1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus wept, Darwin hysterically cried?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by kendemyer, Jun 27, 2005.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks, kendemyer. You've saved me the trouble of having to look into the gene claim about the tail issue here.

    But we would expect an atavistic tail to contain bone or cartilage. In fact, the intent of Talkorigins.org in posting the x-ray photo was to lead us to believe that the "tail", which is NOT in the photo, contained vertebrae like any other mammal's tail we would think of.

    Question: If you call the dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?

    Answer: Four. It doesn't matter what you call the tail.

    The human "tail" is not a tail at all. They can classify this deformity as a "true tail" or a pseudotail, and they no doubt did so because of Darwinistic predispositions. It doesn't matter what you call it, it's not a tail, and looking closely at it reveals that fact conclusively.

    Arbitrary assumption.

    It is a rare deformity, no doubt, but, again, just another assumption.

    Again, the vertebrae are NOT in the "tail." It could not have been simply removed without serious consequences.

    As the professional literature stated, a "true tail," (the kind that really sticks out) lacks bone, cartilage, notochord and spinal cord, everything we'd expect to see in a tail. They're only called true tails because they look like tails and sometimes move. So Parker was more on the money saying it's "fatty tissue."

    The pseudotails are mere stumps, and are sometimes caused by elongation of the coccygeal vertebrae or other deformation. They aren't tails by any stretch of the imagination and are therefore called "psuedo=false" tails.

    A significant percentage of each kind is accompanied by other, more serious complications.

    http://home.coqui.net/titolugo/PSU24.html

    Unfortunately, your most dramatic evidence, now seen not to be evidence of an atavistic tail, was all about the vertebrae, because evolutionists insist that humans descended from something like a monkey that had vertebrae in its tail.

    But I'll look into the Barbary Ape, which only has a stump for a "tail", and will probably find the physiology is somewhat different than you've been describing as a human tail.

    Until, then I'm going back to where I left off. (Can't wait to tackle your whale legs!) [​IMG]
     
  2. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, I forgot to mention:

    The "true tails" did not contain the vertebrae, or else they could not have been classified as a "true tails". It simply means the the cases also involved complications with the coccygeal vertebrae.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron, you're not making sense to me there. Some "tails" contained vertbrae, others did not. If they contained vertabrae, they would have a stronger claim to being "true tails" instead of being unable to be classified as "true tails". Could you clarify your statement for me?
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off...Aaron, I have found that you have been doing a good job of digging stuff up. You either have a source I cannot find, have a fair amount of knowledge on some of these subjects or are very good at searching. In any case, I ma enjoying the dialogue even if I find your responses unconvincing. I am sure you have the same opinion of my responses.

    Now, I think I must repeat my earlier statement. We have yet to see anything to tell us what the true human tails should be explained as if they are being alledged to be something other than atavisms. We are getting stuck on some details of what constitutes vertebrae in tails and the larger question is going unanswered. The quotes we have both been pulling demonstrate quite convincingly that there is a difference recognized between true tails and psuedotails.

    "Arbitrary assumption. [regarding my assertion that the three or four small, fused coccygeal vertebrae are the all the vestigal remains of a tail that most humans have.] "

    What assumption? Most humans have three or four tiny, fused vertebrae in their coccyx. There is no assumption about that.

    As far as vestigal goes, remmeber the definition given earlier. Vestigal traits often have remaining function but not the original function and the complexity is usually greater than required for the function. The whale pelvis is my usual example. In this case, to anchor a few minor muscles requires no more that a bony projection. Making four tiny vertebrae and then fusing them is an unnecessary complexity.

    "Again, the vertebrae are NOT in the "tail." It could not have been simply removed without serious consequences."

    Why does whether they can be removed or not have to do with the discussion?

    Perhaps it would be instructive to look at the spine of mammals in general. ( http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/skeleton.html ) Let's just take a cat for example.

    [​IMG]

    Now the caudal vertebrae in mammals are the vertebrae of the tail.

    The human coccyx contain are our caudal vertebrae. When these vertebrae form as large and articulate instead of small and fused, they are a tail. Same bones, same location. Not all true tails have these bones, but some do. Even when formed normally, they are vestigal.

    "As the professional literature stated, a 'true tail,' (the kind that really sticks out) lacks bone, cartilage, notochord and spinal cord, everything we'd expect to see in a tail. They're only called true tails because they look like tails and sometimes move. So Parker was more on the money saying it's 'fatty tissue.'"

    And other professional literature identified some true tails with vertebrae. Parker was still describing psuedotails.

    "A significant percentage of each kind is accompanied by other, more serious complications."

    This should not be surprising. The tail would result from some problem with the regulation of the development of the fetus. Why should we be surprised that such problems would not at time lead to other problems also?

    "Unfortunately, your most dramatic evidence..."

    I think I only started with a brief mention of tails. It became a larger discussion after you challeneged it. I think my most dramatic evidence is the way multiple lines of independent inquiry consistently return the same results, as I have stepped through with the whales and to some extent the horses.

    There is another important aspect being overlooked here. Much is often made that the alledged tails are rather short. You must remember that it has been a while since we had an ancestor in our lineage with a tail. And the tail did not go away overnight when apes evolved from the primates. Mistakes in development should be expect to be more likely to produce something akin to the shorter tails of the more recent ancestors than to produce the longer tails of more distant ancestors.
     
  5. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To Paul of Eugene:

    The word "tail" in the descriptions of these deformities is clouding the issue. However, the researchers chose the terms, and they chose the term "true tail" to describe a soft appendage containing no bone, cartilage or spinal cord, and "psuedotail" for a lump resulting from the deformation of the coccygeal vertebrae.
     
  6. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You'll need to post a citation. But, like I said, I'm going back to where I left off, and I'll pick up your points in this post in turn. [​IMG]
     
  7. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ...And, I am having to learn about the things you are posting. That's why it is taking me a long time to respond.
     
  8. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    DARWIN'S ILLNESS DISCUSSED THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ( JAMA )


    Darwin's illness as reported in The American Journal of Medicine

    According to the article "The Illness of Charles Darwin" by William B. Bean in the September 1978 publication of the American Journal of Medicine rarely did a day go by where Darwin did not have in "many degrees of severity and many combinations" the following medical symptoms: nausea, severe vomiting, flatulence, alimentary canal pain, various forms of eruption of the skin, and nervous exhaustion.

    Dr. Bean also noted the following symptoms obtained from a Darwin letter:

    "My nervous system began to be so affected so that my hands trembled and my head was often swimming".

    Dr. Bean quotes from another Darwin letter the following symptoms:

    "involuntary twitching of the muscle...fainting feeling - black spots before the eyes."


    Dr. Bean wrote in his article that Darwin suffered from "psychoneurosis provoked and exaggerated by his evolutionary ideas". Dr. Bean also wrote that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facismile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment."

    Lastly, some have claimed that Darwin got Chagas disease in South America. Dr. Bean dismisses the diagnosis of Chagras disease for Darwin's illness which has been attributed for Darwin's illness and due to the following reasons: no other member of the Beagle crew had symptoms of Chagras disease, "infection with T cruzi occurs not from a bite but contamination of a bite with excreta" and Darwin had "numerous partial exacerbations and remissions that would be unusual in the case of Chagras disease".


    Darwin's Illness and JAMA

    In the article "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr. MD published in the January 8, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association the following maladies of Darwin which by in large were not mentioned above were given and they occured as sudden and discrete attacks: "palpitations, shortness of breathe ("air fatigues" ), light headedness ("head swimming" ), trembling, crying, dying sensations, abdominal distress, and depersonalization ("treading on air and vision"). These attacks were many and Darwin in a letter wrote that "Constant attacks....makes life and intolerable bother and stops all work". Dr. Barloon and Dr. Noye conclude that Darwin's medical symptoms point to panic disorder and agoraphobia. One of the reasons given for a psychiatric diagnosis was that "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was psychiatric."

    However, Ralph Colp Jr. MD, a physician and psychiatrist, who studied the matter Darwin's sickness for 18 years and authored the book "To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin" and is definitely one of leading experts of Darwin's sickness, if not the leading expert, due to his medical and psychological training and exhaustive research doesn't believe in the above diagnosis of agoraphobia (Dr. Bean cited above describes Dr. Colp's book in the following manner, "His painstaking work in seeking out every possible source comes close to yielding the complete biography of an invalid's illnness") .

    In a letter to the editor published in the April 23/30 1997 edition of JAMA entitled Ralph Colp Jr. MD, noted that "It has been observed that when Darwin "was a member of the Council of the Royal Society in 1855-1856, he attended meetings on 16 occassions," and that he away from home about 2000 days" between 1842 and his death in 1882." Dr. Colp stated that the above behavior shows that Darwin was merely balancing work and leisure and the diagnosis of agoraphobia does not fit diagnosis of agoraphobia for Darwin.

    Dr. Colp also noted that "it is possible" that Darwin gastrointestinal symptoms were caused contracting Chagras disease. Dr. Colp states regarding the possible Chagas disease, "The disorder was first active and then became inactive, permanently injuring the parasympathetic nerves of his stomach and making it more sensitive to sympathetic stimulation and hence more sensitive to the "psychosomatic impact of his anxieties." In addition, according to Dr. Colp a "organic impairment" is the most likely explanation Darwin's chronic abdominal maladies.


    Dr. Colp concludes his letter by saying:

    "In summary, I believe that Darwin's illness consisted of panic disorder (without agoraphobia), psychosomatic skin disorder, and possibly Chagras disease of the stomach." It should be noted earlier Dr. Colp noted that Darwin had facial eczema that often was caused by controversies over his evolutionist ideas. In addition, Dr. Colp stated that he did not believe that skin afflictions are "among the many somatic complaints that compromise panic disorder."
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I haven't bailed out of the debate. I've been working lots of overtime lately.
     
  10. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Darwin and the diagnosis of panic disorder and agoraphobia

    According to Barloon and Noyes as a young man, Darwin had "episodes of abdominal distress, especially in stressful situations". In addition, Barloon and Noyes stated that like many people with panic disorder, he had a "premorbid vulnerability" which in his youth was referred to as "sensitivity to stress of criticism in his youth." According to the American Psychology Association, panic disorder usually appears in the teens or in early adulthoood and there does seem to be association with potentially stressful life transitions. It should be also noted that panic disorder has been noticed in clinical setting that the histories of panic disorder patients often include some type of separation from a person who is emotionally important to them. This may be significant as Darwin's mother died at the age of eight and he then boarded at Shrewsbury Grammar School. On the other hand, it has been said that Darwin had a happy childhood overall and was encouraged by his siblings. Bowlby noted that separation anxiety may help cause the develpment panic disorder in adulthood. Also, in regards to the cause of panic disorder it is currently thought to be psychobiological in origin. For example, historically panic disorder was often triggered in war time. It is well known that Darwin was not the aggressive/assertive type and that Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog". This may related to a study by Chambless and Mason saying that regardless of gender, the less masculine in trait a person afflicted with panic disorder is, the more likely they are to use avoidance (social withdrawal) as a coping mechanism . Individuals who have a more masculine traits often turn to external coping strategies (for example, alcohol). Dr. Bean wrote that while Darwin had great confidence, at the same time he was: neurotic, became nervous when his routine was altered, and was upset by a holiday, trip, or unexpected visitor. Barloon and Noyes cite Darwin remarking "we [Darwin and his Emma] have up all parties, for they agree with neither of us".

    It is important to note that one of the reasons given by authors Barloon and Noye for their diagnosis panic disorder and agoraphobia was that "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was psychiatric." However, Ralph Colp Jr., an American physician and psychiatrist, who studied the matter of Darwin's sickness for 18 years and authored the book To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin doesn't believe in a diagnosis of agoraphobia, because, despite that fact that Darwin loathed meetings, when Darwin was a member of the Council of the Royal Society from 1855-1856, he dutifuly attended meetings on 16 occasions, and was away from home about 2,000 days between 1842 and his death in 1882. At the same time, Barloon and Noyes state that only infrequently did Darwin leave home and usually accompanied by his wife. Barloon and Noyes then cite a letter declining a invitation and Darwin saying "I have long found it impossible to visit anywhere; the novelty and excitement would annhilate me". Perhaps, the best solution to Colp and Barloon and Noyes differing analysis is that Darwin merely became less socially active. However, perhaps Darwin's possible social withdrawal was due to his sickness being physically debilitating.


    Darwin, Darwin's relationship with his father, and the psychoanalysis diagnosis

    Psychoanalyst Edward J. Rempf believed that Darwin's "complete submission" to a tyrannical father prevented Darwin from expressing anger towards his father and then subsequently toward others. Also, Dr. Rempf believed that Darwin's illness was "an expression of repressed anger towards his father".


    Darwin wrote in his autobiography regarding his father:


    "... [he] was a little unjust to me when I was young, but afterwards I am thankful to think that I became a prime favourite with him."


    An example of one of Darwin's fathers more strict comments to Darwin was: "... you care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and your family!"


    Andrew J. Bradbury in his work on Darwin quotes J. Huxley and H.B.D. Kettlew as saying the following:

    "The predisposing cause of any psychoneurosis which Charles Darwin displayed seems to have been the conflict and emotional tension springing from his ambivalent relations with his father ... whom he both revered and subconsciously resented."


    Bradbury also cites John Chancellor analysis of Darwin:

    "... [Darwin's] obsessive desire to work and achieve something was prompted by hatred and resentment of his father, who had called him an idler and good-for-nothing during his youth."


    Overall, perhaps Darwin's relationship to his father wasn't horrendous as can be seen in Darwin's own words because he did become a prime favorite with him and it was fairly common for Victorian fathers to be more authoritarian. Also, while Darwin's father may have had some harsh things to say about Darwin perhaps this was more than balanced out by constructive things Darwin's father did and said for him which is common in many father and son relationships and this helps explains why Darwin is said to revere his father. And as noted earlier Darwin is said to have had a happy childhod so his father obviously did a few things right. Also, the tendency in medicine and psychology to "blame things on your father/mother" is certainly controversial and there is certainly nothing wrong with honoring your father and mother.

    English psychiatrist Dr Rankine Good believed Darwin's health symptoms with feelings of resentment towards a tyrannical father and stated, "Thus, if Darwin did not slay his father in the flesh, then he certainly slew the Heavenly Father in the realm of natural history." Good believed Darwin, like Oedipus, suffered greatly for his "unconscious patricide" and that it accounted for "almost forty years of severe and crippling neurotic suffering."

    Sir Gavin de Beer, obviously a great fan of Darwin, embraced a physical causation view of Darwin's illness and took great offense to Dr. Good's psychoanalysis of Darwin. Carolyn Douglas in her paper on Darwin, points out that De Beer in his biography of Darwin saw Dr. Good's analysis of Darwin as a accusation of weakness. According to Ms. Douglas, De Beer points out how MANLY Darwin was by pointing out that Darwin braved the seas for 5 years, "roughed it" in the wilderness, and caught venemous snakes.

    Of course, as in all forensic diagnosis, a weakness of the Oedipal complex hypothesis is there is no way of definitively empirically test it validity because Charles Darwin is no longer available for a personal analysis. Lastly, Freudian ideas in regards to psychology such as the Oedipal complex and psychoanalysis are controversial ideas in regards to their usefulness.

    Psychoanalyst Dr. Rankine Good and Edward J. Rempf described Darwin's father as tyrannical. This may be important because Bowlby suggested, due to clinical observation, that agoraphobic patients frequently describe parents as dominant, controlling, critical, frightening, rejecting, or overprotective (However, not every element of his observations were subsequently confirmed in studies). Several authors found that parents of agoraphobic and panic patients often provided less emotional warmth and tend to be more rejecting.

    _________________
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just got Denton's book, Nature's Destiny, and began reading it. Will return with a report when I'm done.
     
  12. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    I'm pretty sure you're the only one interested.
     
Loading...