How creationism explains babies with tails

I have only skimmed through the comments posted, but I will add my two cents into this debate. Similiar anatomy among organisms is not proof of evolution as they form differently. An example would be a frogs legs grow outward from buds while a humans digits form as a plate and get "carved" away. They are also determined by unrelated genes.

Aonther thing, somebody mentioned why don't humans have eagle eyes, or chimps have dog noeses (or something along those lines). I would like to point out that the squid has similiar eyes to a humans eyes. A duckbilled platypus has a beak and lays eggs (I am not sure if they are exactly like bird eggs, but the fact that a mammal lays eggs should be impressive to any evolutionist). Algae, worms, insects, and fungi all have some organisms that can glow in the dark or produce light. Some of them do it diffrently than others while others do it the same. It would take many different mutations to allow all species that have light to produce it.

About the tail thing. The tail with actual bones in it would probably not serve any animal. First off I assume that the tail is non-functional. (I am not sure on that). Next thing is the tail is only a few inches or centimeters long. I don't understand how a a 10 cm tail would serve a monekey.

Last thing is the tail in the embryo development. Sometimes it only looks like they have similarities. When human embryos have a "tail" it is really just the coccyx. The coccyx is an important bone structure used to anchor muscle structure.

---

"Everybody makes mistakes"
Visit my website at www.propagandabypass.org

Sorry if I confused you about limbs and digits. I meant to say digits instead of limbs. So, human digits form from a plate like structure while frog digits grow from their "hand". Both frog and human limbs form from buds. Their digits form differnently. Frogs form from buds while in human hands the fingers seperate from each other. Then they have the webbing left which should disappear before they are born, but like you said sometimes the webs are still their.

For the platypus and the animals that glow in the dark I was trying to make a point to a comment I read earlier about God not using feautures of one organism in another. Therefore, I gave examples that I think show that some organisms have features that you would normally expect to be on a different set of animals. Birds not only have beaks, but a mammal does also. Same with eggs. I was also trying to make a point that evolution has to "create" a lot of the same (or almost the same in most situations) structures multiple times. Hence the glow in the dark animals and the squid eye compared to a human eye. If it will make you happier I will say squid eye compare to vertabrate eye. The squid eye and vertabrate eye are very similiar in structural desing. Notice I said similiar this time and the previous time because I acknowledge that there are some differences in the eye. It is just suprisingly similiar to the vertabrate eye because a squid is an invertabrate.

I don't think you understood me correctly about the human tails. (I should of made it clearer they were seperate subjects).
When I was talking about the tail being the coccyx in embryo development I was refering to a normal human embryo. Where the baby's coccyx is sometimes refered to as a tail. However, what I said about the tail not being very useful to monkeys, humans, or their "common ancestor" still applies.
I know it is confusing, but the paragraph seperation indicated a new subject. That is my fault sorry.

And yes I did my research. Do you think it is correct now or did a mess up again?

---

"Everybody makes mistakes"
Visit my website at www.propagandabypass.org