Why are there no human apes alive today?

Oh for goodness sake...the article is 20 years old and so what?It still demonstrates the garbage that is sometimes put up as evidence. Your researchers have no idea what flesh looks like on a fossil, absolutely none!Neanderthal was pictures as a bent over hairy ape man when it suited and he has morphed to fully human without additional fossils and reluted on the basis of only more biased DNA evidence. 20 years ago is relatively recent comparatively..........Refute that!NONE of your representaions should be taken seriously.Some erectus fossils have no sign of humanity within them.In relation to dating I have found that researchers actually date according to the fossil and where they are believed to belong. I have alot of such evidence where fossils are used to date the strata rather than the other way around eg Jehol birds.Further to that the bible speaks of demons taking male human form and having offspring with women resulting in Nephalim. These nephalim may very likely demonstrate changes in morphology and strength. They were also wiped out by the flood so would have just disappeared from the fossil record.The other thing to remember is that Adam and Eve were driven from Eden to live a harsh life as punishment. There is also the fall of mankind so your research suggesting the rise of mankind as a trade off in advantageous and deleterious mutations is not unexpected.So if we are going to discuss fossils bits and pieced prove nothing and neither does any of your dating as it is biased.In fact researchers have no idea what the flesh looks like on any old skeleton, they are just best guessing according to their needs.I am not a scientist but the basis of my belief relating to your fossil records are a mosaic of bits and pieces of non human primates thrown in with humans to produce what apears to be the steady change of ape to mankind. Indeed, I do not believe it.I think what you actually have are modern man, apes and nephalim. Nephalim would be a smarter and more robust variation of mankind. eg Neanderthal.Evolutionists cannot lay all their eggs in any basket. Either brain increase is a sign of the road to humanity or not. Neanderthal has a larger brain than Homo sapiens. Your researchers appear to attribute this to a sense of smell to explain it. However in actual fact they have no idea why mankind has devolved from Neandethal brain size.You have researchers that say we did BREED with Neanderthal, others that say it is impossible and you have biased genomic modelling that placed neanderthal half way to chimp and other research that puts Neanderthal at 0.5 modern human variation which is the same as current human variation anyway. You have research that says modern man came from homo erectus and other research that demonstrates erectus was extinct by the time humans arrived in areas. Meaning what you have is effectively....nothing and no evidence for anything really as it is all as clear as mud.What does it all look like to me?...The evidence for the evolution of ape to man is non credible at this time.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Science is driven by data and evidence, not revelation. So you're saying that your conservative Christian religious beliefs based upon Biblical revelation are a sufficient basis for questioning real world findings. Interesting.I think few here would argue that we're certain of any specific evolutionary pathways from the common ancestor we shared with chimps to modern humans. The difficulty telling cousins from direct ancestors has been mentioned in this thread at least several times. We *are* apes. You never responded to my Message 596 and Message 621.By the way, where you said this: There was no "link below", but you also made no attempt to summarize the evidence and arguments from that link in your own words. If you do decide to supply the link then it would help a great deal if you would describe the evidence and arguments from it that you feel support your opinion, using the link only as a reference.AbE: Mazzy edited his post after I replied, not everything I quoted is still there.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

I asked you to pick ONE THING to be wrong about.Instead you spew out a whole bunch.Try again.Pick ONE THING and stick to it. Argue that ONE THING. Admit when you are wrong.If you won't pick, then I will.You claimed that Australia had no humans on it until ~ 200 years ago.
Do you admit that you were wrong?

I'm wondering exactly how many times posters are going to have to request this before someone sits up and takes notice.

The article is 20 years old and says there is only X amount of fossils collected.You are presenting it TODAY as though what were true 20 years ago about the number of fossils is still true today.Are you unaware of the passage of time?
Are you unable to grasp the concept that more and more data accumulates over time?Here, I'll try and explain it REALLY SLOW.If Timmy gets one apple a year, and in 1980 he has 1 apple.
Then in 1981 he has 2 apples
In 1982 he has 3 apples.
In 1983 he has 4 apples.Get some paper and follow along at home.In 1984 he has 5 apples.If you then show up and claim that 1984 Timmy has exact 1 apple because that's all he had in 1980, you would be:Multiple choice here, be ready. Don't just shout out the first answer you see.A) Right
B) WrongI'll give you a hint: The answer is "B) Wrong"Do you understand why?We can go over it again if we need to.

Percy the research that suggests your researchers have no idea is research from YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS.They cannot agree on what role Neanderthal palyed in human evolution nor what erectus played in human evolution.You cannot put forward rubbish like this and call it evidence...noit even in your wildest dreams.These researchers like to play with models and change the insertion values to get what they need. It is not science.I have looked up post 596 and there is not point to responding. I have not claimed any religious affiliation yet you have raved on as if I have.If you are not aware of the species problem then I cannot educate you. For a start how can Neanderthal and homo erectus or whatever be 2 different species if their is any suggestion of breeding. According to your definition speciation results in inability to successfully breed and you have a plethora of contradcitions to theis definition. I expect basics like this to already be known, particularly from those of you that claim to be educated in the sciences.Then you have the genomic definition that uses the term "high genetic similarity". What the hell does that mean????? Anything you want it to mean as related to the preassumed assertion values added to your models that come up with this meaningless nonsense..Yeah.."the link below" and half my post disappeared. I have no idea what happened and tried to fix it and still the link would show.The point is Percy that bits and pieces of bones could be anything at all. The Bone Room shows the huge variety of monkey and ape skulls which can be rounded, flat faced etc etc. I attest that your researchers have found nothing more than bits and pieces as the major basis for your evidence, particularly relating to Erectus.The erectus in this link below is an ape.http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htmThis neanderthal beloe has long arms. This is a long link I hope it comes up.
Neanderthal skeleton (NY Natural History)What I reckon MAY have happened is bones from all different sized creatures have been mosaiced to produce what 'suits' rather than what 'is' necessarily.You say "Science is driven by data and evidence, not revelation." However the evidence is of a robust human being you call Neanderthal and that could be called scientific evidence of nephalim, in line with biblical teachings, rather than an evolutionary mess.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix long link.

I'll add another reply...with all your so called recent evidence what have are more questions rather than answers.You lot still can't agree on the human chimp split time, 4-8mya and counting, nor the neanderthal common ancestor split time. Your researchers cannot agree on hardly anything past 'it all evolved'.You call this stuff evidence. I call it myth. Myths change with time and so does your theory. It is as mythical as the creation. TOE is constructed out of chards of straw grabbing evidence that changes like the wind. This is not real science and takes as much faith to swallow as any other faith.The thread is why are there no human-ape intermediates. The truth is simply that you do not know. Guesses are not evidence in this world nor any other.Rather the FACT is there are none about and that, like it or not, supports creation. Your maybe's and possibly's as to why absolutely none survived of the plethora of intermediates that should have been present today, are not facts. They are excuses made up to cover what anyone would reasonably expect to be the case.There are none..and the reason there are none about is that there never were any.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Hi Mazzy,I can't tell what I wrote that you're responding to, and your post appears to be just a repeat of the same unsupported assertions you've been making throughout your time in this thread. Maybe if I have time I'll come back and look at your post again later.If I could make a comment, it would help a great deal if you could quote what you're replying to. You might find it helpful to yourself also - you might find it easier to keep your response focused on what was actually said. Could you read the blinking announcement at the top of the page (at least it blinks in most browsers)? The one about quote boxes? Probably put there for you? It explains how to do it. There's additional help in the link to the left of the message box that you type into when you're replying - it's the "help" for dBCodes.--Percy

Well, then I guess we found the problem. You don't have a working understanding of english

I'm having some difficulty translating this post from your native Insaneolandia dialect into English. Your entire point appears to be that you - who admit to having no training whatever in any scientific discipline - know more about anatomy, anthropology, and paleontology than thousands of men and women with PhDs and decades of documented field research in those fields, who are all incompetent idiots, mental defectives, and liars. It's an interesting point, but it has nothing to do with the question I asked you in Message 635. Let's try again. I'm talking just about skulls here.Do you really believe that this Neanderthal skull: looks more like this gorilla skull: than this modern human skull? Feet have nothing to do with this. We're just talking about skulls. Do you really think that Neanderthals were non-human apes?I have to point out that none of these images was selected by some mysterious cabal who you refer to as "your researchers." I pulled each image pretty much at random from a simple Google image search. Each is perfectly typical of its type.

---

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

this is the second time i dont see the human scull picture ????

The problem anytime we run into with disarticulated skeleton is having the full remains. If we are lucky then we find bones from different individuals that allow us to fill in the gaps and reconstruct a complete skeleton. Seeing as how it would be foolish to exclaim that the skeletal morphology of one individual is so completely different from another that we couldn’t piece together a complete skeleton, I am not sure what the complaint really is?As far as searching for Neanderthal feet, here is an example. Notice that the Neanderthal foot is very similar with us and there are distinct differences with a gorilla’s foot. H. sapiens H. Neanderthalensis G. gorilla Neanderthal skeletons are robust because of their environment, but their skeletal morphology and DNA places them firmly in our genus. If we consider just the pelvis and ignore ALL the other similarities, we can see that they resemble the H. sapiens pelvis and many differences from the gorilla pelvis. Notice particularly the lack of a bowl shape in the gorilla pelvis and its elongated shape, built for knuckle-walking. H. sapiens pelvis Gorilla pelvis Neandertal pelvis I wouldn’t call identifying bone fragments as particularly difficult. Anthropologists and other scientists who study bones have studied osteology and can usually figure out what bone the fragment is a piece of. In those cases where it is difficult to identify the bone fragment and who or what it might have belonged to, we have specialists in that field and they are not likely to confuse an ape bone with a human’s. Even if they did, they would be corrected by other scientists. Can you provide any example of such an occurrence that was NOT corrected?I assume you meant to say I do not think they have done so accurately If that isn’t the case you’re contradicting yourself, and if I am correct in assuming what you meant, I can only ask that you describe specifically an instance where a bone fragment has been misidentified, and NOT corrected. Science is, after all, self-correcting. Nobody has been posting photos of extreme examples. I hope you’re not accusing one of us of trying to mislead you?The intermediate species that we have been discussing so far have mostly been in the genus Homo with us, and as such, also considered to be in the Great Ape clade. See above. Who is Lucy the Gorilla? A famous gorilla from the zoo?There are examples of the foot bones from various intermediate species that show primitive and derived traits, such as with A. ramidus. Other traits found in intermediates also point to their affinity with us and the other great apes. (Strangely enough that you have so far failed to recognize the differences between a gorilla and H. Erectus, H. Neanderthalensis, and the various australopithcines but catch their similarity. Both similarities and differences which can be explained by evolution.) If you could explain in some detail your reasoning why Neanderthals should not be considered human, it would be greatly appreciated. I would also hope that you could explain
with your own words, with references. You do realize that placing fossils in a genus is done by studying the morphology of MORE than just the brow ridges? We would appreciate more than just a one-liner from you. Explain, in detail, why you think some erectus fossils should not be considered in the genus Homo. If you’re interested I would take you up on that discussion in a great debate. Let me know if you’re interested either on the post or Private messaging. I don’t think that this is a proper thread for that discussion? You might get a more thorough response in the dating and dating techniques thread? I am sure a lot of FBI and forensic anthropologists would be surprised to hear that they’ve been living a lie. I put in bold and italicized what I thought was the most honest part of that sentence. Are Nephalim taller than us? Allometry and brain morphology, not just brain size.Anyways, if you think that we’ve devolved from Neanderthals and that Neanderthals are apes, does that make us the monkey’s uncle? Just to help make it clear, most anthropologists would not place H. sapiens as evolving directly from H. erectus. H. sapiens likely evolved from H. Heidelbergensis or maybe some other population of H. antecessor. H. erectus is thought to have evolved from H. ergaster through cladogenesis and H. floresiensis is thought to have diverged from H. erectus.A nice chart explaining the possible evolutionary path: Edited by Admin, : Grow last image a little.Edited by DBlevins, : resizing fun...

This is of course not true. The fact that scientists cannot agree on everything in no way implies that they can't agree on "hardly anything". We call the fossils evidence. If you call them myth, then it is your prerogative to make a fool of yourself, but it will not make the fossils mythical. Actually, it is science that changes with time. Myths tend to stay the same. The story about the talking snake in Genesis has remained peculiarly constant while scientists have gone from geocentrism to heliocentrism, from Newton's gravitation to Einstein's, from the immutability of elements to radioactive decay ... while science always improves, myths stay as dumb as they were originally. Scientists disagree with you as to whether evolution is real science. I think they might know more about it than you do. But you know for sure, right? So why don't you tell us?C'mon, it's a simple enough question. There is nothing alive now that looks like (for example) a Neanderthal. The fossil evidence shows that there once was. Something caused the change from one state of affairs to the other. You whine that we cannot tell you what it was with complete certainty.Well, you have a try then. Or consider what Jesus said about motes and beams. The fact is that they are abundant in the fossil record, and that, like it or not, supports evolution. If you wanted to know what a reasonable person thinks, you should have asked one. Reasonable people do not think that every intermediate form should have survived to the present day, because reasonable people are not gibbering lunatics. If there never were any, why do we find so many fossils of them?Really, it is hard to understand what is going on in your head. Why on earth should (for example) a living specimen of H. erectus be more considered an intermediate form than a dead one?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The only time myths change is when they are accepted by a different culture ie: the Flood myth that led to the Gilgamesh flood myth and the Noachin flood myth. Each were changed to match the beliefs of those adopting the myth.Theories change when new evidence is found to either falsify or change part of the earlier theory. It doesn't change based on culture.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Actually, they have lots of ideas, but regarding the specific path of our ancestral history there is insufficient evidence for deciding conclusively among them. And maybe no current theories are correct. We can be certain that more hominid fossil surprises are buried in the ground waiting to be discovered. This is not an accurate characterization. They agree on quite a bit. What particular differences are you thinking of. Please describe them in your own words. I think what you're trying to say is that researchers create a mathematical model, and then they assign variables the values needed to get the necessary answers. Can you describe, in your own words, an example of this? I think that using the Bible as a reference source for matters of science pretty conclusively identifies you as a creationist and evangelical Christian, whether you care to be honest about it or not. You had said this: So if you're actually making a scientific statement then you need:

1. Evidence of God.
2. Evidence of how he created.
3. A method for identifying kinds based upon evidence.

Good question. Laypeople tend to think of species as completely independent of each other and unable to interbreed, but we have many examples of interbreeding species. Lions can breed with tigers (ligers), the domestic cat can breed with Asian leopard cats (the bengal breed of domestic cat), horses can breed with zebras (zorses), and so on. Evolution is a slow process, and two separate populations of the same species will gradually become more different from one another. The more different they become the less capable they will be of interbreeding.There is never any single instant in time when the two populations become different species. Species is a human construct that is insufficiently nuanced for accurately describing breeding compatibility. Suffice to say that the definition of species does not rule out interbreeding - what would be the point of defining species in a way that ignores what we can see happening? Certainly all members of the same species are capable of interbreeding, but the definition of species makes no comment about the interbreeding compatibility with other species.So when you say this: This is the definition you're accusing us of having, not the definition we actually use, which isn't simple. The way you're defining species is only true to a first approximation. As you can see just by examining a list of species that can interbreed, the real world is more complicated than that. If you can be specific about what you see as contradictions then we could discuss them, but in the absence of any examples I can only respond generally, and that would be to repeat what I said before. The real world resists neat categorization. Species is a very useful concept, but there is much detail that it doesn't capture. It is true that there are multiple ways to measure genetic similarity or distance. In a world of metric/English, Fahrenheit/Celsius, and PHP/HTML/CSS/Perl/Ruby/C#/C++/etc., it should come as no surprise that that there should be more than one way to measure genetic similarity. As long as one only compares values from the same method, what's the problem? And yet people work with bits and pieces of things all the time and are able to figure out what they are. From forensic experts at crime scenes to archaeologists reassembling ancient ceramics to researchers reconstructing the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are many examples of people figuring out and putting back together what has been torn apart, and that includes anthropologists and paleontologists. This is a bare assertion with no supporting argument. Your link is just a general article about Homo erectus, and it calls Homo erectus human. That link alone provides no support for your position whatsoever, and this is true of almost all your links. If you think a link supports your view then you have to describe how. Said the evangelical Christian creationist.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify about whose definition of speciation Mazzy is using.