Why are there no human apes alive today?

How is it even possible to misunderstand such a basic post. Grammar requires one must take the most plausible route, not the most ubsurd.

Has no one yet reflected on the math, the time factor does not apply in an on-going process!?

Actually, grammar, as well as terminology, is a big part of the problem in understanding your posts. Your grammar and terminology are often incorrect. Understanding your intended meaning by reading what you've written is often very difficult. It would be helpful if you could recognize that fact and provide additional explanation when requested.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Why should evolution say such a silly thing? There is no telling what the next billion years of evolution will produce.Perhaps a little more study of what evolution actually is and what it predicts might be in order?

---

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

On reading it back it would make sense if s/he meant 'you're' rather than 'your'.But I'm still confused.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't think he said anything that made sense. I just don't think the question was directed at you personally.Here's the question again: I think he may be asking that you provide evidence supporting the theory that humans are descended from an ancient species of non-human apes, while also making a side comment about the difficulty you'll have doing this in the absence of evidence of parentage for each generation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

Watching you try to explain your delusions about evolution to IamJoseph has a certain delicious comedy value, but the effort you have put into it is superfluous. After all, he doesn't need you to confuse and misinform him --- he is already confused, and if anyone could understand what he was going on about, I'm fairly sure he'd turn out to be misinformed.Some of your nonsense was vaguely on-topic, so here's a couple of questions for you about it.(1) How do you explain all the intermediate forms we've found in the fossil record, and the amusing failure of creationists to shoehorn them into their imaginary "created kinds"?(2) How do you explain the fact that there are no living examples of habilines and australopithecines? We've all seen you monotonously whining about how you don't like our answer, which is, after all, based on fact and reason and so is naturally unpalatable to you. So what's your explanation?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hello, Mazzy, and welcome back from holiday.When convenient, could you please address the question I put to you in Message 786, namely: I believe that this question is on topic. It makes a difference if you think that human as well as non-human primates have only been here for a few thousand years, rather than a few million. Wouldn't all of these various hominids had to have all existed contemporaneously under any kind of recent creation model?

---

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

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!!!!!

Hello everyone!This thread is stuck in a back and forth of "Yes it is", "No it isn't". If anyone has suggestions for how best to improve this thread's focus on the topic and make the discussion more constructive then I would welcome hearing it.But in the absence of any better ideas then I shall proceed as I described earlier. Please address the topic as I described it in my two earlier points in a substantive fashion. Those who do not will receive a one day suspension. If you've posted off-topic before seeing this message, better edit quick!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You may have spoken of these subjects, but in many cases you were incorrect, and have been corrected by those who actually know something about the subject.An example is Message 822, where you asserted that Turkana boy was an ape, such as a chimpanzee or gorilla, and I corrected you. You have simply ignored all of my points and continued on as if you had been correct all along. And now in subsequent posts you are repeating the same points that I and others have corrected you on as if they were accurate.Care to try and support your specific claim about Turkana boy in light of my very specific post Message 822? Or are you going to just ignore the data and continue on with your Gish gallop, jumping wildly from subject to subject and ignoring the posts which show you are incorrect?

---

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

Shouldn't a transitional have more primitive features than the modern species? Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD SEE IF H. ERECTUS IS TRANSITIONAL?Or are you saying that a transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps should look exactly like modern humans? That is a human feature, is it not? In other apes the hips do not stick out, and the femur is perpendicular to the ground instead of at an angle like that seen in humans.So according to you, H. erectus has a mixture of modern and primitive features, EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN IN A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.

There is a continuum of these features in transitional hominids. There is no discontinuity. The brow ridges in H. erectus are intermediate between humans and other apes. Same for the other features. Therefore, H. erectus is transitional. Mazzy, what are your criteria for determining whether a fossil is transitional or not?My criteria is a mixture of modern and primitive features. What criteria are you using?

Though I see why you are anxious to change the subject. But assertion isn't argument. (You have also, let me remind you, asserted that three modern-day humans are apes.) Nothing has been "thrashed out"; you have just made statements you cannot or will not justify.Please address the subject of shoehorning. If there is an unbridgeable gap between ape and human, why do creationists have such a difficult time deciding which side of the line any given fossil is on?Please also explain your own criteria for making this decision. On what basis did you decide that skull 2 below should be classified with skull 3 as an ape and not with skull 1 as a human? And will you please tell us what characteristics would, in your view, make an "ape man"? You have been asked this several times, and while I understand why you keep ducking it, I don't see why you should be let off the hook. But that is not what I asked you, as you would know if you had read my post instead of thinking of what sort of nonsense you could shout at me next.Whether or not you admit that australopithecines and habilines are intermediate forms, the fact is that once australopithecines and habilines existed, as we know from their fossils. Today there are no living examples of them. Whether or not they were intermediate forms, they are definitely now extinct. How do you account for this?