Why humans no longer have tails ..

[AV1611VET]

For some reason i find this subject repulsive.

Either that, or a lie.

The title says scientists have discovered why humans no longer have tails, but the article shows we never had them in the first place.

 

[Nithavela]

What humans?



What details?

Your OP says this:

Around 25 million years ago, an evolutionary split occurred between our ancestors, the precursors of humans and apes, and monkeys, resulting in the loss of tails in our lineage.

Looks to me like humans never had tails in the first place.

Not even on paper.

Some humans are born with tails, though. That's indisputable.

 

[SelfSim]

... Looks to me like humans never had tails in the first place.

Not even on paper.

Like it or not, tails are a feature during embryonic development in humans:

A mobile DNA sequence could explain tail loss in humans and apes, (Konkel etal, Nature: Feb 28 2024)

Tails are a common feature in the animal kingdom, and all mammals have a tail at some point during embryonic development. In humans, the tail disappears at the end of the embryonic phase — approximately eight weeks in utero — although internal parts remain in the form of the tailbone.

.. and the OP research demonstrates why.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some humans are born with tails, though. That's indisputable.

Specifically, these scientists see vestigial tails as a part of spinal dysraphism or of a tethered spinal cord.

SOURCE

 

[Chesterton]

Specifically, these scientists see vestigial tails as a part of spinal dysraphism or of a tethered spinal cord.

SOURCE

It's a rare birth defect. It's not vestigial. Source.

 

[Chesterton]

This is fascinating, but I never knew humans had tails. Anyone have a citation for this?

Hello? Anyone? Any fossil evidence? Home movies? Anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

Like it or not, tails are a feature during embryonic development in humans:

Let me repeat their lie:

The title says scientists have discovered why humans no longer have tails, but the article shows we never had them in the first place.

The term "tail" is too broad a term as to make it sound like it's an animal tail.

From the Oxford Language Dictionary:

tail: the hindmost part of an animal, especially when prolonged beyond the rest of the body, such as the flexible extension of the backbone in a vertebrate, the feathers at the hind end of a bird, or a terminal appendage in an insect.

Humans have pony tails.

Not pony's tails.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a rare birth defect. It's not vestigial. Source.

Ya -- if I remember correctly, they said we had gills while in the womb too.

Now they say we have gill slits.

 

[SelfSim]

Let me repeat their lie:

The title says scientists have discovered why humans no longer have tails, but the article shows we never had them in the first place.

The term "tail" is too broad a term as to make it sound like it's an animal tail.

From the Oxford Language Dictionary:

tail: the hindmost part of an animal, especially when prolonged beyond the rest of the body, such as the flexible extension of the backbone in a vertebrate, the feathers at the hind end of a bird, or a terminal appendage in an insect.

Humans have pony tails.

View attachment 343603

Not pony's tails.

View attachment 343604

Yet again you assign your warped meanings to scientific terms in order to derail threads you don't like in the Physical and Life Sciences forum.

I think you've consistently demonstrated that you are not qualified to enter into scientific discussions.

See my post#23 which exposes your lie with objective support from a peer reviewed Nature publication..

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet again you assign your warped meanings to scientific terms in order to derail threads you don't like in the Physical and Life Sciences forum.

The OP in this thread contradicts itself.

I'm sorry you don't see that.

I think you've consistently demonstrated that you are not qualified to enter into scientific discussions.

Then neither are you, if you're going to defend a confusing article that contradicts its title:

"Why Humans No Longer Have Tails"

... with the first sentence:

"Around 25 million years ago, an evolutionary split occurred between our ancestors, the precursors of humans and apes, and monkeys, resulting in the loss of tails in our lineage."

Then, of all things, we apparently do have tails, as attested by articles in medical journals.

Make up your mind.

Do we have animal tails, or don't we?

I say we don't.

They are just spinal dysraphisms or tethered spinal cords.

(See Post 24)

See my post#23 which exposes your lie with objective support from a peer reviewed Nature publication..

Ya right.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[SelfSim]

The OP in this thread contradicts itself.

I'm sorry you don't see that.



Then neither are you, if you're going to defend a confusing article that contradicts its title:

"Why Humans No Longer Have Tails"

... with the first sentence:

"Around 25 million years ago, an evolutionary split occurred between our ancestors, the precursors of humans and apes, and monkeys, resulting in the loss of tails in our lineage."

Then, of all things, we apparently do have tails, as attested by articles in medical journals.

Make up your mind.

Do we have animal tails, or don't we?

I say we don't.

They are just spinal dysraphisms or tethered spinal cords.

(See Post 24)



Ya right.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Calm down, take a breather @AV1611VET .. have a cuppa and a good lie down, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

Oh .. and remember scientific objective thinking is a mental state .. which (for eg): typically defines scientists.

When one refuses to think that way, (for whatever reason), one is not speaking as a scientific thinker.

 

[BeyondET]

Scientists have discovered why humans no longer have tails


The details:

Humans never had tails or they weren't humans other than in the womb.

 

[BeyondET]

Calm down, take a breather @AV1611VET .. have a cuppa and a good lie down, eh?

He is right the OP is falsely saying something that never was. If a human had a tail there would be fossils of humans with tails.

 

[SelfSim]

He is right the OP is falsely saying something that never was. If a human had a tail there would be fossils of humans with tails.

Doesn't look like you're thinking and speaking in scientific terms either, eh?

They estimate the split happened 25mya .. so what exactly do you think you mean when you use the term: 'human'?

 

[SelfSim]

Humans never had tails or they weren't humans other than in the womb.

So you say .. (which carries no objective weight).

The mutation has the effect of switching off, prematurely, the transcription/splicing of the gene responsible for tail development. The gene is still there in present-day mammals, as is evidenced in the paper linked in post #23 and as per the study evidence presented here.

 

[BeyondET]

Doesn't look like you're thinking and speaking in scientific terms either, eh?

They estimate the split happened 25mya .. so what exactly do you think you mean when you use the term: 'human'?

The precursor wasn't a human, after the split humans never had a tail.

Humans didn't have a tail then lost it, the title is incorrect.

 

[BeyondET]

So you say .. (which carries no objective weight).

The mutation has the effect of switching off, prematurely, the transcription of the gene responsible for tail development. The gene is still there in present-day mammals, as is evidenced in the paper linked in post #23.

Yes the gene is there, the title should of said the precursor to humans had a tail though even that's not proven.

 

[BeyondET]

Then there's ghost DNA, unknown hominin from long ago, human origin is very complex.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805237120/ghost-dna-in-west-africans-complicates-story-of-human-origins

 

[SelfSim]

I can see I'm talkin' with people who apparently can't read the quote in the OP!(?)