Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Straight Hate · 12-20-2002, 07:02 PM

My goodness!: <a href="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html" target="_blank">http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html</a>

The article cites a genetic mutation for the occurence, but what sort of mutation would this situation require? Do humans have a 'repressed' tail-gene of sorts that can be activated, or is this a relatively unimportant instance of when things go 'blooey'?

Yes, I am new to this.

catman · 12-20-2002, 07:12 PM

Yes I wonder why they are calling it a genetic mutation, too. They are probably using the term genrically w/o having any facts besides what they see. I am an auditory learner so I can't accept this visual terminology.

Bane · 12-20-2002, 07:19 PM

I was just thinking maybe god put his Mr. Happy on the wrong way. Boy that kid is going to be quite the ladies man I was thinking at first.

Yes, we have a gene for a tail. I wonder why that would be?

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

WinAce · 12-20-2002, 07:26 PM

Yes, humans contain the entire genetic code for producing a fully functional tale, nerve clusters, ganglia, vertebrae, muscle groups and all, albeit deactivated. This is what's known as an <a href="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms" target="_blank">atavism</a> (others include 5-toed legs... occasionally sprouting on whales). These features our ancestors had occasionally reappear for reasons I'm not entirely familiar with.

Here's an x-ray of one such baby:

Quote:

Yes, we have a gene for a tail. I wonder why that would be?

It's much worse than that - a single gene can't produce a complex structure like a tail. It's probably at least a few dozen, with one master control switch that's turned off but can get zapped back on, reactivating the rest.

Needless to say, this phenomenon basically owns any creationists confronted with it. Check out the cricket-chirping-in-the-desert silence <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/threads/28690.html" target="_blank">I got over at ChristianForums</a>.

If using it as an argument, be aware that the only answer they have is that it's not a real tail, but a fleshy projection. This isn't true, as those are pseudotails, not real tails - although what can you expect from someone grasping at straws to save their mythology?

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: WinAce ]</p>

Bane · 12-20-2002, 07:45 PM

My mistake. I was thinking of the pseudogene for vitamin C. Or does that operate similarly to the tail atavism?

Yes, I've seen the thread over at the Christian Forums. Nice and quiet over there.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

catman · 12-20-2002, 08:01 PM

Evolution is fully supported by the bible--it does not support creationism--that crap is just lies. Adam means "first man"--men firsrt evolved from what? Pimordial soup--otherwise known as mud. And from there--genetically a single cell that was to evolve into a mammmal--he divided on his own until he started to become sometimes a she--therefore eve was form and they man and woman could coupulate--erg have sexual intercourse ergo producing offspings that even from the beginning of time tortured and killed one another for survival. It's all in the bible--go read the damn thing.

semyaza · 12-21-2002, 04:34 AM

It's not technically a genetic mutation that causes pseudo-tails. As others have pointed out, we all contain the necessary gene arrays to grow tails.

If I undestand this correctly (feel free to correct me) - body structures (arms, legs etc) are initiated in the growing embryo by differing concentrations of 'Hedgehog' proteins controlled by the Hox gene array. Basically, a specific mix and concentration of proteins switches the cells into 'arm' mode, or 'leg' mode, or 'tail' mode, and so on. In the case of humans, an ancient genetic change causes the concentration of proteins to drop off to zero before the tail is formed. In some humans, however, this 'switch off' fails to occur, and the embryo goes on to grow a tail.

So, it is not a genetic mutation that causes tails, but rather a genetic mutation that suppresses tails in the first place.

Shadownought · 12-21-2002, 04:44 AM

Wow. That's... creepy-lookin'.

Interesting (but not surprising) that the anti-evolutionists over there don't have a thing to say about it

Marruk · 12-21-2002, 06:12 AM

I have a question regarding tails. In my art anatomy class we learned that occasionaly a person would be born with a tail and here in the U.S. we would usually perform surgery on the baby and remove it. I asked the proffessor if in other poorer countries do they just leave the tail on. He didn't know. So does anybody know if people grow to adulthood in our current times with tails? Just currious.

Straight Hate · 12-21-2002, 07:02 AM

Reading the outcome of this thread has been really quite fascinating. To further Marruk's question (in a small respect), are these tails functional, or are we seeing a 'throwback' to when our tails had already evolved into a useless appendage?

12-20-2002, 07:02 PM	#1
Straight Hate Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 4,171	Baby tail - 'reincarnation of Hindu god' My goodness!: <a href="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html" target="_blank">http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html</a> The article cites a genetic mutation for the occurence, but what sort of mutation would this situation require? Do humans have a 'repressed' tail-gene of sorts that can be activated, or is this a relatively unimportant instance of when things go 'blooey'? Yes, I am new to this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2002, 07:12 PM	#2
catman Banned Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 102	Yes I wonder why they are calling it a genetic mutation, too. They are probably using the term genrically w/o having any facts besides what they see. I am an auditory learner so I can't accept this visual terminology.

12-20-2002, 07:19 PM	#3
Bane Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 180	I was just thinking maybe god put his Mr. Happy on the wrong way. Boy that kid is going to be quite the ladies man I was thinking at first. Yes, we have a gene for a tail. I wonder why that would be? [ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

12-20-2002, 07:45 PM	#5
Bane Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 180	My mistake. I was thinking of the pseudogene for vitamin C. Or does that operate similarly to the tail atavism? Yes, I've seen the thread over at the Christian Forums. Nice and quiet over there. [ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

12-20-2002, 08:01 PM	#6
catman Banned Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 102	Evolution is fully supported by the bible--it does not support creationism--that crap is just lies. Adam means "first man"--men firsrt evolved from what? Pimordial soup--otherwise known as mud. And from there--genetically a single cell that was to evolve into a mammmal--he divided on his own until he started to become sometimes a she--therefore eve was form and they man and woman could coupulate--erg have sexual intercourse ergo producing offspings that even from the beginning of time tortured and killed one another for survival. It's all in the bible--go read the damn thing.

12-21-2002, 04:34 AM	#7
semyaza Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 104	It's not technically a genetic mutation that causes pseudo-tails. As others have pointed out, we all contain the necessary gene arrays to grow tails. If I undestand this correctly (feel free to correct me) - body structures (arms, legs etc) are initiated in the growing embryo by differing concentrations of 'Hedgehog' proteins controlled by the Hox gene array. Basically, a specific mix and concentration of proteins switches the cells into 'arm' mode, or 'leg' mode, or 'tail' mode, and so on. In the case of humans, an ancient genetic change causes the concentration of proteins to drop off to zero before the tail is formed. In some humans, however, this 'switch off' fails to occur, and the embryo goes on to grow a tail. So, it is not a genetic mutation that causes tails, but rather a genetic mutation that suppresses tails in the first place.

12-21-2002, 04:44 AM	#8
Shadownought Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: United States Posts: 209	Wow. That's... creepy-lookin'. Interesting (but not surprising) that the anti-evolutionists over there don't have a thing to say about it

12-21-2002, 06:12 AM	#9
Marruk Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 1,596	I have a question regarding tails. In my art anatomy class we learned that occasionaly a person would be born with a tail and here in the U.S. we would usually perform surgery on the baby and remove it. I asked the proffessor if in other poorer countries do they just leave the tail on. He didn't know. So does anybody know if people grow to adulthood in our current times with tails? Just currious.

12-21-2002, 07:02 AM	#10
Straight Hate Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 4,171	Reading the outcome of this thread has been really quite fascinating. To further Marruk's question (in a small respect), are these tails functional, or are we seeing a 'throwback' to when our tails had already evolved into a useless appendage?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.