Why are there no human apes alive today?

I was hoping that Mazzy might pick up that Anthropologists might have disagreements about classifications but that doesn't falisify evolution.It IS interesting that Mazzy has lumped Turkana boy in with H. Sapiens and discounted H. Erectus. Of course, that is really similar to the disagreements that scientists have in developing the evolutionary tree for humans (and other species). Why she doesn't recognize the traits that the Flores fossils share with H. Erectus is beyond me, especially considering their proximity in time and space.I was hoping Mazzy might engage us in a more detailed analysis of why she placed H. Ergaster with H. Sapiens and not H. Erectus, and through this process come to understand the evolutionary relationships between other species as well. (Whether she recognizes it or not, she is very close to the reasoning we use to infer evolutionary relationships)By the way, considering that as a species our DNA shows a significant lack of diversity vice other species, I personally would have no problem believing that Erectus and Ergaster were truly one species and the morphological differences were more in-tune with genetic differences that we see within other species.

Nah, it's vastly more simple than that. She's just lying.No reason to think any deeper than that.

Remember also that we're not just talking about morphological differences within a species over space, but over time.An extremely early Erectus should be different than an Erectus from 500,000 years later.

While slight changes between later and more recent H. Erectus are apparant they are actually very small when compared to the more significant changes in cranial capacity, technology, and behavior shown by contemporary hominid species in Africa and Eurasia.

Sure, it's both variables. Time and space.I would guess that location (environment) is going to contribute more to both the amount and speed of change, than time would. Flores didn't get small because it was around so long, it got small because it got stuck on an island.

And yet you (you hypocrite) wish to class KNM-ER 3733 and Turkana boy into different kinds. Yet you complain when scientists divide more disparate specimens into different species. It seems that your objection is that they do on a rational and systematic basis what you do on a capricious and arbitrary basis. You see all those fossils that are intermediate in form between basal apes and modern humans? Those are intermediate forms. And yet it is a fact that they are extinct, even if you can't understand why. This is why we have fossils of them but they aren't still alive. There is, clearly, some reason why australopithecines are extinct, 'cos of them all being ... y'know ... dead. If you don't like the explanations provided, you are free to think up your own. Speak for yourself. I was planning to come to well-evidenced conclusions. You must do as you see fit.

That is correct.My evolution/fossil man professor in graduate school was of the multiregional school, and saw parallel changes from early to late erectus in each of four areas of the world.In each area he saw an almost identical increase in brain size (although the starting and ending sizes were of course different for the four areas). To make this work he had to classify Neanderthal as late European erectus.The more recent classifications and DNA studies don't support this view of Neanderthal, but there is still some evidence supporting the multiregional theory in other areas.

I was never a pure multiregionalist. The idea that different groups would acquire the same or similar mutations in isolation just sticks in my craw.I think people don't give erectus enough credit in his mobility and his sex drive. If he was anything like we are today, gene exchange between even disparate groups could have been fairly regular.The one thing I feel sort of supports multiregionalism was never really brought up when I was getting my degree. Climate.Worldwide climate change towards warmer or colder (and therefore wetter or drier) can drive similar adaptions in groups which aren't connected.Gene variants which could have been in a founding out of Africa migration could still be present in groups all over Eurasia, just not highly selected for. Climate ticks up or down a few degrees and suddenly these genes are heavily selected for - a couple hundred generations and they are the dominant, accentuated trait. And no need for weird mutation mechanics.

Without the DNA analysis it is difficult to determine what is due to parallel evolution as well as what is due to convergence and what is due to interbreeding. Multiregionalism doesn't suggest that groups acquired similar traits in isolation, which is what you seem to be suggesting. (Apologies if I am misunderstanding you.) This sounds more like support for convergent evolution rather than multiregionalism. Nothing wrong with hidden variation but I am not clear on what 'wierd' mutation mechanics you are speaking of?P.S. Another example of the problems we run into: Depending on the gene, beneficial mutations can be carried from one population to another without having an impact on skeletal morphologies such as between humans and neanderthals. Also, what appears to us to be a different species based on morphologies might just be differing responses to selective pressures, and the two types have/had enough gene flow that they should really be classified as one species. I think the common deceit we hold is that because we retain significant similarities in our morphology that other hominid species should as well.

It's been a long time, but multiregionalism, as I remember it when I was in school, was taught as the counter to out of Africa waves. It was presented as:Either - a group developed in isolation, then spread out (ie from Africa, or from Java or where ever) and replaced existing populations.
Or - groups all over all developed traits independent of one another.Now, I may just be remembering it wrong, but my thoughts at the time were "We don't have a mechanism for this so even if the fossil record seems to indicate it, that's a problem".

Multiregionalism holds that there was just enough gene flow between the differing groups that they all evolved together into us. Speciation therefore was never 'allowed' to occur, and thus no need for "mutational" wierdness.The 'Out of Africa' model suggests that there really were different species and H. Sapiens replaced them.Edited by DBlevins, : Added out of africa...

What criteria are you using to differentiate between ape and not ape in those skulls?What features must a fossil have in order for you to consider it as intermediate between humans and non-humans? Until you share with us the criteria you are using you can claim no such thing.

quote:

---

If you stop lying, I'll stop swearing.

​

I don't see that happening any time soon.

---

Im not lying. This my opinion and belief.

Bullshit.You can't repeatedly make the same errors in the face of evidence without knowingly being dishonest.What boggles my mind is this:We know you are lying. You know you are lying. Yet, you keep doing it. There's literally nothing for you to gain, so why do you keep doing it?

Thats your opinion not mine.