Born with a tail?

[Purple Haze]

Yeah, that's what I heard on Paul Harvey today, a kid was born in India with a four inch tail. His parents opted not to remove it because they believe he's a royal messenger from the Gods, and apparently so do a lot of other people. They're paying big bucks for a visit with the little tailed one.

Someone I know that works for a hospital told me that some children are actually born with a tail, and they're removed without mention.

 

[Cheyenne]

Someone I know that works for a hospital told me that some children are actually born with a tail, and they're removed without mention.

I've heard the same, but I think it is one of those urban legends.

However, it would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

 

[lavender]

 

[Laurel]

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html

Are Some Human Babies Actually Born With A Tail?

At birth some human babies have a short “tail-like” growth called a “caudal appendage;’ located near the inferior end of the spinal column. While documenting the occurrence of such caudal appendages, Ledley stated the evolutionists’ bold claim about the supposed relationship of the caudal appendage to human origins:


"There is something seemingly unhuman about the presence on a human infant of a ‘tail’ like the tails found on other primates. It is incongruous; it violates our sense of anthropocentricity, and it raises issues that involve not only teratology and embryology but also our view of ourselves and our place in evolution.
To evolutionists the ‘human tail’ was an example of a ‘reversion to a lower species’ and an illustration of the doctrine that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

The human tail serves as an example of modern concepts of ontogeny and phylogeny and presents a striking clinical confrontation with the reality of evolution.

Even those who are familiar with the literature that defined our place in nature-from Darwin’s The Descent of Man to Wilson’s On Human Nature-are rarely confronted with the relation between human beings and their primitive ancestors on a daily basis. The caudal appendage brings this reality to the fore and makes it tangible and inescapable. Ledley (1982:1212, 1215)

The brief research portion of Ledley’s paper (1982:1212) concerned the case report of a 7-pound baby that was born with a caudal appendage 2 inches in length. Shortly after it was born the child was transferred to Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston where doctors removed the growth. Ledley related that it was a “. . . well-formed caudal appendage” located near the end of the baby’s spine; “. . . it was covered by skin of normal texture and had a soft fibrous consistency:’ Ledley also noted that there were no vertebrae or even cartilaginous elements in the so-called “caudal appendage:’ Ledley included a helpful review of caudal appendage research. Such cases have been noted throughout history, but very few have been scientifically documented. The rest of Ledley’s paper consisted of a bold defense of macroevolution involving ontogeny and comparative embryology.

We do not intend to discuss the evolutionary concept that an individual retraces his evolution during his embryological development; viz., “on-togeny recapitulates phylogeny’ It will be sufficient to note that some embryologists have totally rejected this idea as an appealing but naive and mistaken view of embryogenesis:


I wonder whether the phrase ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny would so persistently have fascinated biologists, or so long have survived among the debris of half forgotten science that we all retain from high school, if it were not rather euphonious. Would something like ‘development repeats evolutinary history’ have worn so well? K. S. Thomson (1988)
K. S. Thomson (1988) also asserted that the recapitulation concept has little if any meaning in modern biology; he viewed it to be a dead concept. In addition to demonstrating that Haeckel’s paradigm is totally inadequate, Rusch (1969) showed that some of Haeckel’s drawings purporting L. to demonstrate embryonic recapitulation were fraudulent. Even Gould (1982:41), the reviewer of Ledley’s paper, noted that M. “. . . the theory of recapitulation died more than fifty years ago:’ N.

Remine and an anonymous coauthor from the University of Minnesota analyzed Ledley’s findings shortly after the report was published. Their pointed critique of Ledley’s evolutionary thesis speaks for itself:


In evaluating this case report it may be noted firstly that the caudal appendage is not connected to the vertebral column as are the tails of other vertebrates. In addition, the appendage is not even in line with the vertebral column but is 1.5 cm to the right of the midline. Secondly, the appendage contains no bony structures as do the tails of all other vertebrates. These two points support the interpretation that this appendage is not a “true tail” but is likely a dermal (skin) remnant of the fetal ectoderm germ layer located by chance in the caudal region. [ReMine here quoted Ledley to show that these caudal appendages of certain human babies are very different than true tails in other vertebrates.]
Many evolutionists view the appendage as tail-like enough to be interpreted as evidence of man’s primitive evolutionary ancestry. This interpretation has two drawbacks. One drawback is that there are good reasons, as given above, why the appendage may not be interpreted as a true tail. Secondly, there is no well established genetic mechanism to account for the preservation of the structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome.

Creationists may view the appendage as a structural variant of developmental origin rather than as a ‘tail: ReMine (1982:8)

Ledley himself (1982) admitted that the so-called caudal appendage may be nothing more than a dermal appendage which by chance occurred in that position. Reno noted that one explanation of these abnormal caudal appendages is that each is merely a birth abnormality:


"Could not this be the result of a deranged process taking place during embryologic development? The normal process is sometimes altered and as a result we see Siamese twins, cleft palates and harelips. No one would argue that these were once normal conditions in a remote ancestor. A "tail" could be such an anomally. Reno (1970:86)

 

[Rubyfruit]

Thanks Laurel! All I wanted to know about human tails and more.

Interesting article.

 

[Laurel]

I Love Google.