But I'd look stylish with a tail...

[coquina]

our insides would fall out between our legs. Pleasant thought - what?

 

I wrote an epistle with a series of links and MSIE shut down on me and obliterated it.

 

Anyway - I got to thinking about it and figured that if the coccyx was truly vestigial, it would just be hanging there with nothing attached to it. With a little googling I learned that this is not so - several ligaments and the muscles of the pelvic floor attach to it.

 

Think about the forces of gravity on a biped as opposed to a quadriped. In the latter, gravity pushes the internal organs against in interior of the abdominal wall. However - in a biped, gravity pushes our internal organs downward between our legs. We must have a floor of pelvic muscles to keep them from going south.

 

It would be interesting to study the comparative anatomy of that group of muscles between bipeds and quadripeds - I expect that the former have the muscles, but that they are not developed as strongly.

 

I do know older women (my mother for one) can develop a prolapsed uterus as these muscles deteriorate.

 

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/6872-2.asp

 

In conclusion, the coccyx forms a base for the tail in quadripeds, but it plays just as great a purpose in bipeds - supporting our internal organs.

 

I suspect that the appendix also serves a useful purpose too - but I don't know what it is and don't have time to look.

[Ophiolite]

I reiterate to one and all we never had a tail! Let it sink in please we have no vestigial organs!!

I don't think the reason for your central claim has been understood. Could you lay it out for us again, in a coherent fashion. I sense others have been arguing against what they think you said, not what you meant.

[Artorius]

coquina ive already gone over your points earlier in the thread.Which i find quite coherent,Mokele also! and just because his wrong it shouldnt dissuade you from reading them.

 

The coccyx is a fully functional, always has been little part of our body.It wasnt co-opt from a tail ,the reasons i have already explained .

[coquina]

Must have skipped a page - thought I'd read it all.

[Hellbender]

I think you are forgetting one important fact; the so called "primitive apes" a group which we are a part of have no tails. Its one of the easiest way to descern us from monkeys. Take it back and wonder why proconsul had no tail.

[Ophiolite]

Not quite sure where you are going to (or coming from) with that one. Could you elborate in relation to the other posts.

[Hellbender]

Who me? Sorry it was a response to the original post, I still don't have the hang of this site yet.

[Ophiolite]

Right. That makes sense now. Many of us forget what the original post is/was. We see a key word and launch into an exposition of our agenda.. (Did I mention panspermia, and Steady State yet?)

 

Personally I greatly regret that we don't have tails - prehensile of course. They would be especially valuable in today's world:

1. Hold the phone and type on keyboard at same time..

2.. Summon lift and open door with hands full

3. Scratch back easily

4. Extend range of options during recreational sex

5. Increase range of body language for improved communication

6. Eliminate discussions about vestigial ones

[Sayonara]

There was an original post?

[Ophiolite]

There had to be an original post. Some believe it was created by an unknown, perhaps unknowable, omniscient force or entity, whom they call the Webmaster. They argue that structured, cogent intelligent posts cannot spring into existence from nothing without a guiding intelligence. They cite evidence that angels or agents of this entity, whom some call moderators, walk amongst us. (Detractors say these are simply ordinary humans with inflated egos.)

The alternative view is that posts do not arise from nothing in one step. Random mixes of letters form into syllables, then words, phrases and sentences. Finally complete posts come into existence. This evolutionary process works because the meaningless posts fall by the wayside. (Some point to posts by Artorius as evidence of this.)

Which of these explanations is valid? Personally I favour a third option - panthreadia. I believe that other Forums exist 'out there' and these original posts come from them.