Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 316 of 1075 (621320)
06-25-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:
The topic is why are there no human apes alive today.
It's important to note that the thread's question, why there are no human apes alive today, is nonsensical. Humans *are* apes. It would make just as much sense to ask why there are no human mammals alive today.
I gather we are talking about mid ape/human species.
Again, humans *are* apes. It would make as much sense to talk about mid mammal/human species.
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.
I think in casual conversation most people do not mean humans when they say "apes," but checking over at Wikipedia so I can get this right, the scientific term for ape is Hominoidea and it includes chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, people and more.
Today, one can easily distinguish the human ape difference between live specimens.
Yes, of course. If there weren't differences then we'd be the same species. But no one is saying we're the same species. We share a number of certain characteristics that puts us all in the same superfamily, and the name of that superfamily is Hominoidea, popularly known as apes.
Would it help if we stuck to technical terms? We could say that chimps, gorillas and people are all mammals. And we could say that chimps, gorillas and people are all primates. And we could say that chimps, gorillas and people are all Hominoidea.
The onus is on evolutionists to explain the how and why.
Evolutionists can explain the what and the how, but not the why. Why is the purview of religion.
Anyway, evolutionists *have* explained the what and the how, to the extent evidence is available. In this very thread, in fact. The current classification is based upon both morphology and genetics, and we can get into as much detail as you like. Regardless of the label, chimps, gorillas and humans, and especially just chimps and humans, are more similar to each another than to any other animals, so they would be grouped together in any biological classification system.
Biblical creationists know the answer to why. God wanted to and did.
As I said, why is the purview of religion.
You seem convinced that Turkana Boy is human while Homo erectus is not, based upon the images from Wikipedia articles. Here are the two images side by side, Homo erectus on the left:
But the frontal view of Turkana Boy's skull makes the brow ridge appear very small. Here's a different view where you can see how similar it is to Homo erectus, and in fact many anthropologists classify Turkana Boy as a Homo erectus. Notice that a large part of the central portion of Turkana Boy's brow ridge is missing (click on the image to enlarge it and you'll see this clearly), which is why it doesn't appear as prominent in the photograph of the whole skeleton:
More importantly, no anthropologist classifies Homo erectus or Turkana boy as human, i.e., as Homo sapien.
I can tell that you find changing views within science as an indication of something rotten, but the object of your criticism is not evolution but merely the interpretation of the evidence of natural history in an evolutionary context. The theory of evolution as it relates to human evolution has changed little, but our reconstructions of the path of human evolution have changed and will change a great deal with new evidence and improving insights.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve description of Turkana Boy.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by DrJones*, posted 06-25-2011 2:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 317 of 1075 (621323)
06-25-2011 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:20 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Mazzy writes:
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, yet not been offered the environmental or adaptive influences or drift to advance them all the way to Homo Sapiens. Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form?
All species are transitional because evolutionary change is inevitable due to imperfect reproduction. If environmental conditions are relatively constant then some species will retain their morphological forms over long periods of geological time, as far as can be ascertained from their fossils, but fossils are missing a great deal of detail, not just soft tissue but also genetics where we know that even a species that to all appearances is unchanging over time still has DNA that is definitely changing, just not in ways that are overtly expressed.
By the way, your post doesn't really seem to be a reply to me. Did you perhaps click on the reply button for one of my posts when you actually intended to reply to someone else?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:20 PM Mazzy has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 318 of 1075 (621325)
06-25-2011 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Percy
06-25-2011 1:13 AM


Re: More evolved?
Notice that a large part of the central portion of Turkana Boy's brow ridge is missing (click on the image to enlarge it and you'll see this clearly), which is why it doesn't appear as prominent in the photograph of the whole skeleton:
Also: as a juvenile features such as the brow ridge would be less developed.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 06-25-2011 1:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 319 of 1075 (621326)
06-25-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by AZPaul3
06-24-2011 11:59 PM


quote:
It's Lloyd Pye, nutjob extraordinaire. Have you read any of his books?
Do you know anything of his nutjob views? Do you really want to use him as a source and be seen in the same light?
He has alternative views. Im cool with that. I dont agree with everything he believes in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 11:59 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 320 of 1075 (621330)
06-25-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM


Human lineage
I gather we are talking about mid ape/human species.
If I am not mistaken we are discussing why we do not see ancestral Hominins alive today (ex. Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderathalensis, Australiopiths, etc.) and the relationship between Apes and 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.
Humans ARE primates. It also happens that we are the last of the hominin line; all other hominins have gone extinct.
Today, one can easily distinguish the human ape difference between live specimens.
Which is explained by our divergence some 6-9 million years ago. We are one product of a differing evoutionary path.
God only knows what Homo erectus is. It appears to be a fossil dump of varying humans and apes. Many of your representations are based on fossil fragments and a few bones.
Homo Erectus and Homo Ergaster are species in the Hominin line and are classified in the same Genus that we are: (Homo). They share with humans many dental features, a less prognathic face and a higher skull. Both, though, retained characteristics of earlier Hominins: receding forhead, no chin, supraorbital torus.
Homo Erectus or colloquially "Java Man" first apeared in the fossil record about 1.6 - 1.8 mya and lived mainly in East Asia until about 30kya. They showed little increase in cranial capacity or technological sophistication over that time period. Their skull is thicker, they have more pronounced brow ridges and occipitol torus, plus a sagittal keel. Their technological industry stayed with the Mode 1 (Oldawan) tool industry. Of course it is possible that their tool making industry used bamboo, which decays much more easily than bone and unlike stone. Erectus was a bipedal obligate (like us), as indicated by his pelvis, position of the foramen magnum, and human-like bicondylar angle of the femur, etc.
Homo Ergaster appeared about 1.8 mya in Africa. They also expanded into Eurasia about 1.7 mya. Unlike H. Erectus, their cranial capacity was larger and their tool kit expanded to include the the Mode 2 (Achulean) tools around 1.6 - 1.4 mya. H. Ergaster went extinct about 1 mya. Concerning KNM-WT 1500, a 12 year old H. Ergaster, his body would have had the same proportions as modern humans (not at ALL ape-like) and nothing like the earlier ancestral bipeds. He stood about 5' 4" tall and would have likely reached 6' when fully grown.
Iirc H. Ergaster was ancestral to H. Erectus. ie. A group of Ergaster migrated out of Africa and from this group came Erectus. So to say that H. Erectus is more ape-like than Ergaster is patently false.
Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes. I am remiss in my ability to understand how such intelligent scientists cannot see the difference.
You might also take a better look at KNM-WT 1500's (Turkana Boy's) skull. No human I know of has an occipital torus, supraorbital torus, no-chin, receding forhead, and a cranial capacity of almost, but not quite 900cc, as well as the post cranial differences.
As you would be aware the rounded human skull that is usually portrayed for comparisons to ape is the most different your scientists could find. In actual fact the is variety amongst the skulls of any species and huge variety in human skulls. The Australian Aborigine has eye brow ridging as do some other races, this is just variety, as these races are just as human.
Having a more pronounced eye ridge is completely different than having a supraorbital torus. NO human has an occipital torus, and NO human has a narrowing behind the eyes with a receding forehead. You should really get the chance to compare a human skull side-by-side with H. Ergaster. The difference is obvious.
There are flat faced primates and don't forget Lluc the flat faced ape around 12 million years ago
Convergence in evolution happens. Finding an ancient Hominid with such a feature doesn't negate evolution. It broadens our understanding of the emergence of the hominid line. The geographic implications are interesting...
Again the point being the onus is on evolutionists to explain why no ape intermediate is around today that did not quite get the conditions that drove the species all the way to mankind. No sister species of all the itermediates in the evolutionary bush survived.
Homo Sapiens appears in the fossil record almost 200 kya. H. Erectus until 30 kya. It is quite clear that Modern humans lived around the same time that H. Erectus was still hanging on, never-mind H. Florensis or Neanderthals. It is only fairly recently in the archaeological record that we have been left alone. So, we were not always the only Hominin around.
To reiterate: Extinctions happen. Not having aother surviving species in the Homininae line does not negate evolution.
...2010 researchers found there was no need for the until now required genetic bottleneck to explain the lack of human variation.
Perhaps I missed that link showing no need for a genetic bottleneck. Think you could post it?
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.
The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year.
Some of those Hominins DID survive until fairly recently ~ 30 kya.
The reason there are no extant ancestral or related Hominins is because they all went extinct. Just because one's Great great grandmother is no longer living doesn't mean you're not related to her. The most parsimonious explanation for the fossil evidence that exists is that species evolved from other species, and didn't just "poof" into existence. I think you mistake what we mean when we say Parsimonious. Parsimony: a scientific rule that states that if there exists two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accommodation need be made, then the simpler of the two answers is much more likely to be correct
In other words: If you have to twist yourself in logical knots and rewrite the science to try to explain how the fossil record came into being, then you're NOT being parsimonious.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

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

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 321 of 1075 (621332)
06-25-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:26 PM


Hairy humans
If anything, I can post research that speaks to the orang being more morphologically similar to man than chimps.
Feel fre to post a link. Let's see it.
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?
No. Evolution is not falsified by extinctions. As I stated before, it is also not true that other Hominins did not exist the same time we did up until about 30 kya.
I know the refute re human hair folicles. However, quite clearly there is a big difference.
What would be the most parsimonious reason that we retain the same number or more of hair follicles as the other ape species? Why do you suspect our hairs grow shorter and thinnner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:26 PM Mazzy has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 322 of 1075 (621333)
06-25-2011 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 6:52 PM


Humans in Australia
As nobody has helped you with this point, I'll add that evidence for human occupation of Australia goes as far back as 40 kya and possibly even as far back as 60 kya.
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.
You really seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that extinctions do not falsify evolution. Is it really that hard for you to realise that not having your great great "insert-relative" around doesn't mean you are not related to them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 6:52 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:50 PM DBlevins has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 323 of 1075 (621386)
06-25-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
06-24-2011 1:48 PM


Re: More evolved?
Percy the classification of apes, does not explain why none of the off shoots, since the chimp human split, are here today.
Why did every species since the chimp human split go off into extinction? Some have answered with current theory of natural selection where the less fit or lucky go extinct.
The problem with this, Percy, is that this is not what is observed in nature. The peppered moth, for example, can revert back to light coloured as they did with environmental improvement. There was no speciation in that light and dark could still mate sucessfully....but a humans cannot revert back to an ape, over 200 years. Did light coloured moths go extinct..Not really. This is just adaptive change and is not permanent.
Cryptic species in birds shows speciation, but no extinction of other similar species. The concept of ring species also illustrates that exinction is not part of the circle. There are also wolves and many other dog kinds, while their ancestor the wolf is still here with us today. The horse and quagga all still here today etc etc.
If bipedal walking and brains were one lines selective advantage, then the other line that ended up being chimps, should have died out also without the selective, but they didn't. If the chimp line survived there is no good reason why some other homonids or homo erectus niches should not be here untill very recently.
This is why, although evolutionists have invented a theory to explain it all, the theory often makes no sense in light of what can be observed today.
Creationists can see this.
Creationists can also see things like this.
Mankind found in Africa 400,000 years ago.
Page not found – Manila Bulletin
Lets see how the out of Africa proponents explain this as opposed to the multiregionalists.
Even Ardi is being disputed, and about time. Even as unscientific as I am I could clearly see that Ardi did not have gracile fingers, which Lucy does. Something is amiss, although other reasons are cited as the cause for refuting Ardi as any human ancestor
We're Sorry - Scientific American
There are no mid species inbetween chimps and humans. When scientists have found good fossils that do not require 'guesswork', they have found fossils of humans or apes and nothing in the middle. eg Turkana boy.
The reason there are no mid species here today is because there never were any in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 1:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Coyote, posted 06-25-2011 3:49 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 328 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2011 4:50 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 333 by DBlevins, posted 06-25-2011 6:18 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 366 by Percy, posted 06-26-2011 9:57 AM Mazzy has not replied

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


Message 324 of 1075 (621388)
06-25-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:35 PM


Creationists lecturing scientists...
The reason there are no mid species here today is because there never were any in the first place.
Nonsense.
But creationists won't admit that there are because of their a priori beliefs. They are literally blinding themselves to reality because they believe ancient tribal myth and legend instead of empirical evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:56 PM Coyote has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 325 of 1075 (621390)
06-25-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by DBlevins
06-25-2011 4:34 AM


Re: Humans in Australia
You are having a harder time in understanding that the idea of extinction is not observed. eg Peppered moths were light, then dark, then light again....no extinction observed. Bird beaks change in response to varying diet but other beak holders do not necessarily go extinct.
Over the last 20,000 years the only extinction that has occured has been as a result of human interference, not natural. You have observed adaptive speciation, which creationists do not deny. They deny the observed facts will lead to macroevolution eg an ape becoming human.
I have produced research supporting no link to speciation and catastrophe. eg chaos theory.
There are only 2 ways life got here, naturally or by the hand of God.
Proof for creation is one support provided by creationist scientists such as Sanford and Sarfarti, both now ex-evolutionists. Lynn Margulis, an evolutionist, also suggests current evolutionary thinking is not sufficient to explain evolution and there are others. Poking holes in current evolutionary theory is another support for creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by DBlevins, posted 06-25-2011 4:34 AM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by jar, posted 06-25-2011 4:01 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 329 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2011 4:54 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 336 by DBlevins, posted 06-25-2011 6:54 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 06-26-2011 10:11 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 326 of 1075 (621391)
06-25-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Coyote
06-25-2011 3:49 PM


Re: Creationists lecturing scientists...
Then you will kindly post your research in support of your claim. The bulk of my claims have been backed by research from your own evolutionary scientists.
There are NO mid humans here today because there weren't any in the first place.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Coyote, posted 06-25-2011 3:49 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2011 4:58 PM Mazzy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 327 of 1075 (621392)
06-25-2011 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Humans in Australia
There are only 2 ways life got here, naturally or by the hand of God.
And there is evidence of nature but no evidence of God.
WOW!

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:50 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 328 of 1075 (621399)
06-25-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:35 PM


Re: More evolved?
Why did every species since the chimp human split go off into extinction? Some have answered with current theory of natural selection where the less fit or lucky go extinct.
AGAIN. Humans did not split from chimps. Humans AND chimps split from a distant common ancestor. All the species that led from that ancestor to humans have gone extinct. All the species that led from that ancestor until the split between chimps and bonobos also went extinct.
That's what species do. 99.9999% of all species which have ever existed have gone extinct.
Asking why 5 or 6 of the hundreds of billions of extinct species didn't survive is a more than a little silly.
The problem with this, Percy, is that this is not what is observed in nature. The peppered moth, for example, can revert back to light coloured as they did with environmental improvement. There was no speciation in that light and dark could still mate sucessfully
that's because peppered moths are an example of rapid natural selection but not an example of speciation.
Look instead at the numerous varieties of jumping spiders. The chief difference between them is in their genitalia. The various species LITERALLY don't have matching parts any more.
THAT'S speciation.
a humans cannot revert back to an ape, over 200 years.
Humans ARE apes. Get it tattooed on your face.
Cryptic species in birds shows speciation, but no extinction of other similar species.
Are you serious? I can name extinct species from YOUR part of the world. Ever seen a Moa? Same family as emus and ostriches. Extinct.
There are also wolves and many other dog kinds, while their ancestor the wolf is still here with us today.
Wolves live in the forest. Dogs live in the house.
If dogs tried to live in the forest, they would get out competed by wolves.
If wolves tried to live with humans, we'd breed out any wildness and be left with dogs.
Two DIFFERENT NICHES. Two different species.
If bipedal walking and brains were one lines selective advantage, then the other line that ended up being chimps, should have died out also without the selective, but they didn't.
First of all, have you see any projections on chimp populations. They'll be gone soon enough.
Second, they live in dense jungles, up in trees. We don't live in trees. Two DIFFERENT NICHES, two different species.
If the chimp line survived there is no good reason why some other homonids or homo erectus niches should not be here untill very recently.
Neanderthals, Flores and Denasovians were ALL around until very recently.
However, they didn't last long after H. Sapiens found them.
There are no mid species inbetween chimps and humans.
There are no living mid-relatives between you and your 5th cousin. Can you explain that?
Clearly if you and your cousin are related as you claim, then there must be SOME living relative who is half you and half your cousin.
Why doesn't that person exist?
Mankind found in Africa 400,000 years ago.
Page not found – Manila Bulletin
Here's a tip. If you are going to link an article that you think supports your claim, YOU SHOULD READ THE ARTICLE FIRST.
This is what YOUR ARTICLE SAYS:
"Based on the evidence they've cited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.
Between this gaff and your woefully ignorant and frankly extremely racist claims about Australian history, I'm beginning to think you may be a home school Creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Portillo, posted 06-25-2011 10:42 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 329 of 1075 (621400)
06-25-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Humans in Australia
You are having a harder time in understanding that the idea of extinction is not observed.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing you've said yet. In fact, this may be among the stupidest things any creationist has ever tried to argue on these forums EVER.
Do you need a list? Okay. I'll give you a list. Fuck, I'll give you a list of ANIMALS WHICH HAVE GONE EXTINCT IN __ AUSTRALIA __.
Will THAT satisfy you that animals go extinct?
Probably not.
Thylacine or Tasmanian tiger: These carnivorous marsupials were more hunted and killed by humans and have become extinct when the last of its species died in the year 1936.
The Lesser Bilby: This lesser bilby species was last seen in the year 1960, was common in the desert areas of Central Australia. The dwindling numbers are because of loss of habitat by grazing and poultry, as well affected by frequent fire.
The Desert-Rat kangaroo: This extinct marsupial is of the size of a small rabbit that once lived in South-western Queensland and in the northeastern part of Australia. These Desert Rat kangaroo was last seen in the year 1935.
Landbeater's Possum: These species were found in the Victorian Central Highlands and were mostly found nested in the bark of old tress. They were found and seen last in 1961.
The White-footed Rabbit-rat: One of the native rodents of Australia that was of the size of a kitten. This nocturnal rat lived amidst trees and leaves. These were perhaps seen last in 1935.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:50 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 330 of 1075 (621402)
06-25-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Creationists lecturing scientists...
There are NO mid humans here today because there weren't any in the first place.
Well, clearly there are "mid-humans" alive today. According to you, there are many sub-humans: Africans, Aborigines, Indians, Asians.
Anyone not lily white is clearly not human. Right? That's basically your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:56 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