Why are there no human apes alive today?

I'm sorry but 'Turkana Boy' did not have a chin and neither did the Neanderthals. Turkana Boy is classified as H. erectus or H. ergaster
because it has certain derived and ancestral traits that correspond with those classifications. Off of memory, those cranial traits include but are not limited to: Aveolar Prognathism, fused molar roots, supraorbital torus, postorbital constriction, zygomatic constriction, pentagonal shaped cranial posterior, thick cranium, no chin, low forhead, and 'spongy' cranial base.These are traits that our skulls do not share with H. erectus or H. ergaster but rather traits that allow us to classify them as a separate species. Other traits that we share with H. erectus or H. ergaster are why we place them in the same genus as us and why we conclude that they are ancestral to us, H. sapiens.If you're interested, I am more than willing to debate with you in the Great Debate, concerning the placement of H. erectus in the phylogentic tree with H. sapiens vice ancestral to gorillas or just another type of gorilla. I left a message in your pm, as well. Let me know. Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : Changed titleEdited by DBlevins, : previous edits corrected italic mistakes from mobile and spelling errors, and added 'no chin' to traits

This is similar to Creationist Claim CC030 under Index to Creationist Claims at Talk Origins.The claim is:

quote:

---

All known fossils of ancient humans would fit on a billiard table (or in a coffin).

​

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 202.

​

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, 86.

---

I think this counts as a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times).Here is the response at Talk Origins:

quote:

---

1. That may have been true at one time, but there are thousands of hominid fossils now. Lubenow (1992) found that there were fossils from almost 4,000 hominid individuals catalogued as of 1976. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals, 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, 500 Neanderthals, and more (Handprint 1999). Foley (2004) lists some of the more prominent fossils.

​

2. It takes only a handful of fossils to show that hominid forms have changed over time.

---

From the same source here is a list of the more prominent hominid fossils:Prominent Hominid FossilsI count 68.From another source, evidently a senior class project in Anthropology, here is a list of 420 hominid fossils all but the last half dozen or so over 100,000 years old.They are broken down by species in this manner:

quote:

---

A. ramidus (17)
A. anamensis (38)
A. afarensis (28)
A. africanus (33)
A. garhi (9)
A. bahrelghazali (1)
P. boisei (48)
P. aethiopicus (8)
P. robustus (28)
H. habilis (34)
H. rudolfensis (9)
H. erectus (21)
H. ergaster (27)
H. antecessor (39)
H. heidelbergensis (7)
H. neanderthalensis (33)
H. sapiens (50)

---

I think your definition of 'handful' at 4,000, 420, or even 68, is not the same as the definition commonly accepted in the English language.{ABE}Just wanted to add that even the wiki article List of human evolution fossils lists 102 before 50,000 years in what they refer to as a "brief overview."{/ABE}Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

Neanderthal supposedly had a receeding chin as some people have today. If he didn't he isn't human either.http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_neand.htmRe Turkana Boy, I read that he had a receeding or very small chin. If he didn't then he is just an ape like all the other erectus. Apes are wide and varied and who know how many variations there were 5mya."The most interesting thing about these finds," paleontologist Peter Andrews Peter Andrews may refer to:Peter Andrews (mathematician), American mathematician
Peter Andrews (agricultural pioneer), Australian environmentalistof the British Museum British Museum, the national repository in London for treasures in science and art. Located in the Bloomsbury section of the city, it has departments of antiquities, prints and drawings, coins and medals, and ethnography. in London told SCIENCE NEWS, "is that they show the number of hominoid species during the Miocene to have been rather greater than was previously known." It is not clear how the new hominoids fit into the evolutionary scheme, adds Andrews; answering this "key question" requires a closer examination of the remains, particularly the structure of the jaws and tooth enamel.Nevertheless, say the Leakeys, when compared with other fossil hominoids, the fossils represent two distinct genera. The larger, baboon-size ape was dubbed Afropithecus, and the slightly smaller ape was named Turkanapithecus.Afropithecus, explain the researchers, displays the characteristics of a variety of hominoids combined in a single, distinctive category. Its palate is shallow, long and narrow and the nasal passage is "remarkably narrow and high." The forehead inclines steeply to a long muzzle. The size of the canine teeth of the best-preserved specimen suggests that it was a male.Another 17-million-year-old east African hominoid recently discovered by Richard Leakey and Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins University, mainly at Baltimore, Md. Johns Hopkins in 1867 had a group of his associates incorporated as the trustees of a university and a hospital, endowing each with $3.5 million. Daniel C. in Baltimore (SN: 12/7/85, p.360) is also a representative of Afropithecus, according to the investigators. Leakey and Walker originally assigned the find to another genus, Sivapithecus. There are two controversial lines of thought about Sivapithecus: Some scientists argue that it was an early African ape and human ancestor that migrated to Asia, while others contend it developed along a separate family line that led to Asian orangutans.The new finds do not resolve this conflict, but the Leakeys now believe that Sivapithecus was restricted to Asia. They hold, however, that ancestral forms of this group first appeared in Africa.The second new hominoid, Turkanapithecus, is short-faced with a narrow palate and tooth rows converging toward the back. Little is known about the cranial cranial /cranial/ (-al)
1. pertaining to the cranium.2. toward the head end of the body; a synonym of superior in humans and other bipeds.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------cranial
adj. features of small-bodied Miocene apes, but the teeth of Turkanapithecus clearly separate it from other hominoid categories, say the researchers.Fossil finds diversify ancient apes. - Free Online LibraryYou know I am starting to think not even neaderthal was human. I am starting to think that Neanderthal was just an ape that had to be more human than initially though due to other evidence and so he was humanised and new sketch work reflects what needs to be so."Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes showed that at multiple locations the Neanderthal DNA sequences matched chimpanzee DNA but not human. "
Research News: Neanderthal Genome Sequencing Yields Surprising Results and Opens a New Door to Future StudiesI will look for your message and see what comes of it maybe tomorrow.Still the question remains as to why none of these 'not quite human' species are not still about today. They were adapted to their environment and some should have survived without the additional gentic drift and/or environmental factors that drove another species to become fully human.Evolutionists say there are many sister type species that have survived but none have from inbetween the chimp and human split. Seeing the large and obvious differences in the two a species in the mddle would have been excellent support for evolution. Yet all we find, even as recently as last week, are African tribes that are fully human, but still living primitively.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Where we also almost exctinct some 70 000 years ago where our numbers dwindled down to an estimate of 2000 individuals.Whatever almost killed us off could have killed of what was left of the other branches

Really? You think that this: looks more like this: than it does like this? Really?ABE: Just to be clear, skull number one is a Neanderthal, number two is a mountain gorilla, and number three is a modern human.Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

---

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

No, that question has been answered over and over again. And then some more after that. There is no reason why any species - human beings, wombats, crayfish - has to survive indefinitely. None. Our pre-human and proto-human ancestors lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. The fact that one branch apparently out-competed the others for the same ecological niches is actually a more likely outcome than not. Think of how many non-human animals whose habitats we've destroyed, how many we've already driven into extinction. How much more likely is it that we'd exterminate any other hominid species who was compete with us for space? Your argument is just silly.By the way, I was just wondering - just how old do you think this planet is? It appears that you accept the dating of all the anthropologicall remains we've been discussing, but that hardly agrees with a belief in the truth of the creation story in Genesis. How long do you think that human beings have been on this planet? Is part of the reason that you don't believe that the intermediaries exist is that you believe that all life on this planet has only been here for some thousands of years, not billions?

---

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

Neanderthals lacked a mental eminence (lacked a chin). We Homo sapiens have a chin. Lacking a chin in no way removes Neanderthals from the genus Homo.The full suite of cranial and post-cranial morphological features, plus the added bonus of the DNA, are why we place Neaderthals with the genus Homo.More to come...(work calls)Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

Portillo....You should consider that human language is largely responsible for the complexity we see with our current society. That is our passing on of ideas has in effect accumulated over the generations to create the amazing architecture, art, space travel, etc....that you say makes us so different from apes. Without the presence of the environment we have created, a human being would certainly not seem so different in behavior from our apes cousins. And even language itself is only formed through the environment we have created for ourselves as well.....cases of neglected and feral children have shown language can not be learned after a certain age Chimps and other great apes do have a culture of learning, knowledge passed from one generation to the next, in the different forms of tools they use. Many groups of chimps in the wild 'fish' for termites....but not all use rocks to smash nuts, & only one has been seen using sharpened sticks as spears. Unfortunately for the chimps, although some sign language can be taught to them....it isnt passed on to other generations as well as in humans. Chimps DO use a complex system of vocal calls as well as hand gestures, that vary slightly on location of the group. There are also countless observed examples of apes, particularly chimps, displaying critical thinking in cause and effect relationships and the use of their environment to get what they want. Nobody will argue you that human beings are not the best species at exploiting the environment for our needs, or the level of complexity in our technology. This doesnt mean we are the most complex & special in every aspect of life and existence. We are evolved to be smarter, to use tools, to have a complex communication system, to pass on information to our offspring & the basis for this intelligence is clear in our closest animal relative.

H. ergaster and ‘Turkana Boy’ both lacked a chin. Whether or not they had a chin is not why we place them with us, in the genus Homo, versus placing them in the direct ancestral line to one of the other great apes. That you suggest he might be placed in the direct ancestral line with the other great apes because he ‘lacks a chin’ tells me you don’t understand why he is placed in the genus Homo, with us.The other great apes have a U-shaped dental arcade. H. ergaster and ‘Turkana Boy’, like us, have a parabolic dental arcade. H. ergaster also has thicker enamel than the other great apes, though thinner than ours, as well as significantly reduced canine and post-canine teeth, though earlier individuals had a small diastema and larger canines. This has led to them also having a slimmer jaw than earlier hominins and a reduced prognathism. Their brain is larger than the other great apes, as compared with their body, with a brain morphology that more closely resembles ours. ‘Turkana Boy’ also has a greater basicranial flexion as compared to the other great apes.As far as their post-cranial skeleton, they have a pelvis which to the untrained eye would look virtually indistinguishable to our own, and shows that H. ergaster, like ALL hominins, was obligate bipedal. In case you forgot, our pelvis has evolved to carry the weight of our organs as we walk and allow the muscle attachments that keep us from falling over, and this can be seen in the broad pelvis of ‘Turkana Boy’. The pelvis of the chimpanzees, by comparison, are significantly more long and narrow, shaped for ‘knuckle-walking’. The femur is also virtually indistinguishable from ours, though it is slightly different and would have allowed for a more efficient bipedal gait (Ours has diminished to allow for the birth of larger brained babies). And so on..and so on.The basic gist is H. ergaster, or the individual you know as, ‘Turkana boy’, has been placed in our genus, and is a likely ancestor to us, because of the broad range of traits that they/he shares with ourselves.If we look at culture, we know that H. ergaster had a capable tool technology which improved over time and used fire in hearths to cook meat. NO ape even approaches the tool technology of h. ergaster or ‘Turkana boy’, nor do they use hearths to cook their food. If you look at the top of the page you will see a button for messages. If you click that it will take you to your private messages. Let me know. As I stated before, Neanderthals and the flores species were around at the same time as us, 25 kya and 18 kya respectively. We definitely engaged with the Neanderthals, as some of us have Neanderthal genes. The flores species lived on the island of flores in Indonesia, and humans started occupying that land around that time. Neanderthals likely came into direct competition with us, and having a much lower population density and a tool technology that was slightly less advanced, it should come as no surprise that they went extinct. Same thing with the flores species, especially as their tool technology was very primitive, they were an isolated species, and they were very much smaller and not as bright as us.I am still confused why you think extinctions don’t happen and why you feel they falsify evolution. The reduction in the species of apes as compared with monkeys has been going on since the Miocene. Apes just seem to have had a tougher time. Bad monkeysbad. Why are you suddenly talking about African tribes? Stone tool technology of H. sapiens is way more complex than that of H. ergaster or earlier hominins. For whatever reason the other hominins went extinct.

Really, the chin as a criterion for humanity seems a little stringent. On the other hand, if you're sure about this, perhaps you could tell Portillo that Neanderthals are an example of an ape that made tools, used fire, had a spoken language, and buried their dead. Your copypasta is becoming more and more random. If you have a point, perhaps you could say what it is.Did you even read this? Only it is even odder than your posts normally are. As you are to my knowledge the only creationist in the world who denies the humanity of H. neanderthalis, perhaps you should spend a little more time debating the point with your fellow creationists. And we have given you our answer; now how about you give us yours. Remember, none of those "possiblys" or "maybes", you creationists can be 100% certain, yes?In which case it's rather mean of you not to tell us. Since we've shown you lots of "species in the middle" in the fossil record, and you don't admit that this is "excellent support for evolution", I see no reason why you should admit it if they were not extinct.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, Neanderthals aren't human despite the fact that their DNA makes up 8% of the genome of non-true Africans.Brilliant.Here's an idea. Instead of posting giant posts full of errors and then denying everything that people point out as wrong, why don't you just pick one thing to be wrong about and argue that one point.That way it will be much more obvious to all that you are unwilling or unable to deal with the facts.

First of all, you do realize that you are quoting a book that's 20 years out of date in your claims that we don't have enough evidence. That's sort of like me claiming there has never been a black president by giving you a list of Presidents from Washington to Reagan.Further, "disputed"? Please. Just because YOU disagree with something doesn't make it "disputed".And, I have to wonder, are you being a hypocrite here?
Are you saying that we lack sufficient evidence for our position IN COMPARISON to your evidence?Tell us, after 2000 years, what evidence do you have of an actual Jesus? Got "a handful of undisputed Jesus fossils"?I'll match you 1,000 to 1 for each and every piece of physical evidence you provide. How's that sound?I know you have some. Otherwise, you'd be arguing in bad faith. Right?

The problem being that Neanderthal has been reconstructed. I have searched the net and cannot find any information on Neanderthal feet. If you want to be helpful that would assist. A few bones not found with a neanderthal appears to be the best you have.Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton | Live ScienceI note that a Neanderthal skeleton is also robust like a gorilla. It is difficult for your researchers to identify bits an pieces of primate bones these days, let alone ancient varieties. I do think they have done so accurately in all cases.There is no value in posting the extremeties of any example. You are talking about mid species that were neither human nor ape. Many bones get found and it is not easy for scientists to work out what they came from. The only evidnec I will accept are fossils that are comlete of close to it. Bits and peices could be anything fro varieties of apes or monkeys or humans with no more than racial variations.From what I can see Neanderthal is put together from a host of bones. Partial skeletons have been found in tact but I cannot see any feet, just for a start.Have your researchers ever found any intact fossil remains of a foot inbetween ape and man, or are the feet assumed to be human like? In fact there are no feet on Lucy the gorilla. They found one metatarsal that is modern and attribute this to Lucy's species. In actual fact it could be evidence of no more than the fact that humans have been around as they are for 3 million years.Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion - PMCThe above site shows the debate around feet and bipedalism. It is not as black and white as evolutionists sometimes make out.I also said that I am beinginning to question Neanderthal being human at all. Most creationists take him as fully human.http://www.boneroom.com/bone/primateskulls.htm
Azdrybones.com is for sale | HugeDomainsAbove is a link that illustrates a range of primate skulls. Not all non human primates have heavy eye brow ridges. Some have rounded skull caps. You have no idea if any of these species grew larger, smaller, adapted to new forms of dentition in response to diet, adapted with more robust skeletal features due to climate etc etc.-->https://www.msu.edu/.../contents/ANP440/neanderthalensis.htmSo ultimately your researchers have what could be bits and pieces of anything strewn together to construct what they want as they have done in the past and found to be erraneous.The bible put animals befor mankind and your researcher agree on this at least. It stands to reason that primates would have been numerous compared to mankind. It is expected that fossil evidence of mankind is going to be rarer. However one could see any so called evidence of the use of fire as having mankind fully human with superior intelligence in tact that actually made the hearths and not the apes. Control and use of fire is a complex task without matches and lighters.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Perhaps you could start by reading what my posts actually say.Your research is full of errors and contradictions. You can find research for multiple datings of neanderthal human split, research to suggest we evolved from neanderthal and research that suggests we didn't, research to say neanderthal and modern humans mated and other research that says we didn't.Evolutionists remind me of magicians in that they can pull any variety of rabbit out of a hat that suits at the time and have the hide to call it evidence.Effectively you have created your own myths to call evidence.

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.