Why are there no human apes alive today?

I might congratulate you for finding something completely consistent with the theory of evolution; except that it is of course very easy to do so.Did you even read the article? Or did you just not understand it? You would say a whole lot of crazy things. But they do not change reality.If you wish to ask any questions about this article, I shall be happy to explain it to you. If, on the other hand, you just wish to quote a random piece of it and then spout bizarre and pitiable nonsense unrelated to the text ... then you might be a creationist. This result suits me just fine. I put my faith in reality, it's always served me well so far. That's a poor excuse for not being able to refute any of it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Evidence?With an average male height of five feet five inches they don't sound much like the Nephilim (note spelling) described in Numbers 13:32, who were described as being "of great size". Because they were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men? (Genesis 6:4).It would follow that male Neanderthals would have God's Y chromosome. Theologians have much to learn from the Neanderthal Genome Project. For one thing, they could find out if God has hairy ears. Where are Neanderthals described as men of renown?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So you might hope, but it's probably harder than you think. How, for example, would you go about reconstructing the face of Turkana Boy to look "just like" that of Anoiapithecus, in line with your delusion-of-the-week?Making small errors of reconstruction may be possible for scientists, but even a creationist would find it hard to make a really big one of that nature; I will wager you'll find it easier to continue to make your mistakes in written form.

No it doesn't, you big silly-billy. The article specifically says that the sites of integration are not homologous. I quote: See? It has nothing to do with ancestry. No. That would not explain the homology of sites of integration in those cases where this is in fact in evidence. I never said it was. What's your point? It may well be all your ERVs demonstrate. The ones at non-homologous sites.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, you fantasize that any ERV evidence that puts apes as being more closely related to each other than mankind is ignored.You have not produced any such evidence. Which is why the sites of integration would not be homologous. If that sentence was written in English it would probably be wrong. No it isn't. Stop making things up. Look ... no it isn't.The fact that you don't understand it, which you don't, does nothing to cast doubt on it. After all, there must be lots of aspects of science that you don't understand. Pretty much all of them in fact. And yet somehow science continues to progress ...

To summarize, you think the reason that we can and do prove that we're right is because we're wrong. Your link does not support your delusions, as you would know if you could understand it. If you know why, feel free to tell us. That would be the Lluc that doesn't actually have a flat face, right? Your fantasies are not, in fact, "very interesting". It's not just well-educated researchers that think H. erectus is more than a variety of ape. Most creationists maintain that it is completely human. Perhaps you could persuade them to set their own house in order. Perhaps you should show it to all the creationists who claim that H. erectus is completely human. And if only you could prove any of your nonsense instead of just "strongly suggesting" it, you'd look less like a crank with a grudge against reality. You haven't given an explanation, despite me asking you to do so over and over again.Let me ask you again. There are no living examples of austalopithicenes or habilines. Why not?

How fortunate that we have amongst us an uneducated person such as yourself who is never bamboozled at all. Have a go. Which would you like to call human and which are apes? What criterion are you using?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, why don't you try to remember why you did so yourself, repeatedly and emphatically, just a few weeks ago. Like this: And this: And this: And this: And this: When you know why you thought that, you will know why a creationist would think that, what with you being a creationist.

It is creationists who believe that there is a clear division and evolutionists who believe that there is not.Would it be hypocrisy in me to demand a demonstration of levitation from people who claim that they can levitate but not from those who say that levitation is impossible? Congratulations, you have just identified one Cro-Magnon and three completely modern human skulls as apes.None of them, of course, is a "reconstruction from fragments", nor indeed from an overactive imagination, this being the sort of intangible thing that doesn't photograph well.You didn't say what criterion you were using to distinguish between them, and now I am more curious than ever. Having proclaimed the unbridgeable divide between humans and apes, you put skull 2 in the image below with skull 3 as an ape rather than with skull 1 as a human. Perhaps you could tell us why.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why the anger? All I did was to suggest, sensibly enough as I thought, that if you really want to know how a creationist can identify Turkana Boy as human, you should try to remember why you yourself did so. Surely you had some reason for your opinion. Perhaps when you've remembered what it is, you could tell the rest of us what it was.

Well well. Also, looking at the side view and using your supposed "great reasoning ability" you identified three modern-day humans as apes. Maybe your reasoning ability isn't quite so great as you think it is. They're looking at exactly the same reconstruction as you were when you applied your famous reasoning ability. The thing has only been stuck back together in one way, there being only one of it.

No it isn't.We don't claim that there is a rigid uncrossable dividing line between human and ape. You guys do.If Alice says there aren't fairies at the bottom of the garden, and Bob says there are, it is not "hypocritical" for me to ask Bob, but not Alice, to show me a fairy.

This doesn't mean anything.

This doesn't mean anything.