And you make that assertion by proclaiming everything an "ape".
Setting aside your continued inability to grasp the definition of the word "ape", we'll go on the assumption that you actually mean that these previous species are not in the line of descent.
So, your assertion is that species which existed PRIOR to humans are not related to humans no matter how many features they have in common.
I love this belligerance. How dare you say I cannot grasp the defenition of ape. Just because evolutionists see an ape when they look in the mirror does not mean I need to disengage my common sense and see myself as an animal. The classification of mankind as apes is the result of your ridiculous taxonomic system, not baraminology.
What do you mean have in common. Because we were alive. A chimp has a similar skeleton now to humans and looks absolutely nothing like a human. As I said it is brain washing that causes an evolutionist to see an ape in their reflecton. I can contemplate the hereafter, and have superior reasoning and perceptual ability, and best of all I do not have long hair growing all over my body. I know I am not an ape. Too bad for you.
So, you are claiming that Homo Erectus, which walked upright, fashioned and used tools and tended fires is _no relation_ to humans but is instead a special kind of monkey which does things that no other monkey does.
Does this assertion answer questions of morphology? No.
Does this assertion answer questions of DNA? No.
Does this assertion answer questions of ERVs? No.
Does this assertion answer questions about why you can line up the fossils either chronologically OR morphologically and get the same order? No.
Oh no that is not what I said at all. What I have said previously is that the use and control of fire is a complex task. There were no matches. magnifying glass or lighters for erectus. He would have had to have worked out how to use flintstone or stick rubbing, a complex task. I alledge, with its small brain even if I believed it was on its way to humanity, erectus was not smart enough to use and control fire.
What your researchers have found are either fires started naturally, or with hearths, evidence that someone smarter was about at the same time. eg human beings.
As for walking upright there is not better term than to say " What Rubbish". That is flavour of the month. Not too long ago bipedalism was theorised to be connected to brain increase. That has been proven wrong. Neanderthal was also once pictured to be a stooped ape based on its fossils, but now stand perfectly upright. Your reconstructions are biased. Besides chimps can walk upright regardless of being knuckle walkers, it has squat to do with becoming human.
I have given proof that there was flat faced apes around 12mya. Flatter facial features are NOT a sign of becoming human. Erectus has heavy brows, pronaganathism, long arms, large bones, large rounded rib cage. Why I'd say he probably looks just like Lluc.
DNA..I have provided evidence from the Chimpanzee genome project that chimps and humans differ by at least 30%. The simply and obvious thing is that some creature on this earth had to be more similar to us than the rest. It happens to be chimps.
In fact chimps continue to be less and less like us the more they look. The arising of a single cell is in the rubbish bin now. Do not forget with the advent of HGT you now have multiple primitive cells arising. These poofed into existence individually and yet were so genetically similar that they were able to horizonatlly transfer genes. Life on this planet will only ever have the same basic genetic blueprint. It does not show we all came from the same cell. In fact your research now shows we didn't. LUCA is dead and so are your genomic comparisons as HGT has confounded your models into a complexity meltdown.
"Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.
But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different. "
You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED#
The very fact that a figure of 98.5% is proposed in itself suggests the proposterousness of using this as any valid comparison. Truly, evolutionists have been messmerized into believing this is mean to show how alike we are. It is ridiculous. Rather 30%, seem more believable, but also that we are not so much like chimps genomically at all.
ERV's show nothing more than some species were in the same place and were exposed to some bug.
"Within the published human genome sequence, there are over 98,000 human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), but all are defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions. No replication-competent HERVs have been identified to date (26, 31, 33, 35), with only one (K113) with open reading frames for all genes (35), and thus their activity and infectivity is thought to have decreased substantially from levels occurring during earlier periods of primate evolution (1, 23, 34). "
Just a moment...
Humans can catch Hendra virus but are not closely related to bats or horses. This is just straw grabbing nonsense, made from convoluted mathematical models that mean nothing in the end. You have nonsense mutations and major deletions and it is all guesswork, assumpions and down hill from there.
I understand what you lot assert with the points you put to me. However, one can interpret information more than one way. That is obvious by the way your researchers can disagree on so many things yet still all believe 'it all evolved'.
Morphology only works for you when you want it too. When it doesn't you plead homoplasy, convergent evolution, parallel evolution. The same goes for your genomics.
We are similar to all life because there is only one model for life, RNA's and DNA and it is a wonderful design. It is not about similarity. It is about the differences, gene expression and resulting proteins and gene families.
The genetic comparisons your researchers use are very simplistic. They take a handfull of enzymes, stain them with dyes and use this nonsense as the basis to describe and compare an incredibly complex genomic system. Your reserchers have far to go. The Pergalin research, in my link "you can't make monkeys out of us" is one example of better imaging and showed huge genomic regions that were vastly different between chimp and human. Then the Y chromosome is remarkably different in the male chimp and human.
I have refuted morphology, DNA comparison and ERV's as being any more than theoretical assumptions based on further assumptions and convoluted models and in no way appear to detract from my assertion that there were never any chimp/human intermediates.
Creationists may not have all the answers either. However belligerance will not highlight the wisdom of your evolutionary stance.
™ Version 4.2
