Why are there no human apes alive today?

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!

This will likely come as a surprise to you, but "simple" does not equal "true".Where do babies come from? Storks bring them.FAR simpler than a discussion of sexual education, or heaven forbid, the education you would need to become an obstitrition.But, if you're ***, I guess "easy is more gooder" is the only way you can handle things.

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!

I am beginning to realize that you use a science that we are yet to comprehend.You seem to be making it up as you go using a tiny dash of real science and a heap of misrepresentation and misinterpretation, along with an overriding layer of ancient tribal superstition.Have you ever taken an evolution class? Human osteology? Have you studied casts of the major fossil man specimens? If not, from where do you get your vast learning?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The skull pictured is H. heidelbergensis, the species which you pretended was evidenced only by a jaw. And yet we distinguish between H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis, which you appear to have confused. Whereas the creationists over at AnswersInGenesis insist that H. heidelbergensis and H. erectus are both "racial variants of modern man".So what we have here are species which some creationists, such as yourself, insist "are apes", "are not human" and "not on [their] way to being human"; and which other creationists, such as AiG, insist are varients of modern man.Which is just what one would expect if (a) they are intermediate forms (b) creationists are a bunch of blatherskites desperate to pigeonhole them one way or the other but with no rational basis for doing so. That was so incoherent that it is hard to determine what lie you are trying to tell. Would you like to try again? I guess my imaginary actions do not hide my imaginary qualities; so you may be inadvertently telling the truth again. Never mind, I'm sure you can make up for it in subsequent posts.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Has it not occurred to you that when you lie to us about what our argument is, you are singularly unlikely to deceive us? If it were not for the author's evident grasp of the principles of grammar, one would wonder if he was actually retarded. We have heard your dogma. Any time you'd like to try to support it with coherent argument, that would be good.

None of this sad crap appears to be on topic. If you wish to humiliate yourself with respect to subjects other than human evolution, I suggest that you find another thread in which to do so.

Do you actually read any of the items that you link to? (I'm not even going to dignify your methods by saying that you're citing them.)The article from Questia appears to be a 15 year-old study of mathematical data analysis. The one from Wikipedia appears to be about the complexities in establishing taxa using genetic as well as phylogenetic data. In both cases, the general idea is that maximum parsimony is not always the best fit for a data set.* That's quite a bit different from saying that parsimony reveals that taxonomic classification based on evolutionary principles is a fraud. Or something. When a post consists of just a bare link or two and a few lines of incoherent boasting, it's hard to tell exactly what your point is.A better working definition of the parsimony principle might be: all other things being equal, one should prefer the hypothesis that explains the most data while being contradicted by the least data.Saying "goddidt" doesn't do much for explaining data.*Since my ability to understand mathematics is minimal at best, someone should quickly speak up if I've misrepresented either of these papers.

---

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

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.

Which facts do they debate?What is the creationist debate as to the comparison of the modern human and neanderthal genome?What is the debate as to how one determines if a fossil is transitional or not?What features must a fossil have in order for creationists to accept is as being transitional? Why do you keep avoiding these questions?

Then be honest with us. What features must a fossil have in order for you to accept it as a transitional between humans and non-humans? Why not? So why can't descendants of the last universal common ancestor exchange DNA between themselves? I really don't understand this. How does the Cambrian Explosion evidence the Creation Days? In the Cambrian we see no mammals, no reptiles, no dinosaurs, no trout, no salmon, no birds, no mammals, no cats, no dogs, no apes, no bears, and the list goes on. How can the Cambrian resemble Genesis when so many modern species are completely missing from the record? You can't even tell us the criteria for determining if two species belong to the same kind or different kinds. It would appear to me that creationists need to define "kinds" before you ask biologists to use it. You are challenging us about the "obvious". You are the one who claimed that H. erectus resembled gorillas more than modern humans, and you want to challenge us with the "obvious"? Really? If you can't tell the difference between a hominid and a gorilla then you have no business lecturing us on the "obvious". It is really that simple.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Did you forget that it is the creationists who propose that life came into being through magical poofing?

That is a lie. The most parsimonious explanation is the one that requires the fewest unevidenced assumptions. We can observe mutation and natural selection, so it does not need to be assumed. Creationism assumes magical poofing, which is not evidenced. Therefore, evolution is the most parsimonious explanation.

Given the difficulties you have with the English language, I'm not surprised that you prefer to copy-and-paste someone else's crap to writing your own.Trouble is, the moderators like you to write your own. They think that this provides some sort of assurance that you know the meaning of what you're posting; though in your case I find that doubtful.Here's a case in point: What was going through your mind when you wrote that?Or this? Is English your first language?Or how about this? I can find only two other uses of the phrase "strain asides" on the internet. In one, "asides" is a malapropism for "besides"; and the other occurs in a website entitled "Wild Usher engaged porn to make your cock hard". Here are some sample passages from the latter opus: Your posts make slightly less sense than this, since at least the author of "Wild Usher engaged porn to make your cock hard" doesn't claim that H. erectus is a gorilla. Would that be "the" creation model that identifies H. erectus as gorillas or "the" creation model that identifies H. erectus as modern humans? Only it seems to me that at most one of them can be supported by the evidence. Perhaps at some point you could try to argue for your crazy assertions instead of just making them. That would, if anything, make your posts even funnier.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.