Why don't humans have tails?

[Mars]

Seven out of 10 caucasians are born with a tail which is normally surgically removed at birth.

Caucasians huh? You are one ignorant sht fed individual.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

What is the survival or procreation advantage conferred by not having a tail?

Is this not how natural selection works? Anatomical features which give an advantage for survival and procreation become the genetic norm because those members of the species are better able to breed.

I would imagine that it hinders the ability to stand erect for prolonged periods, due to it actually being an extension of the lower back. I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to comment though.

 

[porchrat]

What is the survival or procreation advantage conferred by not having a tail?

Is this not how natural selection works? Anatomical features which give an advantage for survival and procreation become the genetic norm because those members of the species are better able to breed.

You mean assuming it doesn't effect the way you stand why would an extension of your spine making you longer and easier to catch by predators while conferring no advantage whatsoever undermine reproductive success?

Gee I don't know...

 

[alloytoo]

So humans don't need tails, but what is the evolutionary advantage to not having a tail that would cause to humans to evolve to not have tails?

You should extend that question to all great apes, not just humans.

 

[alloytoo]

Do you also say that people who don't believe in evolution are uneducated idiots who don't have a clue what evolution is all about. Do you call them “morons,” “gullible,” “dishonest,” “insane,” “opposed to science,” and similar unflattering words.

Is evolution a fact, like gravity? or is it just a theory

Evolution is a fact, which the theory of evolution seeks to explain.

 

[alloytoo]

What is the survival or procreation advantage conferred by not having a tail?

Is this not how natural selection works? Anatomical features which give an advantage for survival and procreation become the genetic norm because those members of the species are better able to breed.

Neutral features are also retained.

 

[alloytoo]

If you accept evolution without question you will generally be safe from academic criticism. But if you push evolutionists for evidence that a creature lacking the genetic information for some major features has turned into a creature with that genetic information, they quickly run out of examples of where that new information came from. Instead, they tend to resort to sneering, irrelevant claims, verbal abuse, diversions, sarcasm, and even threats. I have one in the family that always cause arguments he only gets his facts from books. As with most amateur Evolutionist he does not understand or have studied biology science or maths pass grade 7.

You're a bit behind the times.

Nylon digesting bacteria
Lizards developing modified digestive tracts

Recent examples of new genetic information being generated and preserved through random mutation and natural selection.

 

[Mars]

I've been thinking about this and one reason for why great apes lost their tails might be because of how dirty they fight.

Other animals wouldn't bother attacking one another's tails in a territorial dispute. But great apes are a different story. The play dirty. They are the types of animals that would try to hurt their opponent's tail in a fight, knowing that it is a sensitive organ.

I think tails are sensitive because dogs usually don't like it if you apply any pressure to their tails.

One of the great flaws in the design of the human body is that we do not have a protective layer of fat to cover our shins. If you want to hurt somebody very badly, kick them in the shins.

I wonder if humans still had tails, how we would view them. Would we hide them away as organs of shame, like the buttocks, or would they perhaps have some kind of sexual connotation. Would people have different tail styles and go to tail dressers? Would some people have tail piercings? Would some cultures practise tail mutilation?

no, i have seen dog fights where one dogs tail was skinned from the other dog. There is no "dirty" or "clean" fighting amongst animals. There is just fight.

 

[porchrat]

I've been thinking about this and one reason for why great apes lost their tails might be because of how dirty they fight.

Other animals wouldn't bother attacking one another's tails in a territorial dispute. But great apes are a different story. The play dirty. They are the types of animals that would try to hurt their opponent's tail in a fight, knowing that it is a sensitive organ.

I think tails are sensitive because dogs usually don't like it if you apply any pressure to their tails.

One of the great flaws in the design of the human body is that we do not have a protective layer of fat to cover our shins. If you want to hurt somebody very badly, kick them in the shins.

I wonder if humans still had tails, how we would view them. Would we hide them away as organs of shame, like the buttocks, or would they perhaps have some kind of sexual connotation. Would people have different tail styles and go to tail dressers? Would some people have tail piercings? Would some cultures practise tail mutilation?

your buttocks are not an organ. Neither is a tail.

 

[Ruby_Two_Shoes]

I've been thinking about this and one reason for why great apes lost their tails might be because of how dirty they fight.

Other animals wouldn't bother attacking one another's tails in a territorial dispute. But great apes are a different story. The play dirty. They are the types of animals that would try to hurt their opponent's tail in a fight, knowing that it is a sensitive organ.

I think tails are sensitive because dogs usually don't like it if you apply any pressure to their tails.

One of the great flaws in the design of the human body is that we do not have a protective layer of fat to cover our shins. If you want to hurt somebody very badly, kick them in the shins.

Why waste all that effort...

I prefer the bog standard method of not taking them seriously.

 

[murraybiscuit]

I've been thinking about this and one reason for why great apes lost their tails might be because of how dirty they fight.?

or you could just question the base assumption that we descended from an arboreal ancestor. Does a vestigial stub infer an originally full tail?

 

[porchrat]

Does a vestigial stub infer an originally full tail?

LOL so what now we're growing tails instead of losing them?

 

[Ruby_Two_Shoes]

LOL so what now we're growing tails instead of losing them?

Evidently...it is part of the mating ritual.

 

[Ancalagon]

We actually do, they are snipped at birth along with the umbilical cord. But there is a massive conspiracy to cover it up. If you let a human grow up naturally, it would have a long bushy tail.

 

[murraybiscuit]

LOL so what now we're growing tails instead of losing them?

No I agree that were losing them. I'm just saying that we don't know how much longer our tails ever were. I think some people look at a coccyx and assume we were once vervet monkeys or something.

I guess I'm asking whether it's possible for partial adaptation to occur and then wane. Did dogs with short tails necessarily evolve from dogs with long tails? Perhaps I'm just being blonde.

 

[Sherbang]

or you could just question the base assumption that we descended from an arboreal ancestor. Does a vestigial stub infer an originally full tail?

Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body.

 

[porchrat]

No I agree that were losing them. I'm just saying that we don't know how much longer our tails ever were. I think some people look at a coccyx and assume we were once vervet monkeys or something.

LOL vervet monkeys are pretty cool though.

 

[murraybiscuit]

Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body.

Thanks. Interesting answer.

 

[Bobbin]

I think it is just incidental that we lost our tails. We simply don't need it therefore it gradually lost "evolutionary reinforcement". I don't necessarily see a negative to having a tail though that would force its removal.

 

[Ruby_Two_Shoes]

No I agree that were losing them. I'm just saying that we don't know how much longer our tails ever were. I think some people look at a coccyx and assume we were once vervet monkeys or something.

I guess I'm asking whether it's possible for partial adaptation to occur and then wane. Did dogs with short tails necessarily evolve from dogs with long tails? Perhaps I'm just being blonde.

That's not how it generally worked for the pooch family (once were wolves)... despite them needing their tail for communication and to maintain balance when changing direction in the chase.

Man's best mate was selectively bred to look the way they are today. Some modern Brittanys are born with a short(er) tail, but for the majority of the breeds, tails remain an essential body part...that is...until man decided different.
Indeed, when their long tails got in the way of aesthetics, these were simply chopped off. Somehow some humans still think this is a balanced approach. Imagine the dumb logic involved trying to justify cutting off your tongue to improve your chances of finding a mate.