Two points about the alleged tail--(1) The fact that humans have a coccyx that is not inconsistent with a tail isn't really strong evidence that we actually had one in the past. The coccyx has muscle connection points that, if we didn't have them, would make life very uncomfortable for us, especially when sitting. Neither is the fact that in extremely rare cases some people are born with a shortened version of a pseudo-tail (i.e., without vertebrae). You wouldn't cite the fact that some people are born with 6 fingers as evidence that we used to have 6 fingers, would you? It's just a random mutation. To use the pseudo-tail as evidence that we had a tail at one point in the past is pretty selective. In truth, the coccyx is like the thymus--evolutionists used to think this was a vestigial organ and cited it in support of evolution, but it turns out it actually has a function. (You also cited the appendix as a vestigial organ. Turns out it has a function too, at least according to researchers at Duke University--http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx.)) (2) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that humans used to have tails, your conclusion above is not necessarily correct. In fact, it is equally consistent that other hominids either (a) never had tails or (b) also used to have tails and lost them for similar micro-evolutionary reasons for why we did.
I have heard many of your arguments before--when I was a Bio major at Wake. And I remember not being persuaded by them then either.
Finally, I too appreciate that this hasn't turned ugly. I hope to have another reasoned debate with you some time in the future.