The Coccyx

[pshun2404]

Here is a great source for millions of sequences for you to use as examples:

Home - Gene - NCBI


Thanks I did not have this tool...

 

[tas8831]

I am busy right at the moment, but you (unknowingly) have actually proved my point.

This should be entertaining...

But here is a small sample example where there is only a one base pair difference:

Human segment: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Same segment in Chimp: AGTCATACCAGTCTACC

So via computer programs they separate the chimp genome after AGTC and then call the human G an “insertion”, or the lack thereof in the Chimp a “deletion”, but what if the two respective genomes are exactly what they are supposed to be and nothing was actually ever inserted or deleted? When the intelligently designed program is applied they create a non-existent gap...

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC

Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTC TACC

which now must be explained!

Now in reality that gap does not exist!

My gosh, what the creationist does to avoid having to admit that they are ignorant of something...


Look at what you wrote -

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTCTACC

You will have the world IGNORE that these 2 sequences are 94% identical and that they are instead 72% identical because you are so upset about a HUMAN DESIGNED!!! program adding a gap so that the remaining4 bases can perfectly align.


Allow me to demonstrate just how biased and unhinged and irrational and illogical your position is.

Here we have:

Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

but then we have:

Genesis 1New International Version (NIV)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


There are apparently 31,102 verses in the bible according to WordCounter - Count Words & Correct Writing

By YOUR logic, I just proved that two versions of the bible are 99.999967% DISsimilar, and thus unrelated via a common source, so they must be fabrications.

Thanks for showing us a great new argument against the veracity of the bible!




Can't wait to get to your laughable disinformation on the coccyx!

 

[tas8831]

Here is a great source for millions of sequences for you to use as examples:

Home - Gene - NCBI


Thanks I did not have this tool...

Like a construction worker claiming to have never heard of Carhart...

 

[pshun2404]

Look at what you wrote -

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTCTACC

You will have the world IGNORE that these 2 sequences are 94% identical and that they are instead 72% identical because you are so upset about a HUMAN DESIGNED!!! program adding a gap so that the remaining4 bases can perfectly align.

Not only did you entirely miss the point I made, but apparently you were not capable of reading what was actually said being clouded by your prejudice (as indicated by what followed).

So please make your last rant. Fill it with plenty of ad-hominems and all the other misunderstandings and misrepresentations I am used to from you. I will not bother to respond so you can think you won.

 

[Motherofkittens]

"Vestigial" can also mean it's main or only function/s are different from what its function/s were previously. It does not necessarily mean "functionless in everything". I don't know much about biology or past life, so I can't add to the rest of what you wrote. But I do know your definition isn't fully correct.

 

[pshun2404]

Because its you MoK I would like to remind you that I never said or implied functionlessness or uselessness. In fact I pointed out that (just as it is and always has been in humans) it most definitely still has the same functions (more than one).

Even regarding the actual meaning of the term I wrote:


Vestigial:

Forming a very small remnant of something that was once greater or more noticeable;

Yet we do not see any such “once greater” or “more noticeable” in humans EVER as far back as we can go...

Also - degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution

But...with the coccyx we have ZERO evidence that in humans (or apes for that matter) they were anything other than what they are, right now.


NO evidence of degeneration from more to less anywhere!


NO evidence they were once there as tails that atrophied over time!


AND we have definite CONFIRMABLE, OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE EVIDENCE that the coccyx HAS FUNCTION!

Therefore by definition of the term the coccyx is NOT a vestigial organ in humans...

 

[Willby]

NO evidence they were once there as tails that atrophied over time!

Old world monkies have (usually) tails, 'pre-ape' old world monky fossils have tails, apes including proconsul (oldest known ape fossil) don't have tails. Proconsul did not have a tail - ScienceDirect (paywall only first page).

Frankly semantic arguments over the word vestigial are irrelevent.

Tracking the evolution of apes through the fossil record is extremly difficult due to apes living in habitats where fossilisation is highly unlikly. Luckily there are other forms of evidence.

For those interested this paper is quite a nice summary fitting humans into the ape story.

Apes and Tricksters: The Evolution and Diversification of Humans’ Closest Relatives | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

 

[pshun2404]

"Vestigial" can also mean it's main or only function/s are different from what its function/s were previously. It does not necessarily mean "functionless in everything". I don't know much about biology or past life, so I can't add to the rest of what you wrote. But I do know your definition isn't fully correct.

MoK...let's pretend for one moment that there IS a rare dictionary that uses "main or only function/s are different from what its function/s were previously'? Can you show that in humans (or in ANY creature), that its function in that creature WAS different at one point from what it is now in that type of creature? Or that a slow transformation took place as changing the one creature into another?

And in what dictionary changes the common meaning used by all dictionaries showing the others are actually NOT FULLY CORRECT?

 

[pshun2404]

Old world monkies have (usually) tails, 'pre-ape' old world monky fossils have tails, apes including proconsul (oldest known ape fossil) don't have tails. Proconsul did not have a tail - ScienceDirect (paywall only first page).

Frankly semantic arguments over the word vestigial are irrelevent.

Tracking the evolution of apes through the fossil record is extremly difficult due to apes living in habitats where fossilisation is highly unlikly. Luckily there are other forms of evidence.

For those interested this paper is quite a nice summary fitting humans into the ape story.

Apes and Tricksters: The Evolution and Diversification of Humans’ Closest Relatives | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

Semantics are not what I argued...it is YOUR argument that is "semantical" since the definition I gave came from Merriam Webster and Oxford's. Using the ACTUAL DEFINITION doe not constitute making a semantical argument. Implanting a meaning not there in order to support one's presupposition DOES!

That there was a last common ancestor was assumed, accepted as true, and taught to be true long before we had anything that could be interpreted to fit that hypothesis. As we discovered more fossils we INTERPRETED the ones we had found to support that pre-supposition. These "already convinced" scientists were subconsciously implanting a bias!

Before falsely accused, IT WAS NOT A PLOT and I AM NOT SAYING there is some sort of "conspiracy" (as previously falsely accused). What I am showing is what Edward Berneys and Josef Goebbels have proved in other contexts and that is a natural human propensity to believe even the unfounded or false as true if it is repeated enough (especially if repeated by a few alleged authorities). This is what has happened here.

As YOU pointed out the early monkeys all have tails (and no one says we evolved from monkeys) and the earliest and all subsequent "APES" have no tails. No humans EVER had tails! THAT is the actual EVIDENCE. The rest is merely an assumption based conclusion. A historical narrative attached (made up) to make the presupposition appear to be demonstrated.

The actual evidence: the truth
The Historical Narrative: not factual

Absolutely NOTHING in this error of first cause, or your links, SHOWS the coccyx in humans to be vestigial. It is what it always was in all apes (even long before any chimpanzees) and is what it always was in all humans. THAT IS THE REALITY SO FAR PROVEN!

 

[Willby]

pshun2404

First off 'monkey' is a tricky term. On the one hand in everyday speak we all know what we mean when we refer to a monkey, biological speaking it is trickier.

This diagram shows the a simple version of the phylogenetic tree for primates. This tree is supported by genetic and morphological analysis. As you can see the New World and Old World monkies diversified before the Old World Monkies and Apes did.
This means that any strictly monophyletic group that contains both New and Old World Monkies also contains the Hominiods (Apes including Humans).
If Monkey is being used as clade then we are by definition Monkies, if Monkey is being used in the everyday sense then it is a paraphyletic group which excludes Apes and thefore humans. Using this definition of Monkey then most but not all (e.g barbary macaque) Monkies have tails. This is also true of fossil 'Monkies'.

The oldest known Ape fossil is proconsul, the available evidence is that it was tailless, see link in my previous post.

Whilst it is currently impossible to precisly place proconsul all the evidence points to it being basal to Apes which would mean that tail loss was very early in Ape evolution maybe even pre-ape. Way way before Humans.

It is because the vertebrea in the coccyx of Apes (including Humans) are the same vertebrea in the tails of 'Monkies' and because the 'Monkies' tail had functions (climbing, balance etc) that the coccyx doesn't have that it is refered to as vestigial. Nothing to do with if 'Humans had tails' of course they didn't, as shown above tail loss way predates Humans.

Whether or not you agree with the coccyx meeting the definition of vestigial the place of Humans within the Primates is confirmed by multiple (in fact all) available evidence.

 

[pshun2404]

Primate is merely a taxonomical classification (man made) based on anatomically/physiologically similar characteristics as opposed to those found in say lepidopterans or reptiles. Systems of classification are not real things (thus the many changes and differing views such as seeing in clades as opposed to the standard view) they are matters of convenience for sorting and categorizing (so our brains can keep track in some way).

Your pictures (artistically contrived) are used as an aid to compliment this system. They are created to impress the students with the already accepted hypothesis of lineal relationship. Take away the imaginary lines drawn in to support the possible supposition (that are not really there) and different possibilities emerge. Again what we have and what some say these things mean are not the same thing, That is important to recognize so as to assess what we have objectively.

As long as the "ancestor of the gaps" is assumed, one cannot separate their bias from the interpretation. Likewise if one already accepts "god of the gaps" as the unquestionable truth, people who are YEC's (even Ph.D. scientists) cannot escape imposing their bias into the interpretation. Both extreme camps interpret in light of their pre-held belief. The "belief" dictates the conclusion regarding the evidence as opposed to letting the evidence dictate their conclusions.

Also note the "error of first causes" which says that IF one thing exists before another THEN this means the former CAUSED the latter. This is a logic flaw inherent in most humans that most are unable to escape from. So let me give an example if we applied this logic error in another place. Since igneous rock existed before sedimentary rock this logic would say that igneous rock must have caused sedimentary rock...but physically and geologically we KNOW that is not true.

So just because something appears to have come earlier, this does not necessitate it caused or became the latter. Now in all fairness it COULD HAVE it MIGHT HAVE but could have and/or might have does not equal DID.

 

[pshun2404]

The more honest scientists that discovered proconsul say it is believed to be ancestral to chimps and IF SO then ancestral to all Apes (note the subjective language...believed to be...if so...) where the "convinced" by the ancestor of the gaps claim it IS ancestral to all Apes and thus lineally pre-chimp and pre-human (way way lineally ancestral).

Here we can see plainly that one group of scientists accepts the possibility it may be but also that it may not be and the other cannot accept (because of their accepted presupposition) that it may not be and this latter group IMO poses the problem (they are not open minded scientists).

When I looked at the actual (not the artistic reconstructions) fossils of proconsul (we have finds from four different sub-species) they all look like varieties of chimpanzees just different in size. But see what concluding they are chimps would do to the already accepted narrative (that chimps were around over 20 mya?)...it would destroy it and no one already convinced could let that happen.

Since it is already accepted that they were not around then they require a different EXPLANATION to maintain the integrity of the hypothesis (as opposed to letting this new data SHAPE or FORM the more true conclusion...that early varieties of chimp POSSIBLY already existed, hence humans and chimps did not diverge at all).

See Tuttle's Taxonomic Shuffles, Ancestors, and Functional Interpretations: 1960–1999, where he points out how different fossils (sometimes discovered later and even in different locations) were initially classified as one thing and then subsequently reclassified! The total fossils that were originally considered one thing were lumped together with these other finds to create a new species.

IMO this is dishonest, but they had to in order to preserve the integrity of the already accepted presupposition...there is NO WAY they could ever say "I was wrong"...so as a result we have as David Pilbeam said in, “Pro-Evolution“, Vol. 14, p.127, “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted.”

 

[Willby]

Primate is merely a taxonomical classification (man made) based on anatomically/physiologically similar characteristics as opposed to those found in say lepidopterans or reptiles. Systems of classification are not real things (thus the many changes and differing views such as seeing in clades as opposed to the standard view) they are matters of convenience for sorting and categorizing (so our brains can keep track in some way).

Your pictures (artistically contrived) are used as an aid to compliment this system. They are created to impress the students with the already accepted hypothesis of lineal relationship. Take away the imaginary lines drawn in to support the possible supposition (that are not really there) and different possibilities emerge. Again what we have and what some say these things mean are not the same thing, That is important to recognize so as to assess what we have objectively.

As long as the "ancestor of the gaps" is assumed, one cannot separate their bias from the interpretation. Likewise if one already accepts "god of the gaps" as the unquestionable truth, people who are YEC's (even Ph.D. scientists) cannot escape imposing their bias into the interpretation. Both extreme camps interpret in light of their pre-held belief. The "belief" dictates the conclusion regarding the evidence as opposed to letting the evidence dictate their conclusions.

Also note the "error of first causes" which says that IF one thing exists before another THEN this means the former CAUSED the latter. This is a logic flaw inherent in most humans that most are unable to escape from. So let me give an example if we applied this logic error in another place. Since igneous rock existed before sedimentary rock this logic would say that igneous rock must have caused sedimentary rock...but physically and geologically we KNOW that is not true.

So just because something appears to have come earlier, this does not necessitate it caused or became the latter. Now in all fairness it COULD HAVE it MIGHT HAVE but could have and/or might have does not equal DID.

Sorry if unclear, I was using primate as a clade containing all the Strepsirrhini and all the Haplorhini please throw in the Dermoptera and replace primate with Primatomorpha if you wish.

This is not just merly a taxonomic classification but based on the nested heirachy of morpholgical and genetic variation.

You refer to reptiles wich is of course only a taxonomy of convieience as it is paraphyletic excluding mammals and birds.

Not that this was not relevent to the point as was making.

Also feel free to ignore any lines on the provided diagrams, yes they are simply visual aids, they still express those nested heirachies I referred to earlier.

Lastly if you have another explanation for why living organisms always fall into such nested heirachies that does not rely on the branching process of descent I would be interested to hear it.

(No you haven't actually looked at the fossils of proconsul, just images on the internet, hardly the same as the detailed observations with the real thing that goes into publishing papers in peer reviewd journals on them)

 

[pshun2404]

Looking online is fine. You can find images of the actual fossils found online and you can look at those (that is in fact what I did)

Elliott Sober and Michael Steele in, “Testing the Hypothesis of Common Ancestry,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 218 (2002), state, “It is a central tenet of modern evolutionary theory that all living things now on earth trace back to a single common ancestor”, and it is the first and primary assumption of all evolutionary phylogenetic classification methodologies and we are NOT ALLOWED to question this assumption. If we want to pass and eventually graduate we must assimilate this assumption RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

We see here Introduction to Cladistics in an introduction to cladistics that there are three assumptions all cladists MUST accept if their theory is to hold any merit. I am only interested here in the first...it reads

“There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

1.Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.”

See how they state without prejudice that this is an assumption?

Marketa Zvelebil and Jeremy O. Baum in Understanding Bioinformatics (New York: Garland Science, 2008) declare the same admission...”The key assumption made when constructing a phylogenetic tree from a set of sequences is that they are all derived from a single ancestral sequence, i.e., they are homologous.”

Michael Syvanen in, “Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer,” Annual Review of Genetics, 46:339-356 (2012) states “Because tree analysis tools are used so widely, they tend to introduce a bias into the interpretation of results. Hence, one needs to be continually reminded that submitting multiple sequences (DNA, protein, or other character states) to phylogenetic analysis produces trees because that is the nature of the algorithms used.” (yes programs are made with a purpose and intent in mind - GIGO)

You see these are not MY ideas...other people (scientists) state this to be true.

Now you mentioned Nested Hierarchies but the truth is there are many creatures that did not fit the model, and over time the model had to change to fit the previously held explanation (otherwise it would have to be admitted it may not be correct) ro else these had to be FIT INTO one or another Nest. Now some of the characteristics of certain organisms do not really fit the nest they are in but they must be placed in one or the theory falls into question. "Clades" theory differs from the standard model in many places, however both groups must fit them in somewhere or it causes the possibility of questioning (which is not allowed as far the ancestor of the gaps is concerned).

The common ancestor is the starting point of interpretation not the conclusion based only on the evidence. Take Sahelanthropus tchadensis for example, which was excluded from the hominin camp because having features that appear to be human like (such as a flatter face) it would not fit the model. The AoG model says “NO HUMANS AT THAT TIME” (which not having found many fossils actually does not indicate) so if it was admitted this was a hominin and possibly an early variety of human, then the whole house of cards falls down. Like proconsul, to interpret it as is, as opposed to through the theory, causes us to question the theory and become enlightened to the fact that it MAY BE incorrect after all.

Proconsul 20 mya

Sahelanthropus tchadensis 7 mya

Neither fits the allowed for timeline IF the AoG is true. In fact these two alone indicate it may not be but there are many more (shhh! Not supposed to talk about it).

 

[pshun2404]

why living organisms always fall into such nested heirachies that does not rely on the branching process of descent

Strange that you would put it that way. It makes me think your opinion has been shaped (engineered by drill and repetition, the appeal to authority, and argumentum ad populum and so on)...NO! they do not "ALWAYS FALL INTO" nested hierarchies, we decide that is where we will put them. It is predominately homological.

Nested Hierarchies are just groups of organisms that share many similar characteristics and a number of shared traits. This does not necessitate that one caused or came from another...it does not even necessitate they are related in a familial way. They may just be what they each are.

 

[Willby]

why living organisms always fall into such nested heirachies that does not rely on the branching process of descent

Strange that you would put it that way. It makes me think your opinion has been shaped (engineered by drill and repetition, the appeal to authority, and argumentum ad populum and so on)...NO! they do not "ALWAYS FALL INTO" nested hierarchies, we decide that is where we will put them. It is predominately homological.

Nested Hierarchies are just groups of organisms that share many similar characteristics and a number of shared traits. This does not necessitate that one caused or came from another...it does not even necessitate they are related in a familial way. They may just be what they each are.

To say 'Nested Hierarchies are just groups of organisms that share many similar characteristics and a number of shared traits.' is just plain nonsense.
These patterns are repeated over and over again, of course there is 'noise' in the data, which mean trees don't alway perfectly align (they are AWAYS far closer than sheer chance would allow) and we know why (HGT, reverse mutations etc) in fact this noise is predictable which is why algorthims are used to get the best fit.
Do we assume all life is related, well we sure do now as it is the only assumption that produces explanations that match the data (that's how you test an assumption). No other starting assumption does, no matter how much you shut your eyes or put your fingers in your ears. Actually I'm being flipant, there are forms of cladistic analysis that make no assumptions about relatedness and simple look for any relationships/patterns that emerge, the results of which when viewed after the fact are indicative of resulting from a branching process (although no such process was assumed in their construction), e.g decsent, which is why I asked if you could provide an alternative explanation of this distribution.


If not due to common desent why do as wide ranging variables such as ERV insertion sites and genes for olfactory receptors show trees of such agreement?

I think we've hit in impass, to you my opinion is 'shaped (engineered by drill and repetition, the appeal to authority, and argumentum ad populum and so on)'. Whilst to me you are ignoring or misrepresenting the evidence to a perverse degree.

 

[pshun2404]

To say 'Nested Hierarchies are just groups of organisms that share many similar characteristics and a number of shared traits.' is just plain nonsense.
These patterns are repeated over and over again, of course there is 'noise' in the data, which mean trees don't alway perfectly align (they are AWAYS far closer than sheer chance would allow) and we know why (HGT, reverse mutations etc) in fact this noise is predictable which is why algorthims are used to get the best fit.
Do we assume all life is related, well we sure do now as it is the only assumption that produces explanations that match the data (that's how you test an assumption). No other starting assumption does, no matter how much you shut your eyes or put your fingers in your ears. Actually I'm being flipant, there are forms of cladistic analysis that make no assumptions about relatedness and simple look for any relationships/patterns that emerge, the results of which when viewed after the fact are indicative of resulting from a branching process (although no such process was assumed in their construction), e.g decsent, which is why I asked if you could provide an alternative explanation of this distribution.

If not due to common desent why do as wide ranging variables such as ERV insertion sites and genes for olfactory receptors show trees of such agreement?

I think we've hit in impass, to you my opinion is 'shaped (engineered by drill and repetition, the appeal to authority, and argumentum ad populum and so on)'. Whilst to me you are ignoring or misrepresenting the evidence to a perverse degree.

Have it your way, I am tired of having to continually having to re-invent the wheel on this topic (the coccyx in humans).

 

[DogmaHunter]

a) as far back as we can go this feature was never a tail, never atrophied, or “degenerated” from something longer. Even in the alleged earliest human species the coccyx is short, and

None of the great apes have tails. That's actually one of the prime differentiators between apes and monkey's.

Homo Sapiens didn't lose its tail. It was already lost for a really long time at that point.
Chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's, oerang oetangs and humans: none have tails. All have a coccyx.

It doesn't bode well for your thread when you even managed to get that simple thing wrong.

b) because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites.

There is no rule that says that vestigal structures can't take up new or altered function.
So this objection is again invalid and based on bad intel.






EDIT: apparantly I got tricked into replying to a year old post again.

 

[pshun2404]

None of the great apes have tails. That's actually one of the prime differentiators between apes and monkey's.

Homo Sapiens didn't lose its tail. It was already lost for a really long time at that point.
Chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's, oerang oetangs and humans: none have tails. All have a coccyx.

It doesn't bode well for your thread when you even managed to get that simple thing wrong.

ere is no rule that says that vestigal structures can't take up new or altered function.
So this objection is again invalid and based on bad intel.

EDIT: apparantly I got tricked into replying to a year old post again.

Yeah! Apparently one of your guys re-opened it (that trickster)!

You say "It doesn't bode well for your thread when you even managed to get that simple thing wrong." thream

Apparently you are not able to understand what is plainly stated. I never said they DID have tails which became vestigial. In fact, I used the evidentially provable fact that they did not as part of my defense.

When one holds the "belief" that the coccyx is vestigial, because of this evidence (going back many millions of years), one MUST fall back on the made up human story of the "ancestor of the gaps" to cover their behind. The problem IS that there is NO evidence (zero, zilch, nada) that this creature EVER existed. It is said to have existed between 13mya to 6 mya depending on who you read, can show me even one example (just one that's all I ask for).

Now as an atheist you should know that to claim something is TRUE for which their is not a single instance of proof is equal to accepting unreality as if it is reality (and we all know the psychological term for that).

You say "It was already lost for a really long time" but one cannot lose what one never had so this is a hint of cognative dissonance I find in all you guys....you say it never existed then say it was lost (LOL)???? And you are totally incapable of seeing the self contradiction in your logic.

Now once again for the umpteenth time WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS which even all evolutionists I have encountered NEVER claim (in fact they deny it...whcih I agree with). So this leaves earlier Apes as our alleged ancestor. This brings up another controversy where some classify this species as PAN and others make no such claim. So which is it and if an earlier APE show me...remember we are not from monkeys so this earlier APE ancestor would have to have had a tail for ours to now be vestigial (look up the definition if you will not accept Webster's or Oxford's).

Here is the thing...I KNOW we have never found any such creature even a sembalnce of such a creature therefore it is a STORY told that somehow so many beleived to be absolutely obvious and even true long before we even had a sembalnce of unrelated arguments based on homological thinking.

IT IS NOT an established fact...IT IS an widely accepted EXPLANATION (a made up story that has no basis on FACT) that has been taught as if it were true, over and over and over, for generations. Otherwise show me and if you cannot show me then at least admit to yourself thta there is no proof (I know your ego will not allow you to do so here...objectivity is not allowed...you MUST blindly accept the unfounded dogma just like YECs).

Nested hierarchies, morphological analyses, and even genetics show anatomical and in some cases physiological SIMILARITY not a lineal relationship. And do not make the logic error that "believes" that if one thing came before another existed that this means the former caused or became the latter.
It was already You say lost for a really long time
It was already lost for a really long time

 

[Willby]

Now once again for the umpteenth time WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS which even all evolutionists I have encountered NEVER claim (in fact they deny it...whcih I agree with). So this leaves earlier Apes as our alleged ancestor. This brings up another controversy where some classify this species as PAN and others make no such claim. So which is it and if an earlier APE show me...remember we are not from monkeys so (look up the definition if you will not accept Webster's or Oxford's).

One last go, I tried to explain to you the problems with the term monkey, it is not a clade but a paraphyletic group. This is why people have issues with the whole 'we evolved from monkeys' wording, but not all do (myself included) once the context is explained. e.g

https://www.sapiens.org/column/origins/monkeys-all-the-way-down/

All anatomical and gentetic evidence (I know you don't accept this) is that we share a more recent common ancestor (*) with old world monkeys than with new world monkeys. As the majority of old world monkeys have tails (also new world monkeys), it is therefore most probable that having a tail is the primitive condition before the diversification into old world monkies and apes. Therefore the shared ancestor would have had one, that is why the coccyx is refered to as vestigial, it is not dependent on any tailed ape.