Are Some People Born with Tails? (Part 2)

Introduction

For those who have not yet read Part 1 (which I encourage you to do), these articles deal with a variant of an older evolutionary argument—that of humans supposedly having what were termed vestigial organs (degraded or downright useless leftovers from our evolutionary past).

These vestigial organ arguments have long been debunked for the most part; however, a new argument states that human DNA supposedly contains genetic instructions for atavistic features which were somehow retained from former evolutionary stages. This genetic information is sometimes activated or “switched on,” resulting in humans being born with features not normally expressed.

Tales of Human Tails

“A popular example of ‘atavism’ these days is the claim that humans are sometimes born with fully functioning tails.”1 And this claim is made by scientists and medical professionals and has even been popularized in Hollywood movies such as Shallow Hal, where one of the characters declares and demonstrates (via CGI, of course) that he has a “vestigial tail” that he can wag like a dog.

Many people (including Christians) have been duped into believing evolutionary explanations for life with this type of argument, as a simple online image or video search using the phrase “human tails” reveals many images/videos/reports of people with what is described as a tail or tail-like appendage.

For example, a quick YouTube search will almost certainly show videos of a teenager from Punjab, India, called Arshid Ali Khan, a.k.a. Balaji.2 Because of the 18-cm/7-inch “tail” he had prior to its surgical removal, he’d been hailed and worshipped by some people as a reincarnation of the Hindu monkey god, Hanuman.

Unfortunately, like most people born with “tails,” he had associated medical challenges. He couldn’t walk due to partial paralysis and used a wheelchair in his particular case. Fortunately, he underwent surgery in 2015 to remove the caudal appendage to allow him the ability to walk. Even before his condition was formally diagnosed, the doctors considering the operation said they “believe his tail and partial paralysis could be a sign that he has a form of spina bifida called meningocele. This develops when membranes poke through a hole between the vertebrae in the back.”3

Balaji’s condition serves as an example of what these so-called human tails truly are—the subject of which we’ll now explore further by examining a popular article written by an MD from Part 1. As we discussed, problem #1 when dealing with the topic of “human tails” was the issue of equivocation. We will now dig deeper into the second biggest problem associated with the topic.

Problem #2—Imprecise Definitions

A second problem often seen in this discussion is the definition of the word tail gets even more muddled and is used imprecisely. For example, that article we were examining goes on to say,

Sometimes, however, the embryonic tail doesn't disappear and the baby is born with it. This is a true human tail.

Growing a true human tail is extremely rare. Sometimes, when babies are born, their parents might think they have a true tail when actually they don’t. This is called a pseudotail. Pseudotails are usually a symptom of an irregular coccyx or of spina bifida as opposed to a remnant of the embryonic tail from the womb.4

Okay, so here we have the gentleman (a medical doctor) making a claim and designation that some people are born with “true tails” while others are supposedly born with “pseudo-tails.” And this is after he made the statement that all normally developed people are born with tails, which turn into tailbones (see Part 1). Confused yet?

So, to unpack all of this, it’s first important to remember the actual argument many evolutionary scientists (typified by Coyne and Giberson quoted previously in Part 1) are making.

“The claim made by many evolutionists is that sometimes human babies are born with [not just possessing them in the womb] ‘perfectly formed, even functional tails.’”5,6 And “as alluded to earlier, they claim that the ‘vestigial’ genes for these tails remain encoded in the DNA of humans. . . . The tails form when these normally dormant genes are accidentally reactivated.”7

Back to the article, then.

Firstly, if the “embryonic tail” that he is referring to isn’t a tail whatsoever but simply a structure intrinsic to human development (as discussed in Part 1), how could it possibly be that “Sometimes . . . the embryonic tail doesn't disappear and the baby is born with it. This is a true human tail”?8

Can you see why the subject is so confusing? If it isn’t a true tail in the beginning (demonstrated in Part 1), how could it not disappear and still become a true human tail? This trained medical doctor is contradicting himself within his article and using the word tail in various ways with little precision in meaning. No wonder the layperson is left scratching his or her head.

Now, secondly, what is this pseudo tail he refers to?

Pseudo Tails

He is correct that “humans [like Balaji] are sometimes born with various bulbous or tubular growths . . . termed ‘caudal appendages,’”9 which emerge from different types of medical problems such as spina bifida.

As mentioned, “an online image search using the phrase ‘human tails’ reveals many (sometimes disturbing) images of people with this sort of condition.”10 When these are somewhere on their lower backs, they are commonly referred to as human tails because of where a tail would be on an animal.

However, “if someone is born with a tubular growth extending from their shoulder or arm, it is not usually referred to as a tail because it isn’t situated in the [correct] area.”11

And the fact that some of these tails appear in locations other than where normal animal tails would be situated is a big clue that, instead of being evolutionary atavistic or vestigial organs, they are pathological. They aren’t throwbacks to evolution’s good old days but are abnormalities outside of normal human development and unrelated to any ancestral genes.

As one researcher from Duke University Medical Center (Durham, NC, US) stated:

One of the earliest . . . explanations for the ‘human tail’ was that it was a remnant of the embryologic tail seen during gestation. There are several problems with this theory, the most obvious being that these occur in locations other than the embryologic sacrococcygeal region [I.e., the ‘correct place’ for a tail to be positioned].12

How Do You Define a “Fully Functioning Tail”?

A simple method of analyzing whether the evolutionary claim that people are sometimes born with “fully functioning tails” is quite easy to accomplish. Examine what exactly a tail is and what it does, then compare it to any of the caudal appendages we’ve ever examined on humans.

Firstly, “animal tails have fully developed structural vertebrae continuing past the rear hips with appropriately attached muscles, nerves activating these muscles with the appropriate neural pathways,”13 with everything all wired into the brain for the specialized control of the tail’s functions.

The activities that animals perform with tails include keeping balance when moving, communication (like a happy dog wagging or a cat slashing its tail in anger), prehensile grasping, removing insects, keeping warm (like a husky curled up with its nose covered), and even as defense decoys (such as when lizards voluntarily detach their tails to escape danger).14

The question is this—is there an example of a human possessing an appendage that (1) matches the required physical structure and (2) can perform these types of feats? That should be what would be descriptively considered a true tail, and yet as we’ll see, it isn’t.

What Are These True Tails?

Even though medical literature differentiates these caudal appendages (which vary from two to over ten centimeters long) into two categories, the truth is the names “true tail” and “pseudo tail” are very misleading. An article in the Journal of Perinatology states that the causes of each of these deformities are now believed to be related.

Caudal appendages or human tails were divided . . . into true tails, which contain muscle and are movable, and pseudotails, which do not move. However, this is now considered arbitrary and without clinical significance as both kinds are derived from notocordal remnants and the etiology [I.e., the cause] of both is probably similar.15

Now, although there are differences—for example, pseudo tails are generally flaccid in appearance and can be located in various places—the so-called true tails contain muscle, can move, and extend from the coccyx.16 No appendage has ever been found to contain vertebrae or cartilage, let alone resemble any real animal tail structurally or be able to perform any of the functions listed above.17

So, the claim that humans are sometimes born with fully functioning tails is false, and the term “true tails” is extremely misleading. It's akin to you and your friend speaking the same word but using a different dictionary to define it.

Corrupted Genetic Information—not Evolutionary Ancestry

Although the older literature discussing these issues is far more littered with evolutionary presuppositions, more “modern doctors familiar with this sort of condition seem unanimous in their description of human tails as being the result of birth defects,”18 with the majority of people with caudal appendages having related, potentially serious medical conditions such as spinal dysraphism, meningocele, tethered spinal cord, and many others.

And with modern CT (computerized tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans available, these caudal appendages are properly and accurately diagnosed and assessed, revealing that the atavistic organ explanation of such deformities should be thrown into the trash heap of evolutionary evidence as soon as possible.

As a 2008 report in the Journal of Perinatology stated:

The most important feature of caudal appendages is the possibility of associated spinal dysraphism, which needs to be treated to prevent the development of neurologic symptoms. Therefore, caudal appendages require meticulous imaging and neurological evaluation to insure that appropriate surgery is performed to prevent progressive neurologic symptoms.19

And a 2010 case report admitted that these modern scientific devices (the MRI being invented by the brilliant biblical creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian) have helped debunk the evolution-based interpretation of these abnormalities even though they use the term tail to describe the medical anomaly.

A human tail is a rare congenital anomaly with a prominent lesion from the lumbosacrococcygeal region. Many authors saw this curious and rare condition to be evidence of man’s descent from or relation to other animals . . . Advanced imaging technology in recent decades has allowed a more thorough investigation of these patients and better defined their association with spinal dysraphism and tethered spinal cord.20

And physician and surgeon Dr. Michael Egnor (Department of Neurological Surgery Vice-Chairman and Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook), who has extensive surgical experience with this type of condition, summed up his analysis of so-called human tails,

None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails. . . . None have the structure of a tail, even in rudimentary form, and none of the ones I have operated on were attached to the coccyx in the way that a tail is.21

What’s the Conclusion?

Despite the confusion found within the medical and scientific literature discussing the issue, it all boils down to these five points.

1. “The human embryo never has a ‘tail’ at any stage.22
2. “Developmental abnormalities can rarely cause caudal appendages which have been loosely termed tails”23 but aren’t.
3. “These can be varying types [of these abnormalities], and sometimes even contain innervated muscle, causing them to be ‘movable,’”24 which “has unfortunately led to the term ‘true tails’ [even within the scientific literature], no babies are ever born with anything that could be remotely called a true tail, structurally and functionally.”25
4. “Medical researchers [scientists] and clinicians that are faced with these rare occurences are increasingly stating the obvious (whether or not they believe in evolution) that none of them are tails.”26 They are instead the result of “various types of birth defects, [completely] unrelated to any ‘animal ancestry.’”27
5. There has never been an example of latent DNA blueprints for an atavistic organ discovered within humans.

Don’t Be Fooled

God’s Word reminds us that “[W]e walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7).

Let’s face it, images and videos all over the internet of human beings with growths protruding from them (especially little babies) promoted as the results of our supposed evolution from animals can be jarring and faith-challenging for many a Christian, especially if they have never been exposed to arguments from a biblical creationist point of view.

But as believers, you must remember that you can always trust God’s Word from the very first verse—and there are answers to your questions if you search them out. More often than not, you’ll find answers—in Genesis.