digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Humans with tails; Creationists explain away this one! (NSFW photos)

dimaggio.org — "Humans Evolved from Ape-like Ancestors ...and whether you 'accept' it or not makes no difference to the fact that it happened" Had to post this one, I think 99.8 percent of Digg would say duhhh, but I'd love to hear from the other 0.2 percent!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • syroncoda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25pity nobody (that i know of) has a tail developed enough to grasp a beer.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -21/+27That is because they are not really tails. They are not even lined up with the spine in most cases and have no bone structure or muscle. These are not tails, but growths. This has nothing to do with evolution. In order for this to be related to evolution, first, they would have to be real tails, second, they would have to be entered back into the gene pool somehow, and since humans do not have tails, this is simply not possible.
      • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Strait from the other 0.2% ;- ) "duhhh" Nice story description.
        • TinMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Hell, I don't believe in creation and I agree with brokencrystal. Are you saying that children born both male and female prove we were once asexual?
          • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6We WERE once asexual.

            /We as in what we evolved from, not humans.
          • kedohmen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yep. Just another genetic hiccup from our (all species on this planets) common past.
      • vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dormant genes (we have LOTS of them BTW) reactivated by a mutation.
    • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You don't have to believe in the Judeo-Christian God to believe in creationism. I am an agnostic and can still believe that man was created by God. Even creationists don't discount that the evolutionary process aka natural selection is real, but does the mean humans evolved from apes?

      I think George Carlin said "If humans evolved from apes why are there still apes around?"

      Some other 2 percenters have offered reasonable explanations for this tail anomaly in the comments below. It is far from a settled matter.
  • Four20, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I saw a Japanese video of a dude with a tail(from digg of course). . .about 10 inches. . .that is some freaky stuff
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9Not a real tail. It is a growth.
      • chyya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree. it is definitely not a real tail. more or less... an extension of the tail bone.
    • RaptorNv25, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Prolly the longest thing dangling from a Japanese.
    • chyya, on 10/10/2007, -1/+210 inch tail huh? was he black?
    • theworldisflat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3That's the only thing 10 inches you'll ever find on a Japanese dude.
  • neckfire, on 10/10/2007, -12/+27Obviously they are from the devil. god, you evolutionist's are so ignorant.
    /sarcasm
    • diggeon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No doubt... HELLO! congress with the Devil! Duh!

      /better sarcasm
  • dr0psy, on 10/10/2007, -27/+9i thought (according to evolutionists) we evolved from animals that already had tails, and they fell off because we didnt need them anymore. why would we grow them again? oh i know probably because its some random weird ass mutation and it has nothing to do with either evolution or creation..

    hey.. now that i think about it.. a tail would be a nice thing to have. something to open doors with when my hands are full of groceries.. picking up a sock i dropped when i was doing laundry..
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Here's a simple prediction of evolution.
      Humans will occasionally be born with tails.
      Humans will never be born with wings.

      Your "weird ass mutation" theory fails.
      Evolution passes.
      • dr0psy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8wait.. my theory fails because you made a prediction concerning the types of mutations humans may or may not have? what does your prediction have to do with evolution anyway? and who said anything about wings? you've got some 'splainin to do!
        • kingrooster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Don't blame him because you're an idiot. We came from mammals with tails. Birds came from feathered dinosaurs which evolved separately from the first mammals... The genetic code for wings would NEVER be in our DNA whereas the genetic code for a tail may be still there but deactivated.
        • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"The genetic code for wings would NEVER be in our DNA "

          Unless one of his ancestors ***** a chicken.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8According to evolution theory, it would have to be entered back into the gene pool for tails to come back. This of course, cannot happen since humans do not have tails. Since these are not true tails anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with macro-evolution. Nice try.
      • dr0psy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5wait.. i think we agree. i dont get the 'nice try'. im just saying that this shouldnt be a strong argument for evolution or creation

        (i really normally wouldnt discuss things like this over teh intertubes but its 5am and iv been at work for 10 hours so im trying to stay awake)
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3The "nice try" was referring to the title of this digg submission. The title assumes this is related to evolution. I wasn't talking about your comment here. I hope I didn't sound too offensive. This was not my intention. Not towards you anyway, but more towards the person who submitted this story with a misleading title.
      • klco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0the presence of the genes to enable such a mutation seems to me to be good evidence of evolution. I mean we have a clear example of a random mutation which proves to be harmful to the reproductive chances of the individual, thus making the trait less likely to be passed down.

        Similarly since a tail as seen by humans as an undesirable trait, most children with tails have them removed. Thus the trait of a having a tail is passed down and still appears in modern man occasionally.
      • kingrooster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Says who? There's a large amount of genetic code that seems to be completely useless which may be stuff left behind. We already have a tail bone, so how much of a mutation would be needed to grow an actual tail. While these may or may not be real tails, there have been reported incidences of humans with real tails.
    • Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12These tails aren't evolving from scratch. We all have residual tailbones (The three fused bones at the ends of our spine), which are left over from our days in the trees. Since becoming larger and more bipedal, we lost the benefit of having the tail, so we gradually lost it. This is the same reason we don't have fur, but still have body hair. Many of the genetic basis for it still linger on in the gene pool, so every once it a while someone has the right combination for a mal-formed tail. There is still no environmental benefit to having it, so it doesn't re-evolve again. Evolution isn't as cut-and-dry as creationists make it out to be.
      • dr0psy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2no environmental benefit? i think it would be very handy!
        • Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not in a way that's beneficial to your survival or helps you to reproduce.
        • mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wiping would be a bitch.
        • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But would it help you procreate more than others? Doubtful. Not too many women with a tail fetish.
    • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7People seem to think evolution is somehow intelligent and it chooses useful characteristics. It's not, every now and again you'll get someone with a mutation with a tail. It's possible these people won't mate and so it doesn't get passed on.
    • ckhw2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The human genome contains almost all the genes of it's previous ancestors. Most of this information is "suppressed" rather than destroyed (Partly due to RNAi - look it up). "Weird ass mutations" play a very minor role in evolution... but they were necessary for the major changes - like the bulging of the human brain, etc. A gene that turns out to be useful (Like the tail in our ancestors from 4 - 5 million years ago) almost never gets replaced. But it can make copies of itself, and the copies are the basic genetic material for new genes... In short - most of us still have the genes for - incredible canine smell, speed, strength, etc... they are mostly just suppressed... i.e. they do not contribute to what we finally turn out to look like. And that is what makes us "human".
    • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Think of the tail as being commented out in our genetic code. Thanks to RANDOM mutation of our code, strange things happen, such as that commenting being removed, resulting in a tail.
      Evolution is random mutation plus natural selection. This article shows that some random mutations can reveal traits that our ancestors had, proving common descent.
  • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -27/+18These tails are not really tails. They are like skin growths. They are useless and do not have bone structure. Many times, they do not even line up with the spine and are not centered on the body. This has nothing to do with evolution.
    • dr0psy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16you've made this very clear to all of us, thank you.
    • Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13This isn't completely true. Some of the tails do have bone structure and can be controlled (similar to a dogs tail).
      • consoneo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, watch Shallow Hal!
      • itchy11jr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1they do have bone structure? Do you have any sources to claim this?The "tail" is the fatty tissue that is protecting the Nervous system while the child is developing in the womb. In rare occurrences the fatty tissue exits the body and forms this "tail". I think what is important to take for this is both sides (creation and evolution) think that their way is right and you can't change that person's thinking. If God just appeared in the sky one day most evolutionist would try and make up a logical reason for him to appear. On the other hand if someone found a human that started evolving in to a new species the creationist would say God is allowing it to happen. I understand both arguments but don't get why it is so hard for people to understand that you will not change either persons mind because it is their BELIEF (i know atheist say they don't "believe", but they have to believe that they don't believe. There is NO way to KNOW there isn't a God ; or KNOW evolution didn't happen) Science can only prove what we KNOW. Do we KNOW where the end of space is? Do we KNOW whats beyond that? Do we even KNOW life anywhere else in the universe? We don't KNOW, but can only believe or not believe there is. I wish people would leave this topic alone. Its always cluttering up my rss feeds
    • pukufek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0While I agree, skin growths are not technically tails it doesnt negate the fact that a single bit of messed up DNA can grow a long shape out of your butt in the same place that a tail would be. DNA is fractal and therefore allows complex seemingly "designed" patterns out of simple permutations.

      No-one can argue that these growths were "designed" and yet for them to happen "by accident" as creationists suggest would be an absolutely enourmous co-incidence - for a start its uniform in width and centered in the same place as a tail, if it was complete chance then that growth could have been widely tapered or some mishapen blobby lump and could have appeared anywhere on the body, and yet it appears smooth and uniform in shape, just another example of DNA's fractal nature that creationists cant seem to grasp.
  • crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Hindu mythology has many such stories.
  • HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Furrie porn.
  • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Not a tail. Buried.
    • victorycig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Haha, digg should add that option to the buried list: "Duplicate; Spam; Lame; Not a Tail."
  • IHaveIssues, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Why did Jesus give them tails?
    • thespace2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Jesus has a sense of humor
    • EzarKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that brings another question, why didnt Jesus have a tail?
  • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24If you're eating your lunch atm, do not click the link. I could have done without the naked hairy guy.
  • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Now that is some kind of amazing clench power when you can take your lovers penis right off!!!
    • moxley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1modded down or not, that was damn funny
  • ShootTheCore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I really didn't want to see the hairy picture...
  • bormooski, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0shopped
  • kedohmen, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Duh, God made those people freaks to trick us, much like dinosaurs....it's all in the Bible
    /sarcasm
  • linkcma, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4How come the genetic defects, mutations, etc are always from India?
    • RaptorNv25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Don't ask.
    • mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because in most First World countries, the infant would either be operated on or treated, or the pregnancy would have been terminated had a defect been found.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If the defect was found in India, the pregnancy would have been terminated as well. Abortions are extremely common over there. Abortion clinics are more prolific than WalMart.
  • thespace2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Ooooh now they say "shopped" but when Mary cries blood in a shanty church in a Rainforest somewhere its a frickin act of God. I get it now, selective little monkeys aren't you.
  • CerMakAlot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5backwards penis disorder?
    • RaptorNv25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
      • honeymustardn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think so, Brain, but how are we going to make pencils that taste like bacon? Or maybe we should make bacon that tastes like pencils. Narf.
    • silveravnt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Double up?
  • antiorblkflag9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Ummm....Those look like pictures you would find in the National Inquirer. Either that or it looks like they re going to the bathroom.
  • JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1monkey
  • mediaploy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's one hairy bastard!
  • momsshizzle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wow! They look like people in my neighborhood!
  • EzarKun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Evolution/tail20.jp ...
    japanese high pitched girl voice: "oh, he has TWO wangs!"
    hahaah that pic is hilarious


  • eyefone, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4God did it, my proof? The Bible.



    CHECKMATE!
  • Calann, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5President Bush strikes me as being very ape-like. You know that whenever he is giving a press conference and a reporter asks him a tough question, Bush's first reaction is to want to crap in his hand and fling the feces at the reporter. You can see it in his eyes.
  • YawehsDead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4dr0psey, read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins if you really want to know what evolution and life are all about.
  • Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is a hairy dude
  • Carsonauto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I hadn't known humans were found with tails.

    I want one.
  • mediaploy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The whole Japanese picture-in-picture thing is quite fascinating.
  • Lafftermath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The monkey's made me laugh a little.
  • topherbook, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I find it funny that the really hairy guy has hair everywhere except the small of his back. I have the exact opposite problem (sometimes referred to as a "wally").
  • eliezersilver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i think i'm going to be sick
  • Mier, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2So you ask for an answer and when given one you digg it down. That's what you accuse the Right of doing all the time. If the facts don't fit the argument then ignore them and shout them down. Such a constructive method of discussion. All those "tails" I saw didn't line up with the spine like normal tails so I'd conclude that it's a birth defect.
  • Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This is the evolutionary equivalent to uncommenting some code it seems. Evolution threw in those // and through accident, when the file was copied those characters were dropped.
    (of course it's a feature, not a bug)
  • Chaoticfist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1For one its not a tail.....Secondly i really do not believe life originated on earth. I would say chances are when the big bang occurred life was created and has always been in the universe. Earth is not the only planet with life. Now remember this is a theory. Just like religion is a theory.(dnst even deserve the title of theory) But we know life is incredible resilient so who is to say life can not survive near stars?????(in form of micro bacteria or some other organism......
    • Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Religion is not a theory. A theory is not a 'guess' or a 'hypothesis'.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
      In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
  • hartley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't care what the article says, I am not the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel.
    • Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Of course not. Get it right. You are the retarded offspring of five *apes* having butt sex with a fish-squirrel.
  • theWaterboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1One word -- "Eeuw"!! *vomits*
  • theworldisflat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2God exists because it is written in the bible. We know the bible is valid because God wrote it.
    ....
    Your head a splode. Isn't circular logic fun?
  • mwalker05, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2a few genetic mutations from india? IM CONVINCED! this would only support evolution if these people passed on their "tails" to their offspring. i guess the .2% you were referring to was the .2% of people smart enough to understand that? go ahead and bury me now.
    • Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"this would only support evolution if these people passed on their "tails" to their offspring."

      It shows that there's the DNA for tails encoded into our genes, even if it's not active in most people. There's a whole hell of a lot of DNA that does nothing, it's just leftover from the evolutionary process. Sometimes the sequence gets messed up and it gets included back in.
      • Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Although, after looking around a little, it's more likely that this isn't a case of DNA becoming active but rather a birth defect called spina bifida.
  • QuantumTarantno, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Creationism does not exclude evolution

    We can have been created by an all powerful being, and that doesnt disprove any sort of evolutionary process
  • sdlvx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/babytail.html

    i don't agree, and I don't think that this disproves what you said, because obviously there's more than one gene involved when it comes to growing a tail, and the odds of more than one gene getting modified grows exponentially, I still think that the tail is viable.

    I thought I'd give you a chuckle.
  • snuffulupagus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Sadly I'm going to have to agree with the creationists on this one: "Occasionally a human baby is born with a tail-like appendage and this is said to be evidence that our ancestors had tails. Actually, such rare congenital deformities are usually a type of fatty tumour having no relationship to the tail of a monkey" People have all sorts of weird growths.
  • notman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is it that it only seems to happen to males... and they all look like dicks? I'm just saying...
  • mstrebe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0God, why do you mock we mortal men by giving us nipples? Are we supposed to try to become women? Are they there just to confuse people about evolution? Why God? Answer me!

    (still waiting)
  • daniilm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Photoshop! I will believe this when I see it in porn.
  • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://www.geocities.com/sara1000.geo/evolution.ht ...

    Also now German and US Researchers at PA University, have found out, from DNA testing that these monkeys DNA falls out side the normal variation of modern human.

    Thus proving that these monkeys DNA did not contribute to the formation of Human DNA.
    There current theory also includes that these kind of monkeys became extinct only 30,000 years ago, and they co-existed with modern humans
  • Sheff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So does it wag when they're happy...?
  • Mononuclear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Does this mean the people with the mermaid disease with fused legs and feet are proof of evolution from fish? What about babies with 2 heads or 1 eye or 3 eyes? I am believer in micro and macro evolution but birth defects I don't think are proof of it. A lot can happen during cell division and with stem cells getting confused or going crazy.
  • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How do you explain this man who grew a horn on the side of his head? Mutations happen. The evolutionary process is real, but it does not prove humans evolved from apes.

    http://www.yobserver.com/reports/printer-10011703. ...
  • knobtwiddler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1sexxorz
  • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?

    I think George Carlin said this.
    • carbonetc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1George Carlin is a lot smarter than that.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.