Looks great

Here is something to read if you have the time and effort.

Did we lose our tails? Did we have tails at all?

Let’s start with the beginning - Darwin. Ah, Darwin. The "Theory of Evolution". It was an amazing piece of work when written - though the discovery was not solely his own (only his happened to be published first), and suddenly, all laymen to science - and quite a few scientists themselves, had their eyes opened and everyone said "Aha!"

Well, not everyone. Many people found the idea that say, men had descended from apes, was absolutely insulting. And thus began the lively debate over the "Origin of the Species" and the concept of "The survival of the fittest" (a line, mind you, that did not come from Darwin’s original work at all), spanning from laymen to the most prestigious of scientists, and continuing to this very day.

Any dealing in evolution leads to arguments on all fronts. Biologists, I believe, *love* these types of arguments. Many of them outright denied Darwin’s findings - which does not discount the validity of his observations, but they were denied nonetheless. Opinions of pure skeptics who did not have an alternative theory, were considered invalid.

(Scientists tend to build their knowledge like a wall. If you are willing to knock out a brick you better have a better brick to put in there!)

And so, as for your actual question in this lively debate, "..if the laws of the Theory of Evolution were to be obeyed, we should all have tails!

So, why did we lose our tails?". First and foremost I have to point out a delineation in science between theories and laws. (This is something coming from my vague memory of college freshman biology - whether this concept still holds true or not, I’m not sure, so please bear with me!)

There is a hierarchical organization of terms for the "possibility of truth" of any idea put forth in science. I believe it starts with a hypothesis, which is 50% true - it either is, or it isn’t, and that’s what experiments are done to discover. A theory is a plausible explanation to a fact, but according to the hierarchy, it is classified as about 75% truth. A law is more like 90% (like laws of physics). (Note that even a law of science is not considered 100% true. As far as science and philosophy and basic human nature shows, none of us can be 100% certain of anything.)

So, yes, the theory itself does not explain why we did lose our tails, or in fact, why the great apes or the chimpanzees lost their tails too. Or does it? Let’s think on that for a minute; the laws of physics would demand a pretty big, strong tail to pick up a 400-pound ape. Now, if this ancestor of man gained mass, but not, say, tail-mass, that little tail would end up becoming pretty useless. This does not also explain the chimpanzee though, they're nowjere near 400 pounds. However, the hands could have been used for far more, and brain development could have been on the rise(I'm sure you have heard of the chimpanzees who speak American Sign Language - there are skeptics on that account too, but I personally tend to believe it). If the little ancestor used his tail to reach
branches to get out of the way of predators, or to grab food from tall branches, or whatever, these bigger ancestors would just use their hands (they can reach branches and things now without the help of a tail) or their brains to find better things to eat or figure out another way to get the food into reach. So it could be that at the time the "tail" was beginning to be lost, other things were being gained. If we have small animal A with a tail, but big animal B with a smaller, less useful tail, but with the cognitive ability to find escape, food, or mates another way, the tail ends up not being such an advantage after all, at least not as much as the ability to pick up a stick and fish insects out of a log, or finer communications and family organization systems between group
members - which undeniably aids in mating, food gathering, predator
avoidance, etc. This doesn’t mean that the small tailed ancestor is going to die out, the tail is still useful for *him* (and we still do have monkeys around), it merely delineates a branch in development, the tailed monkey went one way, and the tail-less one went another.

Genetics is an elegant, beautiful science, and can be insanely
complicated. Geneticists talk about "gene deletions" and shifts and the like, the fact that the changing of one or two base-pairs of DNA can have a good - or a deleterious - effect on an organism. But evolutionary science is still so expansive that genetics on it’s own has not as of yet been able to explain evolution, evolutionary science and archaeology is still missing many, many pieces, and as soon as human - or pre-human - brain power gets involved, things start getting VERY complicated.

Darwin’s world of strong wins and weak loses really stops working as soon as brain-power gets involved. I’m typing at a computer and I have to wear glasses to look at what I’m typing . Now, bad eyesight is a VERY deleterious trait, and according to Darwin’s theory, I should havestarved to death or have been eaten by a lion long ago - but we know that’s not the case with humans. Humans as a family group (meaning ALL of us) protect our weak. Even though I have bad eyesight, it’s not going to stop me from getting my genes into the gene pool. (Though in older days in some societies before glasses, girls with a "squint" were undesirable and often ended up being old maids - funny, huh?) With this protection of the weak, evolution will continue - but don’t think of evolution as a ladder always moving up. Evolution just moves forward. We have advanced, yes, but now in brain-power, whereas our physical traits seem to be dropping by the wayside. Things that would have killed us outright before, either physically or through environmental stresses - bad hearts, bad eyes, deformed limbs, mental retardation… none of these things is a mass killer for us anymore. These people are still getting to breed, and add their genes to the gene pool.

Ultimately, the reason we probably lost our tails was probably because at the time, the tail was not necessary for survival anymore. Just like our appendix isn’t necessary for survival anymore. Or clear eyesight. Or strong hearts. Yes, evolution is moving forward. But where it is going now, that could be anyone’s guess.

by Patricia O.

Research Specialist

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956601136.Ev.r.html

What do you think or know?

Hiding under the table!

That website is amazing. Those formulas are crazy! How one comes up with such formulas bewilders me and that was over 200 years ago.

Well it is fascinating indeed.

I live in Miami! I flushed my toilete and it went right to left. I guess that would be counter clockwise right.


Now what is the reward for doing this?

Wow all this hype because I said I see the black hole like a toilette full of water flushing away.

Well I am off to go flush my toilette

Very interesting and thank you for taking the time to explain

So it is the toilette itself that determines which way the water flushes down.

Well all be darned and here I am thinking it has something to do with the magnetism of the earth or perhaps this coriolis effect.

Well in the end, as long as the toilette works that is the most important to me.

Hallucination makes me think of Voodoo for some reason. I have heard many stories about that from Haitians down here in Miami and the powers they possess in getting people to hallucinate and sleep walk somewhere.

Scary

I knew there was a name for it. Everything has a name in this world

Which is interesting because what if a hurricane starts at the south of the equator and passes it up to the north of it. It doesn't suddenly change direction would it? It would lose its momentum right?

You know I have been through quiet a few hurricanes here in Miami, yet never paid attention to that. I thought Ida just recently would hit us as it looked liked it was going to change directions.

The rotating of the hurricane doesn't change direction does it?

Very interesting point you bring up jrbogie.

I never tried a toilette exactly at the equator

Maybe it just goes straight

I just found it ironic that it does that. I am not sure what causes this, but I found it ironic.

If it has something to do with gravity, magnetism, or just pressure, it would be interesting to know.

so these electrons don't go in a type of circular motion around the center of the atom? They go in all different directions.

I mean one electron goes in a type of circular rotation doesn't it.

If not then these atom diagrams surely are misleading to me for it shows that they are orbiting around the center.

I do know something ironic about the flushing of a toilette.

In my many travels I realized that above the equater the flushing of the water goes from left to right and if I am below the equator the flushing goes from right to left.

I think I got that right? I haven't been traveling much lately and forgot, but I did notice a different rotation when I did use them.

Gosh this makes it sound like I spend half of my days on a toilette seat doesn't it!

Anyway would this have something to do with gravity pull or is it just the toilettes have different functions, or am I going slightly insane and becoming superstitious

You too! Have a good one

I do know something ironic about the flushing of a toilette.

In my many travels I realized that above the equater the flushing of the water goes from left to right and if I am below the equator the flushing goes from right to left.

I think I got that right? I haven't been traveling much lately and forgot, but I did notice a different rotation when I did use them.

Gosh this makes it sound like I spend half of my days on a toilette seat doesn't it!

Anyway would this have something to do with gravity pull or is it just the toilettes have different functions, or am I going slightly insane and becoming superstitious