let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music
  • Back to index of Evolution: Origins of Life, V. 1.0
  • Evolution: Origins of Life

    Edition 1.0

    Chapter 4: Interrelation through Reversion

    By Punkerslut

    Start Date: May 4, 2003
    Finish Date: May 18, 2003

    Section I: Reversionary Organs

         The previous chapter simply dealt with similarities which are found among the different species, and how they may demonstrate that one species is related to another. Though this may be some distance away from concrete evidence, it is always good to take it into consideration. In this chapter, I will examine evidence that leads me to thoroughly believe in the Derivative Theory, that mankind is little more than the an evolutionary conclusion of the ancient organisms that once lived on this planet, some of them still remaining. The evidence that I shall examine is in reversionary organs, known as "reversion" when they appear. When reversion occurs, it's when an organism is born, yet has an organ or a limb which serve it no purpose -- though this organ is identical, in structure and muscle tissue, to the organs of certain lower animals, which today we are convinced are our ancestors. For instance, if a penguin was born with a plumage of feathers, this would be a perfect example. The question, though, is why would an organ of a distant relative finally reappear? As far as personal experience can verify, among humans, it is not unlikely for a person to retain their grandparent's attributes to a certain extent instead their direct parent's attributes. Similarly, I would not doubt it if someone were to testify to me that a family member had retained attributes particular to their a great grandparent. Yet, the further we go back in the family tree, it seems less and less likely that one of the old attributes will arise again. However, if Evolution is correct, then the further we go back in the family tree, we will be running across new races and new species. So, if an organism is born with a reversionary organ which is similar to what we believe to be that organism's ancestors, then it is clear evidence that this modern creature is a descendant, and the theory of Evolution holds true.

         One of the most notable examples would be a human baby who was born with a tail in the year 2002. [*1] However, this is not the first instance of a human baby with a tail; in 1982, Dr Fred Ledley wrote a report on these occurrences [*2] This is a clear sign that humans were once related to fish.

         It is well known among breeders that when two creatures breed which are of a different race or species, it is likely for reversionary attributes to reappear. For instance, it is well believed by scientists and Evolutionary thinkers today that the several species of domesticated pigeons all are descendants of the wild rock pigeon. When domestic pigeons of different species have been cross-bred, it has been observed that they tend to revert back to the colors of the rock-pigeon, colors which did not occur in their direct parents. [*3] Donkeys sometimes have stripes on their legs, which are distinctly similar to those on zebra, and there are numerous examples of stripes forming on species which we believe are descendants of the zebra. [*4] Pigs are known to sometimes, though rarely, be born with a sort of proboscis, or trunk-like nose. [*5] Microcephalic idiots are another example of reversion. These individuals, often times born from families that have no traces of such a case happening in the known family tree, are known to be unable to speak words, to ascend stairs on all fours, to smell every mouthful of food before eating, as well as using their mouth in aid as a third hand and in some cases they are remarkably hairy. [*6] To quote Charles Darwin, "The simple brain of a microcephalous idiot, in as far as it resembles that of an ape, may in this sense be said to offer a case of reversion." [*7] The molar bone of humans, which is two bones when in the fetus at two months of age, sometimes remains in two separate distinct bones, which is a natural part of the physiology of other mammals. [*8] Professor Vlacovich examined forty male subjects, and he discovered a muscle, called by him the "ischio-pubic", in nineteen of them and in three others there was a ligament representing this muscle. In only two out of thirty female subjects, this muscle was developed on both sides yet in three others, there was a rudimentary ligament for this muscle. [*9] One out of every sixty men are believed to have a powerful "levator claviculae," a muscle on both sides of the neck, and this muscle is also found in all higher and lower apes. There is a similar case where men are sometimes known to have an abductor (or a tissue that pulls muscles or organs in a certain direction) in the metatarsal bone of the fifth digit. While it is in only some humans, it is present in all apes. [*10] The acromio-basilar muscle is related to the walk of those animals which walk on all fours, and it is found in all animals below man, but one is sixty human beings is born with this muscle. [*11] In apes and monkeys, in the humerus bone, there is a passage known as the supra-condyloid foramen, where the nerve of the fore limb and often the great artery pass. In humans, there is a trace of it, but in certain humans, it appears even well developed, with the nerve and great artery passing through. [*12] The giraffe of Africa typically has two horns attached to its skull, but there are occasions where a third horn occurs. [*13] In regard to reversionary organs, Darwin has remarked, "That this unknown factor is reversion to a former state of existence may be admitted as in the highest degree probable." [*14] Here, I will end this section with a quote by the father of Natural Selection...

    No one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so; why the child often reverts in certain characters to its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor; why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex. [*15]


    *1. Ananova News, "Baby with tail 'reincarnation of Hindu god'", 11:19 Friday 11th January 2002.
    *2. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, article by Dr Fred Ledley.
    *3. Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition, chapter 1 and chapter 5.
    *4. Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition, chapter 5.
    *5. Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition, chapter 2.
    *6. Memoires sur les Microcephales, by Vogt, 1867, pp. 50, 125, 169, 171, 184-198. And... Prof. Laycock sums up the character of brute-like idiots by calling them theroid; Journal of Mental Science,, July, 1863. Dr. Scott (The Deaf and Dumb, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 10) has often observed the imbeciles smelling their food. See, on this same subject, and on the hairiness of idiots, Dr. Maudsley, Body and Mind, 1870, pp. 46-51. Pinel has also given a striking case of hairiness in an idiot.
    *7. The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
    *8. Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti, Modena, 1867, p. 83. Prof. Canestrini gives extracts on this subject from various authorities. Laurillard remarks, that as he has found a complete similarity in the form, proportions, and connection of the two molar bones in several human subjects and in certain apes, he cannot consider this disposition of the parts as simply accidental. Another paper on this same anomaly has been published by Dr. Saviotti in the Gazzetta delle Cliniche, Turin, 1871, where he says that traces of the division may be detected in about two per cent of adult skulls; he also remarks that it more frequently occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan race, than in others. See also G. Delorenzi on the same subject; "Tre nuovi casi d'anomalia dell' osso malare," Torino, 1872. Also, E. Morselli, "Sopra una rara anomalia dell' osso malare," Modena, 1872. Still more recently Gruber has written a pamphlet on the division of this bone. I give these references because a reviewer, without any grounds or scruples, has thrown doubts on my statements.
    *9. Quoted by Prof. Canestrini in the Annuario, della Soc. dei Naturalisti, 1867, p. 90.
    *10. See also Prof. Macalister in Proceedings, Royal Irish Academy, vol. x., 1868, p. 124.
    *11. Mr. Champneys in Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Nov., 1871, p. 178.
    *12. With respect to inheritance, see Dr. Struthers in the Lancet, Feb. 15, 1873, and another important paper, ibid., Jan. 24, 1863, p. 83. Dr. Knox, as I am informed, was the first anatomist who drew attention to this peculiar structure in man; see his Great Artists and Anatomists, p. 63. See also an important memoir on this process by Dr. Gruber, in the Bulletin de l'Acad. Imp. de St. Petersbourg, tom. xii., 1867, p. 448.
    *13. Collier's Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 11, page 106.
    *14. The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
    *15. Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition, chapter 1.

    join the punkerslut.com
    mailing list!

    copyleft notice and
    responsibility disclaimer