Why are there no human apes alive today?

Hi everyone.Can anyone explain to me why these Homo erectus skulls are classified as Homo Erectus? These have fangs as you can see.Is having fangs, or not, any part of being Homo Erectus?Given the sexual dimorphism of many non human primates how do you apply this knowledge in ascertaining some range for male and female skulls that are often very different eg gorilla?The reason I ask is many times only teeth or a tooth is found and they are often classified on some basis.So let's say researchers found a solitary canine and dated it to say 2mya can your researchers tell it is human?How would they know it is not an ape tooth, given apes were around also?I am also very curious as to why there is such a lack of chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record.These are very obviously apes to me. They show huge discontinuity to mankind today and appear to be demonstrating nothing more than the sexual dimorphism that may be expected within ape variation. Although this is not always clear cut, I am curious why these have not been classified as the decsendants of chimps or some other non-human primate.

Granny Magda. let me tell you that I have scoured the forums and have friends I caught up with last night that have years of experience on foums. Most are evolutionists. I asked them about this last night and they have never heard of anything more ridiculous.I also have never heard of anything more ridiculous. This is a game you are setting up apparently out of desperation.I have asserted a theoretical asumption, mankind was created, and reflected the evidence that supposts same. If it is irrefuteable and unfalsifiable then I have done a great job of it as now it is not unlike your own theory of common descent which is also unfalsifiable.See if you can address my last post re the skulls with fangs because I think it is a nonsense that these, and many others, be classified as any sort of Homo regardless of any other features that could be derived due to diet or environment etc. The fangs are definitive in being ape-like rather than human like.You are trying to set up some bogus precedent that I am not going to engage in. So if you intend to waste the post space left with this ridiculous line then I can do no more than ignore it.Let me say this for fun...A human intermediate should not have the capacity for sophisticated speech and their fossil, when they are found sufficiently complete, will reflect same. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Nuggin says I believe we have been restricted. I have been cautioned for less than this. Are you trying to get me into trouble here? I am fairly clear that it is I that will pay the price.We are restricted in our discussion. If you have a problem with that take it up with admin.I will not find it hard to find the discontinuity between a dinosaur and a bird. Baramins works differently to the species and Linnaeus system and it is just as well because it is a mess anyway. If not then you will have no trouble answering my skull questions posted earlier. The variation of baramins I use is not the same as you have experienced. As you should be aware I oppose some creationists re Erectus. Maybe on another thread after I am done with this one I will be happy to engage in debate about it."Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/02/100209183335.htmThis article shows that even your evolutionary researchers are not happy with the current dino to bird thing. Yet if I err you will try to pin this as a total refute.If this is where you hope to head then let me say your theory of evolution has been falsified hundreds of times at least.I have shown why the best fossil evidence you have for human ancestry can be just as easily classified as an ape.In the end there will be no resolve as it is facing off theory against theory, your 100 years worth against my 5 minutes. However we will not get anywhere if we broaden the discussion as this alone will last for weeks with no resolve as to whether or not there are intermediates.In other words, my being able to apply my version of baramins effectively or not, has no bearing on whether or not human-apelike intermediates ever existed.What I lke most about evolutionists is their constant request for perfect clarity when they themselves have none.Pages are slipping away, and so far and only one poster, I think it was Malcolm, has come close to entering into anything that looks like a discussion.Can you answer my skull questions? Or are just good at asking a plethora of questions with little knowledge of the science you are defending?Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Capt StormfieldAt least you have responded with some sense. You also could not respond without once again implying ignorance. Dentition is to do with diet and environment, not the rise to humanity. As you can see in the homo erectus skull above there are very human teeth in an obviously ape head. The canines look nothing like the ones you defended as being obviously human. This has nothing to do with being scientifically educated. It has alot to do with not being blind.Apart for your reply I see no more here worth responding to. Blevins finally appeared after his huge challenge to me has become fluff.I have tried to kick off a challenge and your reply nor any other has opened the door to any discussion still. This is going to be a game of disrespect. None of you are interested in creationist vews, you just wish to use creationists as whipping boards at the hands of a control freak that allows you to continue unmoderated.The thead asks why there are no intermediates, I have offered an explanation and provided evidence that none of you have refuted so far.Today was the day I decided a couple of weeks ago as my last day here. It is too bad I was suspended yet again.As creationists can see this evolution myth is easily dismissed. It is easily dismissed no matter what sort of creationist you are. All these people have is theoreticals that can be hypothesised into showing mankinds closest living ancestor is a turtle if they needed to.Thanks Portillo and others for your support, but there is nothing here for me to learn with this calibre of evolutionists on board.EvC is not for everyone and it is most certainly not for creationists that can defend their stance.Farewell.Edited by Admin, : Fix image dBCode, remove duplicate.