Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 921 of 1075 (625276)
07-22-2011 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 917 by Admin
07-21-2011 5:17 PM


No evidence for the descent of mankind.
So to throw out there to the EVC community..
It appears none here are happy to use Ardi and Lucy as fossil evidence for the descent of mankind from a common ancestor, and rightly so. That leaves homo erectus which I have discredited as human and supported as an ape that shows similar morphology to Ardi, that was found with ape toes, similar pronaganthism, lack of language etc.
I have provided evidence that your researchers can hardly tell the difference themselves between a gorilla, chimp juvenille and a human. I have shown that what species any fossil is classified as is more in line with predefined assumptions than any science eg Taung Child.
All Homo Erectus are grouped together by your scientists, despite huge variation in the species. I say this is a reflection of simple variation and extreme sexual dimorphism found in non-human primates. I have provided research to further support this assertion from your own researchers.
I have provided evidence of human footprints and a metatasel over 3myo that predates Homo erectus and supports mankind being alive and well prior to any so called homonids starting out on their journey to humaness.
I have asserted that the use and control of fire is a complex task that cannot be percieved by an unintelligent species without complex language and reasoning ability. Hearths have been dated to 200,000 years and coincides with the dating of modern humans.
I have spoken to Baramins and given a demonstration of how erectus and other apes are discontinuous with mankind.
In other words, I have backed my assertions and theory with research available from evolutionary scientists and formed my own hypothesis of the information at hand, despite its biased base. I have answered many questions.
There are no intermediates because there never were any and I have supported my claim.
Now the onus is on evos to demonstrate by the use of fossil evidence that there are actually some fossils that demonstrate the descent of mankind from a common ancestor? Can any of you do it or not?
I see no value in proposing why these species have not survived untill today, with maybes and perhaps, unless you first show fossil evidence that these intermediates actually existed at some time.
BTW another question I posed is why do you evos suppose you have no or few examples of the descent of chimps (or any other ape for that matter) from the common ancestor? I reckon your researchers have lumped gorillas, orangs, chimps and anything they find into the human line as there is not as much glory and fuss over finding an ape relative.
So I have done my job as a creationist. Now it is evos turn to come up with some goodies and evidence of this mythical fossil evidence for the descent of mankind from a common chimp ancestor. ..Otherwise folks...I WIN.....
GO!.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 5:17 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 922 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:04 AM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 923 of 1075 (625279)
07-22-2011 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 913 by ZenMonkey
07-21-2011 4:49 PM


Zen monkey. Percy commented on your adequate post and I disagree it is adequate at all.
You speak to the creationist war cry of TOE not being fact as some sort of dismissal of this being exactly the fact.
ZenMonkey said
Similarly, in everyday, non-scientific speech, "theory" is used interchangeably with "hypothesis," both words conveying the idea of something that's a supposition or an educated guess. "No, you don't know for sure that it's going to rain the rest of the summer. That's just your theory."
However, in science, "theory" has a very different meaning. A theory is a coherent proposition that explains a group of related phenomena. So cell theory tells us that the cell is the fundamental unit of life. Newton's theory of gravity tells us that all physical bodies attract each other in direct relationship to the product of their masses and in an inverse relationship to the square of the distance between them. These are explanatory statements, not guesses.
I am sorry but this is nonsense and non credible talk. There is a huge difference between theoretical assumptions and the accumulation of facts. Eg we get to the moon on the science of the here and now. Big bang falls apart in the theoretical singularity. Both use gravitational theory. These are not the same. It is theoretical the other based on science. TOE is theoretical science and is no more than a psuedo science at best.
When we were meant to have descended from knucklewalkers there were sketches and pretty pictures demonstrating the smooth descent from chimp like knucklewalking to mankind. This was held as evidence that only boofhead creationists could not see as obvious evidence from where we came from. Well that was rubbish!
LUCA likewise has been shoved down my throat elsewhere as the irrefuteable evidence that links all life to a common ancestor....untill the realisation of HGT. This was also a science that only boofhead creationists could not understad or chose to ignore as it was undeniable evidence for common ancesrty. That is now rubbish also.
For a hypothesis to reach the status of a theory, it has to have such explanatory power and be supported by the facts that to withhold consent to it would be intellectually perverse. A theory holds the place of the highest certainty in science. A fact is just a data point. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation that is still being tested and has yet to achieve the status of a theory.
No theory is held to be absolutely true, because new data could always come along that the theory fails to explain. However, very rarely if ever does a new theory contradict a previous one, because the factual basis on which a true theory is based is so extensive and well established. What happens is that a new theory explains not only all of the facts that the old one did, but does a better job of it and can be used to explain even more phenomena. Thus Einstein's Relativity Theory doesn't contradict what Newton said, it just has greater explanatory power.
This sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy but this is also nonsense. Your TOE has no predictive capability as does gravitational theory, as as a solid theory should have.
Rather I have spoken to the unflasifiablility of TOE that keeps itself alive by being in constant evolution itself. For example the remarkable difference in the human/chimp Y chromosome was not predicted and a theory of 'accelerated evolution' is proposed to save the day.
I am not out ot disprove TOE but to offer another hypothesis of the data, a creationist one.
What I get sick of most is evolutionists pretending that creationists are unable to defend their stance and are ignorant of the concepts behind TOE.
You may continue to have faith in your researchers as much as you wish. However, faith is required to follow TOE to no less a degree than a creationist required faith in the creation, neither side can explain their abiogenesis.
The point here in this thread is that you all speak to this convincing evidence of human ancestry & resulting intermediates yet have none to offer by way of fossil evidence.
That my dear is the fact and excuses re TOE reinventing itself contantly and the excuses for same, does not detract from the fact, that at the moment yu have no fossil evidence to back these so called intermediates that mysteriously went extinct.
Listen lovey, you lot will never recover from the misrepresentation of Neanderthal. You are now resorting to profiling science based on the morphology of a species we know about, humans. Neanderthal was poofed into a human looking dude not based on more fossil evidence but on DNA evidence, which you do not have from Erectus or any other.
This is a siding widing attempt to justify your misrepresentions like by using a science based on the known morphology of human beings. Believe me when I say they get it very wrong also. Regardless identikits do not establich what an ancient ape look like. In fact you will have to tell a forensics scetch artist what the species is for the technique to work.
In actual fact your researchers have absolutely no idea what the flesh on these bones would look like.
Creationists can come up with theories also. I think it is incredible that evolutionists still see creationists as being ignorant because they do not accept this mess you call TOE and the ever changing theories not to mention the garbage of delusions past that is huge.
Experts are proved wrong all the time. Hence a theory in evolution with nil predictive capability.
Sorry but you evos do not have a theory, you have theoretical evolution on a grand scale as well as a mess..
But most of all ...you have no evidence of any human intermediate demonstrating the descent of a common ancestor and that there actually were any. This supports my assertion that there never were any and that is just peachy and just fine as support all by itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-21-2011 4:49 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 924 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:11 AM Mazzy has replied
 Message 935 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-22-2011 12:13 PM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 925 of 1075 (625281)
07-22-2011 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 922 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2011 3:04 AM


Re: No evidence for the descent of mankind.
Dr Adequate...I am afraid it is your researchers that cannot tell their ass from their elbow just like your great Taung child folley.
You still go on and on with ridicule, hot air and woffle. Is your over expanded ego hurting?
This crap you post will not assist you to beat me in any debate.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 922 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 928 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:36 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 926 of 1075 (625282)
07-22-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 924 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2011 3:11 AM


Fossils please
Dr Adequate who is still unable to answer any question posed to him.....do paste up your uncontested fossil evidence for human ancestry of which you appear to have none.
I WIN ....BY A LONG SHOT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 924 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:34 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 931 of 1075 (625296)
07-22-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 924 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2011 3:11 AM


Dr Adequate says
We are aware that you are ignorant of the scientific method; you need not have gone to such lengths to prove it.
Maybe you have quals in research methods but listen pal, so do I. I also know how easy it is to misrepresent data based on false assumptions.
Here is something else for you to ignore
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/03/070324133018.htm
""Dr. Leakey produced an intrinsically biased reconstruction based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development," said Dr. Bromage, whose reconstruction, by contrast, shows a sharply protruding jaw and, together with colleague Francis Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, South Africa, a brain less than half the size of a modern human's. These characteristics make the 1.9 million-year-old early human skull more like those of two archaic, apelike hominids, Australopithecus and early Paranthropus, living at least three million and 2.5 million years ago, respectively. "
So do please explain how Homo Rudolfensis, dated to 1.9mya now very much aped faced (since the misrepresentation was addressed) poof into Turkana boy, Homo erectus/eregaster dated to 1.5mya?
Your researchers suggest Neanderthal and humans were separated for around 300,000 years, yet could concievably still mate sucessfully and are phylogenically within human variation range still. They are human and likely nephalim. No change outside of adaptive changes and certainly no macroevolution.
Yet in 1.7my years your researchers propose an ape, like Lucy, with huge prothagnathism poofed into a modern human. Get Real!
I can see why you like to project your inadequacies and accuse ignorance to others. What the heck else can you do ?
This is not a matter of taking 5-8my for an ape like creature to become human. It is more like a poofing event of around 1.7my from ape-like to modern Human. OMG..this thread just keeps getting better as the absurdity of your so called evidence for human ancestry, and lack of, becomes apparent.
Anyone care to offer a theory of 'accelerated' evolution for this ape to human one?
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 924 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 936 of 1075 (625510)
07-23-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by Taq
07-22-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Taq said
Since you used genetic comparisons to construct your holobaramin it is easily falsifiable. All I need to do is demonstrate that humans are more similar to chimps (using your same criteria) than chimps are to other apes. As it turns out, chimps are genetically more similar to humans than they are to orangutans (or any other ape for that matter). Therefore, your separate holobaramins are falsified.
Actually you need to do much more than provide the research that just suits you. I have posted research that demonstrates yu can clad these primates as you wish really. Now you deny this first and call it nonsense and I will then post the relevant research as you would have demonstrated you have little clue if any about it.
Here is something else that shows your genomics is nonsense from its inception. What is factual is that humans did not descend from todays chips. Hence you guys need a common ancestor. There researchers once again had to go and invent more convoluted theories to explain what they found...as usual
Comparative analyses of multiple alignments of small fragments of human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan sequence have revealed that the human genome is more similar to the gorilla genome than to the chimpanzee genome for a considerable fraction of single genes [2,13—15]. Such a conflict between species and gene genealogy is expected if the time span between speciation events is small measured in the number of 2N generations, where N is the effective population of the ancestral species (see Figure 1).
Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model | PLOS Genetics
Also, transitional hominids form a morphological continuity with other living apes species. H. erectus, for example, has a mixture of modern human and basal ape features that are found in other modern apes.
[1] There is no morphological continuity at all. That is why you have had to invent a bush rather than a tree. Also why researchers cannot agree on what they see and why evos had to think up Punctuated Equilibrium to explain what they actually found[1/]
Therefore, your holobaramin is falsified by both the genetic and morphological data.
Unfortunatey you do not get to say what constitutes anything. Obviously some creature would be more similar to mankind than an other. It happens to be chimps according to your biased algorithms. I have produce research that demonstrates Turkana Boy was incapable of complex speech, He was found in pieces so all the headlines are misrepresenting this find anyway. Only God knows what this creature actually looked like. After the Neanderthal fiasco with heaps of bones they still initially got it wrong as they were influenced by flavour of the month and made it an apey looking dude that fit in with flavour of the month. That is how easy it is to misrepresent.,, and this has been done heaps
\
Let's look at this from a different angle. Where have you shown that humans and other apes can not share a common ancestor? I could also point to the differences between chimps and gorillas in order to put them in separate holobaramins, but how does that stop them from sharing a common ancestor? It would seem to me that you have falsely assumed that any difference between two species indicates that they could not share a common ancestor. Using your same criteria I could show that chihuahuas and wolves form two separate holobaramins, but obviously they share a common ancestor.
I do not have to show anything like that at all. There is no common ancestor and guess what???? You still haven't found one for anything that has lasted more than 5 minutes in the headlines. Your own lack of evidence supports there is no such thing. Now you refute this and I will pit up the link AGAIN that states Erectud is on the way out due to new finds
The ERV data demonstrates that humans share that same common ancestor with other apes:
I have refuted this before. You need to pay attention.
"In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
ERV's show no more than species were exposed to the same or similar virus. eg Hendra goes from bats to horses to humans without descent being involved. There are also virus that are in primates and NOT humans. Your researchers need to come up with more fancy convoluted theories to explain this also. These ERV's are often not found where they are supposed to be abs yet anbother plethora of theories ensue to fix it. What ERV's actually show is that you have a mess that makes no sense without convoluted theories to explain the inconsistencies.
All three forms of baraminological indicators that ERV's supply put humans squarely in the ape holobaramin, as shown in figure 2. Specifically, in Fig. 2 B (HERV-K18) humans and chimps are shown to be more closely related than chimps are to gorillas. If humans and non-human apes were in separate holobaramins then you should not find the same ERV's at the same position in humans and non-human apes, but you do. Not only that, but humans group more closely with chimps than chimps do with other apes.
So now you are an expert in evolution, creation and baraminology are you?
You do not get to choose what I use or don't. I have already explained what separates erectus from homo and places him in with apes. Yoi do not have to like or accept it, Nor do you have to turn.
What you do need to do is understand that your likely's and maybe's as to why there are no intermediates alive today sits along side another several, equally robust hypothesis that suggest there never were any intermediates. It is all based on speculation and assumptions.
Turkana was a good find although in pieces and needing reconstruction. It could be anything as your researchers have assumptions they base their reconstructions on.
All life is very similar re MTDNA. However this is a small portion of the genome. In actual fact I have psoted info demonstrating that a chimp is 30% different to a human and this does not count the Y chromosome being remarkably different, the surface structure being different, the genome size is 10% different also. It is only biased and desperate reasoning that searches for similarities and uses these to support ancestry. In other words regardless of a 98% mtdna similarity intially, then a 94% mtdna similarity and a holistic distinction of 30% minumum you will class chimps as close to humans because your biased research puts them there. Something had to be close. 30% means we are not related and never were.
Now I want you to deny some points I have not backed by research in this post,(cause I am tired of doing it repeatedly) so I can put up research from your own that supposrts my claims and that may get you to actually pay attention and hopefully embarrass you slightly. This I think is the only way to stop you guys from constantly making comments that I have already refuted amd posting circular arguments
I have offered an alternative explanation as to why there are no intermediates today. There never were any. It is based on my interpretation of the evidence at hand not unlike your own researchers that debate just about everything except 'it all evolved'.
You do not have to like it, nor accept it. I am not here to change your mind only propose an alternative view that I feel is better backed by evidence.
You have very few fossils, it appears, that any of you are willing to put your credentials on as a human relative. Lucy and Ardi are on the outer as is homo erectus with eregaster being your LIKELY relative now.
I have provided research that states we are not related nor descended from any erectus, perhaps not even in Africa. Was it Eragaster or erectus. I am sure yu will make Turkana Boy what it needs to be. If you deny it I will repost but you or others need to deny it first. Let's just see whom here is atop of their own game.
I have lots of info and lines to refute Turkana boy as your ancestor and you should be pleased you are not an ape. I'll save those for a later thread.
.
.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Taq, posted 07-22-2011 11:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 955 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 10:53 PM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 937 of 1075 (625512)
07-23-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by ZenMonkey
07-22-2011 12:13 PM


Zen Monkey. That's a shame you are done. I apologise if I was abrupt or rude which happens when one is constantly degraded without cause and perhaps directed at the wrong people.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-22-2011 12:13 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 938 of 1075 (625513)
07-23-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 932 by Admin
07-22-2011 5:39 AM


Re: Mazzy and Dr Adequate Suspended 24 Hours
Admin says
Mazzy's suspension is because it's becoming clear that more words from me are not going to be any more helpful than the earlier words from me.
Dr Adequate's suspension is for not knowing when to let up. Mazzy's claims of victory and torrents of unsupported assertions whose rebuttals she refuses to engage or even understand do indeed invite derision, but there's a limit.
I sincerely regret both suspensions, but I feel I've exhausted my options as far as verbal persuasion.
Percy I have answered stacks of rebuttals. The fact that I cannot respond to every one is hardly justification for accusing me of not taking up any challenge. That comment is likely more offensive than anything Dr Adequate has ever said to me. It is also inacurrate.
I think evos need to decide if they have fossil evidence for human ancestry or not.
Do please post the message no for any good refute you would like to see responded to particularly and I will happily oblidge.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 932 by Admin, posted 07-22-2011 5:39 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 949 by Admin, posted 07-24-2011 5:43 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 939 of 1075 (625517)
07-23-2011 3:19 PM


I was hoping to see Blevins post here by now, but I cannot see it.
He also would like to step up to a challenge and I am really looking forward to it. Please repost your initial submisssion to admin.
I am ready to debate you specifically.

Replies to this message:
 Message 950 by Admin, posted 07-24-2011 5:49 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 940 of 1075 (625519)
07-23-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Larni
07-22-2011 4:16 AM


Larni says
Why are there no human apes (I'm assuming she means our cousins such as neanderthal et al) alive today?
Because they are all dead.
Larni .. the latest is that Neanderthal are human beings and no different to you or I as far a s humanity goes. They are 99.5% similar which is the same differences cited within the human population today.
Page not found - Digital Journal
I have asked numerous questions which no one has bothered to answer. I understand why. It appears that creationists are the only ones that need to answer questions and every post.
Can you perhaps tell me why Neanderthals are classified as a different species to mankind? They meet your morphological and phenotypic definitions of the same species they are not classified as Homo Sapiens by the majority of your researchers.
Perhaps you could explain this little inconsistency.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Larni, posted 07-22-2011 4:16 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 942 by Larni, posted 07-23-2011 5:22 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 944 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2011 7:55 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 957 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 11:01 PM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 941 of 1075 (625521)
07-23-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 5:13 PM


Dr Adequate says
Ray Bohlin is not "one of our leading researchers in the field". He's a creationist propagandist who has published nothing whatsoever about human origins, or, indeed, primates, in the peer-reviewed literature, as his own bibliography shows, and who indeed has published nothing but creationist nonsense since he got his doctorate. "
I found this while looking for posts that I should respond to and found this. I think I need to clarify that the evolutionist assertation that no appropriately credentialled researcher could possibly deny the theoretical and observed evidence for TOE is erraneous.
Firstly let me say that yur Max Plank Insitute has contaminated evidence and pushlished the results, much to their embarrassment. This is not the only time this kind of contamination has occured. It is very common tot he point that more theories, maths, algorithms and assumptions are required to be inserted into your models to address contamination.
Now I haven't gone anywhere near this. I don't need to.
I can also pull to pieces many of your researchers. This therefore means nothing in so far as the credibility of any hypothesis goes. TOE is still going despite it.
There are researchers, such as John C Sanford, that have published papers and are well credentialed. He used to be an evolutionist now a YEC.
You know this debate will go on untill I get sick of it. Your fossil evidence is lacking, not only in the human line but in many. This is not the topic but briefly I speak to Ambulocetus Natans that is a variety of crocodile and looks more like one than a deer or whale. If you are looking for ancestry on a preconceived assumption you will not see a crocodile or aligator, you will see a whale and mouse deer intermediate.
The same goes for the bushy tailed tree dwelling ancestor of humans and apes. I see a squirrel-like creature. Your researchers see a human-ape ancestor.
In these I see what the fossil most resembles today. For me if it looks like a squirrel then it is more like to be a squirrel than something leading to an ape. If I see what looks mostly like a corc then I say it is more likely to be a croc than a deer and whale intermediate. This is my basis for asserting my evidence is more in line with the fossil record than evolutionary assertions. However in the end it seems it is a matter of interpretation.
Your researchers have difficultly in identifications and often it is about dating as to what they are and where they fit. You see Turkana Boy an intermediate. There is enough variation in both humans and apes for us to argue both. Similarly there are cats that look like dogs and dogs that look like cats, yet both are disticly either dog or cat and the distinguishing features are obvious and clear in life and DNA. You see Turkana the intermediate. I see Turkana the ape. That is that, really; and neither you or I are going to have anything more than the theoretical as back up.
It is all a matter of interpretation of the data. This is involved in the debate within your own sciences.
I guess I may never get answers to questions, re Neanderthal being a separate species, eregaster being an obvious ape that evolved into modern human in 1.7my. Why there are only excuses for the lack of ancestry of chimps and other non human primate fossils dating back to our common ancestor etc
We could go around in circles for ages. I will refute and discredit your models and methods and your fossils. I may or may not be able to answer every question and really that is irrelevant. Neither can your researchers answer every question.
I am happy to have a respectful discussion with Blevins at his request and answer any presssing posts pointed out to me and then I think I'll be done on this thread. It is time for some one else to have a go.
The hanging main point here is "Does Homo Erectus consitute a member of mankinds ancestry".
This is a fitting point to debate as apart from this really you have little fossil evidence for ancestry to anything past erectus to apes. Both Ardi and Lucy are in question. Most Erectus are out of the line. Rather, what you appear to have, is a stack of bits and pieces that may or may not relate to sister species, mostly quiet apey looking sister species. However, few now are our supposed direct ancestors.
So let's see what happens!
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 5:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 943 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2011 7:49 PM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 947 of 1075 (625560)
07-24-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 903 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 7:45 AM


Dr Adequate said
Yes, well, you were also certain that actual modern humans weren't humans. Your certainty isn't worth a tinker's damn. Though to give you credit, you are uncertain sometimes, as when you vacillated between the same skull being Australian, orangutan, or australopithecine.
Personally, my money's on the paleontologists being right and you being wrong.
And you putting your money on your researchers is fine. However a creationist has good reason for skepticism.
I remember things like this
'Modern man's earliest known close ancestor was significantly more apelike than previously believed, a New York University College of Dentistry professor has found
"Dr. Leakey produced an intrinsically biased reconstruction based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development," said Dr. Bromage, whose reconstruction, by contrast, shows a sharply protruding jaw and, together with colleague Francis Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, South Africa, a brain less than half the size of a modern human's. These characteristics make the 1.9 million-year-old early human skull more like those of two archaic, apelike hominids, Australopithecus and early Paranthropus, living at least three million and 2.5 million years ago, respectively.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/03/070324133018.htm
This ape, Rudolfensis, is dated to 1.9mya. It lived at the same time as Homo Erectus and Eragaster.
All the pictures you posted in message 903 are apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 7:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 948 of 1075 (625561)
07-24-2011 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 946 by IamJoseph
07-23-2011 9:09 PM


Why are there no human apes alive today?
Err, how about because there weren't any yesterday?
Yep, I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 946 by IamJoseph, posted 07-23-2011 9:09 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 958 of 1075 (625903)
07-26-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 952 by Nuggin
07-24-2011 1:34 PM


Re: A ball is not a pork chop
Nuggin says
There has been no progress because there's really nothing to progress here.
This isn't a debatable question.
It's a question of definitions.
Mazzy rejects the definition of a word and substitutes her own definition. In this case the word is "ape". A few hundred posts later and NO PROGRESS has been made.
That's because there's no progress to be made.
This is like arguing with a child who insists that the word "ball" means "pork chop".
It doesn't. That's not what the word means.
You can point it out in dictionaries. You can explain the origins of the word. You can demonstrate that the entire rest of the world has a shared understanding of the definition different than the child's claim.
But _none_ of that matters. The child sticks her fingers in her ears and screams "no! no! no! I want to eat a ball with apple sauce!"
That's the beginning, middle and end of the discussion.
So long as Mazzy insists on being the child, there's no debate to be had.
There's no reason to post pictures. There's no reason to ask for explanations. There's no reason to try and educate or even reason.
This entire post should consist of exactly 2 messages:
Mazzy: "Humans aren't apes"
Anyone else: "Actually, they are. Look it up."
END OF DISCUSSION.
Nuggin one can google each species and find the current theories available that explain the demise of human/ape intermediates. I am happy to stop replying so that others can discuss these evolutionary explanations if you wish.
My offer is that there are no intermediates alive today because there never were any. That is a fairly typical creationist reply, given creationists do not accept sharing a common ancestor with apes.
Admin has made a request to narrow the thread and I intend to abide by his request.
Evolutionists have constructed various systems of classifications that creationists need to work with. Homonids is one classification
of modern or extinct bipedal primates of the family Hominidae, including all species of the genera Homo and Australopithecus. Bipedalism was meant to be tied to increase in brain size which your researchers now state is not the case. Now there are many other theories that try to explain the rise of bipedalism in primates.
Bipedalism began 6mya according to some researchers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/03/080320183657.htm
A modern chimpanzee, an ape, is quite capable of walking upright when they need to. Ardi, 4.2mya, was found with ape feet and apparently was at least partially bipedal. Can you see why I am skeptical of your classification systems? It is kinda like eating balls with apple sauce in that ape feet and bipedalism do not go well together.
A ball doesn't mean pork chop the same way as bipedalism doesn't mean increase in brain size. It is amazing what both a child and science can learn with maturity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 952 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 1:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 959 by Granny Magda, posted 07-26-2011 12:09 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 960 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2011 1:20 PM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 961 of 1075 (625937)
07-26-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 955 by Taq
07-24-2011 10:53 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Taq says
How is this a problem? The authors explain that this is expected if the "time span between speciations evens is small". Overall, the chimp genome is still more similar to the human genome than it is to any other ape. How can this be if chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor but humans do not?
This is a long post. I'll try to address what I can. The similarites, both morphological and genomic between human and orangutan just demonstrate that researchers can use the findings that support their theory and disregard the rest with other theories and explanations. Morpholigically we are closer to orangutans. The DNA says otherwise. The link below speaks to the human similarities with ornags being more than chimps.
"John Grehan, of the Buffalo Museum of Science in New York State, and Jeffrey Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, say that the DNA evidence cited by many scientists only looks at a small percentage of the human and chimp genomes.
What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals.
By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say. "
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
You shoud be aware that genomics disagrees with morphology sometimes. The same happened when a hippo was morphologically closer to a pig instead of a whale.
Some creature is bound to be more similar to mankind than another. It happens to be chimps genomically and orangs morphologically. This does not establish common descent. Your research has only found a species more similar to mankind than another.
Yeah, there is. H. erectus has a short, squat pelvis with femurs that bend towards the midline just as in humans and unlike other apes. This means that H. erectus has modern human features not found in other apes making it transitional between humans and other apes.
You are assuming you know what the initial common ancestor looked like. Indeed you do not. You now think the common ancestor was not a knucklewalker and knucklewalking evolved independently. Indeed it appears from my previous link that bipedalism has been around for 6my. I can produce research that put the human/chimp split at 4mya. Meaning the ancestor to chips and mankind was bipedal and indeed bipedalism is not a human trait just the same as a bird is bipedal and is not our direct ancestor.
You have no feet for your erectus, and the fossils were found in pieces. One cannot say for sure that any fossil skeleton is made up from the same individual. Regardless, I have posted many times the illustration that Turkana Boy is an ape and has an ape head like eragaster and rudolfensis. It looks like an ape. You have spoke to the similarities but not the differences. As I do not need common ancestors I am free to say that they are just what they look like, a species of ape with the apparent sexual dimorphism seen in apes today.
It's not obvious at all. Please explain, keeping in mind that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans share a common ancestor within your baramin model. That common ancestor would need to also be close to humans. As the different ape lineages branch off from that common ancestor they should all acquire lineage specific mutations, none of which should make any of those lineages any closer to humans than the common ancestor was. If your model is true then humans should be genetically equidistant to ALL APE SPECIES, but they are not. Therefore, your model is falsified.
I'll explain if you wish to hear. The initial creation of the ape kind may have been the creation of one breeding pair or a number of them. They may have been the same or very different to each other. The fact that one or a few apes were created that adapted to become gorillas and chimps is no concern to me. That is adaptation within kind where they all form a holobaramin connected by a common ancestor. Although evolutionists cannot see it, I can see a clear distinction between beast and mankind so I have no problems thinking of apes as a holobaramin. As science progresses there may be good enough reason the put some varieties of apes into their own holobaramin as an initial kind.
You need to pay attention as well. None of those insertions are orthologous which indicates insertion after common ancestry. The ERV's in the paper I discussed ARE ORTHOLOGOUS. Due to the random nature of ERV insertion, independent insertions will not occur at the same position in each genome, which is exactly what we see with PTERV-1 which invaded ape genomes after all modern lineages branched off from one another. Therefore, finding the same ERV in the same location in multiple species indicates that the insertion occurred in a common ancestor. This can be double checked by comparing LTR divergence within the orthologous ERV's as discussed in the paper I already cited.
You also do a fine job of twisting the context of the quote. The author was indicating that the species distribution falsifed the idea that PTERV-1 infected the common ancestor. You will notice that the author was not talking about HERV-K.
In fact, PTERV-1 actually strengthens my argument. Due to the fact that PTERV-1 is found in chimps and other apes but not in humans it offers a test of common ancestry. Given the species distribution of PTERV-1, evolution would PREDICT that none of these insertions should be found in orthologous positions, AND THEY ARE NOT. PTERV-1 actually supports my argument, not yours.
IOW, pointing to non-orthologous ERV's does not refute the evidence of orthologous ERV's.
The point I think I was making mostly is that these ERV's are assertained by convoluted algorithms that can be constructed to show basically anything you want. If its not there another theory ensues. If its not in the right place more theories are invented to explain this away also. If it is there this is meant to be evidence for common ancestry. If not too bad another theory ensues.
"Seeing that HERV-Ks integrated into primate genome after the separation of Old and New World monkeys and before the separation of hominids and OWM (+-30-45mya) it should be reasonable to expect to find not only homologous, but also orthologous ERV-K sequences between homonids and OWM. However, Romano et al (2007) screened the genomes of Pan troglodytes (build 2 v.1) and the Macaca mulatta draft assembly (v.1) by BLAT search for ERV-K genomes -->[6]. They found 19 complete RhERV-K proviruses, and 12 new elements in Pan troglodytes (CERV-K). 55 previously reported human HERV-K and 20 previously reported CERV-K were also included in the analysis. Romano et al (2007) found that no RhERV-K orthologue was closely related to those in either the chimpanzee or human genomes and concluded that all RhERV-K proviruses appear to have arisen by active transposition rather than chromosomal duplication and the lack of orthologous sequences may be the result of host driven excision and purging [6]. No reasonable, testable evidence was provided to support this.
blog6
What I am saying is that ERV's ultimtely show nothing as far as ancestry goes. An ape can be exposed to virus such as HIV as can a human, maybe even at the same time in history. Both will show the exposure in their genomics somewhere and sometimes it may show in a similar place to other species. This does not necesarily mean the connection is via descent unless one needs it to be.
Some people have claimed that there are viruses inserted into the genomes of all apes, including humans, that got into their genome long before any of the apes of today or humans existed. Probably so far back that it was when they were all still more like monkeys, the so called "Old World" monkeys. Since all these animals have the same viral infections, it has been claimed by some evolutionists that they must have a common ancestor.
Viruses can be uncannily acquired independently and arrive in the same places of the genome depending on the virus. Certain viruses prefer certain places in the genome and certain chromosomes. An example would be HIV, it infects humans and chimps in the exact same location of the chromosome. Also the Adenovirus does the same. Having the same retrovirus in different species shows nothing about common ancestory, all it proves is that different species share similar homogeny.
However, in 2007 Retroviruses were found in Chimpanzees, Old world monkeys, and African apes that are not found in Humans or Asian Apes. One of them is called PTERV1. There are theroies as to why this is the case and why the total deletion. You may accept the excuses if you wish.
So if you want to believe this kind of thing is proof of common ancestry that is fine. However I do not believe the science behind it is robust enough to change my faith. In fact I do not think ERV's say anything about distant ancestry at all and I have explained why.
If you can't demonstrate that humans do not share a common ancestor with other apes then don't assert that it is true.
Indeed I can show that all your intermediates are more likely to be apes beci=use they look like apes than apes becoming human and controlling fires. Hence there are no common ape ancetors to find which likely explains why you haven't found any. This is also the dilineation between fact and fiction.
Yes, I am.
So you are a self professed expert on evolutionary science, creationism and holo baramins. Forgive my skepticism.
Yes, I do. Shared ancestry has very real repercussions in the genetic data. There are markers that should be there if two species share a common ancestor, and markers that should NOT be there. Those are the facts. If you want to claim that humans and other apes do not share a common ancestor, then all I have to do is point to evidence that indicates just the opposite. ERV's are one small example of that data set which falsifies separate baramins for humans and other apes.
First you have to take the probabilities and assumptions out of your algorithms. As indicated previously hit and miss and explaining the unexpected is not a robust science.
Wouldn't a transitional be more chimp-like than modern humans? Yes or no.
Chimp like may be represemted by evolutionists initial depiction of Neanderthal, the hairy ape man. However the ape headed erectus would have sufficiently caused a stir if seen at the local shopping centre.
Why is that? According to you, each baramin was created separately by an all knowing and all powerful being who has unlimited resources and time. Why shouldn't all life have completely different mtDNA? Or completely different tRNA's for that matter?
Because most creatures breathe and are alive so there is something in common for a start. I have already mounted the point that according to the new models re HGT multiple life arose. These primitive cells were all so similar that they were able to transfer genes. This demostrates there is one design for life and God know it. Not even your naturalistic processes evolved life so vastly different from each other that genetic material could not pass the species barrier. They were the same. MyDNA is the cells power house of course one may expect many similarities here.
Don't forget humans and chimps are at least 30% overall. Your researchers should have known they were on the wrong track as soon as they came up with the initial 2% difference which sounded ridiculous at its inception.
Common recycled plans appear to suggest the hallmark of a designer rather than lucky stumbling, given the two choices. Maybe God planned to confuse evolutionary researchers, and if so He did very well eg homoplasy both genetic and morphological. So far your researchers have bunch of theories re abiogenesis as opposed to God who knows how to do it.
Below are more refutes to ERV's. In the end it is theory faced off against other theories.
Forbidden
New myth debunked: HIV is an endogenous retrovirus | AIDSTruth.org
How do chimp like features in H. erectus disqualify it from being related to humans? How do brow ridges and a prognathus eliminate H. erectus as a potential human relative? What disqualifies chimps and other apes from being human relatives? You haven't answered any of this, other than to state that your religious beliefs will not allow it.
I just hope you are kidding. It is the heavy brow ridges and prognathism that demonstrates these are apes. Humans show some adaptation that have pruduced variations However no human has the feature of that of say Turkana Boy.
With supposed flat faced apes like Lluc one can see huge variety in both apes and humans. The biggest and most obvious distinction is in human reasoning and perceptive ablity and sophisticated language. I therefore use these as the most stable basis for my take on holobaramins. Fortunatey with the Turkana Boy find researchers see that he was unlikely to be capable of sophisticated speech. This therefore forms a line of discontinuity between Turkana Boy and other Erectus, and mankind.
For the purposes of a forum as oppposed to a scientific review panel, that distinction should suffice. It is a distinction I have made not unlike the distinctions thought up for your own classifications.
If you want to think these are apes becoming human that is fine. However, I do not.
Your post had too many points to address any compehensively at 3am. Now if you wish you can focus on one or two related points. This will aid in my giving full refutes to your points.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 955 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 10:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2011 1:48 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 969 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 7:12 PM Mazzy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024