[_ Old Earth _] If humans evolved from apes, where is our tail?

[lordkalvan]

Re: If humans are apes, is Jesus also an ape?

If humans are apes, is Jesus also an ape?

Humans are members of the same superfamily as other great apes, the Hominoidea, Christ was supposedly born a man, men are humans, therefore.....

 

[coelacanth]

Re: If humans evolved from apes, why do women have less hair?

If humans evolved from apes, why do women have less hair on their bodies?

Sexual dimorphism is a phenomenon not relegated to humans, even if it is not as obvious to us at first glance what the differences are between a male and female chimpanzee. Those who study modern day apes/primates will after a while tell you that it is as obvious and easy for them to recognize individuality and gender as it is for someone else to recognize a friend's face or tell if another human is a male or female (although, admittedly, sometimes the line gets blurred there!)

Chimpanzees are descended from ancestors that are shared by humans, but should not be considered to BE our ancestor any more than your cousins are your ancestors. After the divergence of a lineage into separate species, it is possible for evolutionary processes to take them in markedly different directions, and sexual selection (preference of characteristics in sexually reproducing species, leading to differences in reproductive success) is surely a powerful driving force for this difference, as we are quite picky about who we reproduce with (well, most of us like to think so anyway... )

 

[Dave Slayer]

If evolution is true, how come apes don't have freckles but some of us do? Also, how come baby apes never wore diapers?

 

[John]

:

 

[Barbarian]

If evolution is true, how come apes don't have freckles but some of us do?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjutabor/1 ... 085355154/

Also, how come baby
apes never wore diapers?

Most human babies didn't either, for most of our time on Earth.

 

[Fembot]

The coccyx is simply a muscle anchor point..it is not remnants of a tail.

And your evidence for this would be what, exactly? Why are some babies born with tails, often requiring surgical removal?

WHOA :o

 

[Fembot]

Re: If humans evolved from apes, why do women have less hair?

[quote="Rick W":3pglcfdo]Fur or hair?

Do apes have hair?

I think apes had fur. Which means that humans should have fur if they evolved from apes. :P

Chimps have hair. There are several reasons why women appear to have less hair than men (generally, they are just as 'hairy'), but the hair grows less and is generally less obvious; hormonal balances contribute to hair growth. Sexual selection probably contributes to women having less obvious body hair than men.[/quote:3pglcfdo]

Could it also be possible that women have always sought to remove their hair? Would this practice be responsible for us having less hair now (in addition to natural selection, environmental factors and hormones)?

 

[coelacanth]

Re: If humans evolved from apes, why do women have less hair?

Could it also be possible that women have always sought to remove their hair? Would this practice be responsible for us having less hair now (in addition to natural selection, environmental factors and hormones)?

Intentionally removing body hair could not directly affect the biology of hair growth in future generations. However, if you are speaking of the propagation of hair removal as a behavioral trait with a genetic basis - now that is an intriguing idea!

Wikipedia article on Trichotillomania (compulsively pulling out one's hair):

When genes that were suspected to cause trichotillomania were injected into laboratory mice in one study, the mice obsessively pulled out their fur and the fur of other mice in the cage.[19] This suggests that the carrying of Trichotillomania is genetic, and may be passed down from generation to generation.

The paper referenced about the mice: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigat ... ecchi.html

 

[Fembot]

Re: If humans evolved from apes, why do women have less hair?

Could it also be possible that women have always sought to remove their hair? Would this practice be responsible for us having less hair now (in addition to natural selection, environmental factors and hormones)?

Intentionally removing body hair could not directly affect the biology of hair growth in future generations. However, if you are speaking of the propagation of hair removal as a behavioral trait with a genetic basis - now that is an intriguing idea!

Wikipedia article on Trichotillomania (compulsively pulling out one's hair):

When genes that were suspected to cause trichotillomania were injected into laboratory mice in one study, the mice obsessively pulled out their fur and the fur of other mice in the cage.[19] This suggests that the carrying of Trichotillomania is genetic, and may be passed down from generation to generation.

The paper referenced about the mice: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigat ... ecchi.html

Thanks! I've read about women as far back in Egyptian times removing their hair wit sugaring and threading. Which is pretty interesting. Perhaps a slight condition of Trichotillomania is apparent in many women (shaving legs, underarms, bikini-the list goes on for others who wax their chins, upper lip, arms, toes, ears, stomach and upper legs). Have you seen the list at a wax place!

 

[coelacanth]

Hair has been a big issue throughout history, very true. For men, cutting one's hair short can be good in battle, but it has been culturally mandated at times to grow ones hair long. For example, in China in the late 1700's men had to grow their hair in long queues, and portions of the soul were thought to reside there. It caused a bit of trouble when people went around clipping hair to "steal" people's souls from them. :yes A little story about a guy named Samson comes to mind, too. ;) Tip of the iceberg for men, and I'd dare say that hair has been meddled with by women to a greater extent, at least in more recent history.

I try to stay out of waxing joints, myself!

 

[Barbarian]

Hair has been a big issue throughout history, very true. For men, cutting one's hair short can be good in battle,..

The Spartan men grew their hair long, because braided hair under a helmet was an excellent shock absorber. When Persian scouts reported the Spartans at Thermopylae were braiding their hair and doing callesthenics, Xerxes laughed. But his Greek advisor told him that it meant the Spartans were preparing to defend the pass to the death.

 

[coelacanth]

It's a shame the historical aspects of Thermopylae were so obfuscated by the ridiculousness in the movie "300". It's truly a great story.

 

[Barbarian]

There is a lot of decent history in "300", but some appalling errors, too. At the end of the film, at Platea, the pep talk firing up the troops, followed by a mad charge into the enemy, is pure bull. The Greeks had a highly organized approach to war, in which each soldier's shield protected the man next to him, and the organized mass of troops presented an impenetrable thicket of long spears.

No Greek army, much less the Spartan army, would charge like an angry mob.

 

[coelacanth]

I just started checking it out and found lots of sites about the historical inaccuracies in the movie. Here is what the director had to say about it. Never knew he thought of it this way:

300's director Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." He continues that the film is "an opera, not a documentary. That's what I say when people say it's historically inaccurate." He was also quoted in a BBC News story as saying that the film is, at its core "a fantasy film." He also describes the film's narrator, Dilios, as "a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth."

But wow, we've derailed an evolution thread to a movie review now

 

[Crying Rock]

The coccyx is the vestigial remnants of a tail. It even has some vestigial muscles found in monkeys, which in apes are now useless, being attached to fused and immovable bones.

Prove it: precisely that a human coccyx is vestigial. I want observational evidence. Not conjecture.

 

[lordkalvan]

...Prove it: precisely that a human coccyx is vestigial. I want observational evidence. Not conjecture.

What are your requirements for 'proof'?

What observational evidence would meet your demands?

How exactly do you define conjecture?

Perhaps you would care to 'prove' that the human coccyx is not vestigial?

Is it vestigial in other great apes?

What observational evidence supports your conclusions?

Here's a reference for you to reflect on the significance (or otherwise) of:

Every once in a while, a human is born with an atavistic tail, a throwback to our evolutionary past, when the regulation that normally shuts down our genes for tails fails to operate. The human tail comes complete with fully developed vertebrae, muscles, and other features of animal tails.

Source: Donald R. Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, Columbia University Press, 2007, p345.

You may also want to consider the implications of the postanal tail evident in developing human embryos.

 

[Crying Rock]

...Prove it: precisely that a human coccyx is vestigial. I want observational evidence. Not conjecture.

What are your requirements for 'proof'?

For one, that these very rare occurances aren't Sacrococcygeal teratoma: A mutation in the form of a tumor.

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="Crying Rock":2aoq6b94]...Prove it: precisely that a human coccyx is vestigial. I want observational evidence. Not conjecture.

What are your requirements for 'proof'?

For one, that these very rare occurances aren't Sacrococcygeal teratoma: A mutation in the form of a tumor.[/quote:2aoq6b94]
This is only a partial answer to only one of my questions. I do not see how a tumour at the base of the coccyx is evidence either way whether or not the coccyx is vestigial or non-vestigial.

What leads you to suppose that there is difficulty distinguishing between a sacrococcygeal teratoma - which is actually one of the most common tumours amongst new-borns, occurring in around 1 out of every 35.000-40,000 births - and, for example individuals born with a 'tail that comes complete with fully developed vertebrae, muscles, and other features of animal tails'? I would be interested in why you think a fluid-filled cyst or solid mass can be misunderstood for the vertebrae and muscles of a tail. Perhaps you can provide some examples of where this has occurred? Please don't overlook my other questions in the process.

 

[Crying Rock]

This is only a partial answer to only one of my questions. I do not see how a tumour at the base of the coccyx is evidence either way whether or not the coccyx is vestigial or non-vestigial.

What leads you to suppose that there is difficulty distinguishing between a sacrococcygeal teratoma - which is actually one of the most common tumours amongst new-borns, occurring in around 1 out of every 35.000-40,000 births - and, for example individuals born with a 'tail that comes complete with fully developed vertebrae, muscles, and other features of animal tails'? I would be interested in why you think a fluid-filled cyst or solid mass can be misunderstood for the vertebrae and muscles of a tail. Perhaps you can provide some examples of where this has occurred? Please don't overlook my other questions in the process.

I think the burden is on you to show good evidence of a vestigial tail. So far you've failed. Sacrococcygeal teratomas have come complete with teeth and toenails. Evidence of the Second Law as it applies to information. Muscles of a tail? Prove it. These muscles that you imagine have no function in humans? If they do have a function, then they are not vestigial, and any other interpretation is conjecture.

 

[Barbarian]

"Vestigial" means "no longer having the original function." The coccyx is no longer movable, so it's no longer useful as an organ of balance, which is what it was in primitive primates.

It also happens to have no discernable function, but that's not why it's vestigial.

Oh, the vestigial muscle?

Extensor coccygis. If the coccyx was still movable, it could "wag" the coccyx. See here for an x-ray of a human true tail, complete with vertebrae, muscle, etc.
http://oolon.awardspace.com/vestigial.htm