The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

quote:

---

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.

---

Then why are you arguing about Lucy's ape like characteristics? According to you, God could have made an ape that had a skeleton that looked exactly like a humans and it still would be an ape. If you say that an ape-man transitional does not exist because of your religious convictions, then why are you making scientific arguments? You might as well claim that the sky doesn't exist and therefore it can't be blue.

Your argument is basically based on the "similarities". That is no reason to conclude that we come from "common descent". Of course I believe that both sides are bias. Why wouldn't I believe that? It's only obvious wouldn't you say?However, my point with quoting Johanson was just to show that your "icon" is not "objective" either. When two arguments seem to cancel each other out, and both sides seem to be bias, then what is the conclusion?If that's the case, then, the conclusion should prove that these similarities have always been "similar"(designed). Oh, I'm leaning towards design eh? If these similarities are being observed as I speak, why wouldn't I? It's repeatable and observable, before both our eyes. That was as easy as apple pie wouldn't you say?
Why do we make things more difficult?Can you observe "any" of your claims as we speak? I see, you need millions of years to "see" that which cannot be observable. I showed you the evidence, however you need time(millions of years)?Would you agree that if I claimed that a worm could turn into a human being in one day that people would laugh at me? However, if you claim that a worm can change into a human being in "millions" of years they would believe it?Of course they would believe it, because you added the magic word "millions". Is anybody going to "observe" this change to prove otherwise? Then, how can you prove it? The evidence is before us, prove it "now".I do not see any support for evolution in your case. The creation model supports an "abrupt" appearance, and that is what we see even now. The fossils support an "abrupt" appearance, not a gradual process of "evolution".Again, if similarities is all you have in the fossils, then prove to me that these similarities evolved, and not appeared abruptly, right now. Go to a zoo and see for yourself who has evidence to support their side. I can't wait, I cannot live long enough to "observe" your evidence, however, you can mine.Isn't there any examples that you know of, which changed independently, yet produced a variety of similar designs?This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-28-2004 12:57 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-28-2004 12:59 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-28-2004 01:09 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-28-2004 01:11 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-28-2004 01:15 PM

I think it is time you defined what would constitute a "link" between apes and humans. You have suggested that they don't exist. Since you are unable to define just what one would look like your argument isn't progressing.If you find this too difficult to do while keeping up with the discussion I'll be glad to suspend you for a day or two while you think about it.

Nothingness,I think what people are asking is this:Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that humans did evolve from a species of ape, perhaps similar to the modern chimpanzee. Then what would the "missing links" look like?

The only way I can get out of this repetitive "cycle", is by going into the levels of mutations, and punctuated equilibrium. Those steps supposedly occurred "before" the "similar characteristics" of monkey/ape/man.The missing links are actually more obvious in these other stages, than in this higher level of evolution(changes). How can I explain something without going in circles, when in fact I have no choice, it automatically goes without saying.I ask for "abrupt" appearances, and obviously abrupt appearances cannot be shown at this level. Why? Because your point is to show similar characteristics, and lay the fossils of lucy etc. as evidence.We can get out of this circular argument, just by going deeper into the root of it. How did we get to this level of change without "first" having to cross the bridge of mutations, and punctuated equilibrium?I guess the next step would have to be going backwards in time to see if the roots of the tree are firmly set. Otherwise, the higher fruit cannot be valid.

That is utter nonsense. A lot of words strung together.You have beena asked to define what a "link" between modern man and a relative of both us and apes would look like. What would you need to see to agree that the specimen had characteristics of the "ape-man" that this thread is about.This description doesn't have to have words like "mutation", "punctuated equilibrium" or anything else you mentioned.Do not carry on with out describing just what it is that you say doesn't exist! Then you can show why, from your understanding of evolutionary theory that is what you would expect to see as some evidence (even if not conclusive) for our evolution.It is your turn to step up to the plate with something other than assertions or, in the most recent case, complete Alice-in-wonderland, nonsense.

Do you think that the following simple question is equilvalence to yours? QUESTION: Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer only with Yes or No.Some questions are not questions at all, rather traps. If you answered the previous question "directly" you would be in serious trouble with the law. Obviously, you would need to clearify yourself, by stating "I do not beat my wife".However, some questions do not allow you to do that quite easily without commiting yourself to their side. Now, let me ask you your question in return.So what characteristics would you expect in a "similar design" hypothesis between apes and humans if creation were correct?Enjoy

Excellent question, Nothingness. What do you predict?Let me make a prediction based on evolution.Just from Linnean taxonomy, humans are very similar to apes. So we should find fossils that are intermediate between ape and humans.Now here is the observation.Consider Australopithecus afarensis. It is the size of a chimpanzee. It is obvious an ape-like fossil. It had a brain about the size of a chimpanazee. It had locking wrist bones, which helps a chimp knuckle walk. But in relation to its size, its arms were intermediate in length between chimp and human -- if it were a knuckle walker, it would be very uncomfortable one. But it wasn't a knuckle walker -- the pelvis and the feet indicate that it was bipedal - a human trait. It had long canines like extant apes, but otherwise the shape of the jaw and teeth were intermediate between humans and chimps.Let me make another prediction.There should be fossils that bridge the gap between A. afarensis and modern humans, both in morphology and time.Observation: Now we have Homo erectus. It is definitely bipedal, with no traces of knuckle walking or arboreal behavior that A. afarensis had. It was more robust. The cranium was much larger, even approaching the very low end of range of modern humans. The face and teeth were much more human like. Yet it wasn't human -- even I can look at a skull and tell that. And it wasn't an ape (except in the sense that all of us tailless primates are apes -- you know what I mean) -- even I can look at the skull and tell that. In fact, creationist scientists themselves debate whether H. erectus is human or ape. Best of all, it was dated, by means from other fields of science that have nothing to do with evolution, to be intermediate in age between A. afarensis and modern humans.Now, based on your hypothesis of a common designer, what do you predict? And how are your predictions sufficiently different from that of the theory of evolution to distinguish them?Now, according to the theory of evolution, there was a common ancestor to chimpanzees and A. afaranesis. If and when we find such fossils that show intermediate characteristics between A. afarensis and chimpanzees, and if and when it is dated older than A. afarensis this will be another confirmation of evolution.But does your theory of a common designer predict such fossils will be found? If so, why? If not, then what does it predict? That is how one tests a scientific theory.

Hi Nothing,Just trying to stick to the topic of your thread, there's not much here I can reply to. I still think you have to define your terms, "Ape Man" in this case. Chiroptera has constructed an excellent presentation of examples of how the rest of us think of transitionals in Message 158, and I suggest you respond to that. There are other threads where we could discuss your other issues about common descent and mutations and so forth.If your only point is that common characteristics do not prove evolutionary relatedness, I agree with you. But evolutionary theory predicts we should find shared characteristics in the fossil record had evolution happened. Since that's what we do find, it increases our confidence in the theory.--Percy

quote:

---

So what characteristics would you expect in a "similar design" hypothesis between apes and humans if creation were correct?

---

I would not expect the gradients of of ape like and human like characteristics to be exhibited because there should be no link between radiometric dating and design. In other words, I would not expect the earliest fossils to be the most ape like and the most recent fossils to be the most human like when they are dated using techniques independent of morphology (ie radiometric dating).Also, I would expect a mosaic that does not move in one general direction. If "common designer" were true then the most recent fossils would be expected to be a mix of very ape like characteristics such as a narrow hip and very human like characteristics such as large brain size and a small lower jaw. I would also expect to see similar changes in higher taxa, such as feathers on mammals and reptiles with gills.

If the idea of "similar design" were true we would see similar constructs for similar tasks. But when we look at the record, that is not what we see at all. Instead, what we find are a variety of solutions, none perfect, all just barely good enough, and almost no reuse of very good or great designs.That points away from design and towards evolution. Changes came along, they were just good enough to give the critter a slight advantage, and so were continued.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have replies.--Percy

You still trust radioactive dating? Simply put, the decay of uranium if you wish to call it that, speeds up when water is involved. Therfore, gives false dates. (Look at samples of Mt. St Helens and the eruption in the Hawaiian Islands I belive in 1800-approximates 200 years when dated)It gave millions of years, when in fact it was only 200(+-)years. I cannot discuss further. You know what I mean.Now, in regards to the monkey/ape/man issue. You basically wanted me to give you an answer that would have defaulted my answer into the "similir trait" category.Which similarities do no prove common descent. Why? Another reason besides the ones I've stated earlier in the topic.
One example would be the -mansupial and the plancental- lineages. These two species supposedly changed from a mouse-like species, yet produced a variety of similar designs.Some independent produced species would be wolves, and anteaters, etc.
NOw, if you agree with biology and its ruled by contigency rather than necessity, then why do we find "duplicated" designs?When similarities are found within different species, you seem to categorize them as a "convergent process". Obviously, these convenient explanations might seem valid to you, however you must acknowledge that your conclusion only presupposes your theory.And because of that, I do not think it's strong evidence. Even the similarities that you claim(general)do not even share the "same" development patterns the way one would imagine. That makes them very doubtful, and inconsistent.Consider the following: The Rana fusca and Rana esculents species. They have similar eye lenses, however they formed differently in embroylogical development. Would you be blind to the fact that these two species evolve their eyes independently?These similarities and many others-even the monkey-ape-human similarites, "DEVELOPE DIFFERENTLY". They even arise from different genes, which would clearly challenge any claim that they cold have risen from through common descent.One question that was never answered is the following:
"WHAT MECHANISM CAN EXIST THAT RESULTS IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE SAME PATTERNS-EVEN THOGH THEY ARE NOT CONTROLLED "WHATSOEVER" BY THE SAME GENE?

quote:

---

You still trust radioactive dating? Simply put, the decay of uranium if you wish to call it that, speeds up when water is involved. Therfore, gives false dates. (Look at samples of Mt. St Helens and the eruption in the Hawaiian Islands I belive in 1800-approximates 200 years when dated)
It gave millions of years, when in fact it was only 200(+-)years. I cannot discuss further. You know what I mean.

---

I actually discuss the Mt. St. Hellens sample in this thread. Just a teaser: The rocks that Austin sampled had inclusions of older rock. And also, he used K/Ar dating which is inferior to Ar/Ar dating for young rocks. He used a sample that was contaminated and then used the incorrect radiometric dating technique. Not the best way to run a dating methodology.

quote:

---

Which similarities do no prove common descent. Why? Another reason besides the ones I've stated earlier in the topic.
One example would be the -mansupial and the plancental- lineages. These two species supposedly changed from a mouse-like species, yet produced a variety of similar designs.

---

and . . .

quote:

---

One question that was never answered is the following:
"WHAT MECHANISM CAN EXIST THAT RESULTS IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE SAME PATTERNS-EVEN THOGH THEY ARE NOT CONTROLLED "WHATSOEVER" BY THE SAME GENE?

---

The answer, as you have mentioned, is convergent evolution. There is often only a few solutions to a single problem, and this is why we see similar designs in separate species. Let's take the case of the tasmanian wolf and the north american wolf. Their design looks very similar since both are predators. However, when the DNA is examined the tasmanian wolf is MUCH more closely related to kangaroos and wallabies than it is to any plancental mammal. In fact, wolf DNA and human DNA are as close of a match as wolf DNA and tasmanian wolf DNA. If it was a common designer then you would expect the tasmanian wolf and north american wolf to be the most closely related. However, this is not the case. If the tasmanian wolf and the north american wolf had a common designer, and a common design, then why is their DNA so different? Why would a designer use such different DNA in the same design? That is the question.

quote:

---

Even the similarities that you claim(general)do not even share the "same" development patterns the way one would imagine. That makes them very doubtful, and inconsistent.

---

Could you explain this in more depth with references please? Are you saying that hips in men and apes develop from different centers of ossification? What exactly are you contending?

quote:

---

Consider the following: The Rana fusca and Rana esculents species. They have similar eye lenses, however they formed differently in embroylogical development. Would you be blind to the fact that these two species evolve their eyes independently?

---

Could you supply me with references online, please?And getting back to the original question, what characteristics would qualify a fossil as being intermediate between us and the common ancestor of chimps, gorillas, and humans? You are still skirting this issue.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-31-2004 03:36 PM

Sorry Charlie, but those all support the concept of evolution rather than creation.The fact that there are different solutions to similar environmental issues shows the direct result of random chance filtered by natural selection.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion