The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

The definition of man to apes is the following: The anatomy of man equals -the exact anatomy of "other" man(human). The anatomy of "Ape" equals-the anatomy of "other" apes,(chimpanzees,monkeys...etc.).In regards to AL288-1(LUCY), if it was female, then this would mean that you would have to exclude this species from the line of Homo because it's "pelvis is less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14.(Australopithecus africanus, which is claimed to be in the family roots of LUCY.

While man has a very specific anatomy since man is a single species, apes do not have a single specific anatomy because the group includes not only man, but also gorillas, chimps and orangutans. I think the point Jar was making was that if you have a fossil sufficiently similar to both man and ape that both would claim it as a predecessor, then you have an intermediate. You opened a double quote that you never closed, followed by an open parenthesis that you never closed, but I think I get the gist. There is no conclusive evidence that says Lucy is on a direct line to man. There is also no conclusive evidence that says she isn't. What we do know is that she was definitely bipedal and upright, and that she was an evolutionary relative. Man and ape share a common ancestor some millions of years ago. Australopithicus afarensis is more similar to us than both this common ancestor and modern apes.--Percy

Well, homo actually is a pretty broad category of which homo sapiens is only a small part. Also, Apes, Chimpanzees are not mokeys.But you did not answer the question.If there is a species that has both some of the characteristics found in homo sapiens and some of the charcateristics of modern apes, would that be considered an ape-man?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would not consider that Ape Man. I already explained somewhere why similarities does not make us ancestors to the apes. And in regards to Lucy, Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at Anthropologicical Institue in Zurich, Switzerland- was quoted with the following:-Origins Reconsidered: In Search Of What Makes Us Human, Doubleday New York, pp 193-194 1992"When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprie of all.The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn't get Lucy's ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conocal shaped cage, like what you see in apes".

Hi Nothing,I think there's a semantic issue getting in the way here. You're defining "Ape Man" as man's evolutionay ancestor, which you don't believe exists. Whether or not you're right, there's no way to conclusively establish an ancient hominid as being on a direct evolutionary path to humans. The rest of us are defining "Ape Man" as a creature that shares features with both ape and man. As an aside, and as has been stated before, this term has no scientific standing.Assuming for the sake of discussion that the Peter Schmid comments you provided are accurate, his observations are exactly what I would expect of an "Ape Man". It has characteristics that are ape-like, such as the ribs and rib cage that he describes, and it has characteristics that are human-like, such as the pelvis, the knees and feet, and the angle and position at which the spine meets the skull.--Percy

quote:

---

I would not consider that Ape Man. I already explained somewhere why similarities does not make us ancestors to the apes.

---

So what characteristics would you expect in a real transitional between apes and humans if evolution were correct?

First of all, it would have to have concrete evidence in the -base- of the theory before anything could get started. How could you expect me to even consider the possibility, when the base of the theory has so many gaps between the transitions -before- ape to man?Why is that so difficult to understand?
Clear that up first before I can even consider giving you certain transitional characteristics that I would expect.It's a simple request, but evolutionists seem to skip that altogether. Doesn't a baby evolve into a boy, and a boy into a man without any gaps? That is obviously not a good example, however the example is just to point out a "smooth" transistion between species "without" gaps.You see, before we can deal with the ape to man transition, we need to clear up the base first. It soulnds basic, but it's extremely important. I'm sure you already know that.Now, how can I even make myself "imagine" accepting something that has not even corrected the gaps "long before" the transition between man and apes?It's like trying to prove to me that people have always ridden bicycles with square tires. And just because I see bicycles around, it does not prove that round tires were ever square.Even if you forced yourself to ride a square tire bicycle, you still have more important issues to solve. You would need the the all important steps of , pedals, bicycle frame, chair seat, LONG before you can even begin to debate about the "square" tires.Your real problem is not the evidence that you display, rather the gaps that automatically default it to not being possible.It's like claiming to sail around the world, long before you even finish building your ship, because it has holes(gaps) in its' base.How, could you expect people to believe that you sailed around the world with such a damaged ship? I guess only people who wouldn't care to drown in the middle of the ocean.People would know that your ship has problems before they aboard. Plug the gaps before you attempt to bring in customers for your world tour. Then, maybe people can possibly enjoy your evolutionary tour. Otherwise, that would be a major risk if they board without gap insurance.What-mechanism can exist that results in the production of the same patterns, in spite of their not being controlled by the same gene?

Again, no one has said we were ancestors to the Apes.The question is if there is something that has both the characteristics of the modern Apes and the characteristics of modern Man, would that be considered an Ape-Man?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, it would not be considered an Ape-Man.
Correct me if I am wrong. But, are you familiar with the following? Donald Johanson: Johanson, D.C. and Edey. M. LUCY: The Beginnings of Humankind, Simon & Schuster, New York, pp. 257,258, 1981"There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it.
The fossil hunter in the field has it. In everybody who is looking , there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that, thatis where Homo did start.You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age. ....Logial, maybe, but also biased. I was tryig to jam eidene of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain".Obviosly, this is not being objective, is it?Then he states:Johanson, ref. 2, p.277 "It is hard for me now to admit how tangled i that thicket I was. but the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence".Now, why would I consider his hypotheses over someone else?Let's consider something that Johanson about LUCY's pelvis:Johanson, D.C. Johanson, L. and Edgar, B. Ancestors: In Search Of Human origins, Villard Books, New york, 1994 "Lucy's wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave here a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern females.She didn't need a large one because here new born infant's brain wouldn't have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant's brain."Now, why wasn't AL288-1(LUCY) categorized within the chimp family?Let me quote someone who seems to have a problem with this.Hausler and Schmid, ref. 5, p.378-Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1( LUCY): Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines. Journal of Human Evolution 29:363-383, 1995, p. 363 "If AL288-1 was female, then one can exclude this species from the ancestors of Homo because its pelvis is certainly less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14[designation for a specific Australopithecus africanus fossil that is supposedly a descendant from Lucy, emphasis added]."Now, wouldn't you think that if this is correct, then the equivalent female of this species would have been even smaller-something unheard of in trying to compare this creature to modern humans?
Don't you think that the dimensions fall within "primates ?This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-27-2004 02:03 AM

Hi Nothing, Are you going to tell us how you define an Ape-Man, so that we at least know what you're looking for? We need to have a better definition than, "An Ape-Man is not a creature sharing characteristics of modern apes and humans, and an Ape-Man is not a Lucy-like creature." What is your definition of an Ape-Man?Quoting Johanson you say: If you're going to cite this quote to support your view then you have to accept all of it, including the part where he says about bias, "Everybody has it." That includes you. Lucy is not a case of evolutionists being biased and Creationists being objective. Working toward objectivity would include defining your terms, starting with Ape-Man. On the contrary, you're closing your eyes to differences. Austalopithicus afarensis has some very distinct non-ape characteristics, like the pelvis, knee, foot and junction between spine and skull. Focusing on one other characteristic, you've called Lucy a knuckle walker, yet her arms are clearly shorter than an apes. You've denied that she's intermediate, yet her arms are shorter than an ape's and longer than a human's. Here's a picture I posted in another thread (Lucy's on the left, a Lucy reconstruction is in the middle, and a human female is on the right):One can reasonably argue about intepretations of the differences between afarensis, apes and humans, but one can't deny the differences. Afarensis is clearly not the same as apes and just as clearly not the same as humans. Saying, "Lucy is just an ape like any other ape," is mere words denying reality.--Percy

Oh deary me. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.Yes, you admit it's "a bad example", but I'd have to say it's not even that: it's a completely irrelevant one.

quote:

---

First of all, it would have to have concrete evidence in the -base- of the theory before anything could get started. How could you expect me to even consider the possibility, when the base of the theory has so many gaps between the transitions -before- ape to man?

---

But you could use the same evasionary tactic that you are using with the hominid fossils. You could claim that they were separate species that only look like a progression. You are being very inconsistent.

quote:

---

Clear that up first before I can even consider giving you certain transitional characteristics that I would expect.

---

No. You claim that a transition between ape and man should look differently than Lucy. Therefore, I want the characteristics that Lucy does not possess and the list of characteristics that a true transitional should have.

quote:

---

You see, before we can deal with the ape to man transition, we need to clear up the base first. It soulnds basic, but it's extremely important. I'm sure you already know that.

---

Fine, let's clear up the base. A transitional fossil should share characteristics of both ape and human. Voila, Lucy fits.Your evasionary tactics are quite transparent.

You could laugh, I already knew it was a bad example. But you knew where I was going with it.

I'll give it to you straight forward. A real transitional-any way you wish to define it-does not exist. Therefore, no ape man exists. I already explained my reasons for it. I do not need an elaborate hypotheses-none needed.In regards to AL 288-1 (LUCY)arms. We might differ in the definition to the length of arms, and their purpose. Stern Jr, J.T. and Susman, R.L: The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus afarenesis, Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279-317, 1983-Ancestors Walked On Knuckles, BBC News, 22 March 2000"These findings of ours..all seem to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that the Hadar hominid [Lucy] was vitally dependent on the trees for protection and/or sustenance. ...A chimp has a less flexible wrist, held habitually in a knuckle walking position, flexed with the arm pronated (back of arm facing forwards). A wrist needs a stiffer structure when it is used for taking weight in that position..{p.22}."Now, they discovered that knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stablilize this joint. In their report, they noted:
"Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle -walking."This species does not have any human attributes.But the most important of these is the following by David Strait and Brian Richmond of George Washington University, Washington D.C.,
"We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations in modern African apes..I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids. ....Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day. (Richmond)This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-27-2004 03:07 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-27-2004 03:08 PM

Hmmm. Why don't you try this similar argument out: Doesn't quite add up as a valid argument does it, but you're making the equivalent argument. In fact, most of the words are yours.Or try this argument on for size: Doesn't sound very scientific, does it.Scientifically, you must define your terms. We can't have a discussion if we don't know what the terms we're using mean. If you don't like our definition of an Ape-Man, then provide us your definition, and then we will exmaine whether or not anything matching it exists.--Percy