Human Tails: Another Evolutionary Icon that Coyne, Giberson and Other Darwin Defenders Would Be Wise to Abandon
In previous posts, I have taken a close look at an often-repeated claim that humans born with a "vestigial" tail, a rare medical condition, represent a relic of evolution, pointing to our descent from a tailed ancestor. Charles Darwin was the first to articulate this notion, but it survives, a true vestige, among his modern advocates.
I used Karl Giberson's statements in a recent debate with Stephen Meyer as my occasion for taking up the subject, but other Darwinian spokesman have said just the same. Jerry Coyne, for example, repeats the myth of the human tail on pages 65-66 of his book Why Evolution Is True where he writes "tails appear to be true atavisms" and wrongly states that these tails can appear like a normal "tail" with vertebrae.
For easy reference, please find here a list of my articles in this series:
- Another Icon of Evolution: The Darwinian Myth of Human "Tails"
- Are Humans Ever Born with "Perfectly Formed" Tails?
- Do Human "Tails" Represent the Simple "Turning On" of Genes Retained from Our Ancestors?
- Are Human Tails Mere "Vestigial" or "Benign" Structures Born to "Otherwise Healthy" Babies?
- How has the Darwinian View of Human Tails as "Benign," Found in "Otherwise Healthy" Babies, Leads to Harmful Medical Practices
- "Pseudotails" and "True Tails" Have Similar Causes, Suggesting Both Are Birth Defects, Not Vestigial Holdovers
- Sometimes "babies are born with perfectly formed, even functional tails."
- Babies with tails tend to be "otherwise healthy."
- "The scientific explanation is that we inherited these instructions from our tailed ancestors but the instructions for producing them have been shut off in our genomes."
- No babies are born with perfectly formed, fully functional tails.
- Babies that do have tails typically have serious associated neurological defects.
- The exact causes of tails are debated, but because of their persistent association with neurological defects, the most plausible view is that they result from abnormalities and deviations in development.
It's a good thing, not least for patients, that the Darwinian doctrine, little more than an urban legend, is fast on its way to being abandoned.