Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 167 (8189 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-21-2014 6:52 PM
76 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Golffly
Post Volume:
Total: 744,309 Year: 30,150/28,606 Month: 1,879/3,328 Week: 41/614 Day: 41/60 Hour: 5/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4748
49
5051
...
72NextFF
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Percy
Member
Posts: 13422
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 721 of 1075 (623135)
07-08-2011 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by Wounded King
07-08-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Because I'm a picky sod
I should add that you're the first person I've noticed using the [table] dBCodes. I thought they'd be more popular. Any feedback? I was actually working on them yesterday fixing some bugs that will be released with the PHP version of the board software, so if you have any comments this is a good time.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix dBCode.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 8:57 AM Wounded King has acknowledged this reply

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 722 of 1075 (623140)
07-08-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 720 by Percy
07-08-2011 9:45 AM


Morphometrics
But there are many shapes that can produce the same measurements. That the measurements are close says nothing about the actual appearance

This is a bit disingenuous, by the time you have 11 morphometric measurements of a smallish bone like the 4th metatarsal you have got a fairly good description of its shape, in fact looking at the paper again there another 2 measurements I missed before which have the A. afarensis samples values within the human margins, there aren't that many more shapes which will allow you even to distinguish the necessary features to make such measurements.

I found the table code pretty easy to use and I'm pretty happy with the result.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 9:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 12:48 PM Wounded King has responded

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9817
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 723 of 1075 (623141)
07-08-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 691 by frako
07-07-2011 6:59 PM


How is that NOT a "hairy apey half human"?

Technically its around 98% human

How do you distinguish that from: "humans are 98% orang"?

Your statements is lacking some veracity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 6:59 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:35 PM Cat Sci has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13422
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 724 of 1075 (623166)
07-08-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by Wounded King
07-08-2011 10:24 AM


Re: Morphometrics
Wounded King writes:

This is a bit disingenuous, by the time you have 11 morphometric measurements of a smallish bone like the 4th metatarsal you have got a fairly good description of its shape, in fact looking at the paper again there another 2 measurements I missed before which have the A. afarensis samples values within the human margins, there aren't that many more shapes which will allow you even to distinguish the necessary features to make such measurements.

I'm not sure what your saying exactly. The article said the human and A. afarensis metatarsals look similar, and I agree, they look similar. Are you saying that that is wrong and they actually look the same? That if someone gave Dr. Ward casts (to disguise signs of age) of the human and A. afarensis 4th metatarsal that they'd be indistinguishable and she'd be unable to tell them apart?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix dBCode.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 10:24 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 726 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 3:11 PM Percy has responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 725 of 1075 (623194)
07-08-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Nuggin
07-07-2011 11:00 PM


Re:
Well Nugin,

No there is not 5my of evidence at all. What there is.... is 5my of guesswork.

My assertion is ..
Evos use every variation of ape to try to show some human line of decent.

My proof is....
I will AGAIN restate you have stuff all chimpanzee ancestral fossils that illustrate the line of chimp decent to our common ancestor. I have used this FACT to support my assertion that all the chimp ancestors have been misplaced into Mankinds ancestry.

There is more glory for your researchers to claim the find of a new human ancestor than to find a chimps ancestor, which could be one reason.

If you would like to know how to debate, as you suggest I cannot, then the idea is to REFUTE this claim by posting a plethora of ancestral chimp fossils demonstrating the ancestry of chimps back to our common ancestor. This will prove I am wrong on that point.

To squark off beligerent accusations against me while you offer no evidence of refute the FACTS of my claim demonstrates to one and all how hopelessly desperate and void your post truly is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Nuggin, posted 07-07-2011 11:00 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by Nuggin, posted 07-08-2011 3:47 PM Mazzy has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 726 of 1075 (623197)
07-08-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 724 by Percy
07-08-2011 12:48 PM


Re: Morphometrics
Are you saying that that is wrong and they actually look the same?

No, but then all human 4th metatarsals don't look the same as each other either.

That if someone gave Dr. Ward casts (to disguise signs of age) of the human and A. afarensis 4th metatarsal that they'd be indistinguishable and she'd be unable to tell them apart?

Well obviously I can't speak as to that, but then neither can you. I would say that I think we took a large enough sample we could probably find a human 4th metatarsal fitting all the same morphometric criteria as the A. afarensis one.

If we had such a sample and another A. afarensis sample, I think it would need to be different sample since presumably the doctor is very familiar with the sample she has studied, then I think it would be very hard to tell which was which.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 724 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 12:48 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 3:52 PM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 732 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 4:35 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 727 of 1075 (623201)
07-08-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by Cat Sci
07-08-2011 10:27 AM


No I'd say the FACT that your researchers have put up comparisons from 2% to 6% chimp human comparisons whilst indeed the chimp and human genome is 30% compariatively different suggests yur researchers have produced research that is biased and basically says nothing about our ancestry to chimps.

Looking to one small part of the genome, MTDNA, the cells powerhouse, would have to be the most simplistic, misrepresentative method of comparison available and the only part of the entire genome that yeilds such close similarities.

Here is my research evidence to demonstrate that in actual fact there is a 30% comparative difference between the chimpanzee and a human being. This 30% does not include the 10% larger chimp genome, not the different surface composition, so in actual fact it should be even more.

"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome

So we are made out to be chimp relatives whether our difference is 2%, 6% or 30%. These FACTS not only demonstrate 'some lack of veracity' on the part of evolutionists claims but actually demonstrates that there is NO veracity in these comparisons.

Indeed misrepresent my words as much as you have time to waste. However the fact that there are only chimps and humans around means you lot are stuck with FACTS that need your convoluted theories of maybe, perhaps, likely and hopefully, to explain away the obvious evidence that supports creation.

The FACT that you have stuff all ancestors for chimps further supports my claim. Can you refute that with any thing more than beligerance and empty words?

My assertion that all your ancestors outside of homo sapiens are varieties of apes, some flat faced apes such as Lluc, 12myo, changes in dentition that reflect diet rather than ancestry is just as good an argument as the mess you can present.

I have presented evidence from within your own biased research and can still defend a creationist claim

Hopefully you are aware of your excuses as to why no half breeds exist today. There are a few of these EXCUSES so you get to pick which one you support. HAPPY GUESSING...!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Cat Sci, posted 07-08-2011 10:27 AM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Nuggin, posted 07-08-2011 3:49 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 731 by Cat Sci, posted 07-08-2011 4:21 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 734 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2011 10:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 728 of 1075 (623207)
07-08-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:04 PM


Re:
My assertion is ..
Evos use every variation of ape to try to show some human line of decent.

And you make that assertion by proclaiming everything an "ape".

Setting aside your continued inability to grasp the definition of the word "ape", we'll go on the assumption that you actually mean that these previous species are not in the line of descent.

So, your assertion is that species which existed PRIOR to humans are not related to humans no matter how many features they have in common.

So, you are claiming that Homo Erectus, which walked upright, fashioned and used tools and tended fires is _no relation_ to humans but is instead a special kind of monkey which does things that no other monkey does.

Does this assertion answer questions of morphology? No.
Does this assertion answer questions of DNA? No.
Does this assertion answer questions of ERVs? No.
Does this assertion answer questions about why you can line up the fossils either chronologically OR morphologically and get the same order? No.

And, what does your assertion say about where humans came from if we bear no relationship to any other life form no matter how similar to us?

Well, that's simple: "A Jewish Wizard used Jewish Magic to do it".

Evidence for Jewish magic? None.
Evidence for Jewish Wizards? None.

To squark off beligerent accusations against me while you offer no evidence of refute the FACTS of my claim

I'll make you a deal. YOU offer FACTS and I'll refute them.

I'm STILL waiting for your FACTS to support your claim that Native Australians are not human. It's been what? 3 weeks now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:04 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 750 by Mazzy, posted 07-09-2011 6:26 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 729 of 1075 (623208)
07-08-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:35 PM


Looking to one small part of the genome, MTDNA, the cells powerhouse, would have to be the most simplistic, misrepresentative method of comparison available and the only part of the entire genome that yeilds such close similarities.

Yawn.

You clearly know as little about mDNA as you do all the rest of this argument.

If you want to get into this in depth, the first you need to finish answering the questions you started a month ago.

STILL waiting for you to prove that Native Australians aren't human.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13422
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 730 of 1075 (623210)
07-08-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Wounded King
07-08-2011 3:11 PM


Re: Morphometrics
I know you have access to the original paper, so while the article said the A. afarensis tarsal was only similar to human tarsals, the paper itself makes it clear that even in appearance it fits within the range of human tarsals. I'll just take your word for it, but do find it very surprising in a tarsal from 3.2 mya.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 3:11 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9817
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 731 of 1075 (623215)
07-08-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:35 PM


So we are made out to be chimp relatives whether our difference is 2%, 6% or 30%. These FACTS not only demonstrate 'some lack of veracity' on the part of evolutionists claims but actually demonstrates that there is NO veracity in these comparisons.

I'm pretty sure the % difference depends on what you're looking at and how you're looking at it. I don't know much about genetics, so bear with me...

DNA can be represented as a long string of letters: ATCGATCG....

Some groups of those letters are genes, other groups code for proteins, some are more 'mechanical' codes like start and stop codons.

If you're comparing just the DNA, the string of letters, you're going to have some % difference between every individual. If you're comparing the genes, that's going to give you some other % difference. If you're comparing just the regions for protein coding, then you're going to get another % difference. Is that correct?

Too, over time as the methods of measuring these differences improve, we'd expect the results to become more accurate and be changed, no?

So, it seems to me that it is to be expected that different numbers for the % difference are going to be out there. Therefore, the fact that we have different numbers does not mean that there is NO veracity in these comparisons.

My assertion that all your ancestors outside of homo sapiens are varieties of apes, some flat faced apes such as Lluc, 12myo, changes in dentition that reflect diet rather than ancestry is just as good an argument as the mess you can present.

"Ape" is a very borad categorization... It includes characterisitcs like: is an animal, has a backbone, has mammary glands, is a primate, doesn't have a tail. Humans fit within that classification system so they can rightfully be referred to as "apes".

You can go back upwards throught the categories to see if your statement really makes sense. If you said instead: "all your ancestors outside of homo sapiens are varieties of apes mammals", then it doesn't really make much sense ot point out, does it? Of course they're mammals, and of course they're apes.

But on to your point:

changes in dentition that reflect diet rather than ancestry is just as good an argument as the mess you can present

Maybe its is, I don't know. But you're far too "zoomed-in" to be relying on this distinction as some kind of refutation of the Theory of Evolution. It is an established fact that species are not static and that they do evolve. The Theory of Evolution is the only explanation we have on how the changes that we know species go through occur.

However, I suppose you're more going off on the whole common ancestor part, and not the nuts-n-bolts of the process that drives evolution.

I realize common ancestry from things like the nested hierarchy and erv's, and not things like the proposed line of evolutionary links from the common ancestor to modern humans, nor whether or not the detention on Lucy is better explain by dietary changes.

You need to "zoom-out" a bit to get to see the good evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with the other apes. Arguing against these tiny details is missing the whole picture.

Hopefully you are aware of your excuses as to why no half breeds exist today.

Half-breeds do exist today. I've gone so far as to show you pictures of some on multiple occasions and you have yet to address them.

I have presented evidence from within your own biased research and can still defend a creationist claim

You haven't really address my points...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 732 of 1075 (623217)
07-08-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Wounded King
07-08-2011 3:11 PM


Re: Morphometrics
Well a point to make is that evos cannot have their eggs in every basket. That starts looking like a biased rubbish support.

The researchers that found this metatarsel have themselves asserted it is perfectly modern. NO feet have ever been found for Australepithicus, only this little bone dated to 3mya. It can be used for whatever support I or others want to make of it. 3mya in Africa Mr Ples was just an ape, like Lucy.

Evos HAVE TO SAY this belongs to Lucy's kind because modern humans are not supposed to be there yet. This is an assertion in line with a preconceived paradigm.

Lucy, had tree dwelling hands, small brain and all the hallmarks of being a variety of ape. Ardi has ape feet. Hence in the space of 1 million years feet totally evolved from ape to human. I suggest even by your own evolutionary assertions, be they gradualistic or punctuated, this would appear to be impossible.

A further anomoly to me is that Ardi does not have gracile chimpy hands, but has chimp feet. So it appears that Ardi left the trees in favour of bipedalism, then evolved back into a tree dweller then evolved back to bipedalism. No wonder evos are now disputing his ansestry to humans and are throwing Ardi into the woopsie bin!

Further again to all that there is research by your own that suggests homo erectus died out elsewhere prior to humans arriving from Africa. In Africa you have Mrs Ples that is just an ape. You have Turkana Boy found with no feet or hands(how unfortunate) that has an ape head, arms that are 3/4 the way to the knees and I have no idea why creationists call it human. I now disagree. It is also just a variety of ape that may have undergone some adaptive environmental change such as diet to account for jaw change. There are flat faced apes such as Lluc, Anoiapithecus brevirostris, and Turkana Boy is more likely to be Llucs decendant than a human ancestor.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htm

You have multiple australopithecines, homo erectus and various homonids all over the world that were exposed to different environmental conditions, variance in genetic drift and still none of them were able to survive untill today and every single branching line has gone extinct. If just one branch had of survived in an intermediate form, you would then have solid proof of evolution. However, you don't.

So, ...I can provide support for my claim that the reason why no half breed apey humans are with us to day is because there never were any. I have provided my support for this assertion on the basis of your so called intermediates not being intermediates at all, but rather varieties of apes eg Lluc. Supportive of this is that you lack fossil evidence for the ancestry of chimps supposedly evolving along side us.

I feel my assertion and accompanying scientific support provided above and throughout this thread is at least as good as any of at least 3 evolutionary explanations as to why all homonids and other supposed Homo Erectus species throughout the world became extinct and did not continue in that form.

I am entitled to my views and interpretation of the available evidence and you can only refute them with other similarly theoretical evidence. My view is as unfalsifiable as any other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Wounded King, posted 07-08-2011 3:11 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2011 5:27 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 737 by Nuggin, posted 07-09-2011 2:24 AM Mazzy has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 733 of 1075 (623220)
07-08-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 4:35 PM


Still another boo-boo
NO feet have ever been found for Australepithicus, only this little bone dated to 3mya.

Are you forgetting stw 573?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 4:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13104
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 734 of 1075 (623256)
07-08-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 3:35 PM


No I'd say the FACT that your researchers have put up comparisons from 2% to 6% chimp human comparisons whilst indeed the chimp and human genome is 30% compariatively different suggests yur researchers have produced research that is biased and basically says nothing about our ancestry to chimps.

Looking to one small part of the genome, MTDNA, the cells powerhouse, would have to be the most simplistic, misrepresentative method of comparison available and the only part of the entire genome that yeilds such close similarities.

Here is my research evidence to demonstrate that in actual fact there is a 30% comparative difference between the chimpanzee and a human being. This 30% does not include the 10% larger chimp genome, not the different surface composition, so in actual fact it should be even more.

"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome

So we are made out to be chimp relatives whether our difference is 2%, 6% or 30%. These FACTS not only demonstrate 'some lack of veracity' on the part of evolutionists claims but actually demonstrates that there is NO veracity in these comparisons.

As you would know if you were literate, the two groups of researchers were measuring different things. This is why they got different numbers as answers. The two results are not in conflict. Indeed, they cannot be in conflict any more than a measurement of your shoe size could be in conflict with a measurement of your IQ. (I shall refrain from speculating which would be the larger.)

The FACT that you have stuff all ancestors for chimps further supports my claim. Can you refute that with any thing more than beligerance and empty words?

Yeah, we can point out that this is something you made up.

My assertion that all your ancestors outside of homo sapiens are varieties of apes, some flat faced apes such as Lluc, 12myo, changes in dentition that reflect diet rather than ancestry is just as good an argument as the mess you can present.

No it isn't, because you haven't even tried to justify it in the light of the evidence.

Please present your evidence that most H. erectus specimens are gorillas, as you have claimed.

I have presented evidence from within your own biased research and can still defend a creationist claim

You have not yet tried to defend your claim. You have merely stated it.

Hopefully you are aware of your excuses as to why no half breeds exist today. There are a few of these EXCUSES so you get to pick which one you support. HAPPY GUESSING...!!!!

Well, what's your explanation?

It's a simple enough question. Why are there no living examples of the forms such as H. neanderthalis, H. erectus and H. habilis which are found in the fossil record?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 735 of 1075 (623268)
07-09-2011 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 555 by Mazzy
07-02-2011 3:02 PM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
G'day Mazzy.

Mazzy the enlightened writes:

...the difference between mankind and apes is our higher reasoning powers and perception. Mankind was created in the image of God...

They still haven't shown how an ape developed the ability to do mathematics; they can't. They also wont be able to show how apes developed to ability to percieve reality and determine their destiny. They will just use the same useless rhetoric they have always used.

Mazzy the enlightened writes:

I suggest there are no mid species fossils found. Rather they are either human or ape.

They'll create them out of their imagination, something that they have no answer for in their evolutionary paradigm.

It's difficult to understand that intelligent humans can hold such a ridiculous belief.

Edited by LucyTheApe, : grammar


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Mazzy, posted 07-02-2011 3:02 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by hooah212002, posted 07-09-2011 1:59 AM LucyTheApe has responded
 Message 738 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2011 2:28 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
4748
49
5051
...
72NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014