Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Former BioLogos head Karl Giberson is doubling down on the “humans with tails” thesis

arroba Email

At (well, where else?—Daily Beast): For some reason, he believe that humans with “tails” prove Darwin right.

My presentation—crafted with consideration of my non-specialist audience—was dismissed as a “bunch of pictures—characters from The Simpsons (a cartoon of Homer evolving); a baby with a tail, webbed feet, a strange-looking whale creature with legs (ambulecetus, a well-established and very significant transitional fossil connecting sea mammals to their terrestrial ancestors); and a pretty picture taken at [my] vacation home.” In contrast, my debate partner’s presentation was “sleek, professional, and chock-full of evidence and data.” Like the sweat on Nixon’s brow, my homey images and simple questions apparently destroyed my argument.

You wonder , at times, has the guy ever lived with animals that have actual tails (as opposed to a minor genetic defect)?

Cats and squirrels use their tails to communicate, of course, so at any given time here in Ottawa, you could see several cat and squirrel tails thumping away vigorously on either side of a window, with squirrels and a bag of peanuts on the outside and aggrieved cats on the inside.

(We like it peaceful here, if tense).

You know, I couldn’t think what Giberson’s arguments reminded me of, then suddenly I remembered: Freak shows on the Midway in small Canadian towns. You know, Penguin Boy, Bearded Lady, etc.

The medical profession finally succeeded in getting them discredited. They were not evidence of any type of evolution, rather of untreated (but non-lethal) medical disorders. We can see the same things today, unfortunately, in countries without general access to medical care. With luck, Giberson will run out of examples in his own lifetime. Sure hope so.

Note: Is there some reason Giberson uses an image of once-US vice Prez contender Sarah Palin to illustrate this series? Does he claim she has a tail? Otherwise, what exactly is his point? It’s hard to imagine people  paying attention to this sort of thing today, but … takes all sorts.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

People don’t have tails!
They do if you use Photoshop! Mung
People don't have tails! thats just the point. nOw we are a copy of a animal ape body. We therefore mlikely have potential for a tail just as potential for good nails. people are the only beings that actually rent another beings body. All other creatures are in their own kind of body. only we are without our own. This because our identity is a God image identity. I have no problem with tail bones in people. its not evidence for common descent but only evidence of common design. we are designed like a ape. surely this is obvious. so why should god hold the tail? Robert Byers
Is there some reason Giberson uses an image of once-US vice Prez contender Sarah Palin to illustrate this series? Does he claim she has a tail?
Not a tails. Horns. Mung
The picture of a baby with a tail that Giberson used was confirmed to be digitally manipulated, i.e. a fake. Unfortunately, defending evolution with faked images is a venerable tradition going back at least to Haeckel. Jehu
What alleged ancestor of humans had a tail? How far back do we have to go? Are there chimps and other tail-less apes that are born with tails? Joe
Counterpoint to ambulocetus being a whale ancestor: http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/ambulocetus.php From the illustrations used, I'd say it has more in common with crocodiles or alligators than with whales. Barb
For a good example of Darwinian pseudoscience, read Karl Giberson's defence of human "tails". For an excellent evidence-based rebuttal, with a critique of the negative effects of Darwinian medicine (as it applies to this issue), read: Another Icon of Evolution: The Darwinian Myth of Human "Tails", by Casey Luskin, Evolution News & Views, May 22, 2014. http://www.discovery.org/a/23041 David Tyler

Leave a Reply