A tail would be incredibly helpful for balance (tripod example), productivity, etc.
Clearly the only explanation is that when God designed us he screwed up like the great celestial doofus that he is. Next time you're praying, perhaps you could explain to him (tactfully) how stupid he is and ask him to bestow upon you the glorious gift of a tail.
Personally I find I manage to balance just fine without one, but maybe you're always falling over backwards and hitting your head on things. I don't know why you think having a tail would increase your "productivity", nor do I think --- having seen what you produce --- that that would necessarily be a good idea.
A tail would be incredibly helpful for balance (tripod example)
If you genuinely feel the deficiency, you could always remedy God's blunder by strapping a broomhandle to your ass. Then you'd be a tripod, solving your balance problem.
If, on the other hand, this is just some dumb talking point that drifted into your head while you were drunk, then in the sober light of morning you'll probably decide that you can get by without a prosthetic tail.
Please keep to logical discussions rather than personal attacks. If we were in the same room, I guarantee you would be more respectful.
I don't see how you could guarantee that, short of not saying any really dumb things.
In fact, you should talk to people on the internet, as though they were with you in a room(most likely in your parents basement)
My parents' basement, eh? Do you consider that sort of outworn jibe to be an example of how to "keep to logical discussions", or are you a hypocrite?
As for the original question, I am curious why a tail was not retained from monkeys forward.
And as has been pointed out to you, it wouldn't be much use. Which you know, because you yourself don't think it would be much use. You aren't mad at God for not giving you a tail, and you don't try to remedy the supposed deficiency by strapping something to your ass. Despite your posts, you don't actually feel the need for one.
Thank you for the very obvious statements regarding apes not having tails Earth shattering news.
If you knew why the question you actually asked was dumb, maybe you should have asked a non-dumb question, instead of getting all petulant and sarcastic when people address the question that you actually asked.
Point is, why is it so easy to give credit to the natural selection process, but not be able to give credit to something putting that process into motion?
If that is your point, then perhaps you could expand on it a little, as it's somewhat cryptic as it stands.
I do not find bare assertions on your part particularly convincing.
As for a tail not being useful, that is a ridiculous statement. Balance, open doors, scratch your back. There are plenty of advantages to having a tail.
These are all things that I can do without a tail. How about you?
Here are some more things I can do without a tail: not shut my tail in a door by accident, not break a bone in my tail, not get an infected wound in my tail, not get gangrene in my tail, not have mosquitoes bite my tail, not have parasites burrow into the flesh of my tail ...
So when you come to me telling me that a tail would be an advantage because if I had one I could do stuff that I can do anyway, it's not much of a selling point.
Put it this way. Suppose you were to go to a venture capitalist and say that you wanted to start a company to make prosthetic tails. There'd be a huge market for this product, you explain, because they're so gosh-darn useful. Why, you could open doors with them! So can you have a few million dollars for R&D?
How do you suppose you'd get on? In fact, we know how you think you'd get on, because you have not, in fact, tried to meet this supposed need, have you? (This is supposition on my part, I admit, and if you have in fact founded a start-up company called Tails R Us, then I shall apologize for jumping to conclusions and admit the sincerity of your argument. Otherwise, not so much.)
As for the rest of your comments, not worth replying to each..... as usual. Of your 12k posts, how many are actually of use? 20 ... maybe 30?
You are not obliged to answer me; I shall form my own judgment as to why you do not.
Oh, look, you also got my name wrong.
Did you take some sort of religious vow? It is hard otherwise to account for such obsessive consistency extending, as it does, to the most trivial of details.
Why you tilt his head forward? let it rest on its original position and overlap a modern homo sapiens. Then try to explain how in the world you come from that monkey to a modern human in one generation.
What is this gibberish? I did not tilt its head forward, it is not a monkey, its owner actually had a mobile neck and so it does not have a single "original position", and no-one said anything about one generation. Is there anything you're not wrong about?
How about this specimen of archaic Homo? Is its skull tilted back far enough for you to admit that it resembles modern humans, or is it still a monkey?