Coming soon: our next stage, Homo evolutus.

[Drew_Ali]

Now notice the pelvic area of these creatures with tails........

They have other systems that establish the "pelvic floor"............

The "spine that looks like a little tail" may look like a little tail......

To the untrained eye........

However

The "spine that looks like a little tail" is far from a tail............

And was created to anchor the pelvic floor.................

 

[whar]

Notice how almost all the people with "trained" eyes, biologists, paleontologist, and anthropoligist, agree with me? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges )

Notice how the "Pelvic Floor" is muscle tissue and does not appear in the picture. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelvic_floor )

Notice how the tailbones on the apes are in the exact spot that the tails of the monkeys are?

Wow its almost like all this evidence agrees with me.

 

[Drew_Ali]

No, the evidence agrees with me............

Notice that I said an anchor for the pelvic floor...............

The monkeys don't need an anchor because their pelvic floors are contained directly in the pelvis..........

*The Gods favor me*

 

[Drew_Ali]

@whar.....

BTW

I am an anthropologist..............

And I do not agree with you...............

 

[whar]

Curious that an anthropologist does not know that the pelvic floor exists in Monkeys
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21567260

So squirrel monkeys appear to have pelvic floors made up of levator ani, coccygeus, and connective tissue just like humans. Further these muscles attach to their tail bone because they are the muscles to move the tail!

 

[Drew_Ali]

I never said that monkeys did not have pelvic floors.......

No, the evidence agrees with me............

Notice that I said an anchor for the pelvic floor...............

The monkeys don't need an anchor because their pelvic floors are contained directly in the pelvis..........



*The Gods favor me*

 

[whar]

And I said their Pelvic floor attaches to the tailbone which you denied with this quote "their pelvic floors are contained directly in the pelvis". The monkeys pelvic floor anchors on the tail. The muscle are in fact the muscle that move the tail.

In humans the muscles also anchor on the tailbone.

 

[Drew_Ali]

LOL......

Such a substantial claim...........

With no evidence..........

 

[whar]

There is a direct correlation between how bad you lose a debate and the number of images you use.

The image explosion usually corresponds to you getting backwards on a factual issue like the genus=specie fiasco from the previous thread we posted in or in this case the pelvic floor muscles not being similarly attached in apes and monkeys.

By the way what claim are you referencing?

The coccyx is vestigial.

Apes share a common ancestor with monkeys.

Ape lost their tail through the evolutionary process.

Humans are apes.

 

[Drew_Ali]

There is a correlation to the amounts of gifs I use and ether that is dropped................

According to the definition:

Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.

The human coccyx is not vestigial......

I have illustrated its usefulness / utility........

And you failed to show how it was useful in an earlier stage of the individual (humans)..........

 

[Drew_Ali]

Lol....

I have yet to lose a debate here....

 

[whar]

"Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function."

The bold part contradicts any argument made to its use. A vestigial organ may still have some utility.

""Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function."

In a preceding evolutionary form (Aegyptopithecus) it was a tail. This tail was useful.

 

[Bodhi]

First you say..

What your evolutionary science will not reveal is that the closest relative to humans in the animal kingdom is the pig........

Then you say..

[pigs] are sometimes called "horizontal humans". Although they are more distantly related to us than, for example, the great apes

As far as pigs and organs, the only reason scientists even considered them as viable candidates for transplants to begin with is because:

pigs are about the right size, and so are their organs. A 75kg pig has the same-sized heart as a 75kg human

On top of that, as mentioned earlier, a transplant could only happen if the pig were to be genetically modified:

[The success of pig-human transplants] has very little to do with whether there's a two per cent or 20 per cent difference in the genome sequence — if those numbers actually meant anything anyway — the main barrier is caused by just one gene," says Moran.

That gene is called galactose-alpha-1,3,galactotransferase — gal-transferase for short . All mammals except humans and higher apes have a working version of gal-transferase, which coats cells with an antigen (a molecule that our immune system reacts to). This means if pig tissue is transplanted into humans our immune system will mount a drastic rejection response as our bodies detect the antigen and attack it.

Scientists have come up with a solution to stop tissue rejection: genetically modifying the pigs by eliminating the gal-transferase gene. A few more human genes are also added to the pigs to make the pig tissue even more acceptable to our immune system.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm

Sure "blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful,"when it comes to humans and swine, but it is ok to continue comparing humans and apes???????????

That's because the similarities between humans and the rest of the great apes is not coincidence nor a blanket statement.

Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognise [sic] any similarity at all.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm

So...

If we compare really closely related species, like a human and chimpanzee, we can still see the similarity between these rapidly changing sequences. If you move further away to the more distantly related pig, so many changes in the DNA will have occurred that it is no longer possible to recognise that the sequences were ever similar.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm

 

[Drew_Ali]

"Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function."

The bold part contradicts any argument made to its use. A vestigial organ may still have some utility.

""Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function."

The coccyx remains because it serves its primary purpose.......

To provide an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.......

In a preceding evolutionary form (Aegyptopithecus) it was a tail. This tail was useful.

Humans evoled from apes

Apes do not possess a tail, unlike most monkeys. Monkeys are more likely to be in trees and use their tails for balance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

 

[Drew_Ali]

the only reason scientists even considered them as viable candidates for transplants to begin with is because:

On top of that, as mentioned earlier, a transplant could only happen if the pig were to be genetically modified:

Orly?.?.?

"As pig insulin differs from human insulin by only one amino acid, and pig insulin was administered successfully for the treatment of diabetic patients for decades until recombinant human insulin became available

Remarkably, in 1838 the first corneal xenotransplantation (from a pig) was performed in a patient, whereas the first corneal allograft (human-to-human) was not carried out until more than 65 years later, in 1905."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246856/

But yet......

When it comes to the swine:

Blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."

Again if we are so "remarkably" close to chimps and apes.........

Why is the swine known as "horizontal human"............

 

[whar]

Humans are currently an ape.

The species Humans evolved from would also be classified an ape.

The ape line evolved from primates.

These primates had tails but the ape line lost this tail.

The tail was reduced to a vestigial feature the coccyx.

All apes share this vestigial feature.

If a structure was vestigial in our ancestor it would remain vestigial in us. (If it remained at all)

 

[Drew_Ali]

If a structure was vestigial in our ancestor it would remain vestigial in us. (If it remained at all)

Exactly...........

So your theory suggests that the tail, skipped a generation.............

i.e. Humans evolved from primates to apes....... Apes to humans............

However.......

During all this evolution and adaptation.........

Humans continue vestiages from muti-species adaptation.........

Even though there is absolutely no need for vestigiality to continue from primates to apes...........

Let alone apes to humans...........

It is a totally unnecessary trait...........

Lost to evolution?.?.?.?

or

A flawed 17th century concept??????

 

[Drew_Ali]

Humans are Homo sapiens. They never had a functioning tail.

Then the coccyx does not meet the definition of a vestigial structure................

Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.

^^^ So this definition, in other words, is:

A degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no [usefulness or purpose], but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a[nother] useful function.

Now.....

What your evolutionary science will not reveal is that the closest relative to humans in the animal kingdom is the pig........

Much is made about the closeness of chimps and humans.....

However, no organ transplants between the two has been successful.......

Opposed to the swine......

Which is used in organ transplants, skin grafts, and testing on things like bullet and shrapnel damage in humans......

Cloned Pigs Modified for Use in Human Transplants
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0103_020103TVclonedpig.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/transplants/framesource_pig.html

In other words......

If you "evolved" from any other creature, it is the swine..............

Which is why......

Leviticus 11:7 - 11:8

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.

All praise is due to Allah..............

BUMP

 

[whar]

Since the tail was lost to all apes where is it 'skipping' a generation?

Some vestigial forms do go on to disappear however they can also continue. Regardless if a trait has diminished use or even no use it simply can not disappear immediately. Evolution is slow and incremental. The tail is a trait apes dropped about 25mya but structures that support the tail still remain in all apes.

 

[Drew_Ali]

Nonsense..........

The human coccyx was created to anchor the pelvic floor...........