Answer by Diane Eager

This question has two parts. We will answer each one separately.

Question: If we didn’t evolve from animals why do humans still have the genes to grow tails but have lost (through evolution) the regulatory sequences needed to control the process. References: sfgate Talk Origins


This claimed loss of a tail by humans is based on any observed process, but is an evolutionary interpretation of the facts. The so called tail genes we possess are simply genes for bones, joints, muscle, nerves etc. But since genes only function under the control of separate and pre-existent regulatory genes, these genes will not build a tail unless the control genes tell them to. Our human regulatory genes do not work to make these other genes form a tail. The mouse tail genes referred to in the Talk Origins are general regulatory genes, not specific tail genes. They are also active in the brain, lung, skeletal muscle and heart of the mouse.

Genes do not work alone, and the effect of a gene will vary depending which other genes it is working with. There is no proof, fossil or otherwise, that human regulatory genes ever did made tails in the past no matter how loudly evolutionists shout.

The claim that humans can grow tails is based on occasional reports of babies born with tails. These are really a birth defect known as a caudal appendage. These mostly a benign growth disturbance, but can be part of a more serious problem such as a tumour or a defect of the vertebral column and spinal cord. They are not functional animal tails.

The human coccyx is sometimes called the “tail bone” and is claimed to be a vestigial tail left over from evolution. In fact, the coccyx is a fully functional part of the human musculo-skeletal system. For more information about the coccyx see our article Vestigial Organs, available as a PDF here.

Question: Cetacean (whale) hindlimb genes were selectively inactivated by modification of expression. Surely this is evidence that whales evolved from a creature with legs. Reference: pharyngula


Checking the source shows that the description “selectively inactivated by modification of expression” is an interpretation based on a prior belief in evolution, and definitely not a scientific observation of an actual process. The observation is that the ‘body form control genes’ act differently in whales compared with land animals. No-one has observed a land animal’s genes undergo modification to become a whale’s genes so any claims about how they came to be different is a matter of belief.

The whole concept of atavism (genetic throwbacks to evolution) does not stand up to scrutiny. It assumes the genes have some kind of memory of what they were in the past. How could this be? They are just DNA molecules. If the genes have changed by mutation in order to make humans evolve, then they have permanently changed their chemical structure. Why would they change back to a previous state by chance random processes?

The observations described above can be better explained by the Biblical history of the world, i.e. God created separate kinds of creatures with the differences in gene function built into them.

For more on supposed evolutionary vestiges see the Creation Research article Vestigial Organs PDF here

Were you helped by this answer? If so, consider making a donation so we can keep adding more answers. For USA tax deductible donations click here. For UK tax deductible donations click here. For Australia and rest of world click here.

About The Contributor

Diane Eager