Why are there no human apes alive today?

I'm talking of storks and babies because I'm trying to talk down enough so that you understand.Apparently I can't even pretend to be *** enough to get through to you, but I'll try again.Lazy, uneducated people such as yourself would rather say "magic did it" than find out the real answer.How does a remote control work? Magic.
How does a car work? Magic.
How does a microwave work? Magic.See, it's VERY simple, and EXTREMELY lazy.It's also dead wrong.Why do all birds have feathers? Magic.
Why do some fish breath air and walk on the land? Magic.
Why do humans and chimps share so much DNA? Magic.See? Just as ***. Just as lazy. Just as wrong.

I will again restate in simple terms that the 'how' God created kinds is the same as the evolutionists 'how' to abiogenesis. Neither of us can explain nor prove our version of abiogenesis. Only a bigotted boofheaded hypocrite would demand a level of explanation more robust than they themselves can provide. I hope there are none here!!!Is this the only harp you can come up with...that I come up with a theory of a science we cannot comprehend or a theory of everything. Lazy you say. A thick hide may be what you have when you are unable to demonstate how abiogenesis occured.The Kinds of birds that have feathers, have feathers because they were created that way. It is the evos that have to demonstrate the dino to bird thing that some of your own researchers do not accept. Why should I?Why birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs | Daily Mail OnlineYour researchers have no idea why some organism landed. They hypothesise with never ending thoeries that you call evidence. I am sure evos can no longer tell the difference between fact and theory.If you have not heard by now the explanations of the human/chimp similarity, then you kow nothing of creationism and have not read looked at my links.

quote:

---

"But aren't humans 97% chimp?

​

The notion that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and does the data actually indicate little difference between chimps and humans? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

​

1. Similarity ('homology') is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) or against a common designer (creation). Think about a painter. Why do his or her various paintings have so many similarities? Because they had the same creator. Whether similarity is morphological or biochemical is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

​

2. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal a creator to us? No. If anything, it might indicate the existence of multiple creators instead of one.

​

3. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we survive? We must eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live. What would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for our survival.

​

4. We know that DNA in cells contains the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms have similar features we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

​

5. Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

​

6. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. The first draft announcements of the human genome were published (in Science as well as Nature) in February of 2001. The announcement of first draft chimp DNA sequencing occured in August of 2005. The data show at least 10 times as many differences between chimp and human DNA compared to the number of differences between any two given humans. The differences between humans and chimpanzees include approximately 35 million DNA bases that are different, approximately 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and another 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.

​

What if human and chimp DNA was even 99% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 1% different this still amounts to 30 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 3 million words, or 10 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

​

7. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

​

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its philosophical implications.

​

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its philosophical implications.

​

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences."

---

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzephl0d/Also your biased models reflect colour stains from a hand ful of enzymes. The Pergalen research demonstrates chimp genes are much more different that first thought.You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED#Here is some more about what rubbish your comparisons are:
Is the evolutionary tree changing into a creationist orchard? - creation.comSo I say creationists have the evidence they need and you have a mess that requires sorting.I have already shown how little you know about the fossil record and its representations. Now let's see how little you know about genomics by asking ever more silly questions.So now, smarty pants, you explain the impact of genetic drift(luck) and its importance in driving evolution. When your paper has been accepted by the scientific community you let us all know!!!! Your researchers will be greatfull because they do not currently know.I will repeat..there are no ape men around because there never were any. Simple and in line with what we see now, and without the necessary convoluted theories evos need to explain it.Edited by AdminModulous, : put quoted text into quote boxes

Well, given that the bits of your rant that were written in coherent English were copied from other people, "lazy" would indeed seem to be the mot juste.It appears to be standard creationist crap; so even if you bothered to read it, we can be sure that you didn't exert any effort in finding out whether it was sense or nonsense. Oh, my word.Look, why not just link us to a video of you slapping yourself in the face with a custard pie?

Well if talking to asides bothers you, perhaps you had better tell these evos here to stop harping on the asides, as this seems all they can go on about..just look at them. How many of them are on topic?....NONE.....I at least continue to say there are 1. no apey men around because there never were any. 2. The FACT that there are none around today is in line with what a creationist would expect. 3. Evolutionists have nothing more than hand waving to offer as explanations.That is perfectly on topic......Go tell your evo friends, that continue to embarrass themselves with dribbling asides, to stay on topic!!!!!!

Oh I see no paper of explanation of your recent embarrassment re the rise of life and man being lucky, nor genetic drift. All you have is circlular asides.Why do you not refute the evidence I provided to refute genetic similarity as being necessarily connected to deep ancestry? Huh? Answer: You cannot. All you are able to do is parrot off the same old lines and asides over and over.There are plenty of cambrian and precambrian eg stomolites, jellyfish still here today. There are chimps, gorrillas etc all survived untill today. But non one apey, hairy tribe found anywhere.There have been hypothesis put forward, but NO evidence. In fact it is debated still. So the creationists stance is the stronger as it does not need complicated assumptions. The fossil evidence also supports the creationists stance.I have given three points that address the topic. Now you explain why something like Neanderthal, with a bigger brain than us, went extinct? Why did all the other millions of side species in last 5 million years all go extinct? This is your problem.

quote:

---

You and I are both apes and we're using language to communicate right now. I am using logic as well, can't say the same for you.

---

How does that prove that we evolved human intelligence?

quote:

---

You and I are both apes and we're using language to communicate right now. I am using logic as well, can't say the same for you.However, many different animals are capable of speech. Some of the languages are are starting to decode. Prairie Dogs for example have a complex series of barks their watchers use to communicate if there is a threat, where it is coming from and when the coast is clear. That's information transfer through sound from one individual to one or more individuals. That is language.

​

Beavers build amazing structures which expand their environment, and they pale in comparison to termites and ants.

---

Dont take what I said as a sign that I think that other animals are stupid. Every animal is wonderfully made and work well for there own needs to live and reproduce. Of course animals communicate. They dance, bark etc but they dont have oral speech like humans. So how did humans evolve speech suddenly?

quote:

---

These things have regularly be observed in animals. There are several species of bird which can reason, calculate and invent. I remember reading something (in Discover magazine I believe - I'll find it for you if you need me to once I have the time) about a study with birds where the bird was given a wire and a bottle with a treat inside. The birds had to bend the wire a certain way, then use it as a hook, to get the treat out.

​

That's a bird ASSESSING the situation, REASONING out a solution, CALCULATING the amount of bend in the wire, and using the wire to INVENT/CREATE a hook.

---

Yes animals do great things and many are technological marvels. People who want to make better planes look to birds. If you want to make a better adhesive, look to geckos. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Any posts that are, in my flawed opinion, even slightly breaching the forum rules may result in moderator action including suspensions.This declaration applies to any posts that have the misfortune of following this post.Please note, this thread should be coming to a nice conclusion very shortly, don't make me shoot it out of pity. Let's give it a nice send-off.Mazzy - I made your lengthy cut and paste obvious by putting it into a quote box, I don't want to have to do this again. Please avoid lengthy cut and pastes and try bringing the argument in your own words.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This paragraph bears no relationship to any post that I have made and only the most tenuous of relationships to the English language. Because you did not provide it; and because it would not be on topic. And there are plenty of things that are extinct. These include the ape-human intermediates found in the fossil record. What is the creationist stance on why there are no living australopithecines? They appear to have had an inferior material culture; this is a likely contributing factor. After all, we know that groups within our own species have been wiped out by groups with better technology.Now, since they are equally extinct whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, perhaps we could hear your explanation. You say that providing one is "my problem" but you give no reason why the members of your cult should be exempt from this challenge.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by AdminModulous, : hid some sections, 'peek' to see full contents.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What is the model for how your creator critter controls evolution? Edited by AdminModulous, : some content hidden, press 'peek' to see it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Dr Adequate made no claim as to it's classification. He was responding to your assertion in Message 474 that our evidence of Heidelberg man is only a fossilized jaw: So Dr Adequate responded with an image of a Heidelberg man skull. You are correct only so far as that the first Heidelberg man fossil found was a jaw. There is a Wikipedia article on Heidelberg man that makes clear that our fossil evidence for Heidelberg man consists of far more than a jaw.Your incorrect assertion about Heidelberg man stemmed from a response to another incorrect assertion you made in Message 463, and that Taq responded to in Message 465: And this was when you responded with your incorrect assertion about Heidelberg man that I opened with.So could you answer the question about the evidence for your claim that theories of human ancestry are based on specimens consisting of "just a few bones"? If you'd care to support the other part of the claim that the specimens are "reconstructed according to a wish list" then that would be nice, too.Another issue that would be nice to clear up concerns Homo erectus and Turkana boy. You keep repeating that Homo erectus is an ape while Turkana boy is human. Here are their skulls with Homo erectus on the left, Turkana boy in the middle, and a human skull on the right. Could you please explain what features you're considering in reaching your odd conclusions: If you click on the peek button you'll see the markup for including these images in this message. You can cut-n-paste this markup into your own message for reference as you draft your response. If you click on any of the images they will grow to full size.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden, use the 'peek' button to see contents

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Edited by AdminModulous, : contents hidden, use the peek button to view contents.

And I will again restate that abiogenesis is a part of chemistry, not a part of evolution.Evolution does NOT require abiogenesis.If I PERSONALLY put life on Mars, then I created life on Mars. That life STILL evolves regardless of how it got there.But let's talk abiogenesis, shall we? All life on this planet is made up of and runs on chemistry. We can demonstrate chemistry in detail. We can break down anything into it's chemical components.What about God? What is he "made up of"? What does he eat for energy? Can you demonstrate the power of God? Can you break him down into his God components?Who created God? Edited by AdminModulous, : minor content hiding. see 'peek' etc

I gave you an example of an animal which has oral speech. Is it exactly the same language that we use? No. Or maybe it is, and we can't tell. Doesn't matter. It's communication.And that's for a small rodent. It just happens to be a language that we've decoded. Elephants and whales talk, we just aren't exactly sure what they are saying.And, we DIDN'T evolve speech suddenly. Speech evolved slowly over time, just like everything else. Actually, no. Google ornathopter. Those suckers do not work.But that's beside the point. Your premise was that animals couldn't think, invent or assess.I've proven your wrong, so instead you say that animals are inventions.Let's get back to the ACTUAL discussion.I gave you an example of ONE animal which was doing ALL The things you had said that animals can't do. Yes or no?Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden etc etc

G'day Nuggin,Animals are slaves of instinct. They do not have the ability to reason deductively and do not have the power of self determination. That is why you've never read a good book written by a turtle. And why apes have never ventured into space.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal