Why are there no human apes alive today?

Hi Doubletime The answers have been satisfactory, your understanding is flawed. Your initial post is a PRATT.

quote:

---

Claim CC150:
If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
Source:
Robinson, B. A, 2003. 17 indicators that evolution didn't happen (with rebuttals). Proofs that evolution never happened, with rebuttals
Response:
1. Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).

---

Please note that last point. Answers in Genesis: has a list of bad arguments that have been refuted so many times and by such overwhelming evidence that they advise people not to use them. In a special category on that list are:

quote:

---

Arguments that should never be used
If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)

---

In other words AiG recognizes that this argument is lost, and trying to pursue it is foolish. Haven't you figured out how to do quotes yet? type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

This helps people understand what you are replying to and distinguish it from your comments. Curiously, your personal opinion on the matter is absolutely unable to alter the evidence in any way, nor affect reality in any way, nor change things in any way to suit your liking. For instance: This is a lousy definition, and bears no resemblance to what is used in biology, and quite frankly it is wrong. Definition of Species

quote:

---

I think everyone is fairly familiar with the biological species definition, and some may be familiar with the morphological definition. Here is a site for reference on these definitions:

​

U of Michigan Lectures - The Process of Speciation

​

quote:

---

Biological species concept: This concept states that "a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups."...

---

​

There is also another definition in the forum glossary:

​

http:///WebPages/Glossary.html#S

---

So it is easy to find real definitions of species used in biology instead of making up something else. The reason for using definitions is so you talk about the same thing. Presumably no hate females either? In almost every species known there are "sub forms" known as varieties, and "race" is no different.Varieties are also difficult to distinguish\define in a way that makes identification easy, as features in varieties are shared in the gene pool with the rest of the species population/s and they are mixed by hybrids. So? Is it not a fact that none of the other many branches of hominid survived? Similarly all ancestral species of all modern species have not survived. From one creationist PRATT to the next. Perhaps you should try modern biology for information instead of creationist sources living in the last century. Claim CC001: Piltdown Man

quote:

---

1. Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.

​

Preconceptions are an unavoidable problem in just about any investigation, but they are less so in science because first, different scientists often have different preconceptions, and second, the physical evidence must always be accounted for. Many scientists from America and Europe did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and the hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.

​

2. One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.

---

If you want to talk about hoaxes there is Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes , where so far the creationist hoaxes outnumber the scientific ones. Claim CC002: Nebraska Man

quote:

---

The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.

​

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.

---

Meanwhile creationists keep bringing up these as evidence of science not working, when in fact both of them demonstrate how science eliminates invalid concepts in the search for understanding. This depends on whether or not you are willing to learn when you are wrong.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Doubletime, Curiously, it wasn't me. What I said was that you were using creationist arguments, specifically ones that have been overwhelmingly refuted by the facts. Yes, all you need to do is post some ignorant rubbish from creationists sites about things that have been overwhelmingly refuted by the facts, and then stubbornly repeat yourself.Strangely, you don't need to be a creationist to be ignorant. Interestingly, that was not your previous claim. What you said in Message 12 was: Now you may be as ignorant of taxonomy as you are of other aspects of biology, but "class" and "species" have quite different meanings in biology:http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html

quote:

---

* Kingdom
              o Phylum
                    [color=gold]+ Class[/color]
                          # Order
                                * Family
                                      o Genus
                                            [color=gold]+ Species[/color]

---

Fascinatingly, when we look at the taxonomy of humans, we are not in a class of our own:

quote:

---

Domain: Eukarya
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Placentalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

---

Last time I looked there were an awful lot of mammal species on the earth.And equally fascinating is that all varieties (races & hybrids) of humans are members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, and there is at least one ancestral subspecies that no longer co-exists with us. Homo sapiens idaltu, from 160,000 years ago.While we are on the subject of other humans and hominids, I'll return to an earlier comment of yours: Take a look at this picture and tell me where you draw the line between (A) - Chimp, and (N) - Human:29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

quote:

---

​

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

---

Note that (J), (K) and (L) are Homo neanderthalensis and you can see the difference in skull sizes with the Homo sapiens skulls (M) and (N). Do you realize that the intelligence of humans, chimps and gorillas overlap when you consider the total populations?Amazingly the brain capacity (volume) of Homo neanderthalensis is (was) greater than ours.NOVA | Alien From Earth | Who's Who in Human Evolution | PBS

quote:

---

Homo neanderthalensis
CHIEF SPECIMENS: skull cap and partial skeleton found in Germany's Neander Valley in 1856; other fossils found throughout Europe and in Asia as far east as Uzbekistan
WHEN LIVED (est., in years ago): 200,00030,000
BRAIN SIZE (est., in cu cm): 1,420 (mean of 24 skulls)

​

Homo sapiens
CHIEF SPECIMENS: fossils found on all continents except Antarctica; oldest known sapiens fossils (195,000 years old) found in Ethiopia in 1960s
WHEN LIVED (est., in years ago): 195,000present
BRAIN SIZE (est., in cu cm): today's mean = 1,350 (range 1,100-1,800)

---

And there are other animals with much larger brains than humans. Evolution is science, so if you are against evolution you are de facto against science. I don't need to say it - you have. Message 24
Let's see ... you're "against" evolution, but not science, ... and you don't know what science is ...Really there is no excuse, when you can look it up in some pretty easy and basic sources.Science - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

​

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3]

---

Notice that with the theory of evolution one can make predictions, and see those predictions come true. For instance, the theory predicts that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - will occur. Fascinatingly, we do not see a single population of reproductively related organisms where this does NOT occur.The theory of evolution also predicts that changes in one population will not be the same as changes in another population unless they share genetic material (ie - there is reproductive gene sharing between the populations), and that as a result such populations can diverge. Interestingly this is the source of varieties within species, and where varieties are isolated it can result in speciation - the reproductive isolation of daughter populations from the parent or other daughter populations. This too has been observed to occur, just as predicted. Fasacinatingly, belief is not how science works (see above), so once again you display ignorance of what science involved. Ah mathematics. Wonderful tool, but not a test of reality, so a "mathematic perspective" is relatively useless in judging the validity of a concept. All math can do is model a system and then predict how the system will act. If the predictions are wrong, then the mathematical model was wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts. So if your "mathematic perspective" says abiogenesis cannot occur, and yet the evidence says at time (A) there was no life, but at time (B) there is life, then the "mathematic perspective" is obviously wrong: some process in fact started life. We just don't know what that process was. And yet all you seem to use for evidence is creationist arguments, and particularly bad ones to boot. Ah yes, the mathematics of god-did-it are much simpler. No, you're unscientific because you don't understand how science operates and haven't educated yourself on the matter. Saying you don't "believe" in evolution is just validation of the opinion that you understand squat about science. Of course, from a "mathematic perspective" you understand that to make this statement you must already know all the possibilities and have proven that it is not possible for life to arise from chemical reactions.Care to share the calculations and the proof? Message 28
Curious that, rather than a book, you link to a non-science song and dance video. Here's an article by Dawkins that applies to you: Ignorance is no Crime

quote:

---

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

---

Read the whole article, and then see if you can find some other category for your claim not to believe in evolution, one that is honest and logical? Message 1
Followed by the SAME list of creationist PRATTS you have posted here, one's where you either do not understand the replies that refute them, or you are ignoring the fact that they are refuted arguments.Here's an idea: study the evidence yourself -- all of it, not just the creationist mumbo jumbo misrepresentations, but the actual honest scientific evidence.Now the question arises again: are you willing and able to learn from your mistakes, correct your misunderstanding, and strive to reduce your ignorance in these matters? It's your choice.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : (SIC)Edited by RAZD, : added skull link

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Doubletime, This from a person recommending others to read books.Very many errors on your part need very many answers. Looks like you are avoiding almost all of the evidence that your opinion is wrong. This is not surprising: it is called cognitive dissonance, a well-known psychological process whereby people try to ignore information that contradicts pet beliefs. Curiously, this does not make any of the rest of my post wrong, and you have been able to read the rest of this thread. This is just avoidance behavior, finding some excuse to avoid the issues.I'll take this as tacit admission that you used the world class wrong because you were ignorant of biological terminology in general and taxonomic groups in specific, and note that an honest person would admit when they are wrong or have learned something. Sorry to put you to so much trouble.It's not a chain, so much as it is an assembly of skulls by the time they are found, with a chimp skull placed at the start for comparison.Some of them are branches (like Homo neanderthalensis) and some of them are likely ancestors. No, it's just you. Can you tell me what are the huge differences between these skulls? Ah, so your opinion is based on the names that the paleontologists gave them, rather than on the images? Well "some simmulair ape like species" would include hominids ancestral to humans.Curiously there is no assuming evolution is true to look at the skulls and decide from them where you think the line is. Weren't you all hot on starting a new thread to give people the evidence and let them decide for themselves? Fascinatingly, Australopithecus africanus is still an upright walking hominid, and very detailed study shows that humans are remarkably apelike.Lucy is Australopithecus afarensis, another upright walking hominid, and if you want to discuss her, we have a thread for it: {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal
From Message 26:

quote:

---

The clearest pictures of the Laetoli footprints that I could find are:

---

Notice the lack of knuckle-dragging impressions, and the clear bipedal path of two hominids. The footprint matches the footbones of an Australopithecus afarensis fossil. Of course. They would be labeled hominids, as they are intermediate between our common ancestor with chimps and modern humans. Some people think chimps should be placed in the Homo genus, and that would not alter their placement in zoos. We also have a history of putting humans in zoos as well, so this is not much of a criteria for distinguishing between fact and fiction in regards to human ancestry. type [thumb=300]http:⁄⁄blog.photos2view.com/files/tallest-shortest-man.jpg[/thumb] and it becomes: Amazingly size has nothing to do with species classification of hominids, as (1) this variation is recognized, and (b) there is also variation between male and female size and between child and adult size. If you look back at those footprint trails you will see that one set is significantly larger than the other. No, because all the skeletons from this era would have the same basic morphology. Only if you ignore the evidence of morphology and only used size as a criteria, but this is easily falsifiable by comparison to the current population. Strangely the ONLY arguments you can find to support your opinion are creationist arguments, ones that use ridiculous and false information, such as the relative importance of Piltdown man to evolution. There are several problems with your alternative explanation:One is that evolution is not always a steady progression, but can have stages of relative stasis between times of more rapid evolution of new forms, so each fossil can easily represent an independent form of human that is also related to the ancestral development of humans as we know them today.Each of these relatively independent form populations can give rise to new populations of new independent forms while the parent population still exists (speciation overlapping the parent population).Third is that you have no mechanism for the spontaneous development of new species to make all these "independent form of human" populations.Finally, your explanation does not address the issue of different ages of the various fossils, and when we arrange the fossils by age OR by morphological similarities and differences, they form a consistent pattern. That pattern matches what we would expect, based on the theory of evolution. Nice flame.Again, it is not you that is being attacked -- nobody has called you a retard, for instance -- rather it is your ignorance of facts and your use of lame arguments and falsehoods from questionable sources.The reason you have so many people telling you that your opinion is wrong, is because your opinion is demonstrably wrong. The reason you will continue to get long replies, is because of your failure to see your mistakes, your repetition of falsehoods, and your continued use of bad information and invalid arguments. What is your fascination with hoaxes? If you really want to study hoaxes then let's talk about all the creationist hoaxes as well - or are you only interested in one group?On one hand you have people that uncover hoaxes and then discard them as falsified concepts, while they pursue understanding of the past.On another hand you have people that keep posting hoaxes even after they have been falsified, trying to delude gullible people into thinking their posted information is true.You seem to prefer your information from sites that perpetuate lies and falsehoods, rather than from sources that eliminate them.Can you show me ONE tree of human ancestry that has ONE of your pet hoaxes in the lineage? google search for archapitetus

quote:

---

Results for: archapitetus

​

EvC Forum: Why are there no human apes alive today ?
6 posts - 6 authors - Last post: 7 hours ago
Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the ... Also, there is no such thing as "Archapitetus". ...
//http://www.///cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action...f... - 7 hours ago - Similar

​

EvC Forum: Let the students study the evidence themselfs !
1 post - 1 author - Last post: 19 hours ago
The recreations of human apes are very unsure ( see piltdown neanderthal nebraska Archapitetus ) So instead students should see the fosils ...
//http://www.///cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action...f... - 19 hours ago - Similar
More results from

​

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 4 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

---

It appears that you are the only source of information about this. Perhaps this is just a hoax on your part eh?Or do you mean Archeoraptor? Another hoax uncovered by scientists? And which has nothing to do with human evolution?Try this thread, Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

quote:

---

Here is a starting list:

​

Nebraska Man - does not qualify, the initial publication was an interpretation of a single tooth, the rest is mostly all newspaper hype (including the (in)famous picture), and the original scientist determined it was a pig on further investigation. No scientist has since claimed it was a hominid fossil.

​

Piltdown Man - does not qualify: the hoax was perpetuated ON science, not by a scientist. It was exposed by science.

​

China bird ancestor "fossils" - does not qualify: perpetuated by non-scientific people looking to make money, exposed by science.

​

Personally I think we'd have to list almost every existing YEC creationist website (I say "almost" for scientific tentativity, as I am not aware of any that stick to the truth, but it is possible ...). Certainly every one that has a false definition of evolution or that portrays evolution incorrectly is a fraud.

​

Certainly Carl Baugh (his degree is a hoax, it doesn't exist): Glen Rose Man - fraud perpetuated by Carl Baugh, exposed by science. Baugh (a creationist) continues to present it in his "museum" perpetuating his hoax to gullible people, complete with a "footprint" that the original carver admits to making.

​

Kent Hovind is a shoe-in (convicted of fraud, his degree is a fraud from a paper mill)

​

The "creation museum" (showing adam and eve and a vegetarian TRex)

​

Then there is Harun Yahah (a muslim creationist, who also happens to be a convicted extortionist and anal rapist of underage women) - he puts Hovind to shame.

​

Is that a good start?

---

Looks like it has your pet hoaxes already covered before you started posting here, plus a few others.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Gosh Doubletime, I went out for a 2 hour kayak paddle, and I come back to find that, not only are you still wrong, you are more wrong than before. People don't believe that, you should be relieved to hear, but that's because it is an outright fallacy, a falsehood, a fabrication, and yet another example of how much you do not understanding the actual meaning/s of the terminology of the science of evolution. Do you really think you can argue against evolution when you don't understand it?Abiogenesis occurred before there were cells.Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

​

The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1][2] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5][6]

​

On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

---

Of course, in order to say when the "first living thing" occurred you need to define what life is, but that is a different issue. Even if you mean speciation - the process whereby new species arise out of existing species - you are still wrong. Speciation does not occur because an organism "alsters itself without anyone moderating it" to change into something that becomes another species. Speciation occurs by differential evolution in reproductively isolated populations of a parent species, where each population accumulates changes by normal evolutionary processes from generation to generation, changes that inevitably make the two populations different from each other. At some point the difference is sufficient that the two populations no longer breed even when living in the same area, and thus each population independently fulfills the definition of biological species, and they are no longer of the same species. This is observed in the lab, in the field and in the fossil record.Pelycodus: gradulastic

quote:

---

Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.

---

Notice that the variation in size exists in every population at every level, that when the populations divide each one contains members of the same size as the previous generation, and that then they diverge into two distinct populations of different sizes. Even if you mean evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - you are wrong. Evolution does not occur because an organism "alsters itself without anyone moderating it" to change into a different cell, but by new generations inheriting different mutations during their reproduction and development. They grow up different from their parent/s due to their genetic makeup and developmental environment. Evolution occurs through the inheritance of mutations during reproduction, not by changes to existing cells.So it looks like your whole argument is a straw man fallacy. Yet it turns out that what you have been calling abiogenesis is indeed, not part of biological science, but something you have misunderstood and mislabeled. What you describe is, in fact, unreasonable from an evolutionary biological perspective, as it does not involve any known biological processes in the biological sciences. What you describe has nothing at all to do with the actual processes of abiogensis, evolution or biological science/s. There you go flaming people and ideas because you don't understand again. Do you realize that the ad hominem attack is usually regarded as the last arrow in an otherwise empty quiver?Of course your other "arrows" have been the argument from ignorance, the straw man fallacy and the argument from denial, plus (for spice) the non-sequitur argument about hoaxes.Want to try an argument based on evidence? Science? Reality? Here's an excellent website that can teach you some of the real science of evolutionary biology - I suggest you discard everything you think you know about the topic first, as so far it has been demonstrated to be more wrong than right:Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Welcome to Evolution 101!

What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution.

---

An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

An Introduction to Evolution

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

This is provided by a university that teaches biology and evolution to people earning degrees in the field. In other words, it is a reference to the real science rather than creationist fabrications and what passes, sadly, for science in some of our high schools.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Malcolm, That's possible, but we won't know until Doubletime (a) admits that he has misidentified this fossil/species, and (2) provides information about it that can be used to identify it properly. Yes, and according to the evidence it was a bipedal woodland ape ...http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm

quote:

---

This early fossil hominid was initially placed within the Australopithecus genus, with a new specific epithet - ramidus (from the Afar word "ramid", meaning "root") [White, et al, 1994]. Tim White and associates have subsequently reassigned the hominid to a new genus, noting the apparently extreme dissimilarities between ramidus and all other known Australopithecines. They proposed Ardipithecus (from "ardi", which means "ground" or "floor" in the Afar language) to be the genus [White, et al, 1995].
...
Additionally, the associated strata were most likely produced within the context of a heavily forested, flood plain environment. Evidence for this conclusion was derived from representative non-human fossil remains, particularly from those species whose present-day analogues are environment-specific.
...
Some important derived features, link Ardipithecus ramidus with the Australopithecines. Hominid-like canines are present. These are low, blunt, and less projecting than the canines of all other known apes. Upper and lower incisors are larger than those of the Australopithecines, but are smaller than those of chimpanzees. This character state can thus be considered transitional between apes and Australopithecines. Additionally, the lower molars are broader than those of a comparably-sized ape. This trait, too, approaches the common hominid condition.

​

Finally, something can be said of the skeletal anatomy and how it relates to the potentiality for bipedalism in A. ramidus. Pieces of the cranial bones that have been recovered, including parts of the temporal and the occipital, strongly indicate an anterior positioned foramen magnum. The fact that the skull of A. ramidus rested atop the vertebral column, rather than in front of it, suggests that if this creature was not bipedal in the modern sense, it at least had key adaptations toward a similar end.

---

http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aramidus.html

quote:

---

The dentition of Ardipithecus ramidus is more primitive (more apelike) than that seen in Australopithecus afarensis, with narrower molar teeth capped with thin enamel, unlike the condition in all other known hominines; the canines are larger, but not as large as in living apes. The arm exhibits both apelike and non-apelike features, from which, White and his colleagues concluded that the mode of locomotion cannot confidently be determined.

---

Page Not Found | Minnesota State University, Mankato

quote:

---

Ardipithecus ramidus is considered to be the earliest member of the Hominoidea family, this is because it is the most ape-like hominid known. The initail fossils of this species were found in the Middle Awash area of Ethiopia. Total seventeen fossil fragments were found including, two skull bases, a child's mandible, teeth, and arm bones. The fossils were found by a research team headed by Dr. Timothy White, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkely, in 1992 and 1993.

​

In 1994 more fossils were also recovered in Ehtiopia, close to the original site. Total 90 fragments where found, which accumulated to be about 45 percent of the total skeleton. Included in these fragments were pieces of the pelvis, ankle, feet, and leg. This find still awaits official anylisis to draw conclusive evidence on whether or not Ardipithicus was bipedal, even though the foramen magnum and leg fragments initially indicate this species was bipedal.

---

Situs Judi Online Resmi dan Terpercaya - KOITOTO

quote:

---

The Aramis discoveries are important for several reasons. First, they place very early hominids in a woodland setting rather than a savanna one. Second, They show that although there is an emphasis on anterior loading, an adaptive trend emphasizing powerful mastication had begun. Also, they establish a unique link with chimpanzees based on cranial, dental, and postcranial similarities. It is also important to note that ramidus were almost contemporaries with afarensis (and might have been). Since the two species are adapted to different ecological environments, there are major differences between the two species, but some features both have seem to indicate that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was probably more hominid-like than chimpanzee-like. A conclusion that is gaining support, in opposition to the presupposition that the common ancestor was more chimpanzee-like. In short, this is a very new species that is changing some ideas of modern human origins. It will be interesting to see the impact the material makes once it is extensively published and disseminated.

---

... demonstrating the evolution of bipedalism prior to the Savannah ecology developing, and absolutely refuting the Savannah theory for the evolution of bipedalism. With features that are transitional\intermediate between chimp and Australopithicine (and thus between chimp and human), and that may even be closer to the common ancestor with chimps than chimps are.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Doubletime,I just checked on another of your pet hoaxes: I did a google on "new guinea man fossil" and once again there were few hits that were relevant:Fossil Hominids: Big Daddy?

quote:

---

"Big Daddy?" is a small anti-evolution comic book tract by evangelist Jack Chick.
...
This is a typical rehashing of the usual creationist chestnuts. It ignores almost all the the real evidence, misrepresents the real fossils that are discussed (Heidelberg Man, Peking Man, Neandertal Man), of course mentions Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, and finally lists some fossils that have never been claimed to be anything but Homo sapiens (New Guinea Man, Cro-Magnon Man)
...
The real oddity in Chick's list is "New Guinea Man". As far as I know, no one has ever proposed this as any sort of transitional form. It presumably refers to fragments of a fossil modern human skull thought to be about 5000 years old found at Aitape (now Eitape) about 60 years ago. This is the only human fossil ever found in New Guinea, and is very obscure; I have never seen it even mentioned in any mainstream scientific or popular literature on human origins. The only place (other than Big Daddy) I have ever seen it referred to is a 1961 book by Canadian creationist Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution. Shute merely mentions the existence of this fossil in a list of many other fossils and does not discuss it individually, so Chick may have found out about this fossil from another unknown source.

​

This little list has been widely copied. If you see a reference to New Guinea Man, or read that Heidelberg Man was "built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human" or that Peking Man is "supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared", you'll know it was cribbed from this little booklet.

---

So there you are: this is a hoax hoax - it never was misrepresented by science, but is a creationist fabrication from head to toe.And not just any creationist fabrication but a Jack Chick fabrication ...From Catholic Answers
Catholic Answers

quote:

---

Chick Tracts
Their Origin and Refutation

​

The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick

​

You’ve seen them.

​

Perhaps left in a phone booth, Laundromat, or other public place. Maybe a Fundamentalist coworker or a street evangelist gave one to you. Perhaps a child gave one to your child at school. They have titles such as Are Roman Catholics Christian?, The Death Cookie, and Why Is Mary Crying? They are Chick tractstiny cartoon booklets produced by Jack T. Chick ("J.T.C.") and his publishing house, Chick Publications.

​

You’ve seen them . . . but have you read one? Do so, and you step into the nightmarish world of Jack T. Chick.

​

In this world, few things are as they appear. It is a world of shadow and intrigue, a world of paranoia and conspiracy theories, a world where demons haunt people sincerely trying to follow God, and the Catholic faith is the devil’s greatest plot against mankind.

​

Here are just a few things you will "learn" if you start reading Chick tracts and comic books:

• The Catholic Church keeps "the name of every Protestant church member in the world" in a "big computer" in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.[1]
  ​
• But the conspiracy is much broader than this, and it has been going on for a very long time. In the sixth century, for instance, Catholic leaders manipulated the Arabian tribesman Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.[2]
  ​
• The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[3] Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.[4]
  ​
• "Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin" to create Communism, and it was "believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican."[5] It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family.[6] The Communist "liberation theology" movement also is a Vatican plot.[7]
  ​
• The Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics.[8] Further, "Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the ‘Millennial Kingdom’ under Pope Pius XII."[9]
  ​
• The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.[10]
  ​
• The Jesuits created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.[11]
  ​
• "Pope John Paul II has been a good Communist for many years"[12] and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.[13]

​

Tracts are only one of the ways Chick spreads his messages of hate and paranoia. His website (Chick.com: Chick Cartoon Gospel Tracts Make Witnessing So Easy!) lists large-size comic books, posters, booklets, books, videos, and DVDs for sale. Still, it is the tracts for which he is most famous. According to Chick Publications, more than 500 million of them have been distributed.

---

Notice that this is not an "evolutionist" response to the quackery of Jack Chick, but it comes from the Catholic Church.Is this your source of (mis)information?Looks like this is another addition to the Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes thread.Do you ever get the idea that the more you say about your position, the more you find out it is based on falsehoods, misinformation, and lies?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Coyote, Which is why anyone who is NOT a (big C) Creationist should not need to use such arguments.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : why

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Doubletime,As noted on the Seashells on tops of mountains thread, it has been a while since you posted there, leaving several replies to your last post unanswered.This is typical of cognitive dissonance behavior when a person runs into information that contradicts cherished beliefs: the first stage is denial, the second is avoidance.Whatever the reason though, I normally take a person's abdication from a debate as a tacit admission that they have lost the debate and are unable to support their concept further.I also note that you have replied to your Let the students study the evidence themselves! thread and then left without any reply to this thread. There are several unanswered issued here:(1) hominid evolution: I am still waiting for your reply to Message 41, in particular I am interested in your reply to:

quote:

---

There seems to be a huge gap between C and D or is it just me ?

No, it's just you. Can you tell me what are the huge differences between these skulls?

---

Note that for there to be a "huge gap" we would have to see larger variations than within what you group as human ("D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo.") and within what you group as chimp ("Only the 3 first were possibly all chimpanzees").Here's a comparison from what you group as human: Note: that's a Homo ergaster skull on the left, so it is a ~1.75 million years old.Are the differences in the first picture above more than in this picture? Please list them.Here's a comparison from what you group as chimp: Note: that's a female chimp skull, the male skull has much larger canines and more pronounced brow ridges. I've rotated both photos so that the cheekbones are level and on a line.Are the differences in the first picture above more than in this picture? Please list them.Now one of your premises in your proposed new topic Let the students study the evidence themselves! is: So let's apply what you claim you want to see in school to this thread: in Message 34 we have several of the fossils of hominid evolution, and you have made a claim that one group is ape-like and the other in human-like. Now is your chance to expand on that answer to provide more detail about why you made that distinction.Then we can move on to your next claim that "D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo" and how you know they are races instead of species (as designated by their species name after the genus name Homo).Here's a website that may help:
Wayback Machine0/http://www.amnh.org/enews/iskulls.html

quote:

---

Below are 12 fossil skulls that represent more than 3.5 million years of human evolution. Click on any of them to find out more. This exhibit is enhanced with the Shockwave plug-in, which you can download for free from Macromedia.

---

It shows a tree of ancestry for hominids, a rather branchy bush arrangement than a linear one, and it shows a representative skull for each species population. Click on the skull and it takes you to a page where you can rotate the skull with your mouse (need shockwave to operate). Now, abiogenesis is off topic here, but you seem to be obsessed with this, as you keep mentioning it (see : The big problem here is, that your definition of abiogenesis is false, it's wrong. That has been pointed out here (see Message 45.Do you think students should be taught falsehoods? Don't you think you should finish with seashells and human evolution before you go off on another jaunt full of the same false information? Don't you think you should educate yourself according to your own standard first?If you're going to claim that abiogenesis is wrong, then you have to do it from a proper understanding of abiogenesis AS USED IN SCIENCE, or you are talking about a fantasy, a falsehood, a fabrication, a lie. You do realize, don't you, that debate doesn't alter fact? The reason there is so much debate in the public arena is because there are people who refuse to accept certain facts, such as that the earth is old, that life began over 3.5 billion years ago, and that life has evolved.In science there is very little debate. The reason there is significantly less debate in science is not because scientist have "made up their minds" or "believe" something - it is because they have seen the facts, they have evaluated the evidence in a thorough scientific manner and they have concurred with the evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty.Edited by RAZD, : added linkEdited by RAZD, : -Edited by RAZD, : /

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Doubletime Australopithicus is a genus with several known species, including A. afarensis (lucy, first family, et al[/i] and A. africanus, A. garhi, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. aethiopicus, A. boisei, [i]A. robustus, depending on whether you are a lumper (lumps more fossils into one species) or a divider (divides fossils out into more species), and depending whether you lump Ardipithecus ramidus, and Kenyanthropus platyops in austrlopithicines or not.All of these fossils appear to be fully functional bipeds, unlike chimps. Enjoy learning then. It is one of the benefits of a brain. Yes, you can admit that your understanding was incomplete, as has been evident, and why you need to soak up new information. Not knowing something is not a crime, nor is it stupidity: there are many areas where I am ignorant of things. The best one can do is try to recognize when our understanding is not complete. There are humans. We haven't died out ... yet. The monkeys are just as evolved as we are, and they survived because they were very well adapted to their ecology and because they out competed other species for use of that ecology. This is your choice. I hope you also realize that your lack of understanding on this and other science topics (seashells on mountains, abiogenesis, big bang, etc) means that you have no authority to judge what should be taught in schools, and you should close your new topic.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Sorry I didn't include this in the previous reply Doubletime, Thanks. I had to rush off for my yoga class, so I was a little brief. You are welcome back any time you want to learn more about it. If you read the material I provided and have questions, this is a good place to ask, as you will generally find several different ways people respond to questions. I'll certainly be glad to help.I understand that processing new information that seems contrary to old beliefs can be difficult - this occurs to everyone and involves any topic, and the trick is to find an open minded skepticism view.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi sywen and welcome to the fray. Or the weapons technology was just a little better ...One of my favorite opinions\hypothesis is that Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis are the basis for the trolls, goblins and other mythological "sub"humans, from the times of conflict between them.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Nietzscheandrew, and welcome to the fray. Statement (2) just proved statement (1).I suggest reading through this site for a basic understanding of evolution as taught in universities to biology majors:Evolution 101 - Understanding EvolutionThis site provides an excellent overview. Then if you have any questions, feel free to ask (but start a new thread for them).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Nietzscheandrew, having a little cognitive dissonance problem? You are talking about the University of Berkeley Biology Department website. In Message 157 you said: And now suddenly you know enough to criticize a website put up and maintained by people with PhDs in Evolution and Biology? Never.Evolution is a response mechanism that can take advantage of opportunities when they arise, but evolution never occurs in response to need.Natural selection operates on the existing variations in a population - it does not produce any variations to say nothing of any "needed" variations.If the population does not have the variations needed to survive a change in their ecology then they perish.Mutation operates to add random variety to the population - some variations are larger than other, but there is no mechanism to make or cause a mutation to occur in answer to a need. The mutations occur during the reproductive and early development of an organism, and by the time they are fully developed they are either adapted to their ecology or they are not. If the ecology changes then it is too late for them to change, so if they are not able to survive the change they perish. Survival is only half the equation of natural selection, reproducing is the other part. You have a conceptual error in how and where evolution works. Each individual lives, eats, mates and dies based on the traits they received during the reproductive process that produce them from their parents. They do not change, they do not adapt, they survive or perish, reproduce or are barren based on their phenotype that was fixed when they finished growing. Again you make a conceptual error here, there is no conscious development of wings by birds because it would be "easier to flee predators and migrate" - it's the other way around: existing variations that offered improved survival and breeding benefit were passed down from one generation to the next, gradually accumulating the traits necessary for flight. You do know, don't you, that they have now found feathered dinosaurs long before flight occurred - flight occurred because the opportunity was provided by the pre-existing feathers. As I said, you have already proven that you are no biologist, because you know squat about evolution or how it works. The question is why you keep spouting off your ill-informed opinion rather than rectifying a rather obvious deficiency in your education, especially when you have been pointed to an excellent resource for doing that.Newcomers are usually cut some slack, especially young newcomers, however I suggest you consider learning more, and asserting poorly informed opinion less. At least this relates to the topic. Perhaps you'd like to read the thread to see what is already covered.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi jacortina, After they have had the opportunity to evolve. Nietzscheandrew was trying to claim that they would evolve solely to suit this later purpose.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi websnarf, and welcome to the fray, nice post. An easier way to do quotes is to use quote boxes:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.For other formatting tips see Posting TipsIf you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.Enjoy.

---