why do ppl think the tail bone is useless(vestigial)?
365827
mostly because they are ill-informed (like the first 3 respondents to your question\n\nthe tailbone (coccyx) is quite useful; it serves to anchor and support musculature in the pelvic area that has more than a little to do with our form of locomotion and upright stature\n\nthe tailbone is not vestigial\n\nand if it were vestigial (virtually all of the examples of "vestigial" anatomy/organs cited (~ 200) in the literature around the time of the scopes monkey trial (1925) have since been found to be useful; it turns out that we called them vestigial simply because we didn't understand their use at the time, which further impeded our understanding of their use because who wants to waste their lives studying useless anatomical junk, which turned out to be a hindrance to the progress of medical science), it would still not even remotely explain evolution...\n\nevolution needs to explain the vast amounts of highly specific complex information required to go from goo to you via the zoo -- a huge amount of BRAND NEW highly specific complex information is required to explain that and so many other thousands/millions(?) of biological forms extant today\n\nallegedly "vestigial" organs/anatomy do nothing of the sort; they would only be (were they actually vestigial) further evidence of loss of information\n\nnatural selection happens, but it can only select from already extant information...\n\nit does not, can not explain the arrival of life; it can only touch on the areas of survival, death, and extinction\n\nhey, next we can talk about the allegedly "vestigial" vermiform appendix, which is also not vestigial, but rather useful :-)
532340
For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.\nThe list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions
1034432
why do you chase your tail , when you can't catch it
841629
Oh my God, yes. Last week I lost my vestigial tail, and yesterday my knuckles quit dragging on the ground. What's next, separate eyebrows?
862049
Most mammals do have at least a vestigal remnant of a clavicle, although it is in varying degrees of development.  Basically the reason some animals have either a reduced or no clavicle is that the bone supports muscles used in climbing.  \n\nAnimals that run like horses and dogs really don't have need for that sort of support.  This is also why their wrists are fused (much more so in the horse than the dog) and they really can't rotate their forelimbs like we can our forearms. \n\nHowever, climbers like cats (they do have clavicles), squirrels, monkeys and humans (obviously not all of us can climb very well but we are related to orangutans and chimps, animals that can climb very well) need the bones to support the muscles useful in climbing trees.  These animals can also rotate their limbs (especially forelimbs) outward to help grasp tree trunks and limbs - that's also why dogs really can't climb trees!
804709
All marine mammals (whales, dolphins) have vestigial rear limbs (small pelvic bones) and they also have remnants of clavicles (collar bones). Therefore, the captured dolphin would represent a "mutation" whereby the bones had greater growth than normal, much like humans can have abnormal growth of the coccyx, looking similar to a tail. \nRemember - with evolution, once you lose something, you can't get it back ,so there isnt any way that you could get "reverse" evolution. Darwin wouldn't be "proud". Darwin would be more happy to think that he was no longer being ridiculed for his findings and that scientists were investigating our natural world rather than just assuming everything happened through divine intervention. Darwin would think this dolphin to be an interesting mutation and further provide evidence of the evolution of mammals. Evolution has no motive, it just happens due to natural selection and selective pressures, so Darwin would not think that something is being achieved by this and would simply see it for what it is.
694878
1) Homozygous at that locus.\n\n2) The human tailbone.  It is what remains of a tail that we no longer need.
568195
because we evolved to be best at surviving, so having two arms on one side would not aid survival at all. what a stupid question! you are trying to make an intelligent point but you just sound really stupid!!
79
There are a couple of reasons why this was done a few decades ago.  Dogs with curved tails are known to be chasing flies and fleas that got on their tails. Owners of the dogs found this a nuisance that all of a sudden a dog would keep chasing its tail for several hours in a week. Due to this dogs forgot their "job" which was to guard sheep, or pull carts, etc.\nSecondly, certain dogs go very wild if we pull their tails, even if its done playfully. They simply get mad at you, bite you or even kill you, if you are small.  Since little children always found it playful to pull the tails of the dogs and this meant a potential danger to their lives, the owners cut their tails short. \nEver thought of the word CUR-TAIL? :-)
738950
"Balance" isn't much of an explanation.  Why is a big toe better than a small toe?  If big toes produced better balance, then why does it help to have it on the inside, rather than the center of the foot or the outside?  Why not 5 big toes on each foot?\n\nA better explanation is that it is an evolutionary throwback to the "thumb" on the foot of primates.  A lot of the internal bone structures, muscles, ligaments, and nerves of the foot provide further evidence.  Four examples (among many):\n\nFact 1: Look at your hand.  Notice that you have one fewer bone (one fewer joint) in your thumb than in your other fingers.  The same is true in your foot (see picture of foot bones in Source 1) ... your big toe has one fewer bone (one fewer joint) that your other toes .  And the same holds with all primate hands and feet.  Your big toe is a re-purposed "thumb".\n\nFact 2: There is a vestigial muscle in the calf of humans, called the 'plantaris' muscle.  (See source 2.)  It is completely useless in humans ... in fact it is so useless that it is a favorite to be harvested by surgeons needing tissue for reconstructive surgery (like heart surgery), and in fact 9% of humans are born without any plantaris muscle at all.  However, the same muscle is very important in other primates, as it is what lets them flex and oppose the large inside digit of the foot, to allow GRASPING WITH THE FEET.\n\nFact 3: Why is your thumb fatter than your other fingers?  Because it needs to be stronger than the other fingers to be opposable for grasping.  That is the reason the big toe is fatter  than the other toes.  It had to be fatter because it was once used for grasping.\n\nFact 4: Wiggle your toes.  Notice that you can wiggle your big toe independently of your other toes ... but it's very dificult to wiggle any other toe by itself (some people can wiggle their pinkie toe by itself).  The reason for this is that there are more nerves and muscles dedicated to the big toe than to your other toes ... again, evidence that the big toe was once used for grasping.\n\nYes, the human big toe (once we became ground walkers, and no longer grasped things with our feet) has moved forward help the other toes produce better balance when walking upright ... but that doesn't explain why there was a big toe in the first place.
1172981
Because there was no midway for hardly anything. Lizards never where halfway between lizard and bird, invertabrae never had a halfway formed spine, apes where never halfway man. Thats the only reason I can think ;)
243055
We have a horny (keratin) protection on our last phalanxes because we're mammals and almost all mammals have (except for whales and some others); it's something we probably inherited from our synapsid ancestors ("mammal-like reptiles"). \nAnd we have fingernails instead of claws or hooves because we're primates. All great apes have fingernails, whereas "lower" primates have claws. \n\nAt least, that's the evolutionary reason. I'm sorry if you were looking for something more philosophical!
3478
Cimpanzees and most of the higher primates have no tails.  It seems that somewhere along the evolutionary marathon tails got discarded, but it was relatively recently....
563715
er, here we go (and this is straight off the top of my head)\n\nNo skeleton (endo or exo)means that they cannot self support. (neg)\nNo real means of self propulsion (neg)\nMostly translucent (pos) (from a prey point of view)\nSome have stingers (pos) for food capture and defense\n\nand thats all i've got. It's been too many years since school. sorry
653558
The short answer has to do with distribution and existence of the "fragments" in question relative to others and their age. What you have to ask yourself is why they would only find people who are "deformed," "short," etc in that period? Where are the "normal" ones?\n\nOf course there are holes in the fossil record. There are less of them then before, and some discoveries have forced scientists to modify their thoughts on this or that lineage.\n\nBut let's not beat around the bush on this. If you're waiting for a "complete" fossil record you are doing exactly the one thing that gives your thesis away. Science doesn't require it for continued research. It's only required if you cannot countenance evolution for religious reasons.
751507
Because people are incredibly stupid, lazy and figure "as long as it's not hurting me" or "as long as I get something out of it" it's okay.\n\nRevolution?  Hell yes.  There are going to be dead bodies in the streets and politicians hanging from ropes.
1142589
Not really. The Appendix is indeed a Vestigial Organ... it's just that people continue to think that "Vestigial" = "Useless". A clever trick by some Creationist Proponents.\n\nThat way they can knock down a strawman. The Appendix confers minor benefits to the immune system indeed, but it's original function is largely degraded and very prone to infection, making the Appendix a n evolutionary degraded organ that is more threat then benefit.\n\nSome may ask why the appendix remains in an Evolutionary environment, but this is the clincher. Appendixes cannot be degraded any further because further reduction would increase its ability to get infected, leading to more deaths. The appendix has been degraded to the maximum amount allowed before the fitness of the organ decreases.\n\nAs we see above, Evolutionary Theory easily explains Vestigial organs, but Creationist Theories only refute strawmen of Vestigials and inevitably fail to account for this troubled organ.