Are human tails an example of macroevolution?

There is no musculature, nerve endings, or ligaments attached to these anamolies. All it is either a protuberant coccyx or distended skin, not a tail. Aside from which, if humans developed atavisms that are not normally expressed alleles, one might expect to see traits that are more current to the evolutionary timescale. What I mean to say is that if humans are indeed primates and we trace our lineage back to primates with tails, we are taling about hundreds of millions of years in between. Why wouldn't excessive body hair be a more prominent atavism than tails when there has been a hundreds of millions of years of disparity in between? It seems much more reasonable to recognize that these are deformities just like any other deformity, not tails. I've yet to hear of any cases where they were able to move their 'tails'. If you have any links to support the claim I would definitely like to peruse them. But even the event that some people were born with musculature and nerves in their distended coccyx, how would this be an example of beneficial mutation? If these people were born with opposable tails and could leap from tree to tree from their tails, I would certainly concede. But as of now its been reported as a discomfort when people sit down, in which case, I hardly see how it could be deemed beneficial.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

A similar argument has been made for cetaceans with "legs" that leaves me undesired. Those are anchor points similar to a snakes spurs that aid in copulation. This, to me, is just another case of percieved lineage that relies on circumstantial evidence to present its case. Certain scientists may be inclined to claim that they are atavistic legs when in reality all it is an anchoring mechanism to aid in sex.If these "tails" really are vestigial, why would this phenomenon of turning on specific loci present itself more regularly in, say, Chimps or Apes? According to most pro-evolutionary anthropologists, chimps and apes are more closely related to a Rhesus Macaque, so why wouldn't these atavistic traits present themselves in more related species? Is it because its not a tail at all but rather a deformity?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Okay, what did I say that intellectually dishonest and where was I impolite to the point where you feel warranted in threatening me with suspensions...... (lots of them)?