Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails

100 / 3 = 33.33...23 < 33.

---

אָרַח

no sweetheart. 1/3 of 100 is 33.3333333...haha beat me to it.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-15-2006 09:22 PM

You may want to check your numbers again.

What's sloppy about stating that 23% is less than 33%? I'd say that was accurate. Anyway, others have pointed this out.What I want to know is what is the "whole" story that they didn't give. You didn't give it either.I can't access the whole article on-line, so I would ask that you tell us what it is you're getting at. We can't really have a discussion until we know what we're trying to discuss.Added by edit - the information I'm asking for is what is wrong with what talkorigins says about the Dubrow et al (1988) article.This message has been edited by Trixie, 01-15-2006 09:30 PM

I meant to say 100 - 1/3 (100) is 66 and not 23. Regardless, talkorigins pumped up the numbers and that is the main point. Plus there is the malformation/correlation.

Here is why the malformation correlation is important:

quote:

---

"Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.

​

Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001

​

One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely.

​

For more info on the tail bone click: coccyx tailbone evolution baby born with tail

​

quoted from: There are no such things as a Vestigial Organ creation or evolution tonsils Appendix wisdom teeth whales legs goose bumps creation vs. evolution baby born with tail

---

In short, pumped up numbers and deception by ommission.

1/3 of 100 is still 33.i'm looking for where they get the "100" bit from. but second article you posted seems to be talking about the 23 out of 33 vestigal tails that are TRUE tails, not pseudo-tails. 10 pseudo-tails out of 33 tails is still less than 1/3.

---

אָרַח

this is a very old creationist fallacy that "vestigial" means "serves no function whatsoever." it does not.

quote:

---

Main Entry: ves·tige
Pronunciation: 'ves-tij
Function: noun

​

1 a (1) : a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something (as an ancient city or a condition or practice) vanished or lost (2) : the smallest quantity or trace b : FOOTPRINT 1
2 : a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms
synonym see TRACE

---

---

אָרַח

talkorigins stated Dubrow et al stated that If less than a third of the over 100 tails are considered "pseudo-tails", that means that less than 33% are considered "pseudo-tails". The other two thirds aren't given the name "pseudo-tails" because, medically speaking they are not considered to be tails.talkorigins hasn't pumped up the numbers, you've misunderstood what the two different quotes are actually saying.Again, further information would be helpful, especially how you consider the malformation/correlation to be relevant.

Here is what talkorigins said again:More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988).
taken from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2Now this would mean 66 true tails but that is not what Dubrow said. Dubrow said 23 true tails if memory serves and there is the malformation/correlation mentioned previously which I believe talkorigins does not mention. In short, pumped up numbers and deception by omission.

I would suggest following the thread debate I cited earlier. It has a cell biologist in it. I don't think the tail argument is a good argument.

Presumably that's where your 100 comes from. Are you assuming that the 100 were all well-documented? Or could the "well-documented cases" be a smaller subset?

Not quite. In medical terms the word "pseudo" is only used when the organ bears close resemblance to the actual organ in question. My reading of the information that you provided was that the other 66% don't qualify to be called pseudo-tails because they don't have the complex structures necessary i.e., they fail the tail test. They're not even pseudo-tails, let alone tails.

TO: Trixie100 "mixed tails" minus 1/3 (100) Pseudo tails = 66 True tails/non-psuedo tails.Plus you continue to ignore the malformation/correlation.TO: allI think it is in the biology that the whole argument breaks down. See the cell biologist debate thread alluded to earlier.

quote:

---

I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation.

​

quoted from: There are no such things as a Vestigial Organ creation or evolution tonsils Appendix wisdom teeth whales legs goose bumps creation vs. evolution baby born with tail

---

I believe it is merely a pathological malformation. TalkOrigins does not mention the malformation/correlation. Deception by omission.