Tale of Tails

[VCheng]

Yes but some changes could be possible like some laborer used hand tools for years their hand turned to strong finger nails could be thicken skin could change same for other animals but these changes are superficial only.

So you believe any changes might be due to the environment and not due to spontaneous mutations?

 

[Maj.Osmani]

So you believe any changes might be due to the environment and not due to spontaneous mutations?

Possible but mutations are not evolution. May be restricted to one animal only and please don't bring mutant Ninja here.

 

[VCheng]

Possible but mutations are not evolution. May be restricted to one animal only and please don't bring mutant Ninja here.

So you believe in spontaneous mutations then? Can the environment then act to select or not any results of such mutations?

 

[Maj.Osmani]

So you believe in spontaneous mutations then? Can the environment then act to select or not any results of such mutations?

As i told you it wont effect much and it happens due to several things.
I rest my case.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

As per Islamic teachings and Quran Adam A.S (Father of all humans) created as / in shape of human

So you have told us that you reject Darwin's theory because you consider Islamic teachings more accurate. But you haven't told why you consider the 'teachings' to be correct.

 

[VCheng]

As i told you it wont effect much and it happens due to several things.
I rest my case.

What are these "several things" you refer to? Do you think that mutations don't "effect much"?

 

[Maj.Osmani]

So you have told us that you reject Darwin's theory because you consider Islamic teachings more accurate. But you haven't told why you consider the 'teachings' to be correct.

I posted Dr. Zakir's video, he explain it very well Kindly check that.

What are these "several things" you refer to? Do you think that mutations don't "effect much"?

Sir i know you can argue for days and i don't have that much patience.

 

[CHN Bamboo]

The function of the tail is to keep the balance.But man has evolved and developed a prefect balance system.

Moreover,there is no need for human to jump like monkeys in order to find food.

Then tail became a useless organ,it only wasted energy.So it was eliminated.

Don't look down upon the energy that was wasted by keeping a tail.

In ancient times,human mortality rate was very high.So that gene of lactose intolerance eliminated very fast in 130~ generations.

Naturally,tail of human disappear.

However,human evolution is still not very complete(due to low mortality rate in modern times),some useless cells disappear while others not,such as man's papilla.

 

[VCheng]

Sir i know you can argue for days and i don't have that much patience.

There is no argument here to support your declared beliefs as you stated them above. Science remains observable, explainable and reproducible, regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs.

The function of the tail is to keep the balance.But man has evolved and developed a prefect balance system.

Moreover,there is no need for human to jump like monkeys in order to find food.

Then tail became a useless organ,it only wasted energy.So it was eliminated.

Don't look down upon the energy that was wasted by keeping a tail.

In ancient times,human mortality rate was very high.So that gene of lactose intolerance eliminated very fast in 130~ generations.

Naturally,tail of human disappear.

However,human evolution is still not very complete(due to low mortality rate in modern times),some useless cells disappear while others not,such as man's papilla.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5967742/the-science-of-human-tails




The science of human tails

Esther Inglis-Arkell
12/12/12 12:00pm
Filed to: MEDICINE
124.7K
881

Some hold with the theory that the development of an embryo shows the stages of evolution. In other words, what first develops is fishlike, and then like a small mammal, and then like a lemur or ape, and then something we would recognize as human. Very early embryos have what look like little gill slits in the beginning of their development. At about four weeks, embryos have a little tail. At around six to twelve weeks, the white blood cells dissolve the tail, and the fetus develops into an average, tail-less baby... most of the time, at least. Every now and again, we get a little extra bit of baby, in the form of a vestigial tail.


Not all things that look like tails - protrusions from the tailbone - actually are what doctors consider "true" tails. There are a number of growths or cysts that can form right on the tip of the tailbone. Some of the more unpleasant options are large tumors, elongation of the existing vertebrae, and even parasitic twin tissue. (A parasitic twin is not a fully-formed twin, but the product of another fertilized egg that somehow became fused with the embryo and never developed into a full human being.) True tails form when the white blood cells, for whatever reason, don't absorb all the tissue that formed during embryonic development. These babies carry the marks of humans earliest ancestors.

Because there are only between 20 and 30 cases of "true" vestigial tails since the late 1800s, there is some controversy about what such a tail contains. Some early accounts say that there are sometimes extra vertebrae in such tails. No modern tails have been found to have any bone tissue. They're mostly skin with fat, connective tissue, nerves, and muscle tissue. They can be just a stub, but some babies can be born with tails 13 centimeters long. The tails aren't strictly useless inert structures. Because they have muscle tissue inside, they can actually be twitched back and forth, or even contracted into curves. These days babies don't have their tails long enough to gain a lot of muscle control over them. Removing them is a simple operation, usually done not long after birth.


What remains are questions of why these tails grow in the first place. They're rare enough that researchers aren't left with many clues. Researchers have, for the most part, ruled out family history - which throws the science of the X-Files episode I got the top image from right out the window. The tails are associated with spina bifida, a dangerous condition in which the canals of the spinal cord don't entire close before birth, but they are often present without the disorder. And for some reason they're twice in common in males as they are in females. In the end, no one knows why some babies just develop tails. (Besides, gills are much more practical.)

Image: Popular Science Monthly

 

[CHN Bamboo]

There is no argument here to support your declared beliefs as you stated them above. Science remains observable, explainable and reproducible, regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs.



http://io9.gizmodo.com/5967742/the-science-of-human-tails




The science of human tails

Esther Inglis-Arkell
12/12/12 12:00pm
Filed to: MEDICINE
124.7K
881

Some hold with the theory that the development of an embryo shows the stages of evolution. In other words, what first develops is fishlike, and then like a small mammal, and then like a lemur or ape, and then something we would recognize as human. Very early embryos have what look like little gill slits in the beginning of their development. At about four weeks, embryos have a little tail. At around six to twelve weeks, the white blood cells dissolve the tail, and the fetus develops into an average, tail-less baby... most of the time, at least. Every now and again, we get a little extra bit of baby, in the form of a vestigial tail.


Not all things that look like tails - protrusions from the tailbone - actually are what doctors consider "true" tails. There are a number of growths or cysts that can form right on the tip of the tailbone. Some of the more unpleasant options are large tumors, elongation of the existing vertebrae, and even parasitic twin tissue. (A parasitic twin is not a fully-formed twin, but the product of another fertilized egg that somehow became fused with the embryo and never developed into a full human being.) True tails form when the white blood cells, for whatever reason, don't absorb all the tissue that formed during embryonic development. These babies carry the marks of humans earliest ancestors.

View attachment 311930
Because there are only between 20 and 30 cases of "true" vestigial tails since the late 1800s, there is some controversy about what such a tail contains. Some early accounts say that there are sometimes extra vertebrae in such tails. No modern tails have been found to have any bone tissue. They're mostly skin with fat, connective tissue, nerves, and muscle tissue. They can be just a stub, but some babies can be born with tails 13 centimeters long. The tails aren't strictly useless inert structures. Because they have muscle tissue inside, they can actually be twitched back and forth, or even contracted into curves. These days babies don't have their tails long enough to gain a lot of muscle control over them. Removing them is a simple operation, usually done not long after birth.


What remains are questions of why these tails grow in the first place. They're rare enough that researchers aren't left with many clues. Researchers have, for the most part, ruled out family history - which throws the science of the X-Files episode I got the top image from right out the window. The tails are associated with spina bifida, a dangerous condition in which the canals of the spinal cord don't entire close before birth, but they are often present without the disorder. And for some reason they're twice in common in males as they are in females. In the end, no one knows why some babies just develop tails. (Besides, gills are much more practical.)

Image: Popular Science Monthly

Atavism?In common with cancer.

 

[VCheng]

Atavism?

Possibly. Or newer mutations?

 

[CHN Bamboo]

Or newer mutations?

Maybe,after all gene mutation is undirectional.
Even if defective gene that is eliminated can appear again.

 

[Zibago]

Its about Mr. Pandit's missing tail.

You also had one in the womb

 

[Arsalan]

What an interesting (and revealing) comment!

Inst it,, surely more then being related to the apes
I will take this over chachu ape any day!!

Do ALL Muslims reject Darwin's theory, or only some of them do so?

Well it is not about rejecting or accepting it. There is something told is Islam about Hazrat Adam and we do believe in it. Just like every other religion believe in certain things.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

I posted Dr. Zakir's video, he explain it very well Kindly check that.

He merely tries to refute the Theory of Evolution. Lets accept that it is not true for a moment.
What I am interested in knowing is how YOU consider the whatever YOU believe to be more accurate.

Coming to the video, Mr. Zakir mentions that Natural Evolution is scientifically classified as a theory, not a fact.
This is a good overview to the classifications
https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

Simply a theory is the best possible explanation to a given situation. It must incorporate all available evidences, must not be disproven or have any known exception. Additionally, it must be accepted by a greater body of scientists. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity which among other things predicted such phenomena
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-einsteins-theory-of-relativity-a6867661.html

BTW What are Quranic teachings classified as?

Mr. Zakir also mentions how several scientists, Nobel prize winners at that; disagree with said ToE. How many do you think agree that all animals were created from water and human life began with the creation of Adam and eVe?