Why Did Homo Erectus Not Retain a Tail?

That's like asking for the current best answer to 1 + 1 (other than 2).The current best explanation is natural selection. Indeed it would. I've often thought that two little arms coming out of my temples would be incredibly helpful because they could hold things where I could see them.But evolution doesn't work that way. Changes happen randomly and the environment selects the ones that work best.

That isn't how evolution works. It doesn't anticipate what "might" be useful.If an organism born without a tail survives to reproduce, the "tail gene" may be missing in its offspring. Eventually, a tailless population may evolve.You should be thinking about why the tail wasn't useful - i.e. why the ones without tails survived - instead of telling evolution what it "should have done".

In a court of law, the prosecution has to "prove" its case to the jury, not the spectators.Similarly, science aims to make its case to people who have actually looked at the evidence. No offense, but nobody's interested in "proving" anything to you.

You didn't repond at all to the post you were replying to.Here it is again:

quote:

---

In a court of law, the prosecution has to "prove" its case to the jury, not the spectators.
Similarly, science aims to make its case to people who have actually looked at the evidence. No offense, but nobody's interested in "proving" anything to you.

---

If you want to demostrate that you have an average IQ, try addressing the topic instead of blathering inane platitudes.

Did they lose their tails in the same catastrophe?