Why are there no human apes alive today?

There are hairy ape creatures around today, and ERV's demonstrate that they share a common ancestor. You seem to be missing the point entirely.BTW, humans have just as many hair follicles as other apes do. Look a little closer at humans and you will find that almost every surface of our body is covered by hair. What differs is the thickness of the hair. The fact remains that they did go extinct, no matter what the cause was. Being extinct does not change the fact that they were transitional. Does the fact that no one speaks Middle English anymore mean that Middle English was not transitional between Old English and Modern English? We are saying that humans also have the facial morphology of an ape because humans are apes.Also, you have yet to define what facial morphology a transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps would have. Why haven't you done this?Until you tell us what criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not you are simply flailing in the air.Perhaps I can help you out. Wouldn't a transitional have eye ridges that are not as heavy as those seen in chimps but larger than those seen in humans? What about lower jaw size and prognathus? Shouldn't those be intermediate as well?

Bullshit. You have not looked yourself.

---

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

To summarize, you think the reason that we can and do prove that we're right is because we're wrong. Your link does not support your delusions, as you would know if you could understand it. If you know why, feel free to tell us. That would be the Lluc that doesn't actually have a flat face, right? Your fantasies are not, in fact, "very interesting". It's not just well-educated researchers that think H. erectus is more than a variety of ape. Most creationists maintain that it is completely human. Perhaps you could persuade them to set their own house in order. Perhaps you should show it to all the creationists who claim that H. erectus is completely human. And if only you could prove any of your nonsense instead of just "strongly suggesting" it, you'd look less like a crank with a grudge against reality. You haven't given an explanation, despite me asking you to do so over and over again.Let me ask you again. There are no living examples of austalopithicenes or habilines. Why not?

Now that discussion has resumed, here's a repeat of my earlier message:As of this morning I will be moderating this thread. I'm hoping to achieve a better focus on the two primary subtopics:

1. The classification system that places Homo sapiens in the in the Hominidae family, popularly known as the "great apes", which itself resides within the Hominoidea superfamily, popularly known as apes.
   ​
2. How relatedness is determined in both extant and extinct species, and how this applies to human ancestry.

The validity of the theory of evolution is not a topic of this thread. That subject is reserved for threads in the Biological Evolution forum. Anyone wishing to discuss evolution's validity or lack thereof should find a thread in that forum, or propose a new thread over at Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0.Please PM me if you feel I've haven't properly captured this thread's topic, I'll make corrections as necessary.As always, the Forum Guidelines serve as my guide. For those interested there is a Moderator Guide that outlines how moderators here at EvC Forum should try to carry out their responsibilities (it desperately needs updating - for one thing, it uses an older version of the Forum Guidelines).I am not a stickler for following the Forum Guidelines. I ask no more than that people follow them pretty well much of the time. While discussion is moving constructively forward, which is the main goal of EvC, there isn't any need for a moderator to step in regardless of how well or poorly the Forum Guidelines are being followed.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It would be a great help to the discussion if you could do two things:

1. Quote the point you're responding to.
   ​
2. Please explain how any link you provide supports your position.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

How fortunate that we have amongst us an uneducated person such as yourself who is never bamboozled at all. Have a go. Which would you like to call human and which are apes? What criterion are you using?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, why don't you try to remember why you did so yourself, repeatedly and emphatically, just a few weeks ago. Like this: And this: And this: And this: And this: When you know why you thought that, you will know why a creationist would think that, what with you being a creationist.

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.

Sorry, you are quite wrong. Let's look at some facts (click on each image to biggen as needed): First, look at the shape of the ilium in these two full-body images. Apes, such as gorilla and chimpanzee, have long, blade-like shapes, while human have more rounded shapes. You probably can't see this difference, lacking the training in osteology, but folks who have studied these bones and fossils can see it instantly. In the case of Turkana boy we clearly see a rounded shape.Second, look at the curvature of the femur, and the relative length in the full-body images. Gorilla femurs are relatively shorter and significantly more curved, as well as being much more robust. Also, look at the angle of the femur from acetabulum to knee. These too are quite different--Turkana has knees close together, while gorilla has them far apart. In all of these cases Turkana fails to resemble a gorilla, and is much closer to the human shape.Now let's look at the crania. Notice any differences in the canines? How about the area behind the brow ridges (i.e., cranial capacity)? The occipital crest? Sagittal crest? How about the overall robusticity? See any differences there? The differences are astounding to anyone who cares to look. These two critters are far from being the same, or even very similar.These are just a few of the differences between Turkana boy and gorilla (chimpanzees have many of these same differences).These traits I have pointed out show that Turkana boy is not human (you have posited a false dichotomy), but somewhere in between, what we call a transitional. (Note, "transitional" does not imply direct ancestry; instead it implies traits in common between earlier and later critters.)If you were honest, and you were debating here in good faith rather than relying on absolute faith no matter how much it was contradicted by empirical evidence, you would be able to see these differences once they have been pointed out to you.But for some reason all you can do is follow the uninformed and anti-science opinions of various creationist websites. When will you realize that those sites are lying to you?

---

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

It is creationists who believe that there is a clear division and evolutionists who believe that there is not.Would it be hypocrisy in me to demand a demonstration of levitation from people who claim that they can levitate but not from those who say that levitation is impossible? Congratulations, you have just identified one Cro-Magnon and three completely modern human skulls as apes.None of them, of course, is a "reconstruction from fragments", nor indeed from an overactive imagination, this being the sort of intangible thing that doesn't photograph well.You didn't say what criterion you were using to distinguish between them, and now I am more curious than ever. Having proclaimed the unbridgeable divide between humans and apes, you put skull 2 in the image below with skull 3 as an ape rather than with skull 1 as a human. Perhaps you could tell us why.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why the anger? All I did was to suggest, sensibly enough as I thought, that if you really want to know how a creationist can identify Turkana Boy as human, you should try to remember why you yourself did so. Surely you had some reason for your opinion. Perhaps when you've remembered what it is, you could tell the rest of us what it was.

Hi Mazzy,There's pro and con to every issue, and usually more nuanced positions, too. These are the issues that are on topic in this thread:

1. The classification system that places Homo sapiens in the in the Hominidae family, popularly known as the "great apes", which itself resides within the Hominoidea superfamily, popularly known as apes.
   ​
2. How relatedness is determined in both extant and extinct species, and how this applies to human ancestry.

Anyone can take any position they like on these issues, including that the classification system and methods for determining relatedness are completely bogus.I only issued a clear statement of the topic in an effort to reduce the off-topic digressions. Anyone is free to discuss any position they like on these topics, but if you'd like to discuss other topics, such as how evolution is bogus, you'll need to find another thread, or propose a new one over at Proposed New Topics.EvC Forum uses moderation in order to keep discussion on-topic and moving constructively forward. I think most people have by this time achieved a clear understanding of your position, and now they hope you'll explain the evidence and rationale behind that position.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director