Are human tails an example of macroevolution?

Dear Brad and Bernd-It does appear quite clear that the creationist response to all these tails is that they are just growths of skin and not “real” tails. It’s also clear from the medical evidence that these are as real as tails get, often with nerves, bone, muscle, structure, etc. I haven’t seen any real challenge to that other than the creationist denial of reality.On another note, I have to admit that I generally don’t read Brad’s posts anymore. When I started in this forum I read them completely, and found them very difficult to understand. With effort it is possible to get the meaning, and it usually is a deep down repetition of a well known and well disproven creationist canard. After working hard to get the meaning, only to find that the same point is often made more clearly by Faith or other creationists (though the point is just as illogical and obviously false), I gave up slogging through Brad’s posts.Brad, I don’t mean this post as an attack on you, and I’m sorry if this post hurts you. I have to be honest though, and admit that I simply have given up trying to read your posts.All the best-

Hi Brad- you're welcome.

quote:

---

As for me using a simple link to creationist literature this time, well, that is all that was called for.

---

No, I didn't mean you use links, (I never mentioned links). What I meant was that when I finally get the point of your post, it is both illogical and unduly complicated.Post #16 is similar in that it bring up a red herring (the question of whether human tails today are useful to humans today). That's been addressed by Bernd in post 25 anyway.I wish you the best, even though I probably won't be discussing a lot with you. Take care-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)