It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why would humans loose the tail ?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Good day , yesterday while having some hard time falling asleep I started to wonder about one thing . Our anatomy shows that the human species evolved from something that had tails (remaining tail bone) but somewhere in the course of history/evolution we lost it .

Now my question is why ? I mean from the evolutionary point of view this is illogical , I mean we could argue that in present times humans do not really need the extra balance coordination that a tail would provide because of all the technology.

But in the ancient times when humans were mainly hunters a tail would greatly help out in the wilds while hunting or moving around the terrain . I do not see the point of loosing the tail in such early days of our species , nor have I seen any human ancestors that had one .

Could somebody more experienced in this subject help me out with this ?

Just to clarify , I am not a creationist so please no flame war here . I would call myself an evolutionist since that is more logical to me for now , but I just do not get why would the human species devolve in this matter, because (at least to my limited knowledge) having a tail would greatly help out the human body .

PS: Also I apologies if the upper writing is a bit hectic but I just woke up a few min ago and still have to get my coffee



[edit on 29-7-2010 by Thill]




posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I'm no expert at all in this area, but while reading the question it made me think. Maybe tails became unattractive to the early humans, maybe they associated it with being like an Animal, so those with tails nver got to pass on their genes as they were deemed ugly at the time. Just a random thought plucked from the ether



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
If you've ever taken a class that studies this we lost it because we first of all became fully up right and did not need the balance. Also because we were up right we could face predators head on and did not need to make our homes in trees.


EDIT: Apes don't live in trees anymore thus no tail either. The tail is like a third hand that we lost. no need for trees no need for the third hand.

Its like dogs, cats and horses as well as many other animals, who have the residual toe that does nothing but was just used as an extra stabilizing method that was redundant so it disappeared. Evolution doesn't always get things right the first time it takes trial and error. For a short time they may have needed it but then it goes away. Wisdom teeth are a great example we don't need them anymore since we have dental care and are able to keep all our teeth until we die whereas long ago we needed the wisdom teeth because teeth would rot out. In alot of cases now you see people actually not getting their wisdom teeth proving THERE IS EVOLUTION!!! Boo yeah Darwin was right.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Xiamara]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 


An interesting question... and one that i have no answer to.

I look forward to hearing from some of the more scientifically minded ATS members and get their take on it.

I am probably a bit of an enigma... I believe in both



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Again, no direct evidence here, but I would argue that a tail is/was used for communication as well. (I hate Wikipedia but in a pinch, here, here and here has some info on animal communication.)

Many animals like dogs, cats, squirrels, etc, still use their tail as a means of conveying mood and state to other animals (not referring to humans here).

To me that's another possible reason as to why tails in humans became "obsolete" - since we developed spoken and written language, the need for a tail as another way to express emotion/state of mind/intention, etc, simply wasn't needed.

*How* it actually disappeared.... no idea. I'd wager that another genetic mutation resulted in an offspring that had "no tail", which then by natural selection, allowed it to procreate and continue the lineage.

Again, how does that latter suggestion marry up to my initial suggestion - no idea.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by noonebutme]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I'm no expert at all in this area, but while reading the question it made me think. Maybe tails became unattractive to the early humans, maybe they associated it with being like an Animal, so those with tails nver got to pass on their genes as they were deemed ugly at the time. Just a random thought plucked from the ether


I do not think "attractive" has any say in evolution , I mean if we still had a tail then we would look at the human body as a whole with the tail and still be attracted to it . thats just chemistry from what I understand . I mean if you never saw a human without a tail then all good looking human ladies with a tail would be attractive to You since that would be the norm.

Also humans are animals , just higher in the food chain , we just like to think we are special because we are so smart



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Without looking anything up or knowing all that much about the various stages of man found over the years I'd guess it came off as we took a more upright posture which reshaped our skeletons.

Or it was so we could wear jeans.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 


I would argue that helping out in balancing the human body would be useful not only for jumping on trees . From what I understand when it comes to tails this would greatly help out in the general coordination of the human body while running , jumping , crossing narrow ledges , etc ...as much on the ground as in the trees . I mean a tail would just be a boost in human effectiveness overall as a body .

Also about the upright position , don't you think that walking of 2 feet is lees "stable" than walking on 4 feet ? I would think that gaining the upright posture would be one of the reasons to leave the tail or even "upgrade it" since it would greatly help out in maintaining the stable posture.
I mean why do we still have hair on our heads ? I would argue that this is much less important than having a tail and would see that get lost before a tail .

Still just thinking out loud


[edit on 29-7-2010 by Thill]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 


Since I do not remember any human ancestor species that had a tail (all the way to monkeys ?) I would argue that we had to loose the tail way before we had proper spoken language and way way before we developed anything resembling a proper written language



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 


Here is a way outta boxer. Mabey those who are supposedly responsible for human evolution took away the tail as a way to make it hard to identify ourselves with our original species. Allowing those who genetically modified us the chance to take credit for making us if we look like they do tailless. We lost our tails through genetic modification, ONOZ. Now when the original creator sends family to support us we side with the enemy not knowing we are fighting our original family. Enslaving us physically/mentally even deeper (very intelligent move of deceite) if this were the case... TOLD YA WAY OUTTA THE BOX

[edit on 7/29/10 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
how would we sit down?!

females with tails i can go for but...

once we conquered biped locomotion, no need!

it would take away some brain power too.


but still, fluffy striped tails. ooooooooooooo! lol!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
how would we sit down?!


Mabey we were tree bound with trees not present in current day environments. Imagine the tree line deep back in time I see trees standing close to 30 stories or better.. Think outside, now trees big trees gone no memory of them EXCEPT FOSSILS
Treeline destroyed over entire planet (SOMEHOW) SOUNDING REAL AVATARISH HUH, and we are forced to be ground dwellers and begin ground sitting over many years tailbones begin to become usless and fall off.
ok this is another option I offer...



[edit on 7/29/10 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Heheh. Sorry - I didn;t mean we had a tail at the same time as our development of spoken/written language. That would indeed be laughable.

What I meant was, our seemingly innate ability to communicate with each other, which seems to be more highly sophisticated than (most) other animals might have been a signal or sign as to the tail's disappearance and why it, as a possible means of communication, became obsolete.

However, i would think that it was just a happy genetic mutation whereby it was supressed and has since been that way.

But yes - I should have been more clear - I was typing my thoughts too quickly without re-reading the directness of them. Oops!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Thill
 



The way we evolved we didn't need that balance we don't often walk on narrow ledges or do fast running. If you don't use it you loose it. As well Its an added target for predators. If your fully depending on it for balence and a predator takes a giant chunk out of it your kinda screwed.

Primates don't need the tail to run and stabilize the body at the same time. In primates there is no fully upright 2 legged animal that has a tail to my knowledge. Its an evolutionary thing why have more when you can have less and be more efficient.

Actually there is a reason we still have hair on our head insulation. We loose a lot of heat from our head and hair keeps that efficient it also protects us from the sun burning our heads. Hair remained on ares that loose heat easily.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Xiamara]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
In alot of cases now you see people actually not getting their wisdom teeth proving THERE IS EVOLUTION!!! Boo yeah Darwin was right.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Xiamara]


I guess when you see a 3rd eye on a fish its evolution too? Or maybe siamese twins is evolutionary?

There is abnormalities in genetics and environment has an effect on people in general (thats why humans are different colors, its based on the climate they evolved in). Evolution as a whole from Darwin has not proved anything, its a thoery. One yet to be proven. Sure we can see signs of evolution, but not at the scale Darwin envisioned, their just is way too many missing links and many other plausible theories.

Until there is absolute proof id be careful stating Darwin is right, the search for truth accompanies fact, not opinion.

As for if we had a tail? its possible, but no facts to point either way. We have insinuations based on our own limited knowledge, thats it. What might seem like a perfect place for a tail, may be nothing at all, or something else entirely. Our narrowmindedness has a habit of assuming too much sometimes.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by EspyderMan]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by Thill
 



The way we evolved we didn't need that balance we don't often walk on narrow ledges or do fast running. If you don't use it you loose it. As well Its an added target for predators. If your fully depending on it for balence and a predator takes a giant chunk out of it your kinda screwed.
Its an evolutionary thing why have more when you can have less and be more efficient.


[edit on 29-7-2010 by Xiamara]


I agree that now we might not need it (even thou I still think it would help out occasionally) , but look at the time frame when we supposedly had lost the tail . During that time I would think that running , jumping , etc.. would be the main activity of humans , because that was the way to obtain food .

I could agree to the added target for predators argument , but I wonder if the negative aspects of having a tail are greater than the positive ones , and that is how evolution is supposed to work to my understanding .

I wonder , would there be a way to track down the last link that had a tail ? If yes, how ?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Thill]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by EspyderMan
As for if we had a tail? its possible, but no facts to point either way.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by EspyderMan]


I would think that the tail bone would be a hard clue to the fact that at one time we did have a tail .



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I wouldn't mind a tail, a prehensile tail would be even better!

If I were to explain to someone why we do not have a tail I would direct them to the fact that we stand upright, completely vertical. Over time we tend to bend forward and eventually we may never stand tall again, but the balance mechanism in adaptation causes the tail to become useless as an upright bipedal. Tails are for balance and stability. Maybe if we all crawled around a few billion we might get the tail back!

My question would be, why are we the only animal that has to wipe its own ass? Seriously, this is really odd to me, if I look at a chimp or any great ape I realize their rectums are surface oriented. Yeah, most of them have nice butt-cheeks but not like humans. OMG! Do we have cheeks! It seems we are so retracted in this aspect that the forests never had a chance!

I could have said anal retentive as that sort of puts the play on words correctly, because we really are!

This is clearly a sign that the Annunaki had big butts!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I've never done any research on human tails, but I was wondering if there is any other proof that humans did have tails other then the words from scientists? Like skeletons with tails or something like that?



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by EspyderMan
 


I'm an evolutionist not a creationist. One Siamese twins are a abnormality but darwins "Theory" supports survival of the fittest you could say abnormalities are not ones to survive in the wild they rarely survive or breed causing the abnormalities to die out. Without the technology we have those sever abnormalities would die out. And YES a third eye CAN be an evolutionary advantage it just depends on the setting and if the animal breeds that trait down. As for Evidence if you are a creationist no evidence we evolutionists find is adequate so I'm going to choose to side step this, and say if you choose to believe God created us all that's fine but if you look at the OP this is a discussion FOR evolution, this is not a debate arguing against it.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join