Tales of Tails of Supposed Human Ancestors

Something that puts a burr under my saddle is the insistence by evolutionists that we did not come from monkeys, and creationists do not want us to say that, either. It is because we are to accurately represent what they believe. Okay, I get that. But it gets a bit difficult.

Study on this: Our alleged ancestors and relatives sure did look like monkeys, and some had tails. Specifically, evolutionists say that although monkeys, apes, and humans had a common ancestor, we diverged millions of years ago — and we lost our tails somewhere along the line.

Ring-tailed lemur, Pexels / Magda Ehlers

Which supposed ancestor and when the tail loss occurred, nobody knows. There is no evidence, but the story requires these things. A loyal Darwinist in the media wrote, indicating that there is kinda-sorta a link between tail loss and a birth defect, and genetics. Sounds like faith. Unfortunately, the faith of secularists is in their narrative, and whatever it takes to deny the work of the Creator.

Although it has been known for decades and despite insistence to the contrary from the evolutionary community, man—Homo sapiens—has never had a tail.

Recently, science writer Jennifer Zieba stated in LiveScience, “Approximately 25 million years ago, an ancestor of both humans and apes genetically diverged from monkeys and lost its tail.” This supposed evolutionary event would have happened in the unobserved past and has left no paleontological evidence. Our subhuman ancestor is unknown, and there is no sign of the alleged first apes (having no tail) splitting from the Old World monkeys so long ago.

You can read the rest if you swing on over to "The Tail of Man’s Supposed Ancestors." Be sure to come back for information on the "tailbone" of modern humans.

Many evolutionists claim that the coccyx is a vestigial tailbone, even saying it is useless. I lack belief that they are being honest, as it has been known to medical science for many years that it has an important function. Leftover from evolution? It fits the story, but that's all it is — a story, not science. I'll allow that the coccyx is in the kind of position where a tail might be expected.

Working on the hows and whys of having a tail and losing it, Darwinists used the science of genetics that was initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him). The tale is complicated, and does not make very much sense. We see yet again how evolutionary beliefs have interfered with medical science.

For over a century, the human coccyx was considered a useless remnant left over from our evolutionary past. Thus it was deemed a useless vestigial organ. Ironically, although its many important functions are well documented, the coccyx is still considered a useless remnant by certain evolutionists. Ewin Callaway writes in the scientific journal Nature that “Unlike most monkeys, apes — including humans — and their close extinct relatives don’t have tails. Their coccyx, or tailbone, is a vestige of the vertebrae that constitute a tail in other animals.” For his conclusions, Callaway relied on the research of Harvard geneticist Bo Xia. Xia explained their research “begins to explain how evolution removed our tails, a question that has intrigued me since I was young.”

I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest over at "Tale of the Tail: Why the Human Coccyx Is Not a Vestigial Organ."