aren't born with tails because of a reversion to an ancestral ape state any more than babies born with Anencephaly - or lack of a spinal chord - are reverting back to a invertebrate ancestor. It's just a genetic mixup, that's all.

quote:

---

"To me it seems like strong evidence of inter-relatedness. We use the same chemical pathways as cats and pigs, apes and horses in our developmental processes. There would be no reason for this if the Theory of Evolution were not true."

---

This is a different line of reason than the one that started this thread.

quote:

---

"This argues very strongly that a designer could have, if he so wished, used very different processes for different mammals. This does not appear to be the case."

---

The problem with this logic is an assumption that if everything was designed, the designer wouldn't have repeated elements in each creature. You imply that better proof of a designer is if each creature employed unique metabolic pathways, had DNA composed of different types base pairs, or had unique methods of reading DNA. I can see a logical reason for why a designer would use common elements - it allows for a cohesive circle of life where creatures can obtain nutrients by consuming other creatures made of similar building blocks.If each creature had a totally unique genetic framework with a unique DNA structure - I doubt this would be taken as evidence for a designer - but for evidence that abiogenesis is a simple process that happened many times leading to many unique types of creatures.

quote:

---

"Our developmental processes are amazing, but they are far from perfect. This is, of course, exactly what we would expect to see from the haphazard business of evolution. It is rather harder to square with the idea of an intelligent designer though."

---

This is assuming 2 things:1.) that an intelligent designer must create creatures that are completely perfect and can life forever - and has no reason to do otherwise2.) that the imperfections we see in development were part of the original design

Hi Aaron, I pretty much agree with you. I do however think that such developmental oddities shine a light on how evolution can work. What, after all is a tail? It's just an extension of the spine. All that need be done to create a tail is to add more vertebrae. But that also means that all that need happen for a species to permanently lose its tail is for the regulatory genes to enforce fewer vertebrae. Our bodies are almost modular in this way and it only takes a minor change to cause something like the loss of a tail.So in summary, human tails do not necessarily reflect a "reversion" to an atavistic state but they do reveal how such a change could have taken place. They do reveal that such changes are, in principle, possible, so they do touch on the ToE. No, that's not what I mean.What I'm getting at is that if you take closely related creatures like humans/chimps or fruit flies/mosquitoes, you will find far greater similarities in their regulatory chemicals than between human/fruit fly for example. Why need this be true if they are designed from scratch? Why not a human with insect signalling proteins? Why not mix and match, across the board? This is what human designers do after all. But no, we see that variation takes place within a framework of evolutionary relatedness. That seems likes a strange and highly dishonest choice for a deity to take. Why would God ape evolution? Doesn't he want us to believe in him? Yes. You are absolutely right. You must assume that the designer wanted his creations to suffer and die. Nice. Are you saying that they evolved? Or are you going to start dragging ancient myth into this?Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Looking back at ApostateAbe's message 1, I'm not that enthused about its quality. AA concluded that message with: So, is this recent discussion severely undermining AA's message 1 position?Moose

quote:

---

"So in summary, human tails do not necessarily reflect a "reversion" to an atavistic state but they do reveal how such a change could have taken place. They do reveal that such changes are, in principle, possible, so they do touch on the ToE."

---

I agree with your assessment from a logic standpoint.

quote:

---

"Why need this be true if they are designed from scratch? Why not a human with insect signalling proteins? Why not mix and match, across the board? This is what human designers do after all. But no, we see that variation takes place within a framework of evolutionary relatedness."

---

Actually, in the realm of human engineering, similar looking cars will use many of the same design and mechanical elements - they are necessary to create a functioning car. A toaster, however, will have far fewer related components. Components determine function. A toaster that is made with a manifold, spark plugs, and fuel filter won't be a handy toaster.

quote:

---

"Why would God ape evolution?

---

Please rephrase this, I'm not sure what you are saying.

quote:

---

"Yes. You are absolutely right. You must assume that the designer wanted his creations to suffer and die. Nice."

---

Suffering isn't a universal property of life - but even if it were - that's an interesting topic from a theological standpoint that would take this discussion in a whole new direction.I'll use a simple analogy. What would you think of a rich father who gave his son a 1985 Ford Tempo with 125k for his 16th birthday? A rotten father? What if the father made it known that this car was a test of sorts to see if the son could handle the responsibility. If the son took good care of the car for two years, he would be rewarded with a 2010 Audi R8. This sounds like a good father to me who is more concerned with character building and a future reward rather than providing his son with the perfect car right now.

quote:

---

"Are you saying that they evolved?"

---

Evolved... devolved... I'm okay with that.Our DNA has been mutating and breaking down for a long time. Genetic disease is on the rise, not on the decline.

This sounds like an interesting read.
Could you provide a link to your source please?

Hi Moose, I dunno, maybe a little. But I can only speak for my personal opinion and as you can tell from WK's correction above, I'm no expert.Personally, I don't think that babies being born with tails is quite the evolutionary give-away that it appears to be at first glance. I think that whilst an atavistic explanation might be correct, it might be a simple developmental fluke that creates simple tails, not ancient traits being re-expressed. Even the more complex tails mentioned by Apostate Abe might have a developmental origin, as the result of embryonic tails being retained, rather than lost during early development. I think that it is the embryonic tail itself though that is most difficult for creationists to explain.Creationists should take a close look at the embryo photo in Message 1. That human embryo clearly has a tail. It is not some faked drawing, but a picture of a human tail. It's there because we are tetrapods and tails are part of the tetrapod body plan. That tail most certainly IS an evolutionary hold-over. Whether a child can be born with it or not is interesting, but it isn't really the point. The insurmountable problem for creationists is the presence of an embryonic tail in the first place.I would be curious to hear how Aaron, JBR or any other members with creationist sympathies explain the presence of tails in human embryos.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi Aaron, Yes, but what a designer making cars can do differs from what evolution is able to do.A designer can take an advance from one car (say a catalytic converter) and introduce to other "unrelated" cars. It doesn't matter that the converter was originally fitted in one type of car, it can be isolated from the rest of the vehicle and introduced into all sorts of cars, from many different "lineages" (i.e. manufacturers). An advance originating in a Jaguar can, in principle, be applied in a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari.Evolution cannot do this, at least not in complex multicellular organisms. An evolutionary advance in a mammal cannot be then applied to birds or bugs. Those groups are reproductively isolated from the mammalian line and thus, they cannot be party to its novel mutations. Those groups would have to evolve the same advance independently.So, if we are designed, why do we not see advances being applied across the evolutionary divides? Why do we only see the mammalian hedgehog homologues in mammals? A designer could easily have put them in insects. He did not. Mammals have mammalian hedgehog, insects have their own version. Why not mix-and-match, the way a designer would? Why do it exactly the way evolution would do it? If he did design us, God seems to have gone out of his way to make us look as if we evolved. Embryonic tails, homologous yet distinct developmental signalling molecules, clearly observable means of tiny random mutations creating major phylogenetic change... This all looks very much like an evolved system. It looks like a very capricious way for a wise and benevolent designer to behave however. It's almost as if he were trying to trick us into believing that he wasn't there, that evolution was capable of diversifying life all on its own.Or perhaps evolution really is capable of diversifying life, all on its own, no designer needed. It would seem the more parsimonious solution.By the way, what is your explanation for the presence of a tail in the human embryo? I think that "interesting" is rather an understatement. "Horrifying" would be my choice. But, you're right, this isn't really central to the topic. so I will simply say this of your car analogy; for it to work, the father would have to withhold the Audi until after his son died. That is a much fairer comparison to what you are really intimating. And yes, I would consider that guy a crappy father. There's really no such thing as "devolved". Evolution does not have a pre-determined direction, and thus cannot be said to be in reverse gear. Yes, as I thought. You are attempting to drag Adam and Eve into a discussion about biology. Do you really believe that your son was born with extra toes because one of his ancient ancestors ate some fruit? And you're okay with that?By the way, the ToE does not predict that genetic disease ought to decline. Further, do you want to bet that genetic disease is on the rise because we know of more genetic diseases, year on year, and we know more about them year on year? It could hardly do anything other than rise could it?Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Why do you think a designer would put a mammalian protein in an insect?There are some proteins that are universal to most (if not all) creatures - such as those associated with certain enzymatic reactions.
On the other hand, regulatory proteins are not highly shared. Do you think there are many proteins that can be swapped back and forth between various creatures without causing harm?The pieces fit the purpose. If there are a great number of parts that could be swapped back and forth between mammals and insects, you'd think evolution would have conserved more proteins across the board. Why diverge from the common ancestor when there is no need?Why do humans and chimps only share about 30% of identical protein structures if those proteins perform more or less the same role both each species? What pressure would cause humans to diverge from the protein structure of the common ancestor if the protein performs the same role? That might be a better question for a developmental biologist. What purpose does the tail serve in the embryo's development?As we know, several of the vertebrae fuse together to form the coccyx. The rest are absorbed.
part - why would a body part grow - only to be absorbed? I can't say that I'm a specialist enough to say for sure - but it is not without precedence in embryonic development. In the early stages of brain development, a group of cells help establish boundaries until the proper cells are available - and later the temporary cells disappear. Similarly, the tail end may serve as a place holder until the rest of the body grows around it.That's my guess at least. I'm only returning to this point because your rebuttal doesn't quite fit the paradigm I was proposing. Perhaps from an atheistic view of death, the father would be crummy - because death would be dark nonthingness for the son. However, any theistic view of death portrays it as a "graduation" of sorts into a better existence. In this case, the son gets the reward for his trials after "graduation."

I agree - when a baby is born with a tail, it is a far cry from the tail of a monkey.Anybody know if chimps or gorillas are ever born with accidental tails?Anyhow, Haeckle's theory of the Biogenetic Law is largely debunked.""The theory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144. "I read over a long paper about Haeckle's theories - including modern analysis of it. Here's a quote from it:

Hi Aaron, Well apart from anything else, it would stop us from looking quite so evolved. It seems perverse that God should create life, only to go to an effort to make it look as though it evolved and that he was never involved. That seems dishonest. This is God we're talking about isn't it? Why do you suddenly seek to place arbitrary limits upon his capabilities? In such a vast span of evolutionary time as back to the divergence of the common ancestors of humans and insects, genetic drift alone would be guaranteed to cause some divergence, even if there were no adaptive advantage (and I would expect that there was).This is really a much more difficult question for your position. Why would God design in the style of evolution, when evolution is not true? According to Wiki;

quote:

---

Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein. As mentioned above, gene duplications are a major source of differences between human and chimp genetic material, with about 2.7 percent of the genome now representing differences having been produced by gene duplications or deletions during approximately 6 million years[4] since humans and chimps diverged from their common evolutionary ancestor. The comparable variation within human populations is 0.5 percent.

---

So the 30% figure is misleading when mentioned alone, as it fails to note that the average human/chimp protein comparison differs by only two amino acids.The answer to your question appears to be that gene duplications and deletions have caused the human/chimp genomes to diverge. The article also notes several cases where strong positive selection appears to have taken place in the story of human/chimp divergence.All of this is absolutely what we would expect from evolution.For God to do this can only be described as a deliberate deception, tricking us into believing in evolution. No, in this thread, it is a question for creationists. Developmental biologists already have an explanation. I am interested in the creationist version. None. But that is an extremely weak argument. There is something that grows in the place of those cells; the brain. There is no equivalent for the embryonic tail. It is simply reabsorbed. Nothing grows in its place. This is highly implausible.Let's be clear here; you have no real explanation for the embryonic tail. The creationist position cannot explain this feature.And again, it is a perverse choice for God to create such a clear piece of evidence for evolution, especially when t serves no purpose. But of course, you have no evidence whatsoever for the afterlife, so this comes across as something of a poor deal. No! This is wrong!The little stubby tails that are most common bear little comparison, but the rarer, more sophisticated tails most certainly do. They have non-fused vertebrae, muscle, skin, nerves, sebaceous glands... How much more like a tail do you want them to be? These tails are essentially the embryonic tail retained into infancy. They are not simply flukes. They are even inheritable.You can explain these by resorting to the embryonic tail of course, but that still leaves you with the task of explaining the embryonic tail itself; something that you do not seem to be able to do. I couldn't find anything, but I would predict that it is possible. You have to remember though, that these tails are extremely rare in humans, and we have a vast population. The great apes have incredibly tiny populations, so there are far fewer opportunities for such births to occur. As a law, set in stone, yes. But as a general trend, it is still true. This is an example of embryonic development following in evolution's path. It need not happen in every case, but in this case, it does.If you disagree, you need only provide a creationist rationale for human tails.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Did you even think this one through?What grows around the human embryonic tail? What is it a placeholder for?