[Plant]

Quote

If the theory of evolution is to be believed, we used to have tails. but they fell off. First of all when things evolve they continue to adapt and that doesn't mean they stop using bodyparts.

You're right, evolution helps adapt to the situation.
And that's exactly how we lost our tails


We were monkeys in trees, using our tails. Big strong tails are a must when you are swinging. When we moved to the ground and started wandering around we found we didn't need the tail. (Now, if this is all that happened we would probably still have tails). However, when we moved to the ground we also moved into the crosshairs of big scary things wanting to eat us. When we were running away who got caught more easily? The ones with the big tails behind them. They died. The ones with the smaller tails got away to breed. This carried on until there was no tail left. end of.


Oh, and if I knew how to post photos I would've chucked up some freaky tailed freaks for yas.

[Cougar]

I demand freaks!

Go to the box in the 'advanced' posting,(rather than the 'post quick reply' white box which doesn' have any options) marked 'manage attachments' you can then upload photos, alternatively you can link them with the little picture button to the left of the giant smiley used for spoilers

[Plant]

If it's freaks you want, it's freaks you'll get.

Unfortunately no foetus ones, but impressive none-the-less.

Eurgh

P.S. Thanks Cougar.

P.P.S. If anyone is disturbed by these, blame Cougar. He told me how.

[stone monkey]

Whilst it's true that none of the great apes (including us) have tails; two of them, the orang-utan and the gibbons, live predominently in the trees where we might assume a tail would be useful (If we're going to be picky it's actually five of them, as there are four types of gibbon iirc). So I'd say the situation's probably a little more complicated than simply losing the tail 'cause you're living on the ground; especially when you consider that tails are often used for balance by species that walk bipedally. And also considering that the various baboons, who spend the vast amount of their time on the ground, still have possession of their tails.

One would probably be safe to assume that it was the common great ape ancestor who lost (or discarded) the tail for whatever reason; and that feature (or lack thereof) has carried over into it's descendants.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I didn't really want to see that.

[Mezla PigDog]

stone monkey;362802 said:

So I'd say the situation's probably a little more complicated than simply losing the tail 'cause you're living on the ground; especially when you consider that tails are often used for balance by species that walk bipedally. And also considering that the various baboons, who spend the vast amount of their time on the ground, still have possession of their tails.

I've read about a theory as to why we lost tails and became the dominant species on the planet. Despite other species being capable of walking bipedally, we're the only one that walks completely upright (as opposed to upper bodies leaning forwards), negating the need for a tail to counter balance our upper body. As well as providing a better view of predators in the grassy savana's, walking completely upright saves a lot of energy (apparently). The amount of energy saved over a lifetime results in a higher reproductive rate and increased energy available for brain power ------> dominant species on the planet.

The higher reproductive rate was calculated as +1 offspring per female if I recall correctly. Over every female of the species and millenia, that's pretty statistically relevant!

[Plant]

stone monkey;362802 said:

considering that the various baboons, who spend the vast amount of their time on the ground, still have possession of their tails.

Ahhhhhh, yeah. Well, it was just a quick thought. Anyway, baboons are nasty (just watch Ren and Stimpy to see how vicious!) and they can stand up to predators and occasionaly win. So the tail wasn't a disadvantage to them? (I'm not clutching at straws!)

[Terez]

I think we lost our tails because we like to sit on our asses. Tails get in the way.

...and haha, DM clicked the link even though he didn't want to see it!

[Mezla PigDog]

If we even had tails as we know them today! The theory of evolution doesn't state that "we used to be monkeys". It works on the basis that humans and primates share a common ancestor. Who's to say what the physiology of that common ancestor was. Even further back, humans and all monkeys share a common ancestor. Different communities diversified due to different selective pressures - ba da bing, speciation.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Terez;362829 said:

I think we lost our tails because we like to sit on our asses. Tails get in the way.

...and haha, DM clicked the link even though he didn't want to see it!

It's been changed. There was no link before.

I'm tempted to make a missing link joke now.

[Terez]

Dolorous Menhir;362832 said:

It's been changed. There was no link before.

Oh, there were pictures? I've seen worse in the funny pics thread in the Inn...I've seen some so bad there that I neg repped for them, lol...

[Cause]

I think you just did. *drumroll*

[Terez]

No, I don't really look at that thread any more. It's overkill. Have to sift through too many pictures that aren't all that funny for the occasional funny one.

EDIT: O I just realized you were talking to DM. And yes, he did....

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

It's becoming more and more rare for people to post pics in the pics thread. I blame the Repocalypse. And Brood. And the fact that there aren't that many funny ones we haven't gotten to already. I've sifted through entire sites of funny pics without finding one we don't already ahve.

[Morgoth]

*cough* topic *cough*

[Cougar]

Back on topic, the first mammals who would pressumably be a common ancestor for most of mammalian kind like leptictidium types etc would have had tails, it's safe to say that at some stage a common ancestor of the great apes made a lifestlye choice that rendered a tail an irrelevance or worse still a hinderance and as such it eveolved out. I think the common misconception in discussing this is that people will often say, they decided, they didn't. It could be something as simple as a mammal was born with a mutation that prevented it having a fully formed tail. This for wahtever reason proved an advantage and he got lots of chicks diseminating his small tail genes into the general populace who all had a similar advantage, this trend would then continue. It's only a possibility but it's reasonable.

[Terez]

Morgoth;363151 said:

*cough* topic *cough*

You know...that's why we quit posting 12 hours before you chimed in.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Cougar;363163 said:

Back on topic, the first mammals who would pressumably be a common ancestor for most of mammalian kind like leptictidium types etc would have had tails, it's safe to say that at some stage a common ancestor of the great apes made a lifestlye choice that rendered a tail an irrelevance or worse still a hinderance and as such it eveolved out. I think the common misconception in discussing this is that people will often say, they decided, they didn't. It could be something as simple as a mammal was born with a mutation that prevented it having a fully formed tail. This for wahtever reason proved an advantage and he got lots of chicks diseminating his small tail genes into the general populace who all had a similar advantage, this trend would then continue. It's only a possibility but it's reasonable.

It's also possible that the tail mutation had nothing to do with why that particular ape was successful in spreading his genes. Maybe he was a big strong ape type guy, and that was why his genes got spread. The no tail gene just went along for the ride, so to speak.

[stone monkey]

Given the vast number of, to all appearances pointless, features some species have for which sexual selection appears to be responsible (peacock's tails and the like); maybe the females simply preferred a male without a tail...

[Cause]

Well the expression or non-expression of some genes has been seen to have knock on effects of others.