Notice it says :

...Though formally a malformation..
HOw can it be a true tail and a malformation too?

I have no problem with there being those characteristics. So in the process of development the spinal column didn't develop the way it's supposed to. So what? So there's hair and muscle and nerve. Ever consider the spinal column just was too long by a malformation and the skin grew around it? I had a freind once who's fingers were little stubs because of a birth malformation. The skin grew around them and he still has mucle and nerves etc. in them. But nobody calls that evolution. This is so superficial and it's not reasonable. It's only judging by appearance. It's not recognising the way the body develops around the spinal column in birth. The spinal column grows out first, and the body grows around it. This is actually the best way for that to happen. But if the spinal column is deformed than it can be too short or too long.

Here's something interesting :

Human Tails Or Fairy Tales

The subject of human "tails" is an interesting one to say the least. Evolutionists really enjoy bagging this claim around as evidence for evolution. Educated evolutionists usually do not use such "evidence" as support for their theory of origins. This is made aware when Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education was asked about human tails on a 1999 radio debate with Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe. Her response follows:

"Actually, thatâ??s [human "tails"] not an evolutionary issue at all ... Itâ??s a matter of developmental biology; itâ??s a matter of what happens when that sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldnâ??t give you the exact precise biochemical explanation but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times, by mistake. It was a faulty transmission of information, so to speak. And this particular individual just ended up getting a few extra vertebral segments. And this doesnâ??t happen very frequently, but, you know there are glitches in the genetic material that produce things like this, just as there are glitches in the genetic material that produce people with six fingers. But if somebody was born with six fingers, you donâ??t think 'Oh no! That takes us all the way back to Acanthostega', with the earliest amphibians some of them had six fingers. Itâ??s not really an evolutionary issue."

Dr. Eugenie Scott, 10-11-1999
"The Mike Rosen Show," KOA Radio
http://www.reasons.org/resources/mul...w/19991011.ram

Obviously Dr. Eugenie Scott â?? who is a major opponent to the furthering of Creation Science â?? doesnâ??t feel that "human tails" are an evolutionary issue at all. As she so clearly stated, such mutations happen that equip people with six fingers as well, but this isnâ??t evolution. The idea of "throwbacks" is only an argument for evolution when theyâ??re convenient. For instance, if a fatty extrusion of flesh is located somewhere near an individualâ??s lower back, itâ??s a "tail". If a person grows a sixth finger, or an additional nipple, itâ??s a genetic mistake. This type of flexibility barks at the credibility of the person offering such an argument.

Interestingly enough, the author of this website uses a picture of a Hindu baby who reportedly is the reincarnated version of the "monkey-faced god." I recalled seeing this picture some months back online in an article. There was a very important bit of information that the author of this website chose to exclude for his or her visitors. A follow up documentation ran on Ananova soon thereafter regarding this brow-raising Hindu baby-god. The title, "Doctors fear baby with tail may not have long to live". The opening statement was blunt, and to the point, "Doctors in India fear a baby believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god may need urgent surgery." So much for the great evolutionary-throwbacks, eh?

The article moved on to state that, "His family refuse to let him be examined by doctors who think he may have a deformity of the spinal column or a tumour." Like the evolutionists, they are fixated on such a great reason for this "tail", and unfortunately for the boyâ??s sake, this could be a deadly thing. So why would "Visual Evolution" exclude such a thing from their website? It seems to me that they are more interested in passing evolution off as science rather than educating people in the fields of True science. This isnâ??t all the article contains. Dr. Surender Sharma says: "The parents will be making the child's life more difficult if they don't see a pediatrician immediately. The appendage could well be a deformity of the spinal column or a tumour that could require urgent surgery."

The article was concluded with Dr. Bagai saying, "It's time they stopped imagining things. One wishes they understood he could be suffering and may not have long to live." I really feel this works equally as well with the evolutionists who are willing to smear the truth to further their cause. Itâ??s time they stopped imagining things. The website has a nice display of other deceitful images as well, including two images of males with extrusions from their lower backs. Notice that these are not even lined up with the spinal column. This is common among such defects. If they were tails, one would expect them to be lined up somewhat.

Overall, this is a deceitful presentation that should be completely voided or greatly modified to include any form of Truth.
TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - More Eager Evolutionists

Here's an interesting thought for you :


What he seems to be saying is this: Although humans do not ordinarily have tails, and thus the genes for tails in humans are usually suppressed, yet humans still retain genes for tailsâ??"structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome." According to Ledley, then, though the genes are not expressed and thus are useless baggage, we humans for many millions of years have been carrying those genes and faithfully reproducing them even though they are totally without function.

Presumably, then, we would also be carrying along in our human genetic apparatus other genes that are responsible for all other characteristics seen in our monkey-like ancestors but not seen in man. Following this thinking to its logical conclusion, the human genetic apparatus should still be carrying every gene ever possessed by any of our ancestors, even the genes that make a worm a worm, if indeed a worm was the ancestor of vertebrates.



Warkany reports that while most persons with caudal appendages showed normal general development, caudal appendages have been associated with such malformations as meningocele, spina bifida, chondrodystophy, cleft palate, hemangiomas, syndactyly, hypodactyly and heterotopic anus.4 Can evolutionists identify ancestral states with any of these malformations?

If malformations may possibly be due to the expression of genes inherited from distant ancestors but long suppressed, one can think of interesting suggestions. For example, some human females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long-suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands, as a matter of fact, have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Look, In the last century the German anatomist, Wiedersheim, claimed there were 180 such vistigial structures in the human body. Since that time, all but a handful of these structures have been proved to be functional. Now I'm told of a protrusion of a spinal column with skin on it and you want me to belive it's a tail?

This is pathetic