It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atavism in humans: proof for evolution?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Atavism or "atavistic" qualities are said to be throw-backs in evolution that remind us of a species' earlier ancestors.
Atavism thus includes tails in humans, unhooved feet in horses, or limbs on dolphins and whales. All these forms of atavism have apparently been documented and studied.
But, why does the "human tail" when grown long not look like a hairy monkey's tail?
I'd be interested in input on what atavism really tells us.
en.wikipedia.org...
undeniably-atheist.blogspot.com...



[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Maybe its because humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that had a shorter tail.

maybe you should have used wiki first?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
We studied embryp development and the human embryp goes through several stages...at first we look like a tadpole with gills, webbed fingers, then we have a tail and then we finish up to be human...so it looks as though we go through fish stage to mammal



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 

Alright, point taken, but then how far back must one go for atavism, if it even precedes monkeys?
By the way, I'm searching pics, but adult tails in humans grew quite long and spindly before surgery conspired to remove them, and "standardize"
the human form.

(Help with any pics or docs is much appreciated.)



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 

That's one congenital form of atavism in the womb (which is still so worrying that Creationists tend to dismiss the photos and lingo involved).
Just because early develpment looks lizard-like, or fish-like doesn't prove it actually is.
However, adult atavism is much harder to dismiss.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 

The thing about atavism that perplexes me is that any trait could be "atavism" (throw-back) or forward evolving? And then how do we differentiate "deformity" from atavism? What about character traits like anxiety or addiction, are they atavistic? Or traits like fat-storage and obesity?
During times of famine the ability to immediately store fat was vital. So maybe being fat is atavistic?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I don't think it is much different than when someone is born with an extra toe or finger. The body and our genetic makeup are so complex, millions of things can go wrong. The spinal cord and vertabrae make up an elongated shape on their own. Should the body malfuntion and continue to develop bone and vertabrate connections to the end of the spinal cord, it would resemble a tail. Consequently, the epidermis would protect this bone and structure as a natural defense.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
didnt you guys state that evolution takes million of years so its simply not possible to devolve millions of years right? or that these avatisms are simply just deformities or mutations because the body isnt developing right due to improper health because humans dont treat there body approprietly so my big toe is further from my other toes does that make me a monkey no it means my genetics are carried over from someone else in my familys history. not to mention that evolution can be disproven like this hypothetically if my genetics were similar to another species not connected in the evolutionary chain what would that mean?
lets say i have a .2 similarity in dna to an armadillo what exactly does that mean it means that me and an armadillo share a same genetic trait whether its pores or brain functions now if im similar to an armadillo in dna does that mean we evolved frin armadillo to humans no it means that structures such as pores carry a dna equivalent when matched with physical structure. in other words when i have the same structure in pores as a monkey it isnt because we evolved its because i have the same pore structure as a monkey if you get what im saying.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 

So you seem to argue that "atavism" is just deformity and not a throw-back at all?
Fair enough, however I'd love to see what the scientists say who've defined "atavism".



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradoxos
didnt you guys state that evolution takes million of years so its simply not possible to devolve millions of years right? or that these avatisms are simply just deformities or mutations because the body isnt developing right due to improper health because humans dont treat there body approprietly so my big toe is further from my other toes does that make me a monkey no it means my genetics are carried over from someone else in my familys history. not to mention that evolution can be disproven like this hypothetically if my genetics were similar to another species not connected in the evolutionary chain what would that mean?
lets say i have a .2 similarity in dna to an armadillo what exactly does that mean it means that me and an armadillo share a same genetic trait whether its pores or brain functions now if im similar to an armadillo in dna does that mean we evolved frin armadillo to humans no it means that structures such as pores carry a dna equivalent when matched with physical structure. in other words when i have the same structure in pores as a monkey it isnt because we evolved its because i have the same pore structure as a monkey if you get what im saying.

You're saying we didn't evolve from a common ancestor, but instead have the same pore structure as a common ancestor?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by lambs to lions
 

So you seem to argue that "atavism" is just deformity and not a throw-back at all?
Fair enough, however I'd love to see what the scientists say who've defined "atavism".


You could argue it, but it's rather weak because we have ancestral evidence that these aren't just deformities, but that these used to be the norm.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

no it means my genetics are carried over from someone else in my familys history
reply to post by Paradoxos
 

I hear you, but if you say that it might be the result of past family genetics then you're saying the same as atavism - they just go very far back in genetic history (must be my father's side - oof, oof :lol
.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


im saying that its more than likely means we didnt evolve at all but may have the some of the same physical structure which means the same dna structure what comes first the physical structure or the blood?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


but there is a limit on how far back the genetics can reach for family traits. isnt there some traits get eliminated because they are not present in the mom and dad that were present in their grandparents and so on so forth.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradoxos
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


im saying that its more than likely means we didnt evolve at all but may have the some of the same physical structure which means the same dna structure what comes first the physical structure or the blood?

Here's a nice paper on the evolution of the blood cell as your question is illogical, you might like it.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[edit on 16-4-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


you think blood cells evolved thats basically stating that the dna changed and we came from a later species such as a monkey but you can see its theory. pure speculation when you have supposedly multiple species that have different attributes found in humans it just means that we have multiple structures that can be found in these animals. they are similar in structure and thats all that that means it doesnt mean we evolved they hold these structures lets say lymphocytes and they would be close to our lymphcells in physical structure and thus would hold the same dna structure in the double helix.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Paradoxos]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradoxos
 

Good point, and I don't think I can answer it.
Culturally I suppose the cut-off is when we became another "species" of mammal/monkey/primate.
Scientifically Chimp, Bonobo etc. society is very like ours.
As long as we're human and our ancestors intermixed with other races, even if it was generations ago, a child can pop out that is racially atypical ie. a white family might get a black child and vice-versa.
I don't know when ancestry becomes ineffective. Possibly never.



[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradoxos
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


you think blood cells evolved thats basically stating that the dna changed and we came from a later species such as a monkey but you can see its theory. pure speculation when you have supposedly multiple species that have different attributes found in humans it just means that we have multiple structures that can be found in these animals. they are similar in structure and thats all that that means it doesnt mean we evolved they hold these structures lets say lymphocytes and they would be close to our lymphcells in physical structure and thus would hold the same dna structure in the double helix.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Paradoxos]

DNA does change.
Yes, evolution is a theory, pure speculation it is not.
I don't understand why you think having the same traits in different animals means DNA can't change.
If DNA couldn't change we would all be the same..



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Paradoxos
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


you think blood cells evolved thats basically stating that the dna changed and we came from a later species such as a monkey but you can see its theory. pure speculation when you have supposedly multiple species that have different attributes found in humans it just means that we have multiple structures that can be found in these animals. they are similar in structure and thats all that that means it doesnt mean we evolved they hold these structures lets say lymphocytes and they would be close to our lymphcells in physical structure and thus would hold the same dna structure in the double helix.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Paradoxos]

DNA does change.
Yes, evolution is a theory, pure speculation it is not.
I don't understand why you think having the same traits in different animals means DNA can't change.
If DNA couldn't change we would all be the same..

genetics can only go back so far genetics are passed down through parent to offspring if my eyes are brown do they randomly one day turn green. no they do not how does one evolve if the genetic traits are only passed down so far how would ones tail disappear. they have sex with there own species you dont hear about chimpanzeez making lpve to orrangutangs do you so exactly how are they supposed to get a shorter tail if genteics are passed down from the parent to the offspring.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradoxos

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Paradoxos
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


you think blood cells evolved thats basically stating that the dna changed and we came from a later species such as a monkey but you can see its theory. pure speculation when you have supposedly multiple species that have different attributes found in humans it just means that we have multiple structures that can be found in these animals. they are similar in structure and thats all that that means it doesnt mean we evolved they hold these structures lets say lymphocytes and they would be close to our lymphcells in physical structure and thus would hold the same dna structure in the double helix.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Paradoxos]

DNA does change.
Yes, evolution is a theory, pure speculation it is not.
I don't understand why you think having the same traits in different animals means DNA can't change.
If DNA couldn't change we would all be the same..

genetics can only go back so far genetics are passed down through parent to offspring if my eyes are brown do they randomly one day turn green. no they do not how does one evolve if the genetic traits are only passed down so far how would ones tail disappear. they have sex with there own species you dont hear about chimpanzeez making lpve to orrangutangs do you so exactly how are they supposed to get a shorter tail if genteics are passed down from the parent to the offspring.

Genes for existing phenotypical structures are in our DNA, just not activated




[edit on 16-4-2010 by hippomchippo]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join