Why would humans loose the tail ?

Wouldn't it be cool to have ears and a tail like this girl in this picture?
Second line.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I think you might get attacked by furries... *shiver* freaky furries...

reply to post by Xiamara


lol. Does it matter if my tail and ears are hairy?
2nd line.

Originally posted by YouCanCallMeKM
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?

Words from scientists? No scientist would claim such a thing. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutangs lived maybe 16 million years ago, and it didn't have a tail. You have to go further back in time to find an ancestor population that was becoming tailless. Back then for some reason individuals with lesser tails were favoured by natural selection..

[edit on 29-7-2010 by rhinoceros]

Like most things in nature, I assume that somewhere along the line an ancient ancestor of ours found itself in an environment where a tail became problematic in terms of reproduction. Who knows exactly why. Maybe females were using their tails to prevent mating. Maybe it was just getting in the way. So after a few generations, it went bye-bye.

However, there are still plenty of little human babies who are born with vestigial tails. Doctors usually just snip them off, though.

Originally posted by Xiamara
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.

Here's a question for you since your an evolutionist.

Why have apes not continued to evolve into humans? Has there been any evolution of these primates to bring them closer to the human species?
Why have humans not evolved more based on our environment besides just skin color? Desert dwellers did not evolve to the point where they could live off minimal water, Inuits still need to wear lots of clothing to keep warm, their skin has no thickened due to evolution and they have been in the North a long time and Africans in Africa a long time.

My problem with evolution is it seems to have just stopped altogether.

As for our tail bone being a "fact", sure its a fact. It exists. Does it mean that we must have had tails? Thats debatable. All our research and knowledge points to the fact we should have had one, but like i already said (and i hate repeating myself) we assume this based on our narrow-minded view and insinuations. Tail-bone has to mean we had a tail? Not according to my logic. It could of been for many other reasons and it could very well be on of those things that happened for no reason at all.

Until their are FACTS to prove either theory, all it is, is a theory plain and simple.

Whether i believe in evolution or god is besides the point but i applaud you for trying ti sidetrack my post from its original meaning. Im on a fact finding mission, not here to express what i believe and i believe i made logic statements in regards to what facts are available.
I wish more people would stick to facts, and if they got a theory title it as such. Instead of putting up a title that insinuates its a fact we had one, which is false. I know if i have a theory its the first thing ill put in the title, which lets the people know its simply that, a theory for discussion. I come here thinking we had tails and there is some evidence LOL, how misled i was!

Hope that clarifies, cause i wont repeat it again.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by EspyderMan]

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
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]

Well they failed then, because we know we used to have a tail.
Perhaps they should have removed the coccyx aswell?

reply to post by EspyderMan


I'd just like to point out that evolution has not stopped it takes MILLIONS, I will repeat MILLIONS of years to see a major change in evolution. Our more recent evolutionary change may be height, or bone density or how our brain processes. Its small micro evolution you will see, if that. Again I gave an example the need for wisdom teeth is decreasing therefore the people born without wisdom teeth is INCREASING.

Let me ask you this whats more plausible creation from nothing or slow change over time... If there is a creator I tell him or her to CREATE. Make a new species spawn on my desk right now... I'm waiting. Why hasn't the creator Created any new intelligent species? Where is your evidence?

Originally posted by Xiamara
Again I gave an example the need for wisdom teeth is decreasing therefore the people born without wisdom teeth is INCREASING.

I'd be very surprised if that was true. Do people who have genes that lead to absence of wisdom teeth reproduce more than people who have genes that lead to wisdom teeth? Or this there maybe some epigenetic thingy going on? Provide sauce, or it didn't happen.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Xiamara
Again I gave an example the need for wisdom teeth is decreasing therefore the people born without wisdom teeth is INCREASING.

I'd be very surprised if that was true. Do people who have genes that lead to absence of wisdom teeth reproduce more than people who have genes that lead to wisdom teeth? Or this there maybe some epigenetic thingy going on? Provide a sauce, or it didn't happen.

I imagine that due to advances in dentistry over the last few centuries, possibly the number of people without wisdom teeth are surviving longer enough to breed and increase their general percentage in the population. Not that they're breeding more than those with wisdom teeth, but maybe they're just not dying out as much as before.

I had upper wisdom teeth, but never had lower wisdom teeth.

That's why I'm so freekin awesome.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Sorry no source other than my biology professor, sorry wish I had a written source but it was during a debate between the classroom prof and a creationist. Basically the student tried to argue with a doctor in biology that the text book was unfair and should not have evolutionary content, and basically tried to get the prof to not fail them. And the fact that I know 1 person who's only had 2 wisdom teeth come in out of 4 and has had her dentist CONFIRM that the other 2 are not coming in. Look I can't say that its 100% true but I'll take the word of a doctor in biology over a person who believes intelligent life just popped into existence and denies fossil evidence.


EDIT: Look at post above for further proof of my statement. I had 3 wisdom teeth removed as personal reference.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Xiamara]

Originally posted by YouCanCallMeKM
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?

If I search hard enough I can find a photo I have of a primate with a tail from 45million years ago I think... Let me check. The specimen name is IDA.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab09db64e86b.jpeg[/atsimg]

And here is IDA a primte from 45 million years ago with a tail, so.... Some primates back then had tails. Not sure if this is the one humans came from?

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

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by EspyderMan

 

Let me ask you this whats more plausible creation from nothing or slow change over time... If there is a creator I tell him or her to CREATE. Make a new species spawn on my desk right now... I'm waiting. Why hasn't the creator Created any new intelligent species? Where is your evidence?

Um yea ok. Thats a great Theory, but thats all it is. No scientist will back you on this and say their is no doubt evolution exist. For all we know they could be just weird genetics that takes millions of years, or less to show itself in common man.

The "tail" as you referred it could also be Sacrococcygeal teratoma. Which seems more like a problem for humans had we kept the tail if we got one, then it solves. It could be equated to being born with a tumor!

en.wikipedia.org...

Is that brought forward here as plausible? Nope! The agenda is proving the tail exists. It took me 2 freakin minutes to find that out, so please don't post theory as fact and if your going to post a theory perhaps posting all plausible theories with it is a smart thing to do so we can all educate ourselves and make a better decision for ourselves instead of being led blindly.

I am not saying one or another is true. I am MERELY STATING that their is no proof either way for evolution, tails, creationism and big bangs.

I could get into an explanation about what i believe, but whats the point? I have no proof either way, but at least i am being truthful and not supporting theory as fact!
To me it makes more sense that this "tail" is the remaining vestiges of our embryo (you know cause as sperm we need to swim to the egg in order to be CREATED, the tail aids in that swim...makes more sense to me logically).

I mean, creationism is more factual then evolution, sperm seeks egg, egg and sperm create a human embryo and eventually a human being, quite the miracle and more apparent then evolution ever will be.

Here is more information:

The tail bone is formed of fused vertebrae, usually four, at the bottom of the vertebral column. It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus

Source:

en.wikipedia.org...

Now that we have all the theories of what the "tail" might be, people can make informed decisions on their own.

What's funny is, most animals and species today have no evolved any further then where they are today from when we knew them in the past so really their is no proof of evolution, its assumed which is a dangerous thing to do searching for truth.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by EspyderMan]

23 people have been born with vestigial tails since 1884 in medical literature. Probably more if you consider less-documented areas of the world. Either way, it still crops up.