Why are there no human apes alive today?

Fixed it for you.This is why evidence, logic, and the real world has no effect on some creationists.They are not arguing from a fact-based position, but from faith.That's stupid and anti-rational, but not necessarily evil.

---

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

I am beginning to realize that you use a science that we are yet to comprehend.You seem to be making it up as you go using a tiny dash of real science and a heap of misrepresentation and misinterpretation, along with an overriding layer of ancient tribal superstition.Have you ever taken an evolution class? Human osteology? Have you studied casts of the major fossil man specimens? If not, from where do you get your vast learning?

---

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

One of England's most ingenious robot inventors is Dennis Weston of Leeds. His best known creation is Tinker, a six-foot-taII robot that can be programmed for such tasks as washing a car (upper right). Tinker is activated by some 430 motors and can be controlled up to two miles away via Weston's control panel (upper left). A TV camera in the robot's head even transmits a picture to the operator. In the two lower photos, Weston is shown at work on a new creation, Percy. Electronic sensors in the head (right) receive high-frequency signals that enable Percy to calculate the best route past objects in his path.

​

NEWS BRIEFS — Popular Mechanics, May 1970.

Edited by Coyote, : Add text

---

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

Some distinguishing characteristics of primates include:

• Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
  
• Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
  
• Color vision
  
• Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
  
• Grasping fingers aid in power grip
  
• Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits
  
• Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
  
• Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
  
• Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
  
• Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
  
• Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
  
• Prolongation of postnatal life periods
  
• Reduced litter sizeusually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
  
• Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
  
• Complicated social organization

But wait! There's more:Superfamily HominoideaThis superfamily contains humans and their close relatives, the apes. The first hominoids first appeared about 25 million years ago. Present-day hominoids are characterized by the absence of tails and by rather primitive rounded molars. This means that hominoid molars are less specialized than other primates.Some Hominoid characteristics include:

• Large brain
  
• Large size
  
• Long arms
  
• Long curved fingers
  
• Very stable elbow joint
  
• Relatively spherical humerus head that allows for 360-degree shoulder rotation
  
• High limb mobility
  
• Long and robust clavicle
  
• Bony broad sternum
  
• Short and stable lumbar region of the back
  
• Broad pelvis
  
• No tail
  
• Primitive rounded molars

404: Page Not Found | Smithsonian's National Zoo

---

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

Name one that is a supposition.(Note tagline.)

---

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

I ask again, as you didn't get around to answering this question from a previous post:

Have you ever taken an evolution class? Human osteology? Have you studied casts of the major fossil man specimens? If not, from where do you get your vast learning?

---

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

I ask again:

Have you ever taken an evolution course? Have you ever studied human osteology? Have you ever handled many of the casts of these fossil man specimens?

I am beginning to think you have no direct experience with this field beyond creationist websites.

---

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

Baraminology is simply religion pretending to be science.From the article you cited in your post:

Guidelines

​

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

• Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. ...

You might be fooling yourself with this nonsense, but the rest of us can see through your obfuscation. You're pushing religion and dogma, the exact opposite of science.

---

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

That's a flat-out lie.And you have three times now avoided answering my question about your qualifications to make such sweeping pronouncements as you have been making on this thread.I can only assume that you have no formal training in evolution, human osteology, and that you are not familiar with the casts of the various fossil man specimens. Rather than having a vast knowledge of this subject, it appears your knowledge is more half-vast. I have probably read more baraminology than you have, and probably understand it better than you do.One of its main proponents, Wayne Friar, admits that "Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations." I cited a larger piece of this in my previous post. This is religious apologetics, not science. Religious apologetics is the exact opposite of science.But if you want another opinion we can consult Dr. Kurt P. Wise, who states:

Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups after their kind in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) trees bearing fruit; 1b) herbs bearing fruit; 1c) grass; 2a) great whales; 2b) every living creature in the sea; 2c) fowl; 3a) cattle; 3b) creeping things on the land; 3c) beasts of the earth; and 3d) man. Other methods of dividing groups of organisms would include fundamental differences in genetic code, chromosomes, cell structure, metabolism, cell organization, and development. As research continues many more methods will probably be discovered.

Wise also notes:

Although few specific baraminology studies have been performed on specific organismal groups, it seems at this early stage that on the average the baramin might turn out to correspond rather closely to the biological familytwo levels up from the species (species within genera within families) and four levels down from the kingdom (families within orders within classes within phyla within kingdoms).

That's interesting--Wise claims that family Hominidae includes humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangs. I guess you'll have to revise your opinion about our relationship to apes now, eh?

---

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

Have you ever handled any of the casts of those specimens? Do you actually have any idea from your own personal experience just how many specimens there actually are, and what they are?If not, perhaps you should investigate the subject before you unwittingly pass on creationist misrepresentations.Here is one (of many) sources of casts. You could learn a lot just by looking at the various on-line catalogues.Hominid Cast Replicas HominidCasts.com

---

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

Your post is full of nonsense, the written version of the Gish Gallop (making up for lack of evidence by quickly adding/changing subjects until your audience is overwhelmed).Can you pick one point and stick to it so we can actually debate?For example, how about this one: Have you ever handled casts of Neanderthal or bones of gorillas (as I have)?On what actual evidence do you base your judgement that Neanderthal is just an ape?No Gish Gallop -- just stick to this one subject and let's see what we can come up with, eh?Now, it's your turn to provide some evidence on this one narrow topic.

---

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

Nonsense. Typical creation "science" nonsensical reasoning.When scientists disagree among themselves whether the human/chimp split was 5 million years ago vs. 7 million years ago that does not mean such a split never happened, which is what your creationist argument suggests.From these disagreements come more and more accurate theories, as scientists support their positions with evidence.These theories, being more accurate, leave less and less wiggle room and smaller gaps for creationists to exploit.Oh, are you ever going to answer my question about your qualifications? I've asked this about four times now.

Ever take an evolution course? Ever study human or mammalian osteology? Ever handle any significant number of casts of the various fossil specimens? If not, what is the source of your vast knowledge?

---

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

That is a standard creation "science" argument, but it makes one large assumption (and you know how creationists just hate assumptions!).That creationist argument assumes that all interpretations are equal, and that each follows equally well from the data.Unfortunately for creationists that is not the case. Their interpretations must ignore, misrepresent, or deny much of the data. Your own posts are evidence of that.

---

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

Are you ever going to answer my question about your qualifications?As it is, we have only your posts to judge you on and you are not doing well. As in this post to which I am replying, you have no evidence--just empty rhetoric.Why should we pay any attention to any of it?What are your qualifications?

---

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

Nor do you.Your "discussion" is nothing more than regurgitated creation "science" talking points. You ignore what we post and continue to make the same baseless assertions again and again.You do the Gish Gallop in written form, never staying around one point long enough for a debate. Even when shown to be wrong you simply ignore our points and repeat the same discredited assertions again and again.But that's OK. That's what we have come to expect from creation "scientists."That's about the only field in which one can do "science" while 1) knowing nothing about science, and 2) using methods which are the exact opposite of real science.

---

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