Why are there no human apes alive today?

Neither is TOE is science. Likely, probably, maybe and woops we have changed our mind on that, will also never be regarded as a science by any creationist given the gift of reasoning.The request was for a method of classifying transitional fossils. You do not have to like it anymore than I like your species definition that has many contradictions. Nether do I like the plethora of excuses invented to satisfy unexpected research data born of biased presumptive research eg convergent evolution, accelerated evolution, homoplasy.Are some here so silly as to really believe that a taxonomic system is the decider of whether or not homo erectus and other intermediates are apes or not.You appear to be getting desperate.Species concept - WikipediaYour phylogenic definition of species speaks to 'high genetic similarity'. What the hell does that mean? It means you will use your crazy algorithms to ascertain what looks more similar to what, as if nothing is going to be more similar to another as created, and use this everchanging nonsense as a bases for irrefuteable evidence that often ends up in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions of evidence past.eg knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA, ArdiIf Neanderthal and humans can successfully mate to produce viable offspring they are the same species...aren't they? Why have you given them different species names?A bison and cow, not even from the same genera can successfully interbreed yet are not the same species and lead to reclassification. So can a killer whale and dolphin. Even a sheep and goat have succesffuly bred to produce viable offspring, rather than still borne. What are you on about? If picking something to pieces is a solid descreditation of a system, your system is rubbish and therefore is discredited also...or are evolutionists the only ones with the self imposed right to offer ever changing messes and contradictions as suport for their systems.Discontinuity, does not require a scriptural basis to demonstrate it's effectiveness. I have given examples of how Erectus is discontinuous with mankind. This is a fledingling system just strating out. What excuse do you pose for your mess that is 150 years going and is still a mess of contradictions? You do not have to like it. Nor is your acceptance required.Do not try pathetic refutes as a basis for dicreditation of baraminology. It has an ID base is is being varied by YECs. I also refute some creationist stances and therefore align with the concept of dicontinuity as the basis for differentiation of kinds.Your own definitions are a mess as is your evolutionary science that consists of flavour of the month, more than evidence,and you still have faith in TOE.There are no intermediate ape/humans, regarldless of your dislike for baraminology. Rather an over developed sense of self entitlement would lead an evolutionist to demand a more solid classification system then they themsleves can provide. Another name for this behaviour is hypocricy.Your researchers have found human footprints 3.6 million years old as well as a human metatarsel foot bone. Your researchers attribute these to the chimp brained, tiny, curved fingered ape eg Lucy's kind, Afarensis, out of nothing more than desperation.What you have found is evidence that mankind was here before all these apes and so called intermediates. How astonishing that none have been found with their feet, likewise neither has any feet been found for Erectus with its' skeleton. How suspiciously convenient for you that your researchers are able to speculate on these by non colocated human bones!There are no intermediate ape/humans and that is the reason why none have survived. If Turkana Boy were with us today it would look like an ape and there would be no suggestion that it was human. It would be hairy like and ape, look like an ape and is just an ape that you lot have tried as best you can to humanise out of desperation.Rather what you see here today are the decendants of these creatures that are adapatations of earlier ape forms and other varieties that have gone extinct.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Thanks Percy. It seems my former reply got the thing going again.Thanks muchly.....

Coyote says Listen here to me. If you look at the top of the leg bones in your picture one can easily see they align outside of the hip bone, unlike a human skeleton. That is just for starters...The cranium you post is obviously not human. I hope you did not post it to demonstrate any relation to the human skull. The interesting thing is the skull is angled such that the eyebrow ridging on Turkana Boy is not sitting on top of the head like other non human primates. In other words, I am alledging that this skull has been fraudulently tilted to an angle that minimises the pronagnathism. In fact, if you tilt the head back slightly so that the ridging sits atop the skull this Turkana lad of yours is even more ape like than initially misrepresented.An orangutan has a different style ribcage. While the coexistence of H. habilis and H. erectus doesn’t invalidate human evolution, this discovery highlights a couple reasons why it’s premature to claim that the hominid fossil record substantiates human evolution.1.Human evolutionary models, even the ones that appear to be the best-established, are highly speculative and, at best, have tenuous support from the fossil record. Time and time again a single fossil find overturns a well-established idea in human evolution. It’s hard to know what other entrenched ideas will soon be abandoned as new hominid specimens are unearthed and studied. It’s hard to accept human evolution as a fact given the actual level of uncertainty about the relationships among the hominids in the fossil record and the constant flux within the discipline.2.It is hard to know which hominid fossils are transitional intermediates and which ones are not. Prior to this most recent discovery, the hominids recovered in Dmanisi, Georgia, were considered important transitional intermediates between H. habilis and H. erectus that supported an anagenetic transformation. The coexistence of these two hominids means that the Dmanisi hominids can’t be transitional forms. This raises questions such as, How many other transitional intermediates in the hominid fossil record have been misinterpreted? and Could it be that other key transitional fossils have been misclassified?It is very easy to find the most dissimilar primate examples. what you need to do is point out stuff like Lucy's bit's of bones look similar to an orangutan or gorilla. Lucy has been dethroned.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9...Ardi was sold as partially bipedal despite its ape feet. Now it is not in the human line. What happened? This ape head, Ardi, started on the way to bipedalism then decided the trees were a better bet..or what? There is no sense in this. I will not refer to common sense as I know the blasting a creationist gets when they try to relate common sense to evolutionary theory.Similarly the so called complete Turkana Boy fossil was pieced together from this mess in the link below. Besides you have homo erectus of varying sized skulls demonstrating that this ape was varied as far as size goes. The problem of course rests in evolutionists trying to demonstrate that any variation of ape in the past is becoming human. This is also why there are stuff all examples of ancestry from modern chimp or gorilla back to our common ancestors. These intermediates are all slowly being dethroned.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Here look at this all. I, as a creationist, am not the only one to speak to the evolutionary confusion over simple species variation being seen as more than what it is."Homo sapiens apparently evolved from H. erectus, possibly via an intermediate species, in Spoor's view. H. habilis was a sister species of H. erectus and eventually hit an evolutionary dead-end.The newly discovered fossil brain case belonged to the smallest known H. erectus individual. The find thus indicates a size range for H. erectus fossils of eastern Africa that almost equals that for modern gorillas. The gorilla pattern reflects males' large size advantage over females, a condition that may also have applied to male and female H. erectus, says study coauthor Susan C. Anton of New York University "Fossil sparks: new finds ignite controversy over ape and human evolution. - Free Online LibrarySo above we see Homo erectus may well be one species of ape that showed the extreme sexual dimorphism displayed by gorillas.Regardless, it is your own researchers that lump all these skulls and bits and pieces into one lump of homo erectus. I guess this must be for some reason... is it?So by your own classification you have classified this species of homo erectus as a group.Next you have what you call archaic homo sapiens which is a ridiculous rank as these show no more variation than what we find alive and well today in the human species.Also read this below""Palaeoanthropologists often have this assumption that every hominid found from that time period is a H. erectus," said Jeffery Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh, US. "They group hominids not on the basis of what they look like, but the time when they lived, which is totally unfounded. "
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Skull fuels Homo erectus debate Now we have a mess for evos, really.In conclusion it is by your own classification system, that all these variations of erectus are one group. Then come Homo sapiens, archaic or not. I am glad you guys came up with 'race' to divert from the sillyness of these names for every variation of the same species.Look at the variation of skulls of homo erectus. Clearly some exhibit clearly ape like features, huge prothagnathism, even more so than Ardi and Lucy in some cases. These erectus creatures have been separated out of the jolobaramin of human by the connection to ape eg extreme sexual dimorphism and simply by naming them all as a group called homo erectus.Homo Erectus are apes. Homo sapiens are all human. There are no intermediates.

Dr Adequate said I am not surprised that you deny the concerns and research I posted re Ardi. Care to place your status here on the line and assert that Ardi and Lucy are both human ancestors as is Homo Erectus?Just which bits will you put your reputation on, here, today.

Here is your Turkana Boy skeleton, reconstructed from a mess of bones according to how these researchers think it should look. http://ww.crystalinks.com/turkanaboy.jpgBelow is a reconstruction of Ardi's mess of bones as assumed. Take away the feet and the hands from Turkana Boy, that were not found with Turkana Boy or any other Homo Erectus or Eragaster fossil, and what you get is Ardipithecus Ramidus.Male and female skulls and other morphology of these Erectus apes are likely very varied due to the extreme sexual dimorphism.Any lone skull could be either male, eg Turkana Boy or female, and you may simply be seeing variations of Ardi's species, who may resemble the first ape kind that adapted into other varieties of ape kinds. The reconstructed length of arms are speculative and even via an assumptive ancestral comparison are longer than modern man. Ardi and Homo Erectus may well be a monobaramin within the ape kind that did not survive. Either way Erectus and Ardi, as well as Lucy, are apes.Erectus looks just like Ardi in comparison. In fact the lower leg bones on Turkana Boy looks comparatively shorter to the top bone than Ardi's does. They are just apes. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Dr Adequate said You may also call any variation of ape an intermediate but that does not make it one.Your chap could be anything from a juvenille orangutan, adult male Aboriginal if the jaw was incorrectly reconstructed, or A Africanus. Do you and your researchers know what it is?I will need more info about how it was put together and some side views. I, unlike your researchers am not going to guess without more information.http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.htmlA.Africanus in these pictures looks more human than some of the ones representing Homo. Are you sure your theory does not prove apes decended from Mankind??????????????????Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Dr Adequate says this about the research I posted re Ardi being contested as a human ancestor... Now here is the article I posted that speaks to the researcher that is suggesting Ardi is not in the human lineage.....This is what you say I made up..hey?'The 4.4-million-year-old "Ardi" might have split off from the main stems of the ancient ape family tree before the last common ancestor linking humans and chimps, which is thought to have lived between eight million and four million years ago, Harrison and Bernard Wood, of George Washington University's Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, noted in their new review paper, published online February 16 in Nature."I think it's equally likely, or perhaps even preferable, that it is an ancestral form or an early representative of the African great ape" groupthat "it's not necessarily uniquely linked to humans," Harrison said of Ardipithecus in the podcast.Some of the most solid evidence for Ardi being included in the hominin branch is her small canine teeth. But the researchers are quick to point out that other ancient non-hominin species, including Oreopithecus and Ouranopithecus, also came to have reduced canine teeth, "presumably as a result of parallel shifts in dietary behavior in response to changing ecological conditions," the researchers suggest in their article. "Thus, these changes are in fact, not unique to hominins."We're Sorry - Scientific AmericanI have demonstrated how some evolutionists choose to waste creationists time with blatant disregard and ignorance of the links posted.So it is not me that makes stuff up. Rather it is you that appears to demonstrate some cognitive challenge in interpreting, remembering and retaining information or..... perhaps it is you that chooses to simply make stuff up that sounds good at the time.Now Mr Adequate...do feel free to refute the findings of this researcher and put Ardi back in the family tree! For now it appears he isn't.I see you have nothing to say about Neanderthal being classed as a separate species that can supposedly interbreed with humans of the day. Neanderthal is 99.5% similar to humans and within the 99.5% of usual human variation. It has the human variation of the Foxp2 gene.Sequencing and Analysis of Neanderthal Genomic DNA - PMC
http://www.jcvi.org/...searchers-at-j-craig-venter-instituteIt doesn't even matter which evo researcher is right or wrong on this Ardi lass. Her skeleton may be the female version of your so called male erectus. Ardi is more continuous with being a female version of Erectus, both being apes and being more continuous with the triats of an ape. Ardi, Lucy, Erectus (or what little you have of them) are apes. You are a human.You should be glad you are not an ape afterall!

Dr Adeuate I posted the skeletons of Turkana Boy and Ardi. They look much the same as one would expect a male and female ape to be regardless of any psychobabble that is produced.

Wounded King says You now know of late that after all the woffle and headlines for years about mankind descending from a chimp-like creature low and behold ...we didn't, after all. Now they, these well credentialled researchers, think it is likely, maybe, probably and hopefully, we evolved from an ape-like creature, something akin to Ardi.Hang on ...maybe the common ancestor of chimps and humans will be a lemur or a bushy tailed squirrel creature like Plesiadapis. Who knows what the common ancestor will be made to look like over the next decade?Wounded King..Indeed these evolutionists have no idea what mankind supposedly descended from. Your and my guess is as good as theirs, including the scientifically educated ones.This is how clear these very well educated researchers are on Africanus, a major player in the whole deal...."Dart claimed that the skull must have been an intermediate species between ape and humans, but his claim about the Taung Child was rejected by the scientific community at the time due to the belief that a large cranial capacity must precede bipedal locomotion,[1] this was exacerbated by the widespread acceptance of the Piltdown Man. Sir Arthur Keith, a fellow anatomist and anthropologist, suggested that the skull belonged to a young ape, most likely from an infant gorilla. It was not until 20 years later that the public accepted the new genus and that australopithecines were a true member of hominidae."Australopithecus africanus - WikipediaAs one can see, in the end any fossil can become anything as suits the time and common thinking. From infant gorilla as seen by a credentialed researcher, to homonid. There is no real science behind it all, just pseudoscience. These apes are certainly not intermediate humans.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Pressie says Well I am glad we agree on this at least. I accept your response in that the theory of evolution is just a theory and is not a proven fact. It is based on theories that are used to support other theories similar to creationists but with differing assumptions. This is why I feel TOE should be referred to as a faith and not a science. Here is what one of your leading researchers in the field had to say about the so called common ancestor of humans and chimps..."The australopithecines are a good example of Lubenow's third point. These extinct apes are trumpeted as human ancestors because of their crude bipedal walking ability. But nearly everything else about them is ape-like. The origin of their bipedality would be no small evolutionary task. Even Richard Leakey admits as much in his book with Roger Lewin, Origins Reconsidered (pp. 83-84), when he says that the change from walking on four legs to walking on two legs...would have required an extensive remodeling of the ape's bone and muscle architecture and of the overall proportion in the lower half of the body. Mechanisms of gait are different, mechanics of balance are different, functions of major muscles are different--an entire functional complex had to be transformed for efficient bipedalism to be possible.Yet these immense changes are not documented from the fossil record."Human FossilsSo even your leading researchers suggest we evolved from ape like creatures. They are ape like because they appear dissimilar to todays apes. However I think much of the hoo haaa is due to the misrepresetations entwined in many reconstructions.There is huge variety in species skulls. Just take a look at the link below to see for yourself what the range of human skulls alone look like. Even non human primates of each species vary greatly just like we do.Access deniedA skull on it's own could be anything form a juvenille gorilla to a homonid.'Australopithecine' means ape like, in case you have not picked up on that yet. They are represented as bipedal apes, like Lucy. They are apes in every other context even according to your own researchers, as if chimps can't walk bipedally today. They can, and this is all really a nonsense attempt to humanise an ape be they similar to todays apes, or not.Still your point is good...in the end your evolutionary researchers have no idea. Perhaps we descended from a squirrel like creature that stood upright and lost its' tail. These are evo dilemmas.As for me, I know there is no common ancestor between apes and mankind, no matter what the heck you think they look like this year.

Edited by Admin, : Hide content of duplicate post.

Admin says Dr Adequate basically suggested my info re Ardi was inacurrate. Ardi was once hailed as a human ancestor initially. I have also discredited Lucy. So what you actually have is vaguary and a bunch of apes your researchers have little clue about.So let me get this straight. You are suggesting that no one here on EVC involved in this discussion asserts that Lucy or Ardi are in the human line....WELL that's just great. Then they all should stop referring to mythical fossil evidence for human ancestry. In actual fact if neither of these representatives and their cohorts were in the human line, then effectively evolutionists have absolutely no evidence for ancestry to a common ancestor of humans and apes. I love it!!!!!Are you also suggesting that Dr Adequate and others are saying that Homo Erectus, or at least one or some of the African specimens are also NOT in the human line? If not then you guys have a gigantically huge problem as effectively you have no fossil evidence for the decent of man from anything. What you have is a blur and no more than fossil evidence of a variety of apes that may or may not resemble todays apes.If any here are so sure of the basis of the fossil evidence that they are prepared to belittle me, than I'd like to see some credibility laid behind this so called evidence of yours. If none here are prepared to back their assertions with evidence, biased as it may be, then effectively I have won this debate, as I can back my claims well often using research and words from your own researchers. Evos apparently have no evidence to speak to.To debate on presumed evidence and then say you have no actual fossil evidence for the ancestry of mankind to a common ancestor that you are prepared to back really is a winner for me. Don't you think?It appears I am right in saying there are no intermediates around today because there never were any to begin with. It appears you have inadvertantly supported my stance. Thanks.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Panda says Pathetic looks like someone unable to refute the body of my asertions and stooping to insults to bolster their self image. Do you feel better about yourself and your inabliity to lodge any sort of substantial refute, now that you have insulted me.Believe me when I say it will take more than you and your lack of credibility to offend me.You will have to do much better than this woffle of a reply if you are to have any substance at all.

Dr Adequate says Oh no you dont'...you will not get off that easy. ... Of the hundreds of skull representations I reckon I did extremely well, and I had chosen the right one. A Africanus. that is represented by a juvenille skull. Did you think you would trick me? Wrong. I am not credentialled yet I chose 3 possibilities and got one right. Pats on the back for me, I could not be happier. Your quiz couldn't be more of a flop.I am so glad this, Taung Child, is the one you chose to shove up me because this is one of the better demonstrations of well credentialed researchers knowing about as much as me, and that comment is being gracious."The species of Australopithecus africanus was named in a February, 1925, issue of Nature by Raymond Dart. Dart was one of the pioneers of paleoanthropology, and created quite a furor over naming the fossil specimen (the Taung Child skull and endocast) a hominid. The standard line at the time by some of the powerful figures in the field (e.g., A. Keith and O. Abel) was that the ancestors of humans should be found in Europe, and should have an enlarged brain and an apelike jaw (as was the case in the Piltdown Man hoax). The claim that the specimen was a hominid was rejected by those who saw the material as that of a young chimpanzee or gorilla. This view was not helped by the difficulty in acquiring casts. The material was distant from many in the field (few of which ever traveled to actually view the material), and most importantly, was that of a juvenile. Juveniles are often misrepresentative of adult states, and most researchers claimed that the Taung Child would have developed into a chimpanzee or gorilla ancestor."
http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-africanus/So your big quizz is a big flop! and...
1. You still have not answered why Neanderthal is classed as a separate species given humans and Neanderthal can mate have comparative variation to mankind and the foxp2 gene. It is a nonsense and discreditation to your science.2. You have not clarified the debate between Gould and Dawkins on the how and why of TOE, I requested, seeing as you pretend to know it all.You make a common evo mistake by pursuing questions in the hope that a creationists has not answer and then using this as some sort of ridiculous refute to all non related points. Well you loose, bud, as you and your cohorts have not stumpped me on anything, not ERV's, not on genetic similarity and most certainly not as regards the fossil evidence, or rather, lack of.I have answered all your questions and you have answered none of mine. Nor have you offered any solid refute past your self prized opinions backed by nothing at all.I beleive you are unable to offer more than what you have. I can only assume you are unable to assimilate the information posted and can only post parrot fashion responses, childish games and abuse at me. CONGRATULATIONS!So deary, don't worry about a lay person needing and requesting more information to make a classification of an old skull. You need to worry about your own researchers not knowing the difference between a chimp, gorilla and human.Your researchers had Taung child in their hands to study. I got a picture, and that is all. No other information on size, side views, history of the find etc,... Then you have the hide to have a go at me. This is a common evo game... guess it if you can!!!You are discrediting yourself and showing just how smart I actually am.It is about time you started earning your keep here and answer some of my questions, or at least refute me with more than your invaluable opinion, to demonstrate you have more to contribute than games and abuse.I know what a juvenille orang, chimp and Gorilla look like and so do your fancy researchers. Too bad Taung child was classed as a juvenille gorilla or chimp for 20 years before it was upgraded to a homonin by these researchers of yours. These brainiacs are unable to tell the difference and look to what they ought to be and then classify them as such. GREAT SCIENCE......!!!My evidence for demonstrating Turkana Boy is nothing more than the male version of Ardi is solid. The aligning of skeletons side by side alone shows a continuity of ape traits. Your researchers grouping such a variation of skulls into Homo Erectus and erectus similarity to Ardi, and ape is further suport for my assertions.Turkana Boy was a great discovery because now we see Homo Erectus or eragaster did not have sophisticated language as mankind has. He is an ape along with Ardi, whom Percy agrees, is not in the human line. I will extrapolate from that that erectus were unlikely to have the human variant of the Foxp2 gene implicated in language and other traits.Turkana Boy provides more evidence that Homo Erectus was no more than an ape. The species displays gorilla like sexual dimorphism..You do know what that means..don't you?Now instead of your opinion and insults why don't you try a novel idea and actually refute the body of my assertions with research and supports, like I do, instead of providing useless opinions and insults.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.