Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For some reason i find this subject repulsive.
Some humans are born with tails, though. That's indisputable.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.
Like it or not, tails are a feature during embryonic development in humans:... Looks to me like humans never had tails in the first place.
Not even on paper.
.. and the OP research demonstrates why.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.
Some humans are born with tails, though. That's indisputable.
Hello? Anyone? Any fossil evidence? Home movies? Anything?This is fascinating, but I never knew humans had tails. Anyone have a citation for this?
Like it or not, tails are a feature during embryonic development in humans:
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.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..
Calm down, take a breather @AV1611VET .. have a cuppa and a good lie down, eh?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.
Humans never had tails or they weren't humans other than in the womb.
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.Calm down, take a breather @AV1611VET .. have a cuppa and a good lie down, eh?
Doesn't look like you're thinking and speaking in scientific terms either, 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.
So you say .. (which carries no objective weight).Humans never had tails or they weren't humans other than in the womb.
The precursor wasn't a human, after the split humans never had a tail.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'?
Yes the gene is there, the title should of said the precursor to humans had a tail though even that's not proven.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?