Why are there no human apes alive today?

An article by Brian Thomas, M.S. How quaint. Isn't he a major author for the Institute for Creation Studies? And you think that scientists are going to be impressed by anything that appears on that website? Have you read their Tenets of (Scientific) Creationism? They are doing religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science. There is no such thing as "nephalim" and as for Neanderthal, you have no right to hold any opinions whatsoever. Your posts have established that quite clearly. Because you neither understand the methods used in DNA analysis, nor would you allow yourself to accept any results of those analyses which contradict your a priori religious beliefs, your opinion is worthless. I know you find all of this incredible and confusing, but your continued attempts, in spite of this, to argue the subject just expose your lack of knowledge. You are seeing everything through genesis-colored glasses and that is leading you to misrepresent, ignore, or deny a lot of facts that have been repeatedly verified. That's no way to do science. But then, you aren't even pretending to do science any longer, are you? Your belief is of no consequence. It is what the evidence shows that matters. You have repeatedly shown that you don't care about evidence: you just twist it any old which way until it suits your fancy. We might do better debating a child, as a child is usually eager to learn; you have shown no such ability. Monkeys split off millions of years earlier, and don't enter into this scenario at all. So much for your opinion.By the way, you should end all of your posts with "Amen!" as they are pure religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science.

---

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

Are you forgetting stw 573?

---

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

This is off topic in this thread, and is just another example of your use of the Gish Gallop.Further, the creationist article you cite in support of your contentions is just full of the standard creationist nonsense, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, wishful thinking, and ignorance.We can take this up in more detail in one of the dating threads -- if you dare.I'm betting you won't.------------Add: Here is a thread you can discuss radiocarbon dating all you want, and you can reply to my post correcting some of your errors: Message 30.I'm still betting you won't dare to debate the topic.Edited by Coyote, : Add link to other thread.

---

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

Good stuff deleted.Edited by Coyote, : Good stuff deleted.

Sorry, you are quite wrong. Let's look at some facts (click on each image to biggen as needed): First, look at the shape of the ilium in these two full-body images. Apes, such as gorilla and chimpanzee, have long, blade-like shapes, while human have more rounded shapes. You probably can't see this difference, lacking the training in osteology, but folks who have studied these bones and fossils can see it instantly. In the case of Turkana boy we clearly see a rounded shape.Second, look at the curvature of the femur, and the relative length in the full-body images. Gorilla femurs are relatively shorter and significantly more curved, as well as being much more robust. Also, look at the angle of the femur from acetabulum to knee. These too are quite different--Turkana has knees close together, while gorilla has them far apart. In all of these cases Turkana fails to resemble a gorilla, and is much closer to the human shape.Now let's look at the crania. Notice any differences in the canines? How about the area behind the brow ridges (i.e., cranial capacity)? The occipital crest? Sagittal crest? How about the overall robusticity? See any differences there? The differences are astounding to anyone who cares to look. These two critters are far from being the same, or even very similar.These are just a few of the differences between Turkana boy and gorilla (chimpanzees have many of these same differences).These traits I have pointed out show that Turkana boy is not human (you have posited a false dichotomy), but somewhere in between, what we call a transitional. (Note, "transitional" does not imply direct ancestry; instead it implies traits in common between earlier and later critters.)If you were honest, and you were debating here in good faith rather than relying on absolute faith no matter how much it was contradicted by empirical evidence, you would be able to see these differences once they have been pointed out to you.But for some reason all you can do is follow the uninformed and anti-science opinions of various creationist websites. When will you realize that those sites are lying to you?

---

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

Why should evolution say such a silly thing? There is no telling what the next billion years of evolution will produce.Perhaps a little more study of what evolution actually is and what it predicts might be in order?

---

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

You may have spoken of these subjects, but in many cases you were incorrect, and have been corrected by those who actually know something about the subject.An example is Message 822, where you asserted that Turkana boy was an ape, such as a chimpanzee or gorilla, and I corrected you. You have simply ignored all of my points and continued on as if you had been correct all along. And now in subsequent posts you are repeating the same points that I and others have corrected you on as if they were accurate.Care to try and support your specific claim about Turkana boy in light of my very specific post Message 822? Or are you going to just ignore the data and continue on with your Gish gallop, jumping wildly from subject to subject and ignoring the posts which show you are incorrect?

---

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

This is nonsense.I have pointed out where you are wrong, as has Dr. Adequate.You have chosen to ignore our data and continue posting creationist nonsense.I am still waiting for a response to my post showing you a comparison of the gorilla vs. Turkana skulls and skeletons. Instead we just get more Gish gallop.Are you ever going to address the specifics of my post, or are you just hoping I'll forget all about it?

---

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

From something I wrote elsewhere:There is an article titled Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms, by Wayne Frair, which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000), and appears on the christiananswers.net website. It notes:

The four terms, holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin formally and publicly were introduced by Walter ReMine (1990) at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, PA 30 July 1990. Later in the week of the same conference Kurt Wise (1990), who had had extensive interchange with ReMine since 1983, endorsed ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, wedded it to his own young-earth creation position, and stated that the name of this new systematic procedure was “baraminology” [emphasis added]. Source.

From reading the article, the basic difference between traditional science and baraminology appears to boil down to this: Traditional science examines the world as it is, while baraminology interprets the data in terms of religious belief.Modern science examines organisms and follows the data wherever it leads. Creation “scientists” examine the same organisms and formulate a classification scheme designed to accommodate the Biblical version of creation, right down to a young earth and the global flood–in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!This is shown in a comparison of these two diagrams:Figure 1.Figure 2.The Frair article also notes:

To repeat and expand this somewhat further, the Darwinian macroevolution model is represented by a single tree of relationships, every form of life being related to every other form of life (Figure 1). In the baraminic model there is a forest of trees without connecting roots (Figure 2). One of these rootless trees would have branches representing only human diversification, another for canids, another for felids, etc.

​

For people reared on an evolutionary diet the above menu can be difficult to swallow and digest because students of biology have been taught to think genetic relationship rather than genetic discontinuity. But there is a lack of evidence for connecting any holobaraminic group to any other holobaraminic group. This is true for both extinct and extant types of life.

So, there is a lack of evidence for connecting any holobaramin to any other. Why? Because the Bible speaks of “kinds” — which are, as Frair writes, “categories of genetically unrelated organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week.” And to keep the kinds separate, as per the Biblical creation account, they cannot be represented by a single tree–as they are separate and unrelated “kinds”! Because of this a priori belief, any evidence to the contrary must be ignored, denied, or somehow explained away no matter what.(Interlude: Doesn’t sound like science to me.)But wait, there’s more! Frair provides us with a series of taxonomic guidelines:

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:

1. 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. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. …
​
6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments. [Emphasis added]

The article claims, “ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.” Perhaps. But discontinuity systematics, coincidentally, comes up with the same answers as baraminology! For all practical purposes baraminology and discontinuity systematics can be considered interchangeable, even though some efforts are being made to separate them.This is not science! The bolded passages in the guidelines above offer a real clue as to where this new branch of “science” is coming from.To be fair, I checked another article; a relevant quote:

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. Source.

ConclusionBaraminology is not science; it is not even close. Baraminology is apologetics (defense of religious belief), pure and simple. It is religion trying to masquerade as pseudoscience hoping to be passed off as real science. The ultimate goal, as we see from these articles, is to impose a Biblical view of creation onto traditional science.Finally, the Frair article notes: “For those who have been steeped in Linnaean taxonomy and evolutionary thinking, discontinuity systematics may appear to be a preposterous proposal.”At last! Something we can all agree on!

There comes a time one must heed the old saying,

You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down to their level....then beat you with experience !

One of the most useful tools in physical anthropology and paleontology is multivariate statistics (one of many tools used in morphometrics). Among these statistics is multiple discriminant function analysis. This statistic is very useful for establishing groups and degrees of relationship among those groups, using some or many metric measurements.Common measurements of skulls would include those reflecting cranial shape, which would provide a three-dimensional estimate of cranial capacity. Other measurements would include those for prognathism. There are potentially hundreds of measurements you could take from a skull and mandible, but not that many are needed: some measurements are repetitive, and some are more useful than others.For anyone wanting more information, google some combination of "hominoid" or "hominid" and "morphometrics" or "discriminant function analysis." You'll find lots of papers.

You didn't come here to learn, seems more like you came here to preach.