Why are there no human apes alive today?

I'll remind you AGAIN of florensiensis and Neanderthal debates deary.......Creationists arguments are likewise based on facts, and are much more parsinomous that your convoluted theories and excuses for what you find that should not be there.Error. Universidad de Navarrahttp://culturesocietypraxis.org/...p/article/viewFile/131/99So here are just 2 examples of a bunch of evolutionary researchers all having access to the same research and information, all well credentialed, and they can NOT agree on what they see, either in relation to the fossils themselves or the genomic data. It is all so irrefuteably as clear as mud.What is wishful thinking is calling any of it 'evidence'!!!! Likely, maybe & possibly calls for faith.So I'll sum up the evolutionists argument "We have no clue, but still that proves ...it all evolved."Suck this up......"Creationism, like naturalism, can be scientific, in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered scientific in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other."Is creationism scientific? | GotQuestions.orgTOE is zombie science, there never were any mid ape-human species, and that is why there are no hairy apey people here today.

So here you are as bold as brass with big words.The skull pictured is an darn ape. Homo erectus are mostly apes. You lot have heaped a bunch of totally different looking specimens into a bunch. It is rubbish. You can call it what you want, it is not human, nor on its' way to being human and neither are any homo erectus, or Ardi or Lucy. They are apes.I was not the dope that contested partial fossils and sinlge bones as being offered up for evidence of these species. You were.Your stupid totally unrelated retaliation does not hide ignorance.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

What are you on about?Please explain how non life 'poofed' into a living cell or else evolution does not exist.That is how silly your comment is!

I do not need to con the audience. Your science has done this for me. I have already stated that the creation uses a science that we are yet to comprehend. We are talking about a spirit being which far beyond our current comprehension. You have enough trouble explaining what we see here and now......Some here are so used to convoluted theories that you expect a similarly convoluted complicated model on exhibition for creation. We do not have to have the nonsense of ancestry going back to a bacteria or several, depending on which evo model you like. Remember LUCA is dead with the realisation of HGT.4066-‘APPIt does not matter that evo scientists refute creation research because they refute each other anyway! (apart from 'it all evolved')Is there evidence for a young world? - ChristianAnswers.NetIf kinds were created all we need is evidence of dating, which we have.Evidence of creative days, which we have eg Cambrian explosionAll our scientists need to work out where the fossils reside in the creation of kinds, how many kinds and varieties therein were created. The difference is the assumptions made, interpretation of the evidence and working out what actually is evidence as opposed to theoretical assertions.Ok let's talk about luck now. You have not bothered to refute even the few examples I provided.The earths position in space, it's iron core, the very reasons why earth has life and no other planet in our solar system has so much as a bacteria to report. We are very lucky, despite all the meanderings of whether or not there is life elsewhere. You have not found it.Evolution, genetic drift, catastrophes no longer seen as driving speciation,http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=100What about stomalites that were meant to oxygenate the earth. These are made with the assistance of bacteria. So life was already here and now you have to woffle on about how life not only poofed into existence, it also did so in an deoxygenated world.Do you choose to challenge the obvious because you have exhausted your defenses? LUCK played an important role in our being here and many or your researchers agree with me and NOT you. Go figure.....I am obviously not the least educated here in your own science. However many here appear totally ignorant to the various creationists stances."If evolutionists have learned anything from a detailed analysis of evolution, it is the lesson that the origin of new taxa is largely a chance event. Ninety-nine out of 100 newly arising species probably became extinct without giving rise to descendant taxa. And the characteristic of any new taxon is to a large extent determined by such chance factors as the genetic composition of the founding population, the special internal structure of its genotype, and the physical as well as biotic environment that supplies the selection forces of the new species population."http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/...Evolution_by_Accident.htmlAre you now going to assert that these evolutionary researchers that speak to the importance of luck are all fools and idiots, also?WE ARE LUCKY TO BE HERE........I WIN!

So you had better go tell your researchers that looking for the most parsinomous explanation is all crap.I am sure they will applaud you..... NOT.QuestiaMaximum parsimony (phylogenetics) - WikipediaTalk of stalks and babies is highlighting your apparent desperation!

Actually the point being that the research was trying to explain why parsinomy is not so important. Meaning...IT IS IMPORTANT.You love to strain asides. The Creation model is better supported by the evidence than TOE is. It is more parsinomous with the data, whether parsinomy is required or not."God did it" is just as scientifically robust as saying "It all evolved"."When an evolutionist sees a new hominid in the fossil record (such as australopithecine) he or she is more likely to give it a subjective title such as "the ancestor of humans", while the creationist calls it by what it really is -- an extinct ape-like creature. Most evolutionary changes supposedly occurred over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, and the evolutionist would expect there to be hundreds or thousands of intermediate forms between kinds. This just isn't the case. For example with human evolution, to go from the ape-like australopithecines to modern humans, there are only a handful of supposed intermediate forms (these are Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and archaic Homo sapiens). Few evolutionist propaganda is as humorous as the charts (trees) supposedly showing the paths of evolution; the only things shown as definite are the leaves, with a bunch of question marks and uncertain speculative paths connecting in between. "http://mysite.verizon.net/vzephl0d/The how, when, where and why of TOE remain up for grabs by any imaginative headline seeker to provide todays 'common knowledge' and flavour of the month. Too bad they fail so miserably at explaining why no hairy apey people, (like lets say the one in this picture link below), have survived anywhere untill recently.There were none..........http://www.cryptomundo.com/...tent/JohorHominidSquatting.jpg.

I will again restate in simple terms that the 'how' God created kinds is the same as the evolutionists 'how' to abiogenesis. Neither of us can explain nor prove our version of abiogenesis. Only a bigotted boofheaded hypocrite would demand a level of explanation more robust than they themselves can provide. I hope there are none here!!!Is this the only harp you can come up with...that I come up with a theory of a science we cannot comprehend or a theory of everything. Lazy you say. A thick hide may be what you have when you are unable to demonstate how abiogenesis occured.The Kinds of birds that have feathers, have feathers because they were created that way. It is the evos that have to demonstrate the dino to bird thing that some of your own researchers do not accept. Why should I?Why birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs | Daily Mail OnlineYour researchers have no idea why some organism landed. They hypothesise with never ending thoeries that you call evidence. I am sure evos can no longer tell the difference between fact and theory.If you have not heard by now the explanations of the human/chimp similarity, then you kow nothing of creationism and have not read looked at my links.

quote:

---

"But aren't humans 97% chimp?

​

The notion that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and does the data actually indicate little difference between chimps and humans? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

​

1. Similarity ('homology') is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) or against a common designer (creation). Think about a painter. Why do his or her various paintings have so many similarities? Because they had the same creator. Whether similarity is morphological or biochemical is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

​

2. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal a creator to us? No. If anything, it might indicate the existence of multiple creators instead of one.

​

3. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we survive? We must eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live. What would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for our survival.

​

4. We know that DNA in cells contains the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms have similar features we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

​

5. Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

​

6. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. The first draft announcements of the human genome were published (in Science as well as Nature) in February of 2001. The announcement of first draft chimp DNA sequencing occured in August of 2005. The data show at least 10 times as many differences between chimp and human DNA compared to the number of differences between any two given humans. The differences between humans and chimpanzees include approximately 35 million DNA bases that are different, approximately 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and another 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.

​

What if human and chimp DNA was even 99% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 1% different this still amounts to 30 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 3 million words, or 10 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

​

7. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

​

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its philosophical implications.

​

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its philosophical implications.

​

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences."

---

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzephl0d/Also your biased models reflect colour stains from a hand ful of enzymes. The Pergalen research demonstrates chimp genes are much more different that first thought.You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED#Here is some more about what rubbish your comparisons are:
Is the evolutionary tree changing into a creationist orchard? - creation.comSo I say creationists have the evidence they need and you have a mess that requires sorting.I have already shown how little you know about the fossil record and its representations. Now let's see how little you know about genomics by asking ever more silly questions.So now, smarty pants, you explain the impact of genetic drift(luck) and its importance in driving evolution. When your paper has been accepted by the scientific community you let us all know!!!! Your researchers will be greatfull because they do not currently know.I will repeat..there are no ape men around because there never were any. Simple and in line with what we see now, and without the necessary convoluted theories evos need to explain it.Edited by AdminModulous, : put quoted text into quote boxes

Well if talking to asides bothers you, perhaps you had better tell these evos here to stop harping on the asides, as this seems all they can go on about..just look at them. How many of them are on topic?....NONE.....I at least continue to say there are 1. no apey men around because there never were any. 2. The FACT that there are none around today is in line with what a creationist would expect. 3. Evolutionists have nothing more than hand waving to offer as explanations.That is perfectly on topic......Go tell your evo friends, that continue to embarrass themselves with dribbling asides, to stay on topic!!!!!!

Oh I see no paper of explanation of your recent embarrassment re the rise of life and man being lucky, nor genetic drift. All you have is circlular asides.Why do you not refute the evidence I provided to refute genetic similarity as being necessarily connected to deep ancestry? Huh? Answer: You cannot. All you are able to do is parrot off the same old lines and asides over and over.There are plenty of cambrian and precambrian eg stomolites, jellyfish still here today. There are chimps, gorrillas etc all survived untill today. But non one apey, hairy tribe found anywhere.There have been hypothesis put forward, but NO evidence. In fact it is debated still. So the creationists stance is the stronger as it does not need complicated assumptions. The fossil evidence also supports the creationists stance.I have given three points that address the topic. Now you explain why something like Neanderthal, with a bigger brain than us, went extinct? Why did all the other millions of side species in last 5 million years all go extinct? This is your problem.

Yes I have heard of 'PROBABLY out competed'.Now your statement re Neanderthal says modern decendants "were PROBABLY instrumental in the demise of Neanderthal".Creationists do not need 'probably'.Your theory suggests modern humans left Africa and found 'human like' species.Below is a link suggesting modern humans left Africa 70,000 years ago.
National Geographic MagazineYou have humans that wore jewellery and buried the dead in Isreal 92,000-115,000 years ago.
Mount Precipice - WikipediaYou use the words gracile or robust to try to make chimps out of humans, yet teeth and bone density are simply ties to the environment. For example Aboriginal teeth are different.Now there is evidence of modern humans in Isreal 400,000 years old.HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPostSo basically creationists never believed there were any mid human-ape species. Here are modern humans placed in Israel 400,000 years ago, by your dating methods."PROBABLY instrumental" is not scientific evidence, nor does PROBABLY constitute a FACT.Creationists do not need PROBABLY to explain why there are no mid human/ape species about. There are no mid species about because there never were any and that is in line with the fossil evidence and the FACT that there are none here today.So you lot have a cascade of probably's to explain what should be here but isn't, then another cascade of probably's to explain why something is there that shouldn't be. This is not science, it is faith.How many times do I have to tell you that PROBABLY, MAYBE & LIKELY is NOT scientific fact. I wonder if it will sink in this time.So the best you can do is provide probably to explain no hairy half apes around today. I require the facts alone....there aren't any!

I have stated that the difference between mankind and apes is our higher reasoning powers and perception. Mankind was created in the image of God and therefore is able to comprehend such things as an afterlife and salvation. This is something an ape cannot do.To denegrate mankind to an ape, is based on the evolutionary need to show ancestry. Evos say that skeletal and cranial morphology is similar. That is rather simplistic. When one looks to apes, regardless of the similar skeletal structure to humans, common sense must leave the room to suggest in fact we are similar. We have 4 limbs and a head in common appearance and not much more.I suggest there are no mid species fossils found. Rather they are either human or ape. I have played this line here. So my assertion is the reason there are no hairy half humans around is because there never were any, only a large variety of apes and humans.

Tigers have forward facing eyes also. It means little as far as ancestry goes.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/08/080828120312.htmWith genetic and morphological homology demonstrated between distantly related species and HGT, I'd say one can pick and choose what suits them as support or denial of common ancestry.It is very unfortunate for evos that no mid ape/human species are around today, like the famous Yeti. But there aren't, and this is a fact that creationists expect and have found without the requirement of 'probably' to explain.

It is true that evolutionists are the only ones that can place a chimp and human side by side and say they are the same. It appears to be you that is blinded by faith.Creationists can clearly see the obvious defference.Any kind will obviously appear closer to one species than another. Percy already suggested that I must admit we are closer to chimps than any other species. I challenged this by posting research that speaks to the closer morphological similarity to orangutans.To suggest that the species that most closely resembles mankind is ape is one statement. To look at both side by side and say they are similar is a totally different claim, one of which is ridiculous.

I am looking forward to Lucy's reply.I would like to add this....."What my colleagues and I did was apply all of these new methods to the problem of the origin of modern birds, with each method making different assumptions about how mutation rate changes across the tree," Brown said. He hoped the analysis would narrow the gap between fossil and molecular data, but in fact it only reinforced the rock-clock split by underscoring the finding that modern birds arose more than 100 million years ago."http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/02/080205171749.htmSo once again I have provided evidence of an evolutionary mess.The bible states bird kind was created before the majority of land animals. The biggest mess in your classification system is birds. Birds and reptiles are also not settled cladistically. As you should be aware cladistics is favoured by many scientists as opposed to the Linnaeus system, although not without its problems also. Cladistics favour monophylies. Monophylies are akin to created kinds.Cladistics - Wikipedia
Monophyly - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBasically the trunk of your evolutionary tree is the divide of created kinds that are able to adapt by in-kind variation which is limited.This is further supported by research such as this...a limit to continuing adaptation where fitness levels out and ceases to adapt, while contuinuing to aquire mutations. Creationists accept speciation and observed evidence, but they deny what is observed leads to macroevolution. Macroevolution is what evos must assume, and cannot prove due to time contraints or whatever. The fact being it is assumed and not proven.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/11/091102171726.htmHomo is a monophyly and in line with biblical creation. There are no mid species, only apes and humans, now and always.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Percy what you say sounds so convincing on face value.The problem being genetic and morphological homology between non related species. means evos get to accept what suits them and then have a theory to explain what doesn't fit.Many traits have arisin independently and it is about time evolutionists stopped looking at the evidence that suits them and inventing excuses via theories about what doesn't. eg accelerated genomic regions on the Y chromosome.Chaos theory, homology and homoplasy, speak to the mess and confounding variables relating to comparisons across closely related and distantly related species.The chaos theory of evolution | New Scientist
Homology - Wikipedia(biology)
Homology and homoplasy :: features and relationships - john hawks weblogSeriously, this looks like a game of pick what you want that suppports TOE and invent a theoretical excuse for that which doesn't.Creationists do not need the mumbo jumbo. The facts support the creation, including a monophyletic group of human beings being the only group alive today as expected.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.