The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

well at least give the lad a chance to find the word "conclusive" in the paper!

In reference to similarities. Similarities does not prove that we come from the same "ancestor", rather that we come from the same "designer".A lot of artists are well known for their fingerprints on their work. If I take a load of cement trucks, and use the cement to make fence posts, pathways, skyscrapers, and bridges etc. Aren't they all using the similar elements, yet, they are all different.If I buy a standard Mustang 1, and an all out customized Mustang 2 with all the extra stuff,would you agree they look similar ? (Wheels-steering wheel-mirrors-motor-oil gasgets-gum under the seatThe similarities only project the similar final product by the FORD MANUFACTURER. Why wouldn't He design us with similar traits? Yet we are not the same ancestors.Also, remember one thing too. The fossil bridge which leads to the monkey is empty-and cannot be crossed without it. So all this stuff I'm trying to prove, is really irrelevant because of the pre-monkey link.There is no transitional fossil bridge to even get involved with monkey to man theory.I'm also sure you are familiar with the computer simulations by Robin Crompton?This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-18-2004 02:15 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-18-2004 02:16 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-18-2004 02:34 PM

But that is not what we see in nature at all.Here are a couple examples.Vision: There is no one system. Instead, what we find are a whole host of solutions, none really well designed, each only good enough. We have vision in a single wavelength, split wave lengths, even systems that combine several types and formats.Locomotion: Again, no one design. There are critters that have all the way from no legs to hundreds. There are electrical systems, hydrolicly moved systems, ones run from cables (muscles), none really great designs, all only good enough.Hearing: More variation in design. There are critters that work from vibrations, ones that are very directional, ones that work a very low levels, others that work at very high levels.When you look around at what is out there, you don't find any indications of design, instead what you find is exactly what you wouold expect from Evolution. No goal, no direction, just good enough to get by.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

In reference to similarities. Similarities does not prove that we come from the same "ancestor", rather that we come from the same "designer".

---

This is exactly what we are discussing in The "common creator" myth thread. You should come on over and check it out for yourself. You may even want to participate, it is up to you. For now, let's not get sidetracked and focus on the claim that there are no transitional fossils for common ancestory for ape and human.

quote:

---

There is no transitional fossil bridge to even get involved with monkey to man theory.

---

Yes there is, as we have plainly shown. There are fossils that have both ape and human characteristics. BTW, it is ape to human, not monkey to man. Monkeys are a different group of primates.Please explain how after all of this debate that you now claim that there are no fossils that could possibly link man to ape. Are you just going to stick your head in the sand and shout "Is not, is not, is not" without actually engaging in a discussion?Also, cars don't reproduce so they are a poor analogy for reproducing populations that undergo mutation and selection.

Nothingness That is true but if you look at the children they have after matiing you will find that they produce a whole new model.Why would that be?

quote:

---

I'm also sure you are familiar with the computer simulations by Robin Crompton?

---

Are you? If you are, then please share it here (if possible & legal). I've been trying to get them.Anyway, if you are aware of Robin Crompton then I am also positive that you knew that Crompton said this...J Hum Evol. 1998 Jul;35(1):55-74. Related Articles, LinksThe mechanical effectiveness of erect and "bent-hip, bent-knee" bipedal walking in Australopithecus afarensis.Crompton RH, Yu L, Weijie W, Gunther M, Savage R.Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Liverpool. rhcromp@liv.ac.ukIt is universally accepted that the postcranial skeleton of the early hominid Australopithecus afarensis shows adaptations, or at least exaptations, towards bipedalism. However, there continues to be a debate concerning the likely form of terrestrial bipedality: whether gait was erect, like our own, or "bent-hip, bent-knee" like the bipedalism of living chimpanzees. In this study we use predictive dynamic modelling to assess the mechanical effectiveness of AL-288-1 under both hypotheses, on the basis of data on segment proportions from the literature. AL-288-1's proportions are incompatible with the kinematics of chimpanzee bipedalism, but compatible with the kinematics of either erect or "bent-hip, bent-knee" human gait. In the latter case, neither the ankle nor the knee joint would have contributed substantial mechanical work to propulsion of the body, and net energy absorption is predicted for these joints, which would have resulted in increased heat load. Such an ineffective gait is unlikely to have lead to selection for "bipedal" features in the postcranial skeleton.PMID: 9680467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]So what are you trying to tell us concerning Crompton's animation?This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 08-19-2004 03:25 AM

You just made my point about the monkey at the Israel zoo. That monkey should prove to you that there is NO SIGNIFICANCE in any partial upright mobility between humans, monkey or chimpanzees. The monkeys and chimpanzees are "still" able to walk in similar fashion, and always have. There is no need to speculate beyond that.Instead of trying to see the similarities of the fossils to us humans, you should emphasize more on the similarities between the historic monkeys and chimpanzees with the present day monkeys and chimpanzees. Check and see how precise they match.They have "NEVER" changed. Humans are humans. Monkeys are monkeys, and chimpanzees are chimpanzees.Like I stated before, the fossil is not human, it's a chimpanzee or monkey that walks partially upright. Match their bones, and presto, you have solved your own problem.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-19-2004 12:11 PM

did you manage to find the word "conclusive" in that paper you quote-mined (well you just cut'n'paste it - some crevs quote-mined it).If not want to retract your claim about that paper?

Don't worry we will get into the "mutations" and their problems in another topic. And also talk about the problems with "punctual equilibrium". It's more of a creationist model, than a evolutionist model. Abrupt appearances.: We'll talk later on that. We can't here...sorry. I get in big trouble.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-19-2004 01:07 PMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-20-2004 11:13 PM

I have his personal interview. If you wish to hear him claim it for yourself. Let me send you "his" video. Hear it from his own mouth.

Hi, Nothing!You can't really use evidence available only to yourself. It's kind of you to offer to send people copies of the video, but you need to avail yourself of evidence that is widely available so that everyone can participate. The Internet *does* have its crazies, and people should be discouraged from providing personal information such as snailmail addresses to people they know only through an Internet discussion board.--Percy

NOTHINGNESS,You have made this claim:

quote:

---

Instead of trying to see the similarities of the fossils to us humans, you should emphasize more on the similarities between the historic monkeys and chimpanzees with the present day monkeys and chimpanzees. Check and see how precise they match.

​

They have "NEVER" changed. Humans are humans. Monkeys are monkeys, and chimpanzees are chimpanzees.

---

Unlike many other creationist's claims, this can easilly be tested.Examine the geologic record.If your claim is true, Chimpanzees, monkeys and man should be found fossilised in at least a representative sample of every strata from the Pre-Cambrian upwards to the present.Are they?If not, and they are not why?Edited to correct spelling.This message has been edited by MarkAustin, 08-19-2004 01:48 PM

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

well I have all of his research papers - unedited and uncut - you keep claiming to have lots of videos, I'm going to step on a line here and say you are a bullshitter.You don't have any videos, you have nothing - you have control of ctrl+V followed by ctrl+X - I have failed to see you back up any of your claims without the use of those two powerful tools.Let's see some evidence you have a brain - again - where in his research material does he make this claim?

Bonobos apes walk (and behave sexually) like humans, and yet the early australopithicus was better adapted for walking than they are (proportions of leg and arm bones, arrangement of footbones).How do you explain australopithicus as an ape with those facts?just curious.also curious to see how you explain all the other australopithicus fossils that compliment the lucy skeleton without showing bones that contradict it -- which would be the case if it was a pastiche as you claim (or use creatortionista websites to claim). for more on this see the Evolution: Humans: Riddle of the Bones site from PBS.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Are you telling me that's alright to talk about the strata in this topic? I will only touch the tip of this subjects.The typical formation of strata is believed to form gradually, not abrupt, correct? According to evolutionists, it also takes millions, billions of years to create strata?New studies have shown that the typical belief that strata is formed is either wrong, or also formed through "abrupt" castastrophes.Mt. St. Helens is a good example. The eruption created an "abrupt" strata formation. It did not take millions, billions of years. A perfect horizontal (strata) model was created.Yet, another experiment which involved different mixed colored sands, which were slowly dropped into a large tank of water. With simulated waves being activated, it created vertical strata layers, which moved to the right, therefore creating horizontal strata behind.These layers progressed towards the end of the water tank. The differnt sizes/colors formed with the biggest size falling to the bottom, middle size sand falling to the middle, and the smallest on top.This layer buildup (from left to right, right to left) showed that the fossil within the layers would have been buried at the same time in a vertical position.The age of the fossils on the left vertical layer would be all the same age, because the formation of strata would cover "all" species withing the different vertial layers of strata.Therefore, the top horizontal strata is "NOT" the youngest, and the bottom strata is "NOT" the oldest, and not actually different ages. They are the same age within that particular "abrupt" catastrophe.This buildup of strata is more obvious through "abrupt" catastrophies. They also did dry experiments with different size, colored sands. The results were exactly the same, except they formed a mound with obvious strata formation within the mound.This experiement showed that strata does NOT only form gradually as many people tend to believe. This test is observable, and repeatable. Isn't that part of the scientific requirement? I believe it is.