Why are there no human apes alive today?

quote:

---

The Oyster Cove people attracted contemporaneous international scientific interest from the 1860s onwards, with many museums claiming body parts for their collections. Scientists were interested in studying Tasmanian Aborigines from a physical anthropology perspective, hoping to gain insights into the field of paleoanthropology. For these reasons, they were interested in individual Aboriginal body parts and whole skeletons.

​

Tasmanian Aboriginal skulls were particularly sought internationally for studies into craniofacial anthropometry.
In one case, the Royal Society of Tasmania received government permission to exhume the body of Truganini in 1878, within 2 years of her death, on condition that it was "decently deposited in a secure resting place accessible by special permission to scientific men for scientific purposes." Her skeleton was on display in the Tasmanian Museum until 1947.[57] Another case was the removal of the skull and scrotum for a tobacco pouch of William Lanne, known as King Billy, on his death in 1869.

---

Source about 2/3 down under Anthropological interest.As appalling as this is by today's standards it comes as no surprise that today's modern creationists twist it sicker still in lying about scientists and outright murder in violation of their god's commandment.Another excellent example of the oxymoron "religious morality."Edited by AZPaul3, : detailed the source.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yes, I am a godless atheist and an evolutionist but let me take a different slant on this question.The mere fact that you ask this shows an abhorrent lack of knowledge in the field.You do not know what evolution really means or how evolution is really said to work. How can you intellectually fight against something of which you have no knowledge?You are in here to do battle and you are hopelessly unarmed!Know thine enemy!Go learn something about the subject before continuing to look so stupid.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

What insults?When someone is looking stu*id you are doing them a favor, a kindness, to let them know. This is the point. Evolution is not some scale of comparison. There is no "evolved more" or "evolved less." There is only "evolved differently."This is the kind of thing that rings bells in my head. No one who understands (Note I did not say believes) the processes of evolution could ever make such a mistake. This leads inevitably to questions of how much more you do not understand about vectors of mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and a whole slue of other evolution sub-topics.If for no other reason than your own ego, Portillo, take the time to learn a subject before walking in here unarmed to do battle.And caution. What you may have heard or read on creationist sites or from creationist books do not give the whole story. A lot of those guys have no idea what they are talking about.As I said before, I am an atheist and an evolutionist. But I read the bible and the creation sites and Behe's books, just so I am armed on the field of battle.I strongly suggest you do the same.-------------------------------------------------------------------What's with the *** instead of the word stu*id?Who's idea was this?

Why the lie? Great ape relationships-------------------------------------------------------------Appologies. Let me start again. Another study here.An essay on the evidence Tree of Life Web Project with just a whole ton of references for this relationshipWas this opinion of yours formed based on some disagreement with the plethora of studies (see short listing above) documenting the fact of a very close evolutionary relathionship among the present hominids (which includes Homo sapiens) or are you just too damn *** to do any research at all before spouting this kind of garbage?Edited by AZPaul3, : kinder gentler me

If by 100% you mean have they evolved to their present attributes then ... obviously. If you are suggesting that evolution is complete and will now stop then only if a species goes extinct will its evolution stop. More change is on the way.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : mor spelin

Oh, yes."More" change does not mean "more" evolved. It means evolved differently.The semantics between the two uses of the word "more" are key.In your case the useage is quantity. In Portillo's case the usage is direction, purpose, quality.Your usage can be seen as technically correct. Portillo's is most certainly not.The regulars here know you understand this, CS, so I have to question the quibble.Edited by AZPaul3, : afterthought

And more change is still evolution, not "more" evolution. Neither do I since Percy is talking about the amount of change in each species evolution, not whether one is "more" evolved than another.

Could be, indeed. But in Portillo's case I doubt the subtlety would be recognized. It is best, IMO, to stay away from such distinctions and make a complete separation.

You can show dBcodes in your message by using the [noparse] ... [/noparse] set of codes.I'll bookend these on a quote square. See Peek. [qs] some verbiage [/qs]here's your amblo from the prior message: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Ambulocetus_et_pakicetus.jpg/250px-Ambulocetus_et_pakicetus.jpg[/img]Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

No humans in Australia prior to 200 years ago?You jest.

From a guy who thinks humans were created by an alien race.Portillo, sorry friend, but this is just plain assed dumb ***!

It's Lloyd Pye, nutjob extraordinaire. Have you read any of his books?Do you know anything of his nutjob views? Do you really want to use him as a source and be seen in the same light?

This "refute" hinges on one assumption. That mutation can only cause a loss of "information". Meaning that information cannot be made by natural processes in evolution.Here is a refutation to your refute: Evolution and the Origin of Biological InformationThese kinds of studies showing, indeed proving, that biological information can and indeed is increased through mutation and natural selection, have been around for many years. Yet creationists continue to close their eyes, plug their ears and chant "It did not happen. It did not happen."In other words. Creationists lie.It appears you support these lies, Mazzy. This doesn't bother you?By the way, about this "no humans in Australia before 200 years ago" thing.Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by that lie?

Except the creationist interpretation (based on Yahya's 2001 pre-ordained conclusion from Allah then cherry picking the evidence to support it) turned out to be wrong. What a surprise.Here is a real intellectual treatment of the data from almost a decade after Yahya's Allah-inspired and errant interpretation. The origin and early evolution of whales: macroevolution documented on the Indian SubcontinentIt's a PDF file.Again, Mazzy, this information has been around for years, yet you reach back almost a decade to propagate a falsehood.Why?

If there were some sister species to H. sapiens alive today this would not affect the Theory. We would know their evolutionary path and why they survived. The fact that there is no sister species to H. sapiens alive today, and we know why, does not present a problem for the Theory either.Neither scenario gives any support to creationism."Godonit" may appear parsimonious but is demonstrably false.You are right about one thing, however. Creationism is about as simple minded as you can get.***, ***, ***!