Why are there no human apes alive today?

AGAIN. Humans did not split from chimps. Humans AND chimps split from a distant common ancestor. All the species that led from that ancestor to humans have gone extinct. All the species that led from that ancestor until the split between chimps and bonobos also went extinct.That's what species do. 99.9999% of all species which have ever existed have gone extinct.Asking why 5 or 6 of the hundreds of billions of extinct species didn't survive is a more than a little silly. that's because peppered moths are an example of rapid natural selection but not an example of speciation.Look instead at the numerous varieties of jumping spiders. The chief difference between them is in their genitalia. The various species LITERALLY don't have matching parts any more.THAT'S speciation. Humans ARE apes. Get it tattooed on your face. Are you serious? I can name extinct species from YOUR part of the world. Ever seen a Moa? Same family as emus and ostriches. Extinct. Wolves live in the forest. Dogs live in the house.
If dogs tried to live in the forest, they would get out competed by wolves.If wolves tried to live with humans, we'd breed out any wildness and be left with dogs.Two DIFFERENT NICHES. Two different species. First of all, have you see any projections on chimp populations. They'll be gone soon enough.Second, they live in dense jungles, up in trees. We don't live in trees. Two DIFFERENT NICHES, two different species. Neanderthals, Flores and Denasovians were ALL around until very recently.However, they didn't last long after H. Sapiens found them. There are no living mid-relatives between you and your 5th cousin. Can you explain that?Clearly if you and your cousin are related as you claim, then there must be SOME living relative who is half you and half your cousin.Why doesn't that person exist? Here's a tip. If you are going to link an article that you think supports your claim, YOU SHOULD READ THE ARTICLE FIRST.This is what YOUR ARTICLE SAYS:"Based on the evidence they've cited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.Between this gaff and your woefully ignorant and frankly extremely racist claims about Australian history, I'm beginning to think you may be a home school Creationist.

This is perhaps the stupidest thing you've said yet. In fact, this may be among the stupidest things any creationist has ever tried to argue on these forums EVER.Do you need a list? Okay. I'll give you a list. Fuck, I'll give you a list of ANIMALS WHICH HAVE GONE EXTINCT IN __ AUSTRALIA __.Will THAT satisfy you that animals go extinct?
Probably not.Thylacine or Tasmanian tiger: These carnivorous marsupials were more hunted and killed by humans and have become extinct when the last of its species died in the year 1936.The Lesser Bilby: This lesser bilby species was last seen in the year 1960, was common in the desert areas of Central Australia. The dwindling numbers are because of loss of habitat by grazing and poultry, as well affected by frequent fire.The Desert-Rat kangaroo: This extinct marsupial is of the size of a small rabbit that once lived in South-western Queensland and in the northeastern part of Australia. These Desert Rat kangaroo was last seen in the year 1935.Landbeater's Possum: These species were found in the Victorian Central Highlands and were mostly found nested in the bark of old tress. They were found and seen last in 1961.The White-footed Rabbit-rat: One of the native rodents of Australia that was of the size of a kitten. This nocturnal rat lived amidst trees and leaves. These were perhaps seen last in 1935.

Well, clearly there are "mid-humans" alive today. According to you, there are many sub-humans: Africans, Aborigines, Indians, Asians.Anyone not lily white is clearly not human. Right? That's basically your argument.

So, let's sum up your weeks worth of argument."Duh, it looks like it to me."You've made 12 posts which make the exact same argument. You are uneducated and can't tell the difference between two things which look superficially alike.We AGREE. You ARE uneducated. YOU can't tell the difference between things which look superficially alike.Guess what, DETAILS MATTER.Just because YOU are IGNORANT it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to pretend to be stupid.The fact that we've explained this multiple times and it's not getting through means that either you are more profoundly stupid than you appear (which frankly is hard to believe. After all, you are presumably using a computer) -or- like most other Creationists you are just inherently dishonest.I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just retarded. After all, you are the only Australian on the forum and also the least educated about Australian history. A fact that the rest of us find endlessly amusing.So, let's just have it as understood. You don't give a crap about details. A horse and a cow are the same thing in your world. The "experts" be damned. In your world, sure. But, fortunately for the rest of us, we don't live in your world. We have educations.

And since NO ONE ANYWHERE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE DID, this isn't a problem.Get it? No, of course you don't. As a creationist, there's a whole host of other problems. Like the fact that there isn't any reason for there to be ANY animals which are the slightest bit different than what we see today.AND, there's no reason for any variation whatsoever within animals we see today.AND, there no reason for different animals in different areas to occupy the same niches.AND, there's no evidence of poofing.AND, there's no explanation of DNA.AND, there's no explanation of ERVs.AND, AND, AND, AND, AND...By the way, going by your standard of "dunno, looks alike to me", how can you distinguish between the Bible and a dictionary? After all, they are both books. With the risk of repeating myself from the TOP OF THIS VERY POST:And since NO ONE ANYWHERE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE DID, this isn't a problem.Get it? No, of course you don't.Jesus, did you even attend any sort of schooling at all growing up? I mean, I know Australia isn't exactly a brain trust, but holy fuck.

So, let's review:You: "Why aren't there any human ancestors still around?"
Us: "We killed them."
You: "But they should be here."
Us: "No, humans don't accept competition, we wiped them out."
You: "But they should exist."
Us: "They did exist. Until we got to them and killed them."
You: "But they should have been around until recently."
Us: "They were. Right up until we spread into their areas, then we killed them."You:Us: You have GOT to be kidding us. ... in the last 20,000 years. What about the 4+ BILLION years you are ignoring? Don't sell yourself short, you are PLENTY ignorant enough. Yes, when people first propose an idea multiple individuals will have different takes on the subject. Then, research is done, and a consensus is reached.Flores IS a new species. It is not a chimp. It is not a deformed human.
Neanderthal DNA IS present in Eurasian populations. They DID interbreed.Period. There is no longer any significant debate.If you want to try and rule out something based on different people disagreeing, then you have a REAL problem with Creationism. After all, YOU are claiming that things have happened over the last 20,000 years while TRUE CHRISTIANS know that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.Clearly neither of you can be right, since there is a debate. Right? Your position, I'm just using it against you. I heard a really good response to this earlier in this very post. What was it? Oh yeah, it was this: Can you point me to a zoo what has dire wolves? No? Maybe a wildlife refuge that still has them? No?Well where are they exactly? After all, since they are so much like timber wolves, they should still be around. Right? No, the VAST VAST VAST majority of dinosaur species died LONG before KT. So, you believe that a sabertooth tiger and a house cat can mate? Care to draw us a picture of how exactly that would work?Do they have sex education in Australia? According to you, anyone who isn't a white European is not human.Are you now contradicting your earlier statements? Is "A stork brings babies" a simpler answer than sex education?Don't actually bother to answer, seeing as doing so will just lead you to lie again. The point is made. Simple is not a good judge of factual.Read a fucking book.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Your definition is: "If two things look superficially like one another, then they are the same group."Horses and cows look like each other. Four legs, eat grass, stand in fields, flat backs, hairy, tails, head in the front.Ergo, these are the same animal.Certainly, more so than ambulocetus and crocs, which have LESS in common with another another than horses and cows.By the way, you are forbidden from citing taxonomy in a post in which you argue taxonomy should be ignored in favor of "duh, they look alike to me."

Statistically? Really? Show your math.99.999999% of all species which have ever lived have gone extinct.What POSSIBLE statistics could you present that would DEMAND that a challenger to humans for resources MUST be a member of the .00000001% exception? And my assertion that there never was a Roman Empire is because there's no Caesars live today.My assertion that you don't have any ancestors is that no one older than your grandparents is alive today.My assertion that the sandwich I allegedly had for lunch never existed is because it's no longer around today. Given that the Bible is a work of fiction, you can't really use it as a source for your argument, can you?After all, the Bible is actually no different than the dictionary. They both are book, have pages, writing on the pages. "Duh, looks alike to me, must be the same thing".

Which fucking word didn't you understand the last time I explained this? Is there anyone in your family who can actually read? Maybe they can help you puzzle this out:Newspaper headlines are NOT sources of scientific information.The fact that a newspaper write "missing link found" has NOTHING TO DO with the actual discovery, it's value, it's place in the fossil record.It ONLY has to do with that newspaper's desire to SELL NEWSPAPERS.If this post looks familiar, it's because I ALREADY FUCKING EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU.

Yes.

If you stop lying, I'll stop swearing.I don't see that happening any time soon.

You're of course correct.
I'm overly frustrated with the consistent dishonesty in which Creationists pride themselves.It's just that when the other side completely ignores facts and logic, you're left with little else to argue aside from the person.We've argued the position. We've presented facts, examples, laid out the logic. We've pointed out obvious flaws in the counter argument. We've demonstrated an extreme degree of hypocrisy on the other side. None of it has made a difference.So, really, what's left?It's sort of like if I responded to this post with: "Show me where I've been disrespectful" and then simply repeated that demand every time you presented an example.How long do you think that could go on before I was locked out?If good faith is more than we can ask from the "faithful", what's left but mocking?

Any two things which look kinda like one another.Humans, kangaroos, ostriches - all "2 leg kind"
Cows, horses, crocodiles - all "4 leg kind"
Clams, stones, curled up armadillos - all "rock kind"

EVERY skull pictured is from an ape. They are all from members of the ape family.You are clearly still failing to grasp the definition of the word "ape".What parts of the 7 posts in which this is explained to you did you fail to understand? So now aboriginies are human? What changed your mind.Here's a skull from an Australian Abo, go ahead and point out the brow ridge. In contrast, here's Erectus, just so you can match up your claims: Can you tell the difference? And neanderthal: Again, see the difference?Now, I'll grant you, in a world in which horses and cows are the exact same species since "Duh, they look alike to me", these skulls are hard to tell apart.

Right, 2 legged kind - Humans, birds, kangaroos
4 legged kind - Dogs, Cows, Lizards (and grasshoppers according to the Bible)
Many Legged kind - all bugs except grasshoppersThis is SUPER easy. No wonder Creationists want it taught in school. You can get 12 years of education done in an hour and a half.