Why are there no human apes alive today?

This is how easy it is to misrepresent a fossil skull.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/03/070324133018.htmAs you can see in the link a researcher can reconstruct a face as it suits them.

So Dr Adequate the results sit fine with you do they? Well these sit fine with me also as they demonstate that apes are more closely related to each other than to humans."and the very strong experimental evidence that, in some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than any of them is to humans."
Page Not Found - HolySmoke!All this nonsense on ERV's demonstrates is that organisms were exposed to the same virus eg Hendra, swine flu, HIV. It is a huge fluff to suggest that the only way organisms get markers for virus is by common decent. It is a bigger fluff to use this nonsense as evidence for common decent.Here is a link that demonstrates HIV is not an ERV.New myth debunked: HIV is an endogenous retrovirus | AIDSTruth.orgI'd say a stack of organisms were bit by mozquitoes is all your ERVs demonstrate.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

I am about to head off for a week or so but I would like to respond properly to you when I return, if the thread is still going.I will post links to creationist dating methods and give examples of the flaws in your dating methods.I will say this, I am not a total YEC.Dating tree rings is more precise that carbon dating and tree rings go back 9,000 years.ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York TimesWith Carbon dating you need closed systems which you have really no idea if this is so, and you need to know the carbon composition at the time the organic matter was alive. You cannot possibly know and can only best guess.Other problems I will speak to is the use of the fossil to date strata which occured with the Jehol birds. Chinese fossil layers and uniformitarian re-dating - creation.comThe dates for the Confuciusornis sanctus
birds and strata were pushed forward to suit. I would say this is is a tad biased. Using your own theory to reclassify fossils to suit your own theory is hardly what I would call robust evidence of dates.Using fossils to date strata is of course based on a preconceived assumption of redetermined ancestry. Dating for the human chimp split is anywhere between 4-8my and each researcher stands by the date they came up with.Forbidden
http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htmHere is Carbon used to date the earth to 100,000 years. Much is based on assuptions that are simply different to yours.
http://ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.htmlI believe Mankind has been here for around 6,000 years because of the biblical geneology spoken to. As long as kinds were created it does not matter how long they have been here because a day is simply a period of time. However I will defend the biblical order of the creation of kinds, which leads to the misfit in cladistics eg lizards and birds.ZenMonkey this is a worthy post.....I will take this up when I get back from holidays...YIPPEEEE!Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

I understand that any ERV evidence that puts apes as being more closely related to each other than mankind is ignored.I can also work out for myself without a degree in science that if virus like Hendra goes unchecked this is a virus that could spread from bat to horse to human, leave markers, yet has nothing to do with common descent.
The models that you use to sort this stuff are biased and are full of insertion values that will give you the results you need to see.I have posted evidence that HIV is NOT endogenous and it is one of your leading examples of ERV's that demonstrate the chimp human link.., now falisified.Look ...it is all just guesswork and playing around with algorithims, and not sufficiently robust that one should shed their current beliefs system in favour of evidence such as this.

Hey ...I think the reason why posters have played the "we can prove evolution' line eg ERV's is at least partly due to an inability to robustly provide evidence or supported theory as to why there are no hairy apey creatures around today. In other words, the theories as to why erectus and earlier homonids went extinct often changes.ERV evidence is convoluted mathematical nonsense where your researchers propose deletions and all sorts of assertions to explain why some ERV's are not apparent in all apes or are not found where they should be.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/06/070621140809.htmI have provided research that suggests Erectus went extinct in all other countries apart from Africa, prior to the second wave of human migrations. According to this research below there was no cohabitation either. You do not know why. You may theorise but you cannot say for sure.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/06/110629181853.htmSo we are left with the African Homo erectus eg Turkana Boy sometimes classed as eregaster. I am alledging Turkana Boy is an ape. The reason I alledge this is the skeleton has the facial morphology of an ape. I have also provided evidence that flaced morphology in apes has been around for at least 12my with Lluc.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htmOne poster put up the Lluc fossils. Fine, however it is very interesting how many here will belittle and dispute research findings from your own evo scientists when it does not suit you Much, if not most your fossil evidence for human ancestry is based on fragmentary evidence and portrayed in articles and papers by representative sketches that you are happy to use when they align with your argument.It appears to me that the reconstructed Lluc, sketched to be simply some kind of ape, has less pronagnathism than this Turkana Boy evos suggest is supposedly becoming human. A side view of the Turkana skull illustrates this. The skeleton also resembles the morphology of an ape. The legs protrude past the hip bones just like a gorilla's and has the robustness of a gorilla type creature. It is not human, nor is Turkana Boy becomming human.Other erectus examples, including small fragments meant to represent a whole species eg Java man skull cap, are also only apes sketched up to look like they are becoming human. They are all apesBelow is an article that suggests erectus is even more gorilla like that previously thought."Significantly, the variation in size of East African Homo erectus fossils, from the petite new skull to a large specimen discovered previously at Olduvai Gorge in neighbouring Tanzania, almost rivals that shown by modern gorillas. In gorillas males are much larger than females, and this sexual dimorphism is related to their strategy of having multiple mates, observes co-author Susan Antn. The new Kenyan fossil suggests that, contrary to common belief, this may have been true of Homo erectus as well. Because great sexual dimorphism is thought to be a primitive, or ancestral, feature during human evolution, the diminutive new find implies that Homo erectus was not as human-like as once thought."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070813093132.htmI've got to tell you guys that I can hardly believe that well educated researchers get so bamboozled by fossils that are no more than varieties of apes. Look at the skulls pictures in the articles. They look absolutely nothing like a human skull at all. These are the remnants of ape skulls.I have previously mentioned your lack of chimp, gorilla etc ancestor fossils. I strongly suggest that any ape or variety thereof have been scooped up and thrown in the human line. Ardi, now disputed as being a human ancestor, but is now being seen as an ape ancestor is an example of these researchers doing so.I have discredited your fossil evidence for human ancestry to apes. I conclude that there are no mid ape/human species alive today because there never were any.Any on topic refute evolutionists can provide is only ever changing and debated theory as to why none have survived. The fact is that none are here today.Hence I maintain of the many assertions as to why no ape men are around today, mine is the stronger as it is based on discreditation of the current Homo fossil evidence and does not require guesswork.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

OOOHHHH!! You poor dear Nuggin. You sound frustrated. "Bullshit" isn't a refute of substance.I have looked at the ridge browed ape fossils in the article. One would have to be blind to suggest it was anything other than an ape. Even the article suggests its traits are more primitive than generally purported. It appears you have taken the liberty of ignoring research that is uncomfortable for you.This thing below in Wiki likewise is an ape. Homo erectus - WikipediaIn fact this fossil above deemed Homo Erectus may be similar to Lluc the flat faced ape. For goodness sake look at it. What on earth would make you think this thing was on its way to humanity. It is an ape. It cannot light nor control fires whichg is a complex task without a lighter or matches. It is a seriously non-credible claim.Look at the hips and the legs joints sticking out. It even resembles a gorilla. It had an ape head. The rib cage is barrelled like an ape. Seriously folks, to some creationists this looks like straw grabbing at best. I have no idea why any creationist would purport Turkana Boy to be human, let alone evolutionists. Look at a side view of Turkana Boy. It is an ape that evos have tried to make a little human. The article shows the many sketches of Turkana Boy and they vary from ape to human looking. I believe the full skeleton is a mix of bones anyway. Turkana Boy is an ape. It does not represent the skeletons of some African tribes as these Erectus fossils have marked and pronounced ape like primitive features, that is to say the few fossils you have that make up a plethora of species!!!!Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

I do not understand what you are asking. It appears you are asking me to validate the crazy current taxonomic system in No 1. There is no relatedness between ape and man. Rather either genomically or morphologically some species/kinds are going to be more similar to another than some. This does not show ancestry. It says an ape is more similar to a human than a dog etc and as would be expected the creative blueprint for an ape and a human are closer than others, the chimp having having a 30% difference in comparison. See Wiki chimp genome project. It does not demonstrate ancestry.No 2 is the same. There is no relatedness. Rather the appearance of modern humans in African and Israel, possibly as faar back as 400,000 years acording to your inacurate dating methods, is supportive of the creation of mankind as they are today.I certainly hope I am not being asked to classify every one of these apes as a chimp or gorilla, as some basis of refute to my argument. If this is the case TOE and its Linnaeus is long dead as it often contradicts phlyogenic classifications also. and does not have all the answers by a long shot.There is no relatedness of Erectus to mankind. Australlepithicus, Ardi, Lucy all your homonids are a variety if apes and decendant from the initial creation of God. A kind is the intial creation if God and ists' decendants. I do not need to classify them all to resolve this debate.There are no intermediates. Mankind is mankind. Apes are Apes. Mankind should be taken out of homonids and all these so called erectus and other homonid fossils asssigned to either extinct species of ape or ancestors of todays non human primates, just like Ardi an early APE representative, is NOT human and needs to be reassigned."Many scientists, including anthropologists, continue to use the term hominid to mean humans and their direct and near-direct bipedal ancestors."Hominidae - WikipediaHomonidae is a silly classification anyway as Ardi the now ape on its way to apeism was partly bipedal. Lets see if your researchers start to back pedal Ardi back to fully arboreal life in the near future at the sound of this current ridiculousness.We're Sorry - Scientific AmericanI cannot defend any of your taxonomic classifications, I simply have to work with them, as Baraminology is in its' early stages.There is discontinuity between these Erectus fossils and Australepithicines, no chin, they have many ape traits, barelled chests, legs that protrude past the hip bones, long arms, pronounced brow ridging outside of modern human variation and pronagnathism and are simply varieties of apes that should be linked to Lluc's decendants that adapted to the environment and diet, rather than thrown into the Homo or human ancestral line.This is as good a theory for the classification of these Erectus as the evo maybe's and likely's you offer for their demise.Mankind is in a Baramin of its own with Modern Humans including all races that are within the range of human variation we still see here today.There are no intermediates between ape an mankind and this is why you find none around today.Admin....Is this what you are requesting?????Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

Your own researchers debate these fossils and where they should be. However I am not surprised by hypocricy and requesting more clarity from a creationist than evolutionists themselves can supply. It appears to be a common theme of yours."E" is the only human in your stupid list, many of which are reconstructions from fragments and overactive imaginations to begin with...!!!!!..like Neanderthal the ape man of 20ya.

Pathetic..Dr Adequate..as I said already if I cannot change my mind TOE is long dead and zombified.Turkana Boy is an ape and your straw grabbing is hilarious.....as are your personal attacks that mean nothing to me at all.You are just another that has sucked all this nonsense up by the gallon.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

I believe I have. Baramins defined by YECs suggest discontinuity as a means of defining kinds. Heavy brow ridges, The face was prognathous, and the protruding jaws supported large molar teeth but lacked a chin, a long, low skull, with little forehead. Homo erectus had a small pelvis and could not give birth to the big brained infants purported by later supposed species. The neural info indicated they did not have speech. These were not human traits but traits that makes them continuous with other non human primates. That is sufficient clarification, unless you are after the theory of every fossil from little creationist me.....Bits of fossils should not be reconstructed by a researchers predetermined presumptions eg Java man totally reconstructed from as few bones and partial skull. This is straw grabbing and using the straw grab as evidence of more straw grabbing.I do not think it fair that evos request more of creationists than they themselves can provide. It is hypocritical to do so.What makes you think that any fossil that lacks eybrow ridging is anything less than a variation of Samatran orangutang or juvenille that do not have ridging or Lluc's relative, with a flatter face morphology likely due to diet? The answer is nothing other than your own predetermined theories. Eg Lluc cannot be in the human line despite facial morphology akin to Homo because it is 12 million years old and predates the human/chimp split?Is Turkana Boy erectus or eragaster? What's the difference? There is still debate from your own.You lot have no classifications system really for these skulls. Rather the fossil is used to provide the dates in many cases to suit yourselves. When dating is done and there are traits that should not be there eg Lluc...poof, it remains an ape with ....what is it this time....Convergent evolution as the excuse. This is hardly robust science!I am uneducated in the sciences. I likely have more credentials in my field of social sciences, including research methods, than any here and probably pull a larger pay packet than most. So Dr Adequate is no more adequate than I. I have excellent reasoning ability and perception and know that I am not any sort of ape. I can control fire a complex task that simpletons are not going to figure out for themselves without a more intelligent teacher. Therefore...I am not offended.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Quote box missed including first paragraph.

Dear.. I know perfectly well why creationists think Turkana Boy is human. I was going along for the ride. However on looking at the side view and using the great reasoning ability God gave me I can plainly see that he is an ape.Some Creationists actually think these reconstructons mean something or are based on some sort of science. They aren't....and this is likely their folley.

IamJoseph said Are you pointing to Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium? Some evo researchers are gradualists and others aren't. Given that evolutionary theory is meant to be obviously apparent to any educated person it is a shame that they do not agree on the 'how' and 'why' of it all.Here is a link that speaks to Gould and Dawkins that have access to the same information and research but disagree on many points. Regardless they both believe 'it all evolved' so it must be a fact.Dawkins vs. Gould - WikipediaI have seen research that speaks to catastrophes eg Toba, not being as catastrophic as first thought. My understanding is that genetic bottlenecks were required to explain the lack of human genetic variation once upon a time.Of course once it was demonstrated that Toba was not so catastrophic, with many species remaining present in more recent layers, off went the researchers to find a new theory to explain it.Now some are asserting that the human population size was around 18,500-26,000 and they reject any model that puts the human population above this size. This was the human population size around the world at 1.2mya, so there is no need for a bottleneck. Then of course some researchers need to deal with the mimimum effective population size of any group, if they believe in this theory, while making sure the numbers do not drop to the point of extinction.Just a moment...
Toba catastrophe theory - WikipediaSeriously these researchers can come up with anything they want. As soon as some of the common thinking is descredited along will come another so called Fact of evolution as flavour of the year.All this is based on convoluted algorithims where these researchers think they can guess the sex lives, interbreeding and promiscuity of any species. In actual fact they have no idea but will find the values that make it all look pretty to those that actually think they know what they are doing with these models that change like the wind.Effective population size - WikipediaSo these researchers are still scratching their heads over what exactly lead to an ape becoming human and why. Was it 5mya or 8mya? Brains initially were meant to drive bipedalism but this is now refuted...was it Savannah?Most seem convinced that whatever happened apes and men were certainly not created. The 30% human/chimp difference, the remarkable differences in the Y chromosome, the 10% difference is genomic size and surface, the clear and obvious differences between human and chimp today despite mtDNA and skeletal similarity etc has not steered them toward seeing evidence of the creation of kinds and asking the right questions.So perhaps not over billion years, but certainly over the past 5 million years researchers actually have no certaintly, but much guesswork, as to what was supposed to turn an ape into a human either environmentally or genetically, why they see stasis in multiple species cohabitating for long periods of time, why one species did better than any other, and how....and this means it is all a reality and fact. Strange isn't it?It would be much simpler for these researchers if they understood the reason why they are having so much trouble is because there never were any intermediates between an ape and human.

Dr Adequate says It is interesting that your refute is based on posing more questions to me, THAT I HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH, particularly given all the unanswered ones evolutionary researchers have and debate about eg Dawkins & Gould.Perhaps rather than evos trying to bolster the image of credibility by posing an never ending list of questions at me, you may try a novel idea and answer some of the questions around the how and why's yourself! Perhaps you or other evos can sort it all out for Gould and Dawkins, now that one is deceased and make headlines for the next flavour of the year.I'd be interested to hear how you resolve the research that suggests small populations and no requirement for bottlenecks into the Gould and Dawkins debate. Please don't forget to publish your work, perhaps these leading researchers missed something that was easy for you to see.If you look back on the thread this, No1) has already been thrashed out. I have already asserted all your so called intermediates are not intermediates at all. I have spoken to the discontinuity of Turkana Boy and other Homo erectus compared to mankind only a few pages ago and here you are appearing to be ignorant of the entire conversation.Do not forget many of your mythical intermediates have gone up in evolutionary smoke eg Darwinius, Ardi, and maybe even Homo Erectushttp://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/03/100302131719.htm
Page not found | TIME
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/06/110629181853.htm)I cannot believe you are asking me why there are no intermediates after I have stated a plethora of times that there WERE NO INTERMEDIATES. It is indeed your convoluted nonsense that is required to explain why the heck not one of them was fortunate enough to survive. The answer is simple for creationists.Let me repeat it again...THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATE APE-HUMANS BECAUSE THERE NEVER WERE ANY. THEY ARE ALL VARIETIES OF APES AS CAN BE SUPPORTED BY A PLETHORA OF DISCONTINUITIES LISTED in PREVIOUS posts.It is evolutionists that need to come up with a whole heap of convoluted maybe's possibly's likely's and hopefully's to explain that not one of them has had a differing environmental, fitness, or lucky genetic drift to have survived in an intermediate form somewhere until today.....HAPPY GUESSING!!!!!

Taq says... I have defended this to some extent. At this point I am wondering what your first language is. My interpretation is based on Baraminology. I do not claim to be an expert in its application. Below is a link that may demonstrate the concepts of Baramins better than I. ....Not that you are interested in anything more than belittling creationists and offering a demonstration of your inablility to percieve anything outside of your own square.Humans form a holobaramin, a kind. They are discontinuous with apes. I have spoken to some of the discontinuities eg, small pelvic girdle unable to birth a large brained infant, pronaganathism outside that of Mankinds, pronounced eyebrow ridging, lack of forehead, others may include genetically comparative human/chimp variabiliy of 30%, where human variation is at 0.5%, remarkably different Y chromosomes, chimp genome 10% larger with different surface structure, human variant of the FOXp2 gene, chromosome 2, regardless of whether or not it is the fusion of two similar genes in other organisms. Quite clearly Apes do not belong in a holobaramin with Mankind as too many morphological features and the genome are disconinuous. Rather these traits put apes into a holobaramin of their own.OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology"In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry.""A cyrptobaramin is a holobaramin that is currently hidden from Mankind. By hidden, I mean that members of the baramin in question have not been seen since some time after the Flood by all but a very few people, if any. Notable examples include the pterosaurs (the saraph), sauropods (of the Behemoth apobaramin), and plesiosaurs (Leviathans)."What are the Genesis kinds? - ChristianAnswers.NetSo apes become a holobaramin as they share a common ancestor. This is according to the biased research creationists need to refer to. It is possible that this kind had more than one ape variant created and this may be seen in future research. Your homo erectus fossils belong in this holobaramin, along with Ardi & Lucy etc. This holobaramin can be further broken down to monobaramins of gorillas, chimps etc and the Erectus fossils aligned to the monobaramin they are most continuous with. Some baramins are now extinct.If you seriously think that after all my posts that I think a chimp like creature gave birth to a human, I will not respond to you further as I have better things to do with my times than play silly games of ignorance with you.And still you and no one else has satisfactorily resolved the Dawkins-Gould debate. I guess no one here is up for an award just yet!Taq....How many times and in what language do you need to be told that there are no transistional fossils in my assertion "there are no intermediaties alive today because there never were any", yet you continue to grumble, belittle me. play ignorant perhaps, and request classification of mythical transitional creatures that are simply apes.YOUR SO CALLED TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ARE APES, A HOLOBARAMIN OF THEIR OWN, THAT DO NOT NOT NOT SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH MANKIND...GET IT?????? THEY ARE APES AND WILL FOLD IN UNDER A MONOBARAMIN IN THAT CLADE. eg Java man & Turkana Boy are variations of apes and may fit into the monobaramin of orangutangs or gorillas etc. That's the general way it works.Now additionally you can explain why you class Neanderthal as a separate species to Homo Sapiens when you believe successful mating may have occured? Indeed if you believe sucessful mating could have occured then these 2 organisms had not speciated yet and are not 2 separate species according to your general definition nor your phylogenic one. So before you pay out on my classifications, do not forget the mess your 'species definition' is in!

Hi Percy. I am unable to see my recent post here so am posting a reply to see if they will load.Cheers