Why are there no human apes alive today?

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.

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.

Neither creation nor evolution is refuteable and hence they are faiths...like it or not.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I have supported everrything I have said with scientific backing.

TOE is unfalsifiable just like creation and is a faith.

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 not found | 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 fossils 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!

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.

Birds are warm blooded like mammals, and not like reptiles. It is easier for you to not acknowledge warm bloodedness as a clade because it throws the whole thing out of whack.

Rather you would rather invent a story about warm bloodedness evolving twice that admit yoiur cladistics is whacky science.

"This incompatibility with the Linnaean taxonomy model led to an initial rift, not entirely healed, between the cladistic and Linnean schools of thought. Extreme cladists challenged the validity of Linnean taxa such as the Reptilia. Because birds, although descended from reptiles, are not themselves considered to be reptiles, cladists demanded that the taxon Reptilia be dismantled: a request that taxonomists were unwilling to heed.[7] This stand-off was eventually resolved to a degree by the construction of the term 'paraphyletic' to describe closely related groups which included most but not all of the descendants of a common ancestor.[4]"
Monophyly - Wikipedia

All I know is that you have zilch, squat, zero evidence that any creature poofed into a lungfish or anything else in the Cambrian.

Again these are the facts..the sudden appearance of vertabrae.

The cover stories that are meant to turn the obvious evidence for a creative day into an evolutionary mystery are your theories and basically that's all you've got, because the facts support creation as demonstrated.

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."
Chimpanzee genome project - WikipediaSo 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.

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...!!!!

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'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.

So this time you chose to nit pick on my pointing out my assertion that Turkana Boy is an ape is not generally accepted by many creationists.

Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes. I am remiss in my ability to understand how such intelligent scientists cannot see the difference. The skulls are clearly ape and human.

However if they would have pictured Turkana Boy he is fully human.

I am saying Turkana Boy is fully human. [...] Yet the bottom line is Turkana Boy is human.

Turkana boy, however is human

Really most of your Homo Erectus fossils are nothing more than a variety of gorilla, with a human thrown in here and there eg Turkana boy and possibly the little skull cap from Java man. These are just like those of an Australian Aboriginal and well within the variation of human skulls today that vary greatly.

Now I am telling you that my hypothesis and interpretation of the data at hand is that all these so called Homo erectus such as Turkana Boy were a variation of ape. These did not look human at all

Erectus has heavy brows, pronaganathism, long arms, large bones, large rounded rib cage. Why I'd say he probably looks just like Lluc.

What do you mean have in common. Because we were alive. A chimp has a similar skeleton now to humans and looks absolutely nothing like a human.

I can contemplate the hereafter, and have superior reasoning and perceptual ability, and best of all I do not have long hair growing all over my body.

Oh no that is not what I said at all. What I have said previously is that the use and control of fire is a complex task. There were no matches. magnifying glass or lighters for erectus. He would have had to have worked out how to use flintstone or stick rubbing, a complex task. I alledge, with its small brain even if I believed it was on its way to humanity, erectus was not smart enough to use and control fire.What your researchers have found are either fires started naturally, or with hearths, evidence that someone smarter was about at the same time. eg human beings.

The arising of a single cell is in the rubbish bin now. Do not forget with the advent of HGT you now have multiple primitive cells arising. These poofed into existence individually and yet were so genetically similar that they were able to horizonatlly transfer genes. Life on this planet will only ever have the same basic genetic blueprint. It does not show we all came from the same cell. In fact your research now shows we didn't. LUCA is dead and so are your genomic comparisons as HGT has confounded your models into a complexity meltdown.

As for walking upright there is not better term than to say " What Rubbish".

That is flavour of the month. Not too long ago bipedalism was theorised to be connected to brain increase. That has been proven wrong.

Neanderthal was also once pictured to be a stooped ape based on its fossils, but now stand perfectly upright.

Your reconstructions are biased.

Besides chimps can walk upright regardless of being knuckle walkers, it has squat to do with becoming human.

I have given proof that there was flat faced apes around 12mya. Flatter facial features are NOT a sign of becoming human. Erectus has heavy brows, pronaganathism, long arms, large bones, large rounded rib cage. Why I'd say he probably looks just like Lluc.

DNA..I have provided evidence from the Chimpanzee genome project that chimps and humans differ by at least 30%.

The simply and obvious thing is that some creature on this earth had to be more similar to us than the rest. It happens to be chimps.

"Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different. "
You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED#

ERV's show nothing more than some species were in the same place and were exposed to some bug."Within the published human genome sequence, there are over 98,000 human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), but all are defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions. No replication-competent HERVs have been identified to date (26, 31, 33, 35), with only one (K113) with open reading frames for all genes (35), and thus their activity and infectivity is thought to have decreased substantially from levels occurring during earlier periods of primate evolution (1, 23, 34). "
Just a moment...Humans can catch Hendra virus but are not closely related to bats or horses. This is just straw grabbing nonsense, made from convoluted mathematical models that mean nothing in the end. You have nonsense mutations and major deletions and it is all guesswork, assumpions and down hill from there.

The genetic comparisons your researchers use are very simplistic. They take a handfull of enzymes, stain them with dyes and use this nonsense as the basis to describe and compare an incredibly complex genomic system.

I have refuted morphology, DNA comparison and ERV's as being any more than theoretical assumptions based on further assumptions and convoluted models and in no way appear to detract from my assertion that there were never any chimp/human intermediates.

Creationists may not have all the answers either.

Dr Adequate, that is not the picture of LLuc at all.

So you are happy to accept a creature that is reconstructed from a few bones when it fits with your paradigm. But you don't when it doesn't suit you. Isn't that the sort of thing you lot say creationists do, pick and choose and then ignore the rest?

LLuc is a flat faced ape. It is your evolutionary researchers that describe it as such.

If you do not like what your researchers are saying then you had best go argue with them and make your case. For now we have a flat faced ape dated to 12mya...like it or not.....it could be the ancestor of any other ape with similar features.