Talk:Coccyx

message: I heard that this bone is kinda pointless and is evidence of evolution. Anyone want to put this disputed bit in?
The coccyx provides an attachment for muscles, such as the gluteus maximus. You can´t move if you don´t have it.
:There have been recorded cases where it's been removed without any ill effects, though. — Fatalis 17:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible but involves re-anchoring some muscles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygectomy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.7.73 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have a function but that doesn't mean it's not vestigial.  Vestigial does not mean 'useless.'  The coccyx is not evidence for evolution because it is useless (which is debtable) but because if we are descended from animals with tails, we would expect our development to be a modification of theirs, which, judging by embryonic evidence, it is.70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not automatically vestigial if it does not have a function. For decades this was used as an argument that we evolved until more popular notions became prominent that it has a function. Now it is argued that we evolved so it "must be" vestigial, using the argument to prove the "evidence". It has simply never been proven to be vestigial and the conflicting opinions shows this to be true. 41.208.48.160 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "It's not automatically vestigial if it does not have a function" - I'm pretty sure that's the definition of vestigial, something that has partially or completely lost it's original function. Judgeking (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Saying 'it involves re-anchoring some muscles' does not demonstrate this is not vestigial. In order to really have use it would need a function irreplacable by other the bones (such as the ones the muscles got re-anchored to here). Hence the comparison with eyes/ears/limbs is flawed also, since these do actually serve purposes that cannot be replaced by other body parts. - 62.234.134.29 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Our ancestral tails probably weren't prehensile since the catarrhines (Old World monkeys, our closest relatives after the apes) don't have have prehensile tails.  (It's a New World monkey feature).70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We still have the "genetic information" to grow tails, and we do grow tails as embryos. By the 4th week of embryonic development, the tail comprises around 10% of the body's length.  It eventually stops growing while the body continues.   The tail-growing genes are shut off, but they're still very much there.  There are occasionally babies born with tails; this atavism shows that the genes are still there; they are simply dormant.  As for "better" and "worse," it's not neccesarily better (in terms of fitness) to have a tail.  Any body part has a cost attached to it, and has to be seen as a part of a functioning whole.  Organisms are adpated for particular lifestyles which may be helped or hindered by any given feature, such as a tail.  No phenotypic expression, such as a tail, is "good" in an absolute sense, it can only be good in terms of how well it works in conjunction with the rest of the body to serve a particular organism living a particular lifestyle in a particular environment.  If its value is outweighed by the cost of growing it and maintaining it, the organism is probably better off without it.70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow based on the pseudo-logic of the religion of evolutionists here then I can say that the uvula proves that we came from from outer space because it was used on the planet FGHTRTDF to speak FGHTRTDFneese & the fact that we have one still proves my FACTS to be true.  I love it when pseudo-Science tries to play all grown up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.143.25 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestigial

message: Yes I  believe it is fairly well indisputable. The coccyx was once helping us swing through the trees...Just been to the football and I must say that I dont think our behaviour has changed much Limbic111 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our ancestral tails probably weren't prehensile since the catarrhines (Old World monkeys, our closest relatives after the apes) don't have have prehensile tails.  (It's a New World monkey feature).70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We still have the "genetic information" to grow tails, and we do grow tails as embryos. By the 4th week of embryonic development, the tail comprises around 10% of the body's length.  It eventually stops growing while the body continues.   The tail-growing genes are shut off, but they're still very much there.  There are occasionally babies born with tails; this atavism shows that the genes are still there; they are simply dormant.  As for "better" and "worse," it's not neccesarily better (in terms of fitness) to have a tail.  Any body part has a cost attached to it, and has to be seen as a part of a functioning whole.  Organisms are adpated for particular lifestyles which may be helped or hindered by any given feature, such as a tail.  No phenotypic expression, such as a tail, is "good" in an absolute sense, it can only be good in terms of how well it works in conjunction with the rest of the body to serve a particular organism living a particular lifestyle in a particular environment.  If its value is outweighed by the cost of growing it and maintaining it, the organism is probably better off without it.70.57.120.186 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow based on the pseudo-logic of the religion of evolutionists here then I can say that the uvula proves that we came from from outer space because it was used on the planet FGHTRTDF to speak FGHTRTDFneese & the fact that we have one still proves my FACTS to be true.  I love it when pseudo-Science tries to play all grown up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.143.25 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolution  

message: I removed the above sentence.  To put it back, find a reference to back it up.
 / Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpreted x-rays 

message: An image used in this article, File:Sacrum and coccyx.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sacrum and coccyx.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: if citations are found should this be in the article?    🍺  Antiqueight confer 01:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Extensor coccygis]] 

message: Its Between The Buns Of Your Butt On the Top. Its Hard To Feel Though. (Your umbilical cord is not a tail.)
Someone put two bad words in here!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.115.82 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Want To Feel Your Tail?