Why are there no human apes alive today?

I thought the implication of homoplasy & homology was self evident.Many of your systems for classification are flawed at their inception by the fact that any shared trait you want to use as a criteria for clasification of apes, humans or any other organism could have nothing to do with ancestry at all.Although even creationists need some way of identifying kinds and naming them, the presumption of ancestry is not there for us. In other words the fact that several kinds meet your class of mammals, does not imply ancestry between all of them. It means a similar system was used in various kinds like humans and cows.I am sure the names would have been quite different if the naming had of been left to creationists. We could have used a name to describe any shared function or trait similalry, however the implication that this relates to ancestry is not required.The mammalian middle ear and mamalian teeth for example evolved twice according to evolutionists. You have mammals bunched together in with synapsids. Let's face it most of your evidence in from chards of fossils in may cases and assumptions made in their reconstructions.This bunching is where the huge assumptions are mostly made. Hence you presume mammals arose once rather than having being created that way. In fact several lines of mammals evolved 210mya. Again the explanation is all but one line survived. Do you not get sick of hearing the same excuse?ScienceSo Percy, the sad fact is that by your own evolutionary researchers hands any shared human/chimp trait may or may not be a result of ancestry. Your classifications are biased in favour of common ancestry to apes. Forward facing eyes and any method that implies ancestry is flawed. Homoplasy and homology research is my evidence of confounding factors in any trait based classification systemhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/...071031-new-mammal.html
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/.../HistoryofLife/CH15.htmlNow do you get it?

I have already established common sense has no place in evolutionary thinking.

I am happy to take the challenge, when I find time later.Let me say that I have put forward a definition of kind already.A kind refers to the initial creation of God and its' decendants.However there are others I have mentioned such as Baraminology. Given all the contradiction in the definition of species I expect you are not requesting any more clarity than you yourselves can provide.What are the Genesis kinds? - ChristianAnswers.NetIt is about interpretation of the data, the weight you place on conflicting research, and what you choose to accept. I at least can display a balanced view, although I do not accept TOE as fact. Not all evo researchers accept the dino to bird thing and have redated modern birds much earlier, although they all believe birds evolved from something else.So even within creationist research there will be debate and research based on different assumptions than TOE. There will be refute and so on. However, in the end both are based on interpretation of research, assumptions and faith in what you choose to accept.The definition of a kind has nothing to do with the topic.According to biblical creationists an apobaramin sees humans, chimps and gorillas as three separate kinds. Rather than 'almost humans' evolving all around the place and being displaced etc by modern man, there were no 'almost humans' or part ape/human ever.Your so called mid species within Homo and before are either mankind, chimps, gorillas or other variations of apes. This is why today you still see distinction between humans and other apes and there are no mid human/ape species getting around today.I see flat faced apes such as Lluc around 12 mya, and huge variety in skull shapes and morpholgy. Although todays chimps have similar skeletal morphology or genetic similarities to mankind, side by side, they are obviously far removed from each other.Given it is all theoretical and based on assumptions I think it ignorant of some evolutionists to not learn about the creationists stances they belittle, when we bother to learn what evos base their belief system on.You believe ape men were here then all dissappeared due to possibilities. I believe there never were any in line with observed data and fossil evidence.

Your own researchers sometimes classify Neanderthal as Homo sapiens Neanderthalis.These were just mankind that adapted to varying conditions. After the supposed 700,000 year separation even your own researchers suggest these could mate and dispute if they did not not. This is irrelevant. They were just humans that, as usual, evos have given a different species name to like they do every variation of anything.Neanderthal - WikipediaDo not foget that the Neanderthal was your ape man for a long time untill he 'poofed' into humanity with the Neanderthal Genome Project......now there is magic and hand waving if ever I have seen it!!!

I think you find it hard to swallow your past embarrassments.The Wiki site clearly shows the ape man neanderthal once depicted, not to mention the once upon a time knucklewalking ancestry.If you want to give every variety of human a new species name, or race name, that's just fine. In the end they are all the mankind related to Adam and Eve.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

It is only the ignorant that calls the support for TOE a science. TOE and creationism are likewise both faiths.There is alot of science behind baraminology. Your being ignorant to it does not change that fact. Evolutionists refutes from researchers that likewise refute each other is hardly a robust basis for discreditation.

You are too caught up in species names. Yiur own science has bamboozled you.Neanderthals are just humans, that appear to have set up camp away from others for a while. There is no distinction in the kind Mankind. They are all human. Neanderthal, as such did not disappear. Rather the human race adapted to new environments. Creationists do not need to use the continuing species myth to explain why a Chinese may or may not mate with another human that is called by another name, because they are all human.The Neanderthal debate of how, when and why, is an evolutionists mess ..not mine.The point being there are no ape men around of any sort and that is an inescapable fact that supports creation and a huge disappointment for evolutionists whoSE theory HAS room for such intermediate homonids to have survived till today...BUT DIDN'T. How unfortunate!!!!

Evolution boils down to chance which is not very scientific, nor predictive.

Firstly Percy let's remember that the skull chosen by your researchers to demonstrate comparisons is the most rounded and non similar human skull they could find. In fact human skulls come in many sizes and shapes, with varying skull caps and jaw lines as well as some eyebrow ridging.Here is some info about Turkan Boy."Turkana Boy has a skull marked by thick brows, a sloping forehead, constricted temples, and a very small chin. However, all of these cranial shapes *** within the normal variation of humans living today. Vij Sodera, a prominent UK surgeon, published a couple of x-ray photographs of contemporary human skulls with prominent brow ridges and backward sloping foreheads.6 In addition, one of his pictures shows a contemporary human with distinct constriction at the temples.""Sodera also makes the very important point that these modern humans looked completely normal despite possessing Homo erectus cranial features. In other words, the appearance of bare bones can look significantly different to the appearance of the human being in real life, with all of the soft tissues in place.6 Therefore, the popular science shows and magazines that depict Homo erectus as possessing an ape-like head are not based on observational evidence, but overt evolutionary bias."Turkana Boy: getting past the propaganda - creation.comSo as you know, I hope, only humans have a chin. Turkana boy had a chin as did Neanderthal.The picture of the other erectus is just an ape and quite clearly it is not the same as Turkana Boy...or are you going to say you cannot see it kinda like you can't see the difference between chimps and humans?????Holobaramins are based on discontinuity. Turkana Boy is discontinuous with apes.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)Although baraminology is in its' infancy I'd say these creationist researchers will have creationists models to rival TOE in the not too distant future.So there you have why I consider Turkana Boy disctinct from other representations in Homo Erectus. Unfortunately, your researchers cannot see the difference and have lumped them all together.

Listen here to me...when you have evidence of a non human anything being able to percieve the idea of afterlife I will entertain your straw grabbing assertions.You evos are a huge laugh in your continual holy grail of turning humans into animals by any desperation you can allude to.Are you suggesting birds are intelligent therefore humans evolved from birds?What you are actually highlighting is intelligence has nothing to do with evolution or ancestry as it arises independently.

And they all bow down and give homage to likely, probably and maybe and likely only agree on one thing.... "It all evolved".Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

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.

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.

Oh for goodness sake...the article is 20 years old and so what?It still demonstrates the garbage that is sometimes put up as evidence. Your researchers have no idea what flesh looks like on a fossil, absolutely none!Neanderthal was pictures as a bent over hairy ape man when it suited and he has morphed to fully human without additional fossils and reluted on the basis of only more biased DNA evidence. 20 years ago is relatively recent comparatively..........Refute that!NONE of your representaions should be taken seriously.Some erectus fossils have no sign of humanity within them.In relation to dating I have found that researchers actually date according to the fossil and where they are believed to belong. I have alot of such evidence where fossils are used to date the strata rather than the other way around eg Jehol birds.Further to that the bible speaks of demons taking male human form and having offspring with women resulting in Nephalim. These nephalim may very likely demonstrate changes in morphology and strength. They were also wiped out by the flood so would have just disappeared from the fossil record.The other thing to remember is that Adam and Eve were driven from Eden to live a harsh life as punishment. There is also the fall of mankind so your research suggesting the rise of mankind as a trade off in advantageous and deleterious mutations is not unexpected.So if we are going to discuss fossils bits and pieced prove nothing and neither does any of your dating as it is biased.In fact researchers have no idea what the flesh looks like on any old skeleton, they are just best guessing according to their needs.I am not a scientist but the basis of my belief relating to your fossil records are a mosaic of bits and pieces of non human primates thrown in with humans to produce what apears to be the steady change of ape to mankind. Indeed, I do not believe it.I think what you actually have are modern man, apes and nephalim. Nephalim would be a smarter and more robust variation of mankind. eg Neanderthal.Evolutionists cannot lay all their eggs in any basket. Either brain increase is a sign of the road to humanity or not. Neanderthal has a larger brain than Homo sapiens. Your researchers appear to attribute this to a sense of smell to explain it. However in actual fact they have no idea why mankind has devolved from Neandethal brain size.You have researchers that say we did BREED with Neanderthal, others that say it is impossible and you have biased genomic modelling that placed neanderthal half way to chimp and other research that puts Neanderthal at 0.5 modern human variation which is the same as current human variation anyway. You have research that says modern man came from homo erectus and other research that demonstrates erectus was extinct by the time humans arrived in areas. Meaning what you have is effectively....nothing and no evidence for anything really as it is all as clear as mud.What does it all look like to me?...The evidence for the evolution of ape to man is non credible at this time.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.