In the early stages of brain development, a group of cells help establish boundaries until the proper cells are available - and later the temporary cells disappear. Similarly, the tail end may serve as a place holder until the rest of the body grows around it.
Did you even think this one through?
What grows around the human embryonic tail? What is it a placeholder for?
Re: How Creationism Explains Human Tails (It Doesn't)
The last time I checked there was more biodiversity on this planet than any person could study in a lifetime - and then some that we don't even know about. With so much variety, there is bound to be creatures that look similar. With creatures that look similar, there's bound to be similar genetic makeup.
None of this explains why we see a nested hierarchy, and why the developmental vestiges like the human embryonic also fall into the nested hierarchy. We don't see human embryos start to grow a beak and then reabsorb it. We don't see fish embryos grow fur and then reabsorb the fur prior to developing into an adult. What we do see is the emergence of ancestral features that fall into evolutionary lineages.
As to similarity, this couldn't be further from the truth. A supernatural deity could have made two species that are almost identical but use completely different codons. Two species could differ genetically by more than any two species observed right now and still be almost identical.
So, there's a reason why I'm not finding much info on it. People don't do experiments with developing fetuses. All your speculation that the embryonic tail serves no function is only that - speculation rooted in an evolutionary framework.
The human embryonic tail does not go on to develop into a tail in the adult like it does in other species. Therefore, it is vestigial by definition. We know what it DOES NOT DO which is more than enough to determine it's vestigial nature.
As an example, you might see a TV with bullet holes riddled through it and consider the TV to be without function. If I tied a rope to the TV and use it as a boat anchor would that refute your argument? No. The TV has an obvious function that is defined by it's features. If it does not serve that function then it is not functioning. The human embryonic tail does not develop into a tail, therefore it is not functioning. It is vestigial.
Do you know how similar the genetic code is between marsupial and placental moles when it comes to specific items like their similarly structured snout?
The problem here is that there is not a nose gene, an eye gene, a mouth gene, etc. Morphological structures are the result of thousands of genes interacting with each other through space and through time between many cells, some of which are terminally differentiated and some of which are pleuripotent. IOW, it is much more complex than you think.
The closest we could come would be to compare the master genetic switches which are commonly called the homeobox genes, or HOX genes. We could compare the divergence in these genes compared to metabolic enzymes such as the cytochrome genes.
The fact that similar looking but evolutionary distant creatures exist looks to me to be evidence for a designer and against evolution. Evolution predicts that structurally similar creatures share a recent common ancestor.
The devil is in the details. You could argue that both birds and bats have wings, therefore birds and bats should share a more recent common ancestor than bats and dogs. However, this ignores the specifics of how each wing is designed. The two wings, while superficially similar, are actualy quite different in their specific makeup. With the bird wing we see a feather covered airfoil constructed mainly from the humerus, radius, and ulna. In the bat we see a membraneous wing that is stretched between the phalanges and only minimally involves the upper limb. We see two different designs for the same function which indicates convergent evolution in separate lineages.
You can also create a phylogenetic tree for something like prokaryotes based on one set of genetic properties and then come up with a completely different looking tree using a different set of genetic properties.
This is due to horizontal genetic transfer, something that is extremely rare in more complex species such as vertebrates.
As far as cytochrome c goes, you would expect that bacteria cyt. c would be closer to fish than to horses based on the evolutionary tree - but the opposite is true.
That is not true. You would expect that all vertebrates would be equidistant from bacterial cyt c while fish cyt c would be closer to horses than to bacteria.