Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 286 of 1075 (621278)
06-24-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:28 PM


Re: More evolved?
Darls at the risk of being disrespectful you are free to consider your self an ape and no different than a chimp. I on the other hand reserve the right to say that my reasoning and perceptual abilities are very different to that of an ape.
Except that they aren't. Your reasoning is different from a chimp or a gorilla or an orang. Those are specific species. Your reasoning is not different from an ape. "Apes" are a group. Humans are a member of that group.
It takes an evolutionists to line up a 5 primates, including humans, and say they cannot tell the difference and that the human is not the odd one out. This is a simple game really that most children over the age of 7 years can conceptualise and achieve successfully.
If I line up 5 humans, 4 white and 1 black - will a child pick the black as the "odd one out"?
How about 4 tall people and 1 dwarf?
How about 4 men and 1 woman?
You're getting your grouping wrong.
Line up a gorilla, a human, a chimp, an orang and a cat. THEN ask the child which is the odd one out.
Replace the cat with a deer, then a fox, then a fish, then a bear, then a dolphin...
I bet the kid lumps the human in with the rest of the apes every single time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:28 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:26 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 287 of 1075 (621281)
06-24-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
One of the reasons I do not frequent here much is because I am unabe to post pictures, while others can.
I had this problem when I first started. Try using the "peek" button on the bottom of a post with pictures. It will reveal the source code the people use when doing so.
I'd type in the code to demonstrate, but it wouldn't appear as text since it's designed not to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 6:15 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 288 of 1075 (621283)
06-24-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
Do please source some pictures of the FOSSIL of ambulocetus natans and a picture of a crocodile fossil and you will see they are almost identical. Once again common sense must leave the buiding when discussing TOE. Rather than theorise natans is a variety of crocodile they have 'poofed' it into some intermediate that just looks like a crocodile.
That's just it, they aren't "almost identical"
They look superficially alike to an uneducated observer.
But details ARE important.
Oklahoma looks superficially like a frying pan. There are some fundamental differences between the two if you know what to look for.
This is a 100 million year old croc fossil. Notice that like modern crocs (and all other reptiles with legs) the legs jut out at the side. There's no "shoulder blade" or "hip bone".
Here's amblo:
Not the shoulder blades?
If you look at a thousand different croc fossils from any period in time, not one of them will have the shoulder blades.
That's just ONE of many features which distinguish the two.
Notice also the complete lack of a neck on a crocodile. Ditto all other lizards. Notice the neck on Amblo. That's a second feature easily made out from these images.
Imagine how many more we could point out if were had the two in front of us and could walk around?
Don't let your lack of knowledge mislead you into thinking that other people are as ignorant about a topic. Just because you can't distinguish two things which are roughly similar in shape, it doesn't mean those things are identical.
Now I will also remind you of the misrepresentations put forward for Neanderthal the ape man. It suited your evo sketch artists to represent Neanderthal this way. You had heaps of fossils also and still Neanderthal was an ape man. With all the science and fluffing around that is what these 'smart' ones came up with.
Neanderthal was never presented as an "ape man". There was some initial confusion because the first mostly complete skeleton happened to have arthritis, so the first sketches showed him hunched over. That image became the common cultural concept of a caveman.
The image was actually fairly accurate as far as posture goes for that one individual. It just wasn't accurate for all.
However, with DNA retrieved from Neanderthal his has 'poofed' into a human not unlike us In fact many scientists classify Neanderthal as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. So it was not the fossils that made neanderthal human, it was not your scientists that could work this out from the fossils. The representation changed as a result of the DNA sequencing.
Neanderthal was alternately classified as either "Homo Neanderthalensus" or "Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensus" long before there was DNA evidence recovered.
Non- Africans carry something like 8% of Neanderthal DNA. Clearly they were able to interbreed with us.
Nothing has "poofed" one way or another.
I note that I clearly spoke to the fossils/skeleton of natans being similar to a modern day crocodile. I wonder why you did not post these up? Answer: I am correct.
I didn't realize that we were required to provide you with pictures until you asked for them.
I have done so now.
Answer: You are extremely wrong.
Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:36 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 331 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 4:59 PM Nuggin has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 289 of 1075 (621284)
06-24-2011 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Nuggin
06-24-2011 5:43 PM


noparse
I'd type in the code to demonstrate, but it wouldn't appear as text since it's designed not to.
You can show dBcodes in your message by using the [noparse] ... [/noparse] set of codes.
I'll bookend these on a quote square. See Peek.
[qs] some verbiage [/qs]
here's your amblo from the prior message:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Ambulocetus_et_pakicetus.jpg/250px-Ambulocetus_et_pakicetus.jpg[/img]
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 5:43 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 290 of 1075 (621285)
06-24-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM


Re: More evolved?
The topic is why are there no human apes alive today.
There are. Humans.
This is an aside to the fact that indeed primates have been ideologicaly separated as we refer to us as human and mankind and the animal kingdom primates as apes.
Except that that's false. When you say "apes", you are technically referring to all of the great apes, including humans.
How you use a word in your every day speech doesn't really have anything to do with the actual definition of the word.
Take "Kiwi" for example. No one is ACTUALLY saying that NZrs, tiny furry fruit and a flightless bird are all one species.
Biblical creationists know the answer to why. God wanted to and did.
And that claim is as valid as the claims made by the Abos, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Aztecs, the Greeks, the Vikings.... and on and on and on.
Science, on the other hand, provides actual evidence. That's what sets us apart from mythology.
You can not win a debate between Christian Creationism and Viking Creationism. They are both equally valid/invalid and use the EXACT same evidence to back it up.
Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes.
Well, since I'm not in Michigan I miss the reference. However, Turkana boy is either Homo Erectus or Homo Eragaster.
Anything that starts "Homo" is "Human". They are different branches of humans, they are separated by millions of years, but they are all "humans".
Also note scientists found evidence that Toba was not so catastrophic in 2009 and whallah..in 2010 researchers found there was no need for the until now required genetic bottleneck to explain the lack of human variation.
No, you are misunderstanding. There IS a bottleneck. Whether or not Toba is responsible for that bottleneck may be debatable, but the fact that a bottleneck exists is not.
So there is no reason why some of the ape midpsecies and sister species to not have survived till today looking fairly apey and not real smart.
Yes, there is. Competition. Primarily from us. Humans hunt and kill anything we consider a threat. That even includes other humans.
Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation
Your use here of "parsimonious" leads me to believe you mean "easiest" or "most efficient" or "simple".
If your criteria for accuracy is simple answers, then explain to me why this statement is wrong:
"Automobiles work because angels live in the engine".
No need for combustion. No need for physics. No need for torque, or drive trains, or spark plugs.
If your car breaks down, take it to church.
Clearly "cars run on angels" is WAY easier than explaining the various working pieces of the modern engine. Therefore it must be right.
I guess all the car companies have been lying to us all this time, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:02 PM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4591 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 291 of 1075 (621286)
06-24-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Nuggin
06-24-2011 5:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
There is no need to make a muddle and higher level quiz out of the most obvious physical trait man is not a hairy critter. That stand out in a simple test as an observed difference in a simple picture. The greater distinction is reasoning ability and perception.
I am talking about an obvious distinction between mankind and non human primates that of simply being hairy animals. If anything, I can post research that speaks to the orang being more morphologically similar to man than chimps.
You need intermediates that have disappeared. What happened to them all that they did not microadapt as observed in nature and the lab and survive in a less primitive hairy form of ape man somewhere in the wild?
I know the refute re human hair folicles. However, quite clearly there is a big difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 5:41 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 6:45 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 321 by DBlevins, posted 06-25-2011 4:19 AM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 292 of 1075 (621288)
06-24-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:20 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
What supports creation is based on research such as that by scientists like John C Sanford on entropy and other creationist dating methods and research. These are based on models not unlike yours but different assumption are used in the set up. All models are based on an assumption and use probabilities as insertion values. That is why it is referred to as theoretical modelling and not factual modelling.
The problem with Creationist "models" is that they make multiple assumptions which are both unfounded and unsupportable.
For example:
If we ASSUME that radioactive decay is not stable, then we can change the dates given by looking at the uranium evidence to a younger date.
Is there evidence that radioactive decay is not stable? No.
Is there an explanation as to why all observations of radioactive decay which have ever been done by any scientist anywhere show that it is absolutely stable? No.
What about the inevitable question that arises from this assumption - "If the decay rate was faster, then more radiation must have come off quicker, resulting in more heat. What happened to that heat?"
Answer: Well, if we ALSO ASSUME that the heat vanished without melting the entire Earth, then it's okay.
Is there any evidence to support this vanishing heat? No.
Is there an explanation as to why we should ignore one of the laws of thermodynamics? No.
And EVERY model the Creationists come up with has this exact same problem.
"Why is start light traveling from stars billions of light years away able to reach us if the Universe is only a few thousand years old?"
Well, if we ASSUME that the speed of light is variable....
I would think that of all the branching that must have occurred over the last 8 million years that some of the now extinct branches should have survived
BILLIONS of branches have survived. Just not the ones that went extinct.
Your statement above sounds a lot like: "Given how many people started out running the marathon, I would have expected more than one winner".
Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form?
Everything is in a transitional form.
However you need long evolutionary distances and all intermediates to have not survived to explain the clear distinction between a human and chimp, cat and dog, whale, crocodile and mouse deer.
You are asking for intermediaries between groups which are not descended from one another.
Humans are not descended from chimps.
Humans and chimps are descended from a joint ancestor in the distant past.
Your and your 5th cousin are descended from a great great great great grandparent. That person is not alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4591 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 293 of 1075 (621289)
06-24-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Nuggin
06-24-2011 5:58 PM


Re: More evolved?
You should also post one of a croc swimming which looks just like Natans with a little difference in the skull. Natans certainly looks more like a crocodile than a deer, its' supposed predecessor.
Regardless, Natans looks nothing like a deer. To believe the connection requires a great leap of faith.
There was no confusion about Neanderthal until the Neanderthal geneome project, other than was he a contributor to todays people. He was pictures everywhere as a hairy almost human until then. Your representations mean nothing. The fossils are the evidence.
The reality is I am not wrong...and you cannot explain why no other mid species was lucky enough to survive till today. Not all mid species were exposed to exactly the same environment or anything, yet not one hairy species managed to survive. Sounds like a fairytale to me.
You explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 5:58 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 6:51 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 312 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-24-2011 10:13 PM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4591 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 294 of 1075 (621290)
06-24-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Nuggin
06-24-2011 6:35 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
So do evolutionists base their supportive irrefuteable assertions on evidence that winds up in the rubbish bin of delusions past. eg Once upon a time mankind evolved from knucklewalkers, once upon a time brain size was linked to bipedal walking, once upon a time Lamarkian style epigenetic inheritance was thought to be impossible, once upon a time HGT in prokaryotes was also impossible, once upon a time Darwinian gradual change was the flavour of the month. etc etc etc.
It is all assumptive, based on probabilities and will continue to change as it pleases the stance eg chimp human split 4-5myo changed to 6-8my with Ardi. Your fossils are a part of the assumption. Creationist modelling and assumptions are no worse.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 6:35 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 06-24-2011 6:48 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 300 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 7:00 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 303 by jar, posted 06-24-2011 7:07 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 295 of 1075 (621291)
06-24-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:26 PM


Re: More evolved?
the most obvious physical trait man is not a hairy critter.
Rat:
Mole Rat:
Lack of hair does not mean that the mole rat is not a rodent. It is.
Likewise, just because humans don't have THICK DARK HAIR does not mean that they are not apes.
By the way, this is a human:
You need intermediates that have disappeared. What happened to them all that they did not microadapt as observed in nature and the lab and survive in a less primitive hairy form of ape man somewhere in the wild?
I've explained this already, but I'll try again.
Evolution trends toward the exploitation of a niche. If some food source or living space is unused, then a species will fill that niche.
Humans fill niches like champs. There is virtually nowhere on Earth where people aren't living.
As such, there's no room for any other sub-human apes to live. If it's available, we took it and killed anything that challenged us.
You keep asking why these things aren't around as if the history of humanity was not one of brutally killing anything and everything we could get our hands on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:26 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:52 PM Nuggin has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 296 of 1075 (621292)
06-24-2011 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:44 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Creationist modelling and assumptions are no worse.
Sure they are. They are based on myth and superstition and are contradicted by reality (empirical evidence).
That's not only worse but just plain silly besides.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:44 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 297 of 1075 (621294)
06-24-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:36 PM


Re: More evolved?
You should also post one of a croc swimming which looks just like Natans with a little difference in the skull.
No. YOU should post a picture of a croc skeleton swimming. It's your argument, not mine.
I notice that you FAILED to address my points about the shoulder blades and the neck.
Why? Are these terms unfamiliar to you? Or is it that it's inconvenient to address evidence which defeats your argument?
Repeating the same point after it's been disproved is pretty typical Creationist behavior. It's dishonest.
The question that comes to mind is this: Since you must know that your technique is dishonest, it must mean that you know you are wrong. After all, if you thought you were right, you would strive to prove you were right instead of dodging the points.
So, given that we know that you are wrong, and your actions demonstrate that you know you are wrong, what exactly is your goal here?
Not all mid species were exposed to exactly the same environment or anything, yet not one hairy species managed to survive. Sounds like a fairytale to me.
Every single potential other human species, including ones which survived for VERY LONG periods of time (ie Neanderthals) were exposed to the EXACT SAME THING: Us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:36 PM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4591 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 298 of 1075 (621296)
06-24-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Nuggin
06-24-2011 6:45 PM


Re: More evolved?
I am sorry but that is rubbish. There are plenty of areas on the planet only gotton to over the last 200 years eg Australia and there are no ape people here or in Africa or anywhere else.
You do not need to explain what your theory suggests more than you need it to make sense. If niches went on towards humanity, the ones left behind still had no reason to perish. Surely if evolution were true some part-ape tribe should still be around, hobbling about like a homonid or the apey erectus. They have so conveniently disappeared in support of creationists stance to the misfortune of evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 6:45 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 6:57 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 301 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 7:05 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 302 by PsychMJC, posted 06-24-2011 7:06 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 322 by DBlevins, posted 06-25-2011 4:34 AM Mazzy has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 299 of 1075 (621297)
06-24-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:52 PM


Re: More evolved?
There are plenty of areas on the planet only gotton to over the last 200 years eg Australia and there are no ape people here or in Africa or anywhere else.
No humans in Australia prior to 200 years ago?
You jest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:52 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 300 of 1075 (621298)
06-24-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:44 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Creationist modelling and assumptions are no worse.
Really? Creationist models state that there has never been any change whatsoever. That things which are alive today were alive exactly as they are now in the past. That bunnies and T-Rex were both on the Ark. That modern cows and sabertooth tigers were walking side by side.
How exactly does this square with the fossil record? The DNA? Common logic?
You live in Australia. Have you ever been outside?
Notice that just about everything there is a marsupial? Notice that aside from possums there's virtually no marsupials anywhere else?
How exactly does the Christian model explain the mass migration of marsupials from the Middle East to Australia after the flood?
How about the lemurs to Madagascar?
You seriously think that "Duh, well, a wizard did it" is a valid argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:44 PM Mazzy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024