Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive, as did the human line, then there is no reason that a representation of the rise to mankind shouldn't be around.
Neanderthal used to be used as a represntation of mid species. They were represented as such and were good evidence for the transition from ape to man. However, as we all know, this is no longer the case with Neanderthal being classified by some scientists as homo sapiens neanderthalis, a human subspecies.
The representations have changed from ape like to fully human looking in appearance. This revamp was not due to additional fossil finding. It was in response to the Neanderthal genome project. Therefore one cannot rely on representations as they reflect a bias towards what scientists think any organism would or should have looked like for evolution to be factual.
It would have been better for evolutionists if all the evidence for evolution did not keep on disappearing and some ape man was still about.
Another interesting twist to the topic is that no other organism has evolved high reasoning and perceptual capability. With all the homology around it is a shame we can't have a conversation with something like an evolved mouse or turtle.
Percy, I think evo theory relies on disappearances more than you suggest. For example there is no Lucy, no Ardi, no homo erectus or anything else in between here today, just us humans and the apes. They look fairly distinct to me.
What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today. Hence the evolutionary need for all the intermediates to have gone extinct. This is all a branching thing, Right? Yet no other group is half human. Even isolated tribes are fully human, including pygmies.
Intermediates that are proposed as intermediates are generally not intermediates at all. Let's look at Pakicetus and Indohyus, the same representation appears for both. They appear to be a variety of mouse deer when you look at the fossils without the biased sketched representation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/...rth_news/newsid_8137000/8137922.stm
The mouse deer swims in water to escape prey, and for this reason will have some aquatic traits. It has nothing to do with morphing into a whale. Then there is the next cab off the rank in Ambulocetus natans. When you look at the fossils and compare them to the skeleton of a crocodile, that's what Ambulocetus is. Ambulocetus is a variety of crocodile, and nothing more. So basically your researchers have found evidence of two totally different kinds and misrepresented them as ancestrally related. This is what I refer to as straw grabbing and wish listing, if not fraudulent misrepresentation to the community.
So you say all life is intermediate. Do you think Gould was a flip? He maintains that species go through long periods of stasis and then change and invented PE to explain the fossil record. The change is generally associated with a totally different kinds that appears not related at all, just like Indohyus and ambulocetus natans.
The genomic bottlenecks that are required to explain the lack of human genetic diversity have been sunk with the finding of the same species represented alive and well after many catastrophes including Toba and KT. I can find and post the research if you are unaware of it, although the next link speaks to a weak correlation with climatic change and extinction anyway..
"The overall picture is that the main response to major environmental changes is individualistic movement and changes in abundance, rather than extinction or speciation. In other words, the connection between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak, which is not what might have been expected from Darwin's hypothesis." http://www.newscientist.com/...haos-theory-of-evolution.html
For me the obvious and most parsinomous reason why there are no ape men around today is because mankind did not evolve from apes.
Darls at the risk of being disrespectful you are free to consider your self an ape and no different than a chimp. I on the other hand reserve the right to say that my reasoning and perceptual abilities are very different to that of an ape.
It takes an evolutionists to line up a 5 primates, including humans, and say they cannot tell the difference and that the human is not the odd one out. This is a simple game really that most children over the age of 7 years can conceptualise and achieve successfully.
Guess what...??...I can to. Too bad that you cannot..
I spoke to the fossils rather than the misrepresentation of ambulocetus natans
One of the reasons I do not frequent here much is because I am unabe to post pictures, while others can.
Do please source some pictures of the FOSSIL of ambulocetus natans and a picture of a crocodile fossil and you will see they are almost identical. Once again common sense must leave the buiding when discussing TOE. Rather than theorise natans is a variety of crocodile they have 'poofed' it into some intermediate that just looks like a crocodile.
Now I will also remind you of the misrepresentations put forward for Neanderthal the ape man. It suited your evo sketch artists to represent Neanderthal this way. You had heaps of fossils also and still Neanderthal was an ape man. With all the science and fluffing around that is what these 'smart' ones came up with.
However, with DNA retrieved from Neanderthal his has 'poofed' into a human not unlike us In fact many scientists classify Neanderthal as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. So it was not the fossils that made neanderthal human, it was not your scientists that could work this out from the fossils. The representation changed as a result of the DNA sequencing.
Now you do not have DNA from natans. The representation has been likewise misrepresented.
I note that I clearly spoke to the fossils/skeleton of natans being similar to a modern day crocodile. I wonder why you did not post these up? Answer: I am correct.
The topic is why are there no human apes alive today. I gather we are talking about mid ape/human species.
I offer whale evolution as, what I see to be, a classic misrepresentaion of the fossil evidence, which is the only way evolutionists can morph intermediates into mythical existence, as required by TOE. This is an aside to the fact that indeed primates have been ideologicaly separated as we refer to us as human and mankind and the animal kingdom primates as apes.
Today, one can easily distinguish the human ape difference between live specimens.
The onus is on evolutionists to explain the how and why. Biblical creationists know the answer to why. God wanted to and did. The how alludes to a science mankind is yet to imagine. Afterall, anyone that believes in a God, regardless of their stance on TOE, is already upholding the belief in a spirit being, the science of which is beyond human comprehension.
God only knows what Homo erectus is. It appears to be a fossil dump of varying humans and apes. Many of your representations are based on fossil fragments and a few bones.
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. As you would be aware the rounded human skull that is usually portrayed for comparisons to ape is the most different your scientists could find. In actual fact the is variety amongst the skulls of any species and huge variety in human skulls. The Australian Aborigine has eye brow ridging as do some other races, this is just variety, as these races are just as human.
Again the point being the onus is on evolutionists to explain why no ape intermediate is around today that did not quite get the conditions that drove the species all the way to mankind. No sister species of all the itermediates in the evolutionary bush survived.
Also note scientists found evidence that Toba was not so catastrophic in 2009 and whallah..in 2010 researchers found there was no need for the until now required genetic bottleneck to explain the lack of human variation. Do you see a pattern here? It is a pattern repeated throughout evolutionary history. A theory is discredited and another flavour of the month ensues to replace and explain it. That is why TOE is simply unfalsifiable. More theories just 'poof' into existence to rescusitate TOE.
So there is no reason why some of the ape midpsecies and sister species to not have survived till today looking fairly apey and not real smart.
The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year.
Falsifying TOE does not prove creation. Falsifying TOE as it stands now does not mean evolution did not happen either. What supports creation is based on research such as that by scientists like John C Sanford on entropy and other creationist dating methods and research. These are based on models not unlike yours but different assumption are used in the set up. All models are based on an assumption and use probabilities as insertion values. That is why it is referred to as theoretical modelling and not factual modelling.
I would think that of all the branching that must have occurred over the last 8 million years that some of the now extinct branches should have survived, yet not been offered the environmental or adaptive influences or drift to advance them all the way to Homo Sapiens. Why are there none stuck in a evolutionary transitional form?
If you had an ape man eg a walking Neanderthal from the earlier representations, evolution would be proven. However you need long evolutionary distances and all intermediates to have not survived to explain the clear distinction between a human and chimp, cat and dog, whale, crocodile and mouse deer.
There is no need to make a muddle and higher level quiz out of the most obvious physical trait man is not a hairy critter. That stand out in a simple test as an observed difference in a simple picture. The greater distinction is reasoning ability and perception.
I am talking about an obvious distinction between mankind and non human primates that of simply being hairy animals. If anything, I can post research that speaks to the orang being more morphologically similar to man than chimps.
You need intermediates that have disappeared. What happened to them all that they did not microadapt as observed in nature and the lab and survive in a less primitive hairy form of ape man somewhere in the wild?
I know the refute re human hair folicles. However, quite clearly there is a big difference.
You should also post one of a croc swimming which looks just like Natans with a little difference in the skull. Natans certainly looks more like a crocodile than a deer, its' supposed predecessor.
Regardless, Natans looks nothing like a deer. To believe the connection requires a great leap of faith.
There was no confusion about Neanderthal until the Neanderthal geneome project, other than was he a contributor to todays people. He was pictures everywhere as a hairy almost human until then. Your representations mean nothing. The fossils are the evidence.
The reality is I am not wrong...and you cannot explain why no other mid species was lucky enough to survive till today. Not all mid species were exposed to exactly the same environment or anything, yet not one hairy species managed to survive. Sounds like a fairytale to me.
So do evolutionists base their supportive irrefuteable assertions on evidence that winds up in the rubbish bin of delusions past. eg Once upon a time mankind evolved from knucklewalkers, once upon a time brain size was linked to bipedal walking, once upon a time Lamarkian style epigenetic inheritance was thought to be impossible, once upon a time HGT in prokaryotes was also impossible, once upon a time Darwinian gradual change was the flavour of the month. etc etc etc.
It is all assumptive, based on probabilities and will continue to change as it pleases the stance eg chimp human split 4-5myo changed to 6-8my with Ardi. Your fossils are a part of the assumption. Creationist modelling and assumptions are no worse.
I am sorry but that is rubbish. There are plenty of areas on the planet only gotton to over the last 200 years eg Australia and there are no ape people here or in Africa or anywhere else.
You do not need to explain what your theory suggests more than you need it to make sense. If niches went on towards humanity, the ones left behind still had no reason to perish. Surely if evolution were true some part-ape tribe should still be around, hobbling about like a homonid or the apey erectus. They have so conveniently disappeared in support of creationists stance to the misfortune of evolutionists.
Percy the classification of apes, does not explain why none of the off shoots, since the chimp human split, are here today.
Why did every species since the chimp human split go off into extinction? Some have answered with current theory of natural selection where the less fit or lucky go extinct.
The problem with this, Percy, is that this is not what is observed in nature. The peppered moth, for example, can revert back to light coloured as they did with environmental improvement. There was no speciation in that light and dark could still mate sucessfully....but a humans cannot revert back to an ape, over 200 years. Did light coloured moths go extinct..Not really. This is just adaptive change and is not permanent.
Cryptic species in birds shows speciation, but no extinction of other similar species. The concept of ring species also illustrates that exinction is not part of the circle. There are also wolves and many other dog kinds, while their ancestor the wolf is still here with us today. The horse and quagga all still here today etc etc.
If bipedal walking and brains were one lines selective advantage, then the other line that ended up being chimps, should have died out also without the selective, but they didn't. If the chimp line survived there is no good reason why some other homonids or homo erectus niches should not be here untill very recently.
This is why, although evolutionists have invented a theory to explain it all, the theory often makes no sense in light of what can be observed today.
Lets see how the out of Africa proponents explain this as opposed to the multiregionalists.
Even Ardi is being disputed, and about time. Even as unscientific as I am I could clearly see that Ardi did not have gracile fingers, which Lucy does. Something is amiss, although other reasons are cited as the cause for refuting Ardi as any human ancestor
There are no mid species inbetween chimps and humans. When scientists have found good fossils that do not require 'guesswork', they have found fossils of humans or apes and nothing in the middle. eg Turkana boy.
The reason there are no mid species here today is because there never were any in the first place.
You are having a harder time in understanding that the idea of extinction is not observed. eg Peppered moths were light, then dark, then light again....no extinction observed. Bird beaks change in response to varying diet but other beak holders do not necessarily go extinct.
Over the last 20,000 years the only extinction that has occured has been as a result of human interference, not natural. You have observed adaptive speciation, which creationists do not deny. They deny the observed facts will lead to macroevolution eg an ape becoming human.
I have produced research supporting no link to speciation and catastrophe. eg chaos theory.
There are only 2 ways life got here, naturally or by the hand of God.
Proof for creation is one support provided by creationist scientists such as Sanford and Sarfarti, both now ex-evolutionists. Lynn Margulis, an evolutionist, also suggests current evolutionary thinking is not sufficient to explain evolution and there are others. Poking holes in current evolutionary theory is another support for creationism.
In this representation we see what looks like natans crocodile. It is a croc with legs down. Natans is 3 meters long and meant to be the next transition after a deer mouse. It hunted like a crocodile. Natans is more like a croc, but common sense has no place here.
I know...convergent evolution will explain why things can be whatever I want them to be just like evos.
The reason why evos say its a whale is teeth, which has to do with diet not necessarily ancestry, its periotic bone which a mouse deer likely has a version of, and its nose is no better than a crocs.
It looks like a croc and it is more likely a croc relative or variation.
See all the so called transitions in whale evolution in above link. None appear related at all. Each is a totally unrelated kind of organism. This is wishlisting and faith at its best....so do not call me ignorant.