Why are there no human apes alive today?

Dont swear.

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

You might as well say: "If the US had elected a president, there would be no reason to report it every four years". Lots of "links" have been found. They keep being found. This is why their discovery keeps being reported. I've got another explanation for why scientists keep reporting discoveries of intermediate forms. It's because they keep discovering intermediate forms.If they didn't, it would be easy to demonstrate. You could ask to see photographs of them and they wouldn't be able to do this:

Hi Nuggin,Moderators are strongly discouraged from moderating threads in which they're participating, but I think I'm on safe ground in this instance because we're on the same side in this discussion. I'm not going to moderate this thread, I'm just changing for roles for a moment to provide some feedback:You're probably a bit too far over the line regarding rule 10:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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?

Why would you expect a classification system to explain extinctions?Biologists have organized life around the planet into a hierarchical classification system based upon degree of relatedness as indicated by morphological similarity and, where the information is available, genetic similarity. Extinction has nothing to do with it. We have some hypotheses, but we don't really know for sure. But for the sake of discussion let's pretend that we do know why these other species went extinct. How would that affect the classification of Homo sapiens as members of the ape (Hominoidea) superfamily? The peppered moth is not an example of speciation. It's an example of natural selection.But you rhetorically ask if light colored moths went extinct, and this indicates some kind of fundamental misunderstanding, though I'm unsure what it is. You must be assuming some invalid relationship between evolutionary change and extinction. Are you assuming that evolution causes extinction? If so then that's dead wrong. Evolution causes adaptation. It is environments changing faster than evolutionary adaptation, causing species to become less competitive, that causes extinction.Also, no adaptive change is permanent. Reproduction is imperfect. Even the most precious adaptive feature is vulnerable to copying errors, and natural selection weeds out bad errors. I can see that your understanding of evolution makes no sense, but the fault is in your understanding, not with evolution. If evolution is wrong then it will be shown wrong for things it actually says, not for things you incorrectly think it says. In the field of human origins there is a great deal that is in dispute, not just Ardi. It's a very contentious field. But no matter what our evolutionary tree actually looks like, it wouldn't have any impact on the classification of humans as apes.--Percy

Mazzy:Bovinae
Cephalophinae
Hippotraginae
Antilopinae
Caprinae
Reduncinae
Aepycerotinae
Peleinae
Alcelaphinae
Pantholopinae
HominidaeThese above are representative of kinds. A cow is Bovinae and a horse is from the family Equidae. Gorillas and humans are Hominidae.- Fixed it for you. You're welcome.

As you can tell by the responses you drew from Nuggin and DBlevins, it isn't possible to make any sense of why you think that a) some form of peppered moth should have gone extinct; and b) that this is a problem for evolution; and c) that this has something to do with the classification of humans as apes.Can you take us through the chain of evidence and rationale that led you to these conclusions? We need to hear this because right now this just sounds like nonsense.The rest of your post was pretty hard to swallow too: What evidence led you to this conclusion? (I'm also curious, since your beliefs obviously stem from a literal interpretation of Genesis, why you believe there were any humans before around 6000 years ago, but that's a topic for another thread - forget I said anything.) I must have missed this. Could you cut-n-paste that research into your reply? Thanks! This is the old familiar fallacy of a false dichotomy. No matter what field of science we're talking about, proving one theory wrong doesn't prove another theory right. And in this case, assuming we're talking scientifically, there's only one theory within biology right now that explains species diversity. There's no controversy within science between evolution and creationism. The controversy exists as a social/religious/political issue, not a scientific one.--Percy

Professor Keith Bennet, the author of this article from New Scientist, is engaging in speculation. One currently popular hypothesis is that humans are responsible for the extinctions of large mammals in North America over the past 12,000 years, but there's no conclusive evidence. To state almost unequivocally that humans are responsible for most extinctions world-wide over the past 20,000 years goes way, way beyond the available evidence.I think we're all having trouble understanding what connection you think you see between the classification of humans as apes on the one hand, and extinctions and the details of human evolutionary history on the other. Let's say that we determine that neither Homo floresiensis nor Ardi is a human ancestor. How does that affect the classification of humans as apes?--Percy

Define "kind."

---

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

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"

This skull line is the typical mess that is often put up some supposed gradualtion from ape to human.Indeed G is meant to be homo erectus. The skull presented in your picture is an ape. However if they would have pictured Turkana Boy he is fully human. Turkana boy is classified as eragaster sometimes. From A-G are simply varieties of apes.Let's not forget that some humans, have some eyebrow ridging eg Australian Aboriginals, and are perfectly human.The Eregaster (H) shown in your picture is an ape and so is (I).They did not use floresiensis, thankfully as she is also just an ape, I reckon.
Homo floresiensis - The Australian MuseumThen there are the human Neanderthals from J-M, whose skulls are no different than many Aboriginals today and are just another human.Flat facial features are present in flat faced apes such as Lluc dated back to 12mya. It is not s sign of ancestry to humans.So what you actually have is a good representation of apes and the sudden appearance of mankind, only missing Turkana Boy, because that would throw the whole graduation thing into disarray for evolutionists. Well done!

A kind is the initial creation of God and it's decending progeny.

What utter bullshit.Please list those kinds or bring your little god in to list them for us, otherwise that definition is simply bullshit.

---

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

All scientists engage in speculation and indeed that is all they have once they delve past the here and now.It is not so much that evolutionists like to give every variation a new name and call it a different species. What urkes me is that you use this to suggest macroevolution from ape to man.For example I am saying Turkana Boy is fully human. He may have been taller, his bones may have been a little different. You want to call this Erectus. Fine. There is huge range in sapiens we call these races, as opposed to species. Yet the bottom line is Turkana Boy is human. People today are getting fatter, are we evolving a new species of fat humans? No. Why: Because they are all still just simply human. You could call them fat humans to distinguish them, but they are still human. Perhaps sapiens with an IQ above 130 are a new species, smarter. No..they aren't. They are just smart humans.A new tribe has just been found in Africa. They are all human too. There are no, and never have been anything inbetween ape an man. Further to that your scientists have never found anything in the middle. They have found apes and humans, often side by side.It should not be hard to follow that evolutionists suggest an intermediate between mankind and ape. So we need a half hairy guy, unless you are suggesting apes lost all their long hair overnight. Where is he? So far all your researchers have produced are apes or humans.I suggest the speculation that all these hairy intermediates died off because they could not compete does not explain why some of them aren't still as they were supposedly 2mya. Could not compete for what? Land ..there was plenty of uninhabited land. Mates..they had their own, food...did the human line eat them out of house and hold? What does 'could not compete suggest". It sounds like yet and other mythical speculation to explain what should be around but isn't. On the other hand you also talk about humans mating with humans in the case of humans and neanderthal, unless they were into beastiality.We thought we had an ape man with Yeti, but alas that was a hoax.So basically you put faith in the 'out competed' line and I do not; certainly not as the explanation why every single early homonid tribe went extinct. There is heaps of stasis in the fossil record.It is sad for evolutionists, that some pre Homo's did not stay in stasis for a little while longer.I am off for a few days now on business. In the end we will weigh the research up and come to our own speculations.