Human Tail or Tale?

G

garbonzo

Registered Senior Member
Evolutionists teach that the human coccyx (the fused vertebrae at the end of the spinal column) is a “leftover tail” of our supposed evolutionary ancestors. Some also teach that this “tail” is especially obvious while a baby is inside the mother’s womb. One current encyclopedia states: “The coccyx…is the remnant of a lost tail…. It is present for a short time during embryonic development.”

Do humans really have leftover (also called vestigial) tails, which are present during early stages? Or, is this just another tall tale told by evolutionists?

The truth is, humans do not have tails—never have, never will. What evolutionists call a tail during a baby’s development is simply the human spinal column which has not fully matured. What’s more, the coccyx of a child or an adult is not a useless leftover of evolution. It actually serves as an attachment point for certain muscles that help us stand up. It allows us to sit comfortably, and serves as a kind of shock absorber. It even plays a role when women give birth.

Evolutionists have not proven that the human coccyx is a leftover tail of evolution. When we look at the human coccyx, we can see that God designed it to do very important jobs. The idea that the human body has left-over “vestigial” organs is simply a lie.

This human “tail” should actually be spelled T-A-L-E.
 
The case for evolution doesn't depend on having vestigial tails.

Vestigial doesn't mean without function. It means a remnant from the past. In the same way, bird wings are vestigial forelimbs. If the coccyx only serves as an attachment point for muscles, then why does it start as separate segments and then fuse together? An attachment point could start as one solid piece. In fact, the structure resembles closely those animals that do have small tails. Additionally, there is a muscle, the extensor coccygis on the posterior side of the coccyx, which, if flexed, would serve to bend it. Unfortunately, it can't bend because it's fused. So why is this muscle sometimes, but not always, present? It makes no sense in something designed, but it makes perfect sense in a creature that had a functional tail and then lost it due to disuse.
 
Monkeys generally have tails and apes don't. If evolutionists believe that the tail is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails?

Which tailed ape is this anomaly supposed to be throwing back to anyway? If you go through the apes and alleged ape-men claimed to be in humans' evolutionary lineage, you can't find one that had a tail like what we see in the womb.

And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?
 
garbonzo said:
Monkeys generally have tails and apes don't. If evolutionists believe that the tail is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails?

Which tailed ape is this anomaly supposed to be throwing back to anyway? If you go through the apes and alleged ape-men claimed to be in humans' evolutionary lineage, you can't find one that had a tail like what we see in the womb.

And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?
Click to expand...
It was both. We evolved from the common ancestor of apes and humans. That ancestor evolved from monkeys.

Having a tail isn't always an improvement. If you are especially large and don't spend all your time in a tree, that extra flesh is just a liability. It can get injured, and then infected, and then you die. It would only be retained if your arboreal lifestyle demanded one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top