|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Can you show the evidence that apes had speech, language, logic, self awareness, conscience? Man is unique in his capacity to speak, to write language, to record facts and figures, to build amazing structures and to overcome and expand his environment. He is able to create, to reason, to assess, to calculate and to invent. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Chimps and orangutans are able to move through trees much more easily than gorillas. Does this mean that gorillas are not apes? You need to remember that life is categorized based on shared characteristics. When you list the characteristics shared by all apes you also list characteristics found in humans. You can not describe all apes without also describing humans. To use a less contentious species group, would you cite the differences between chihuahuas and great danes to argue that neither is a dog?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Mankind however shows that this is nonsense as it's closest sister species the chimp is absolutely nothing like us. This ranks up there with your claim that H. erectus resembles a gorilla more than a human. Why don't we start with the most basic features. Do both chimps and humans have a backbone?
The human line is also the only line that has such enourmous differences between species at the Genus level. There are more differences between dog breeds than there are between modern humans and H. erectus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
However I am happy to call any evolutionists an ape if this is what they wish. Do you consider yourself a mammal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The control and use of fire is a complex task that apes cannot understand nor perform. Where you have found a hearth, you have found a fully human being. Do you think an ape can think to use flint or stick rubbing. Not on your life. ...and they did not have matches. What criteria do you use to determine if a fossil is fully human or not?
Above is an ape, not a person that can use fire. So what features must a fossil have for it to be transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?
Many of your fossils are just a few bones with the majority of the specimen reconstructed according to a wish list.
Evidence please.
Researchers cannot understand the muddle around recent species like florensisensis and neanderthal. So if we have cousins that means that we can not share a common ancestor with those cousins? I am really confused as to your problem with our current understanding of H. floresiensis and H. neanderthalensis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Evos use all sorts of things to contstruct family trees. What is wrong with constructing family trees based on DNA? Isn't that the way it should be done?
So when it suits you use 'likeness'. When it doesn't you use good old luck eg homology or convergent evolution or the plethora of other kinds of evolution to explain what should not be there, but is. You do realize that convergent evolution involves non-homologous features, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Well evos come from the assumption of ancestry. No, we don't. Shared ancestry is the conclusion that has been drawn from the data. Remember ERV's?
quote: If chimps and humans do not share a common ancestor then we should not find the same ERV's at the same location in both genomes. However, we DO share ERV's at the same location in both genomes, therefore it is concluded that we share a common ancestry according to the evidence. The same works for fossils. If humans and chimps share a common ancestor then there should have been species in the past that had a combination of modern human and basal ape features. The fossils left behind by these species allows us to test this prediction, and the prediction has been confirmed. Shared ancestry is not the assumption.
In relation to the thread topic, there is no good reason for a half hairy, apey creature to no have survived in Africa somehwere. There is no good reason that they HAD TO survive, either. What about all of the intermediates between wolves and chihuahuas? Where are they, or do you think that chihuahuas and wolves are from different kinds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Evos do not have an answer for every question and still believe. Evolution isn't a belief. It is a scientific theory. You need to stop projecting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You lot keep harping on this 'no creationist model' line. Then please tell us what a transitional between humans and non-humans should look like according to these creationist models. If you fail to do so, then I can only assume that the model does not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Creationists arguments are likewise based on facts, Which facts do they debate? What is the creationist debate as to the comparison of the modern human and neanderthal genome? What is the debate as to how one determines if a fossil is transitional or not? What features must a fossil have in order for creationists to accept is as being transitional? Why do you keep avoiding these questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I do not need to con the audience. Then be honest with us. What features must a fossil have in order for you to accept it as a transitional between humans and non-humans?
We do not have to have the nonsense of ancestry going back to a bacteria or several, depending on which evo model you like. Why not?
Remember LUCA is dead with the realisation of HGT. So why can't descendants of the last universal common ancestor exchange DNA between themselves? I really don't understand this.
Evidence of creative days, which we have eg Cambrian explosion How does the Cambrian Explosion evidence the Creation Days? In the Cambrian we see no mammals, no reptiles, no dinosaurs, no trout, no salmon, no birds, no mammals, no cats, no dogs, no apes, no bears, and the list goes on. How can the Cambrian resemble Genesis when so many modern species are completely missing from the record?
All our scientists need to work out where the fossils reside in the creation of kinds, how many kinds and varieties therein were created. You can't even tell us the criteria for determining if two species belong to the same kind or different kinds. It would appear to me that creationists need to define "kinds" before you ask biologists to use it.
Do you choose to challenge the obvious because you have exhausted your defenses? You are challenging us about the "obvious". You are the one who claimed that H. erectus resembled gorillas more than modern humans, and you want to challenge us with the "obvious"? Really? If you can't tell the difference between a hominid and a gorilla then you have no business lecturing us on the "obvious". It is really that simple. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What are you on about? Please explain how non life 'poofed' into a living cell or else evolution does not exist. That is how silly your comment is! Did you forget that it is the creationists who propose that life came into being through magical poofing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
"God did it" is just as scientifically robust as saying "It all evolved". That is a lie. The most parsimonious explanation is the one that requires the fewest unevidenced assumptions. We can observe mutation and natural selection, so it does not need to be assumed. Creationism assumes magical poofing, which is not evidenced. Therefore, evolution is the most parsimonious explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'll add another reply...with all your so called recent evidence what have are more questions rather than answers. Questioning evidence is light years ahead of unquestionable religious dogma.
You lot still can't agree on the human chimp split time, 4-8mya and counting, nor the neanderthal common ancestor split time. That chimps, humans, and neanderthals share a common ancestor is not in question. The evidence is quite clear on that, and all scientists agree that they do share a common ancestor. So since all scientists agree that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, you accept that as well, don't you?
You call this stuff evidence. I call it myth. Can you please explain how a real world fossil is a myth? Can you explain how the sequenced chimp and human genomes are myths?
The thread is why are there no human-ape intermediates. Until you define what features a human-ape intermediate should have we can't even discuss the topic. We can't determine that there are no transiitonals until you tell us the criteria for determining what is and is not a transitional. So what features must a fossil have in order for you to consider it transitional between modern humans and non-human apes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What my statement alludes to is that if researchers cannot agree on what the evidence says out of 2 or more competing ideas effectively what you have is no evidence at all. The scientists do agree that H. erectus et al. are transitional. They also agree that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. So you accept this as well, do you not? Also, you have yet to tell us what criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not? So what are those criteria?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Most creationists accept Neanderthal as human. Some creationists accept H. erectus as human. Some do not. Some accept H. habilis as human. Some do not. If you are looking for inconsistencies look no further than creationists and how they categorize transitional hominids. Here is a good rundown of just how inconsistent creationists are. They can't seem to decide if these transitional hominids are human or not human. I guess that is probably the best evidence for their transitional nature yet.
The DNA comparisons, are rubbish. We have 75% DNA in common with a nematode. Even if that percentage is accurate, why does this make DNA comparison's rubbish? Of course we share DNA in common with nematodes. We are the same kind as nematodes, the animal kind. We share a common ancestor with nematodes. Also, could you be specific as to which nematode species you are referring to? There are 28,000 nematode species, after all.
However according to other research and current thinking they are human with the same FOXPs gene. They may be humans, but they are not anatomically modern humans (i.e. H. sapiens). You seem to think that if both the wolf and chihuahua are called dogs that this means that a chihuahua is a wolf. You need to brush up on your taxonomy.
According to this link below Neanderthals should be ape men as they are half way in sequence positions between chimp and ape. That's like saying that a dachsund is halfway between a great dane and a chihuahua. Neanderthals, humans, and chimps are all apes. They are also cousins, none being direct descendents or ancestors of the others. Humans did not evolve from chimps. They evolved from a common ancestor with chimps just as great danes, dachsunds, and chihuahuas all descended from a common ancestral dog. Or perhaps you could describe what a chihuahua dog would look like? That is how silly you sound when you ask for a description of an ape man.
In my opinion... what evolutionists actually propose as evidence for evolution is a mosaic of variations of ape, monkey etc as well as any non-human primate variations that have lived over the past 5 million years or so. So what variations would be consistent with a transitional hominid between humans and our common ancestor with chimps? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024