Why are there no human apes alive today?

Percy the research that suggests your researchers have no idea is research from YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS.They cannot agree on what role Neanderthal palyed in human evolution nor what erectus played in human evolution.You cannot put forward rubbish like this and call it evidence...noit even in your wildest dreams.These researchers like to play with models and change the insertion values to get what they need. It is not science.I have looked up post 596 and there is not point to responding. I have not claimed any religious affiliation yet you have raved on as if I have.If you are not aware of the species problem then I cannot educate you. For a start how can Neanderthal and homo erectus or whatever be 2 different species if their is any suggestion of breeding. According to your definition speciation results in inability to successfully breed and you have a plethora of contradcitions to theis definition. I expect basics like this to already be known, particularly from those of you that claim to be educated in the sciences.Then you have the genomic definition that uses the term "high genetic similarity". What the hell does that mean????? Anything you want it to mean as related to the preassumed assertion values added to your models that come up with this meaningless nonsense..Yeah.."the link below" and half my post disappeared. I have no idea what happened and tried to fix it and still the link would show.The point is Percy that bits and pieces of bones could be anything at all. The Bone Room shows the huge variety of monkey and ape skulls which can be rounded, flat faced etc etc. I attest that your researchers have found nothing more than bits and pieces as the major basis for your evidence, particularly relating to Erectus.The erectus in this link below is an ape.http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htmThis neanderthal beloe has long arms. This is a long link I hope it comes up.
Neanderthal skeleton (NY Natural History)What I reckon MAY have happened is bones from all different sized creatures have been mosaiced to produce what 'suits' rather than what 'is' necessarily.You say "Science is driven by data and evidence, not revelation." However the evidence is of a robust human being you call Neanderthal and that could be called scientific evidence of nephalim, in line with biblical teachings, rather than an evolutionary mess.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix long link.

I'll add another reply...with all your so called recent evidence what have are more questions rather than answers.You lot still can't agree on the human chimp split time, 4-8mya and counting, nor the neanderthal common ancestor split time. Your researchers cannot agree on hardly anything past 'it all evolved'.You call this stuff evidence. I call it myth. Myths change with time and so does your theory. It is as mythical as the creation. TOE is constructed out of chards of straw grabbing evidence that changes like the wind. This is not real science and takes as much faith to swallow as any other faith.The thread is why are there no human-ape intermediates. The truth is simply that you do not know. Guesses are not evidence in this world nor any other.Rather the FACT is there are none about and that, like it or not, supports creation. Your maybe's and possibly's as to why absolutely none survived of the plethora of intermediates that should have been present today, are not facts. They are excuses made up to cover what anyone would reasonably expect to be the case.There are none..and the reason there are none about is that there never were any.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

No what Mazzy is saying is that if scientists cannot agree on the evidence they all have the opportunity to consider, then it is all as clear as mud.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.You coorectly identified that the only thing all evolutionists agree on is "it all evolved". The how, when, where and why is still up for grabs.The bible for your information demonstrates, and by your own historical science that God or nature invented sonar in the bat before mankind even knew what it was.I say let's call evolution Professor Lucknchance instead and give him a Nobel prize because all on his own he designed sonar before mankind even thought of it. Pretty clever..Hey?Controversy and opposing opinions from evos does not demonstrate that both must be wrong. However it opens the door to neither being correct. So making fun of me has not bolstered any evo stance but rather demonstrates a narrow minded view.Likewise evos suggest that because creationists cannot answer every question they are wrong. In all fairness, that appears to be hypocritical.In the days where knucklewalking ancestry for humans was the current thinking anyone that did not accept the evidence produced showing how a chimp like creature 'evolved' into an upright human would have been classed as a moron and no doubt similarly made fun of.The truth of the matter now, is that the morons, be they evos or creationists, were right as mankind did not evolve from knuckle walkers. Indeed they were not morons at all. The very morons that were ripping apart the science of the day have won the day.Likewise, for you lot it does not matter that a scientist does not accept the dino to bird theory, so long as their opposing theory is also based on evolution. If a creationist also denies the dino to bird thing while offering a creationist theory to resolve it, they are presumed a moron. Can none of you see the hypocricy?

Oh for goodness sake..what a line..."the self correcting nature of science". It reminds me of someone that argued 'evolution reinvents itself".The self correcting nature of science demonstrates that the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution and has little if any predictive power.Rather TOE macroevolves to fit the information gleaned from biased and increasingly complex and convoluted models that are based on the assumption of ancestry.I am telling you that any model built on a foundation of straw will topple with the slightest breeze...and it does. The funny thing is the rubble left behind will still be considered evidence for evolution.It is about interpretation. I have already said creationists do not deny what has been observed. They deny it will lead to macroevolution which is assumed, not factual.Neither creation nor evolution is refuteable and hence they are faiths...like it or not.Another fact is that there are no hairy apey human looking guys around. That is a fact. Do evos even know the difference between facts and theory anymore?The FACT that there are no hairy apey humans around today supports the creationist view that there never were any. The FACTS need to be explained by evolutionists with convoluted theories as to why they ALL died out and they still cannot agree on this.Basically I see the facts well support a creationist stance, or alternatively, an evolutionary puzzle. I'll take the well supported stance as being the more robust as opposed to a theoretical unresolved puzzle.See I am actually more scientific that many of you that have nothing more than debated theories to bolster your stance.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Again I'll repeat that controversy over dates does not mean there could not have been a human chimp split. What the changing dates does mean is that your researchers have no idea what they are talking about and are just playing expensive games with computers and algorithms. Either may be right or neither may be right. Creationists can do the same, and have.What makes you think that of the opposing views one of them has to be right? No sorry...what you are seeing is agreement it all evolved and nothing more to support the claim.10 years ago out went our knucklewalking ancestry, Ardi was our ancestor now he isn't etc etc. For heavens sake do you lot not shudder at the thought of basing any argument on evidence that could be discredited tomorrow.Any new fossil that supposedly sheds new light on evolution, eg Ardi, will change the dates. This is because fossil classification and assumptions are just one of the assumptive insertion values used in models to get dates.TOE IS ALL BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS... and interpretations of what you often misrepresentatively call evidence.The FACTS more often support creation. Your theories are all that support evolution...and we know you have plenty of them.

I have put up links to creationist dating and other evidence. Creationists have their own dating methods and classification system in baramins. I have posted the links previously and should not have to educate you in the basics of a stance you make fun of without any knowledge base. We may not have the plethora of theories you lot have, but who cares as yours are only theories that change like the wind anyway.Most creationists undertand what TOE asserts and the basis for it and are able to refute it out of knowledge rather than ignorance. However many evos quack, rant and rave yet have no idea what creationists look to and still think that creationists believe dogs give birth to cats. That may be funny yet evo ignorance simply isn't.We do not need a convoluted theory like TOE. It is you lot that need to explain how life evolved from bacteria.The constant war cry that there is no science behind creationism is simply flat out ignorant.You may refute the creationist evidence as creationists refute TOE, but to say they have nothing more than the bible is ignorance at its most extreme.

This thread is about no hairy apey half humans being about.Creationists have won the day based on facts.Evolutionists have won the day on being ignorant of creation sciences, abusive and showing they have no more than a bunch of debated theories to explain the facts.In other words I feel many of you have confimed you can no longer tell the difference between fact and fiction.

You lot will never recover from your earlier misrepresentation of Neanderthal. It took DNA to set the record straight.TheN of course there is CONTAMINATION, CONTAMINATION CONTAMINATION.None of your representations have any credibility.

If a chimp is what you see when you look in the mirror and can also debate about an afterlife, I'd say you may well be the missing linkPlease turn yourself over for resaerch.

No your interpretations and theories claim there are intermediates in the fossil record.My interpretation and theories suggest there was a great variety of non human primates with flat faces and rounded skull caps just like there is today. Your researchers have no clue what the flesh looks like on a fossil.The fact according to your own biased dating methods is that there are stuff all chimp fossils dating back to the split. My explanation for this is every adaptation in the chimp line has been lumped into the human line and that is why you have bugger all fossil chimps and lots of misrepresented homonids etc. eg Ardi the ape.My argument better aligns with the EVIDENCE found. You are still left explaining why stuff all chimp ancestors have been found, via a plethora of theories?

Hey, I missed giving a reply to a worthy post.Please supply the link to the Neanderthal foot. I would like to see if it was found with any other skeleton bits or if it is a reconstruction.Let's remember that a perfectly human 4th metatasal was found dated to 3mya. This was attributed to Lucy. Ardi is sketched with ape feet. So within the space of 1my ape feet poofed into human feet. I'll bet you have a plethora of debated excuses for the 'accelerated evolution' of ape to pretty little human feet.I haven't got heaps of time right now. However have a read of this.http://english.pravda.ru/...02-2011/116954-human_foot_bone-0Most creationists accept Neanderthal as human. However I have some skepticism. I am thinking at best they are nephalim. At least they are just another variety of ape that accrued environmental adaptations to diet and climate etc. I'd like to have a closer look at the link to Neanderthal feet.The DNA comparisons, are rubbish. We have 75% DNA in common with a nematode. Neanderthal/human comparisons have been put at 99.5%, 99.9%. I do not think they have any clue how to tell one 'kind'of FOXP2 from another and their biased models will basically give them whatever they want or they will repeat calculation until the insertion values yeild the so called results they require.According to this link below Neanderthals should be ape men as they are half way in sequence positions between chimp and ape. However according to other research and current thinking they are human with the same FOXPs gene. It is just all incredible Besides the chimp gene has 10% more DNA and has a total of 30% differences (Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Projest) when deletions and folds are considered, and then there is the remarkable difference in the chimp/human Y chromosome comparison. As I said your percentage comparisons are incredible in that they are non credible.Yahoo Image Search-I also believe, (and have posted links) there are flat footed apes, flat faced apes and monkeys, monkeys with rounded skull caps, homoplasy and homology of same traits popping up in distantly related species. One, evo or creationist can draw any inferences they want, that suits, really.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.

Many of you keep going on about my not presenting evidence to support my position. Do you think if you say it enough times it may actually deny the science I have put behind my claims. Well it won't!As recently as today I spoke to a 4th metatarsal that was dated to 3my. THIS IS DATED AND SUGGESTED BY YOUR SCIENTISTS.It is THEORISED that this bone belongs to Lucy's kind. I say it is evidence of modern mankind being alive and well 3mya, by your dating methods anyway, and living around apes that were arboreal as well as many other non human primates.Page has gone | New ScientistIt may occur to you to separate fact from fiction. The bone is the fact and it is akin a modern human metatarsal and dated by your own to 3mya. The fiction is that it belongs to a 3ft arboreal species with the anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints (no feet found) that show at east a partly aboreal life, with a small chimp sized brain to boot."There is considerable debate regarding the locomotor behaviour of A. afarensis. Some believe that A. afarensis was almost exclusively bipedal, while others believe that the creatures were partly arboreal. The anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways favour the latter interpretation. The curvature of the finger and toe bones (Phalanges) approaches that of modern-day apes, and is suggestive of their ability to efficiently grasp branches and climb. Alternatively, the loss of an abductable great toe and therefore the ability to grasp with the foot (a feature of all other primates) suggests that A. afarensis was no longer adapted to climbing.[5]"
Australopithecus afarensis - WikipediaThe problem with your statement 'To reiterate: Not knowing the exact time that a split occured doesn't mean that the split never happened. We have the evidence that a split occured; it's in the fossil record." is that there actually isn't anuy evidence in the fossil record. No you do not have evidence the split occured at all, because you have stuff all chimp fossil evidence of ancestry to anything and only a stack of excuses as to why. For all you know most of the skulls you show that are meant to show the decent of man from ape are likely the decent of ape from ape.Neither creation nor evolution can be falsified, so you are asking more of me than even evolutionists can provide to support their stance.I say the 3myo metatarsal your researchers found is human because your own researchers suggest it is like a modern human 4th metatarsal. I say LUCY is an ape because there is evidence that she is partly arboreal, which hunans are not. You have not found colocated feet. Therefore I have scientific support to suggest my assertion that LUCY and other Australopithecus were a variety of flat footed or arboreal ape and nothing more than that. I say the bone belongs to a human and there is nothing to prove it wasn't other than your own assumptions.If modern humans with arched feet were here 3mya then all the other so called homo fossils are likely apes, monkeys, Llucs flat faced decendants or some other non human primate.Like the common evo excuse of no fossil means they are yet to be found, I theorise that fossils of modern man have yet to be found. OR have been found but have been misdated due to necessity and the obvious flaws in using the fossil to date the strata.So you see I can use science to back my theory just like you guys can put up your interpretations.You again have the misaprehension that changing dates means anything more than your researchers have no clue. Having no clue does not disprove anything. Running along side that is it also does not prove or support anything other than your researchers can change the date to suit whatever and this is your irrefuteable science.Look at this for a taste of nonsense....."Two recently published papers describe nuclear DNA sequences that were obtained from the same Neanderthal fossil. Our reanalyses of the data from these studies show that they are not consistent with each other and point to serious problems with the data quality in one of the studies, possibly due to modern human DNA contaminants and/or a high rate of sequencing errors."http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/infooi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175My evidence is no worse that this above, that is swallowed up by the shovel full even though it makes no sense."While the authors are a bit cautious, saying that the whole genome of the Neandertal will provide much more resolution in comparing FOXP2 genes, I do want to point out that this new finding messes up the results of Pbo, who showed that the mutations in FOXP2 in modern humans were very recent, maybe less than 200,000 years ago in 2002. The authors kinda sorta challenge Pbo’s conclusion,"
Anthropology.net | Kambiz Kamrani | SubstackMuch of your research demonstrates even further that your researchers have no clue. That does not mean TOE is disproven. It does mean you have nothing that vaguely looks like solid evidence. The scientific support I provide for my assertions is at least as good as this mess you call support for evolution !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

I have supported everrything I have said with scientific backing.If you are such a smart bunny and know so much, you prove the metatarsal belongs to Lucys kind. You can't any more than you can refute my theory.TOE is unfalsifiable just like creation and is a faith.Your ignorance to my posting supportive evidence does not poof your ignorance into the truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

How about a feathered T Rex dinosaur atop evidence from your own that suggests birds may not have evolved from dinos after all. So if this proves correct wha happens to feathers..Oh yeah...convergent or parallel evolution, which would bring TOE back to life?How about this for a chuckle.....Myllokunmingia is meant to be the first 'unproven' vertabae. Oh yeah...and it looks like it..NOT! just another straw grabbing extravaganza.Page has gone | New ScientistAll you have as support for your TOE are vertebraes suddenly appearing in the Cambrain explosion and nothing at all to link them to any life form previously. That again is 'the fact' which supports creation. The unproven theory that the first vertabraed organism evolved from a precambrian invertabrae is a theory with no support past your predetermined assumptions, as usual.....Hagfish were classed as vertebrata and have no vertabrae and now align as a 'proposed' clade of Craniata. They are also monophyletic which adds support to their being 'a kind'.Agnathans are still here today from the Cambrian explosion just as any creationist would expect to see of the many kinds initially created. They have not evolved into anything else.Pehensile tails must now have evolved twice to fit in with your other stuff you've found...How convenient! ...between parrallel evolution, convergent evolution, excuses to explain homoplasy, I'd say your TOE is as unfalsifiable as your own Dawkins alluded to. I doubt a precambrian mammal would disprove creation let alone provide support for creation to evolutionists.Just a moment...How did vertabraes land? Ahha....Tiktaalic did I hear you say. Tiktaalic is just another sad story amongst many where tetrapod footprints were found to predate it...so sorry...that's gone as well....You and your researchers believe this just because it had to be with nothing remotely resembling support or more than hand waving to back it.Your vertabrae evidence demonstrate nothing more than all life appeared suddenly spines and all. So again the FACTS support creation. Theory is all that supports evolution. It is just the way it is!Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

I can make as many blanket statements as I want.What is obvious is your choosing one little aside as some token gesture of an attempt to feel you have refuted me.I am telling you there is a metatarsal bone that is human and 3myo which makes Lucy with ape traits plainly just an ape and you want to dispute asides.That says it all.