Atavisms & Modern Birds, Undeniable Proof Of Evolution???

www.talkorigins.org...

ATAVISMS

Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

Is this proof that humans have gone through different stages of evolution??? This picture is of a child, that has been reported to have an atavism. As you know according to evolution, humans long ago would have had much more hair covering there bodies, is this the reappearence of such a trait???

static.howstuffworks.com...

Dolphins have been born with four fins, the likes of which hasn't been seen in sea animals for millions of years

On October 28, 2006, Japanese fishermen captured a four-finned dolphin off the coast of western Japan, and donated the whale to the Taiji Whaling Museum where it is currently being studied. This bottlenose dolphin has an extra set of hindlimbs, two well-formed palm-sized flippers that move and flap like the normal fore-flippers (see Figure 2.2.2). As with other atavistic structures, these limbs are likely the result of a rare mutation that allows an underlying, yet cryptic, developmental pathway to become reactivated. These limbs are prima facie evidence of the dolphin's four-limbed ancestry, as predicted from the common ancestry of dolphins and other land-dwelling mammals.

TRUE HUMAN TAILS

There are humans who have been born with tails, did humans at one point in history have tails???

Primarily due to intense medical interest, humans are one of the best characterized species and many developmental anomalies are known. There are several human atavisms that reflect our common genetic heritage with other mammals. One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage", and "vestigial tail"). 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). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations.

The existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails. Gish claims these structures are not true tails for several reasons: (1) they lack vertebrae, (2) they are not inherited, and (3) the resemblance to tails is "highly superficial" and simply an "anomalous malformation". Menton further claims that (4) all true tails have muscles and can move, whereas human tails cannot. Each of these arguments are factually false, as explained above and as well-documented in the medical literature. Vertebrae and cartilage have occasionally been found in human tails. However, contrary to the claims of Gish, Menton, and ReMine, vertebrae are not a requirement for tails. M. sylvanus is a prime example of a primate whose fleshy tail lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23). Several cases are known where human tails have been inherited. Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them. Inheritance of the tail structure per se is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans. The "resemblance" to non-human tails is far from superficial, since all true human tails are complex structures composed of symmetrical layers of voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs, and they can indeed move and contract.

Photos of "True Human Tails"
www.creation-vs-evolution.us...
Many more can be found here images.google.com...


DINOSAURS & BIRDS

From what I know to be fact, dinosaur traits such as teeth, and the potential for a long tail can all be found in an unborn bird such as the chicken. A little tweaking here and there of the birds genome, and we can give birth to something that looks exactly like what a dinosaur would have looked like millions of years ago

www.ngc2632.com...

Hans Larsson, a palaeontologist at McGill University in Canada, conducted an experiment in November 2007 into the evolution from dinosaurs’ long tails into birds’ short tails more than 150 million years ago.

Looking at a two-day-old chicken embryo, he made an unexpected discovery. Expecting to see between four and eight vertebrae present in the developing spine, his microscope instead picked out 16 vertebrae — effectively a reptilian tail. As the embryo developed, the “tail” became shorter and shorter, until the young bird hatched with only five vertebrae.

Larsson says of the significance of the find: “For about 150 million years, this kind of a tail has never existed in birds. But they have always carried it deep inside their embryology.” So, the blueprint for a dinosaur remained locked inside the modern-day bird.

If birds retained a dormant tail imprint, did they still retain a memory of dinosaur teeth?

In 2005, Matt Harris and John Fallon, developmental biologists at the University of Wisconsin, noticed something strange while researching mutant chickens. Harris says: “Looking at an embryonic 14-day-old head, I came across the beak and these structures that were not supposed to be there.”

Could they really be teeth? Peeling away the beak in this tiny, mutant bird, the academics revealed sabreshaped formations almost identical to embryonic alligator teeth.

Next, Harris and Fallon attempted to trigger the formation of teeth in a normal chicken, by injecting the embryo with a virus designed to “turn on” the relevant gene. It was a long shot. “Making a tooth is complex,” says Harris. “So the idea of turning on one gene that might be able to do this in an animal that hasn’t made teeth in over 70 million years was somewhat of a stretch.”

Examining the growing embryo two weeks later, he called colleagues to look at what had happened. “You could see very clearly paired structures on the lower jaw. And so, a normal chicken can actually grow teeth.” This was unexpected. Furthermore, the teeth had the same curved shape as dinosaur
fangs.

“If we want to see a dinosaur in our lifetime, we need to start with a bird and work backwards,” says Horner. “As long as birds exist, we have the ability to reach back to dinosaurs.”

In the 1990s, scientists discovered dinosaurs in China buried in a fine ash. They were preserved in remarkable detail and bird-like features, including claws and feathers, were recognizable. Horner believes that a modern bird’s DNA contains a genetic memory that could be “switched on” again, resurrecting long-dormant dinosaur traits.

To make such a creature, he would start with the genome (the whole hereditary information encoded in the DNA) of an emu. “Emus have all the features we need in order to make a Velociraptor-sized dinosaur,” he says. “If I were to make a dinosaur, that is where I’d start.”

That is a dinosaur foot to me, by the way thats the foot of the modern bird Emu


What more proof do you really need to come to the conclusion that evolution is indeed a fact???

Very nice stuff Alex!

I hadn't heard of the 4 finned dolphin before.

If they where just fleshy useless appendages you would have to say it was a deformity ... considering they function the same as the fore flippers it points strongly to an evolutionary throw back.

I wonder if creationists put this in the micro-evolution basket ...

Friends and I have discussed the Emu=Raptor idea before ...

We actually considered the Cassowary for the example ... second largest flightless bird on the planet ... The Cassowary is omnivorous and highly aggressive if provoked

The 2004 edition of the Guinness World Records lists the cassowary as the world's most dangerous bird. Normally cassowaries are very shy but when disturbed can lash out dangerously with their powerful legs. During World War II American and Australian troops stationed in New Guinea were warned to steer clear of the birds. They are capable of inflicting fatal injuries to an adult human. Usually, attacks are the result of provocation. Wounded or cornered birds are particularly dangerous. Cassowaries, deftly using their surroundings to conceal their movements, have been known to out-flank organized groups of human predators. Cassowaries are considered to be one of the most dangerous animals to keep in zoos, based on the frequency and severity of injuries incurred by zookeepers

Although we don't really know how the Raptors behaved ... the Cassowary behaviour is certainly close to the theorised behaviour of the Raptor.

Physically, however, the resemblance is very strong.

Embryonic chickens with teeth and extra vertebrae and human tails also point strongly to evolutionary throw backs.

Hard to deny, I would say.

The hairy child is just plain sad ... that little guy looks miserable

Again, more evidence presented to show the legitimacy of evolution.

Thank you Horza

I'm surprised actually, I thought this thread would have recieved much more attention than it has, considering all the undeniable evidence I dug up supporting evolution. It seems creationists who say evolution has no evidence, have no way to explain this away lol

I wonder if creationists put this in the micro-evolution basket ...

I really don't see how they would be able to put this in the same category as micro-evolution. As

Friends and I have discussed the Emu=Raptor idea before ...

Yeah, I first heard of this idea on the history channel. They had a whole episode dedicated to this idea, of turning an Emu into a dino, and trying to reactivate dormant genes in the chicken. It was really astounding, and incredible to watch.

Embryonic chickens with teeth and extra vertebrae and human tails also point strongly to evolutionary throw backs.

Hard to deny, I would say.

The hairy child is just plain sad ... that little guy looks miserable

Again, more evidence presented to show the legitimacy of evolution.

VERY hard to deny...

reply to post by AlexG141989

I'm surprised actually, I thought this thread would have recieved much more attention than it has, considering all the undeniable evidence I dug up supporting evolution.

Exactly the reason they haven't shown up. But I'm sure somone (won't mention any names this time) will show up and rally the creationist troops for yet another melee. You can expect the same old arguments that no one has actually witnessed one species turning into another. BTW, this argument seems so bunk to me as we don't live for millions of years to be able to test it out. Therefore, we use the evidence available to us to come to a logical conclusion. Eventually, DNA evidence will make this argument moot as we will be able to turn one species into another, showing that it is a possibility.

In the meantime, here's a couple of good links supporting evolution.

Fins to Limbs

Scientists say the find will help shed light on how early animals evolved limbs from fins. This crucial adaptation enabled Earth's animal life to crawl from water to land.

The ancient bone shares features with primitive fish fins, but also has characteristics of a true limb bone. It bridges the gap between fish and amphibian.

A Fin is a Limb is a Wing

The second link is by far the best article I've ever read on DNA and evolution.

Exactly the reason they haven't shown up. But I'm sure somone (won't mention any names this time) will show up and rally the creationist troops for yet another melee. You can expect the same old arguments that no one has actually witnessed one species turning into another. BTW, this argument seems so bunk to me as we don't live for millions of years to be able to test it out. Therefore, we use the evidence available to us to come to a logical conclusion. Eventually, DNA evidence will make this argument moot as we will be able to turn one species into another, showing that it is a possibility.

Yeah, I've been through that argument before, usually creationists try to discredit evolution yet hardly know anything about it.

Here is some more info on the chicken dinosaur

www.mailonsunday.co.uk...

‘The technology is advancing so fast, in sequencing genes and in putting genes back together, and in manufacturing long stretches of DNA.’

Larsson now believes that in a hundred years or so, geneticists could retro-engineer animals that appear identical to Mesozoic dinosaurs.

‘Why can’t we take all the genetics, just change it around a little bit, and produce a Tyrannosaurus Rex, or something that looks like one?’ he asks.


‘I think that kind of scenario is quite possible. Maybe sooner than we think.’

Fallon agrees, saying: ‘As we learn more, we’ll be able to do it.


'The genetic knowledge is in the bird.’

For his part, Horner imagines creating the first example.


‘I have to admit that I’ve certainly imagined walking up on a stage to give a talk, and having a little dino chicken walk up behind me,’ he says.


‘That would be kind of cool.

‘There is now nothing to stop us bringing back dinosaurs but ourselves.


'People who don’t believe it don’t know much about evolution.’

Pausing for a second, he adds: ‘Whether it is a good idea or not is another question...’

[edit on 17-8-2008 by AlexG141989]

Better keep 'em caged up... non-avian dinos could very likely compete sucessfully in tropical/warm temperate climates.

IMO, though, there is so little that creationism is capable explaining without turning to that supernatural that it shouldn't even be seriously debated. Scientists should just ignore it.

heres a question, if human ¨tails¨ are a throw back from earlier genetic information, why dont they show up on our ¨ancestor´s¨ bones like lucy for example?

All I have to say on this matter is this: Evolutionists follow evolution because they say it can be and has been proven. If that is the case why keep coming up with more and more "support" for your case? If evolution has undeniable proof behind it that wouldn't be necessary.

Originally posted by Lannock
All I have to say on this matter is this: Evolutionists follow evolution because they say it can be and has been proven. If that is the case why keep coming up with more and more "support" for your case? If evolution has undeniable proof behind it that wouldn't be necessary.

Evolution doesnt exactly have *undeniable* proof...I dont like the word undeniable...we CAN see evolution at work,but mechanisms,certain lineage of species past and present..missing links...we still need to find alot of...but we already have thousands of evidence back it up and none to disprove evolution as a natural phenomena,alot of the mechanisms behind it are still coming to light imo...but as for the natural process of evolution...yes thats pretty much fact.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Lethil]

It is so easy to discard this so called proof by simply pointing out that a dolphin with 4 fins is still a dolphin. Proof of evolution would be any creature that is in transition from one kind to another and not a complete creature in its own right. most obvious for us would be a transition from the primates to humans. a dumb chimp didn't one day give birth to a smooth skinned intelligent human did it.

evolution is science fiction that takes astonishing arrogance, ignorance and blind faith in order to believe. basically a relatively modern religion. though a pretty lame one as it doesn't/can't address the big questions of how did we get here, why are we here and what is the purpose of life. a pretty empty, meaningless existance its practitioners must lead.

Originally posted by miriam0566
heres a question, if human ¨tails¨ are a throw back from earlier genetic information, why dont they show up on our ¨ancestor´s¨ bones like lucy for example?

here is a link that should explain that

www.dimaggio.org...

that link is amazing, it has so much information. Theres even a monkey that walks upright like humans

ehhh, it isn't really lookin good for the evolution deniers lol, and many many more photos of true human tails

[edit on 18-8-2008 by AlexG141989]

Originally posted by AlexG141989
here is a link that should explain that

www.dimaggio.org...

that link is amazing, it has so much information. Theres even a monkey that walks upright like humans

ehhh, it isn't really lookin good for the evolution deniers lol, and many many more photos of true human tails

but it didnt explain it.

lucy didnt have a tail, so how is this a genetic throwback if its not in our ancestors?

Hi Miriam,

The tail is a evolutionary throw back to the common ancestor of the common ancestor of Chimpanzee and Human (which includes Homo and Australopithecus). Most likely candidate is a little fellow like this:

Our great + lots and lots of greats, grandparent

Our primate ancestors go way way back to before Australopithecus was around.

There was probably a few friends of Lucy walking around with vestigial tails as well.

An important point that can be missed in Alex's OP is that the vestigial tail cannot be considered just a freak mutation.

There are several cases of the vestigial tail being inherited through a family line.

Mutations occur in MANY shapes and sizes.
Even commonly!
Did Lucy share our ancestry?
Darwinism-watch
Problems with Lucy's skull
Missing links and how evolutionists lie using bones


'Evolutionary' stages of skulls
Australopithecus
Modern Bonobo;

The skulls that demolish Darwin< Please look at all the chapters.

reply to post by Horza


im sorry, i just dont see it. if the creature you showed me is all our common ancestor, then why dont we have children being born with snouts, or claws, marsupial hind legs? why is this phenomenon limited to tails?

why is the tail non functioning? fine, there are tails that have a few bones in them and all but they still are not functioning. even if you can move it slighty, that doesnt imply functionality. the article kind of ignores that.

To me the funniest thing about evolution is the critter -> ape / man thing.

Evolutionist: "Creationists are idiots. They keep saying that we are saying that apes evolved into man when that is definitely not so. Man and ape evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR, NOT an APE."

Me: "It's an ancestor of an ape. It is hairy. It looks like an ape. IT IS AN APE. How can you say something is not ape when it has ALL the characteristics of an ape? Think about it scientifically . Obviously my point is that evolutionists gripe about getting the common ancestor thing wrong is seriously flawed."