Why are there no human apes alive today?

So, we'll add the scientific method to the list of things you don't understand. Ray Bohlin is not "one of our leading researchers in the field". He's a creationist propagandist who has published nothing whatsoever about human origins, or, indeed, primates, in the peer-reviewed literature, as his own bibliography shows, and who indeed has published nothing but creationist nonsense since he got his doctorate.

Hi Mazzy,As moderator I'm not here to take sides in the debate. My reply to you said nothing about whether Dr Adequate was right or wrong, and I'm not here to defend any position anyone stakes out on either side.My role as moderator is merely to keep discussion constructive and on-topic, and correcting misunderstandings like the one I described to you is one way I do that. This means that I take no position concerning whether Ardi or Lucy or Homo erectus are direct human ancestors or not. I was only correcting your misimpression that there are some here claiming that they are direct human ancestors. ZenMonkey has posted a very lucid response describing the issue, so I shant elaborate. Once you understand what he's saying you'll have to reassess this conclusion that you based upon your misunderstanding:

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

I have to wonder what the fuck you think you're talking about.What is this gibberish about A. africanus and the Taung Child?Are you under the crazy impression that the skull I asked you to identify was the Taung Child? Even after I showed you a picture of the Taung Child?Your performance on this thread leads me to ask ... are you actually blind? It would explain a few odd things that I've noticed about your posts.And if it was the Taung Child, which it isn't, are you really pretending that calling it "anything from a juvenille orangutan, adult male Aboriginal if the jaw was incorrectly reconstructed, or A Afarensis" would constitute a score for you? When all three guesses would have been, y'know ... wrong? Lions and tigers can mate and share genes but we call them different species. If scientists eventually decide to call them a variety, they can if they like.The fact that scientists have analyzed the Neanderthal genome while creationists were sitting on their fat asses whining about science does not appear to me to discredit science. I did indeed not go off-topic. Well done for noticing that. I urge you to follow my example. On these subjects you have stumped yourself. I've just looked on and laughed. I don't actually need to worry about crazy fantasies in your head. Hello ... male specimens of Ardipithecus have been found. Researchers can tell them apart from members of the genus Homo, which is why they have not classified them in the genus Homo. That was not written in the English language. You "see" that how? Yes, well, remember you're the guy who classifies modern-day humans as apes, and H. erectus as a "variety of gorilla", so you'll pardon me if I think that your assertions about Turkana Boy are also risible crap. I know that it means that it had an ape-like characteristic along with its human-like characteristics. I knew that already; it has several. That's 'cos it's an apeman. Done that. Now I'm watching you unravel and giggling. This is, of course, not true; nor will you deceive anyone by saying so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, you want to try again? When I showed you this view ... ... you guessed that it was "anything from a juvenille orangutan, adult male Aboriginal if the jaw was incorrectly reconstructed, or A Afarensis".You then asked to see a side view, and I provided you with a side view and a front view ... ... after which it seems from your disjointed ramblings that you guessed that it was the Taung Child despite the fact that I showed you a picture of the Taung Child in the same post.Here's a hint: it's not the Taung Child. Because of things that are different being not the same.Now, is it a man or an ape? Please give reasons for your choice.

So to throw out there to the EVC community..It appears none here are happy to use Ardi and Lucy as fossil evidence for the descent of mankind from a common ancestor, and rightly so. That leaves homo erectus which I have discredited as human and supported as an ape that shows similar morphology to Ardi, that was found with ape toes, similar pronaganthism, lack of language etc.I have provided evidence that your researchers can hardly tell the difference themselves between a gorilla, chimp juvenille and a human. I have shown that what species any fossil is classified as is more in line with predefined assumptions than any science eg Taung Child.All Homo Erectus are grouped together by your scientists, despite huge variation in the species. I say this is a reflection of simple variation and extreme sexual dimorphism found in non-human primates. I have provided research to further support this assertion from your own researchers.I have provided evidence of human footprints and a metatasel over 3myo that predates Homo erectus and supports mankind being alive and well prior to any so called homonids starting out on their journey to humaness.I have asserted that the use and control of fire is a complex task that cannot be percieved by an unintelligent species without complex language and reasoning ability. Hearths have been dated to 200,000 years and coincides with the dating of modern humans.I have spoken to Baramins and given a demonstration of how erectus and other apes are discontinuous with mankind.In other words, I have backed my assertions and theory with research available from evolutionary scientists and formed my own hypothesis of the information at hand, despite its biased base. I have answered many questions.There are no intermediates because there never were any and I have supported my claim.Now the onus is on evos to demonstrate by the use of fossil evidence that there are actually some fossils that demonstrate the descent of mankind from a common ancestor? Can any of you do it or not?I see no value in proposing why these species have not survived untill today, with maybes and perhaps, unless you first show fossil evidence that these intermediates actually existed at some time.BTW another question I posed is why do you evos suppose you have no or few examples of the descent of chimps (or any other ape for that matter) from the common ancestor? I reckon your researchers have lumped gorillas, orangs, chimps and anything they find into the human line as there is not as much glory and fuss over finding an ape relative.So I have done my job as a creationist. Now it is evos turn to come up with some goodies and evidence of this mythical fossil evidence for the descent of mankind from a common chimp ancestor. ..Otherwise folks...I WIN.....GO!.

That's a nice summary of your errors.Meanwhile, the fossil record is still full of intermediate forms just like it was when you started posting your nonsense on this thread. Your dogmatic repetition of the dumb falsehood that there are none is vitiated by your inability to tell a modern human from an ape, a Neanderthal from an ape, H. erectus from a gorilla, Turkana Boy from Ardipithecus, an Australian from an orangutan, and your ass from your elbow.Your belief that you have "supported your claim" that there are no intermediates is, of course, false; whether one should attribute this fantasy to mendacity, insanity, the use of mind-altering drugs, or to some other cause altogether, I prefer not to speculate.Your claim to have "answered many questions" is a singular piece of chutzpah. Your cowardly evasion has been one of the more monotonous aspects of this thread.If at any time you wish to man up and engage in actual discussion instead of reciting witless and discredited dogma, please warn us in advance. Some forum members may have weak hearts, and the shock might kill them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Zen monkey. Percy commented on your adequate post and I disagree it is adequate at all.You speak to the creationist war cry of TOE not being fact as some sort of dismissal of this being exactly the fact.ZenMonkey said I am sorry but this is nonsense and non credible talk. There is a huge difference between theoretical assumptions and the accumulation of facts. Eg we get to the moon on the science of the here and now. Big bang falls apart in the theoretical singularity. Both use gravitational theory. These are not the same. It is theoretical the other based on science. TOE is theoretical science and is no more than a psuedo science at best.When we were meant to have descended from knucklewalkers there were sketches and pretty pictures demonstrating the smooth descent from chimp like knucklewalking to mankind. This was held as evidence that only boofhead creationists could not see as obvious evidence from where we came from. Well that was rubbish!LUCA likewise has been shoved down my throat elsewhere as the irrefuteable evidence that links all life to a common ancestor....untill the realisation of HGT. This was also a science that only boofhead creationists could not understad or chose to ignore as it was undeniable evidence for common ancesrty. That is now rubbish also. This sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy but this is also nonsense. Your TOE has no predictive capability as does gravitational theory, as as a solid theory should have.Rather I have spoken to the unflasifiablility of TOE that keeps itself alive by being in constant evolution itself. For example the remarkable difference in the human/chimp Y chromosome was not predicted and a theory of 'accelerated evolution' is proposed to save the day.I am not out ot disprove TOE but to offer another hypothesis of the data, a creationist one.What I get sick of most is evolutionists pretending that creationists are unable to defend their stance and are ignorant of the concepts behind TOE.You may continue to have faith in your researchers as much as you wish. However, faith is required to follow TOE to no less a degree than a creationist required faith in the creation, neither side can explain their abiogenesis.The point here in this thread is that you all speak to this convincing evidence of human ancestry & resulting intermediates yet have none to offer by way of fossil evidence.That my dear is the fact and excuses re TOE reinventing itself contantly and the excuses for same, does not detract from the fact, that at the moment yu have no fossil evidence to back these so called intermediates that mysteriously went extinct.Listen lovey, you lot will never recover from the misrepresentation of Neanderthal. You are now resorting to profiling science based on the morphology of a species we know about, humans. Neanderthal was poofed into a human looking dude not based on more fossil evidence but on DNA evidence, which you do not have from Erectus or any other.This is a siding widing attempt to justify your misrepresentions like by using a science based on the known morphology of human beings. Believe me when I say they get it very wrong also. Regardless identikits do not establich what an ancient ape look like. In fact you will have to tell a forensics scetch artist what the species is for the technique to work.In actual fact your researchers have absolutely no idea what the flesh on these bones would look like.Creationists can come up with theories also. I think it is incredible that evolutionists still see creationists as being ignorant because they do not accept this mess you call TOE and the ever changing theories not to mention the garbage of delusions past that is huge.Experts are proved wrong all the time. Hence a theory in evolution with nil predictive capability.Sorry but you evos do not have a theory, you have theoretical evolution on a grand scale as well as a mess..But most of all ...you have no evidence of any human intermediate demonstrating the descent of a common ancestor and that there actually were any. This supports my assertion that there never were any and that is just peachy and just fine as support all by itself.

We are aware that you are ignorant of the scientific method; you need not have gone to such lengths to prove it.

Dr Adequate...I am afraid it is your researchers that cannot tell their ass from their elbow just like your great Taung child folley.You still go on and on with ridicule, hot air and woffle. Is your over expanded ego hurting?This crap you post will not assist you to beat me in any debate.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Dr Adequate who is still unable to answer any question posed to him.....do paste up your uncontested fossil evidence for human ancestry of which you appear to have none.I WIN ....BY A LONG SHOT

This is, of course, not true. We have shown you lots of intermediate forms. You have replied with falsehood, hysteria, and outright nonsense; and because you refuse to say by what criteria you would recognize an intermediate form, your denial, while amusing, has not even been meaningful. Your ability to distinguish victory from defeat is on a par with your ability to distinguish an Australian from an orangutan.

This is, of course, not true. Ridicule, yes. It's hard not to laugh at you.Your ability to recognize "hot air" and "waffle" is comparable to your ability to recognize the skull of a modern human being when you see one. Nope. I'll just have to rely on your singular gift for being wrong, then.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Hide content. In Message 753 I announced my intention to begin moderating, saying that discussion would continue for another 300 messages after that point. I announced that I had begun moderating in Message 801, so that means discussion should continue up to around 1100 messages.Edited by Admin, : Change message subtitle.

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

Why are there no human apes (I'm assuming she means our cousins such as neanderthal et al) alive today?Because they are all dead.