Why are there no human apes alive today?

Except that your definition of kind explains absolutely nothing whatsoever.Every question posed to this definition gets the same answer: "Duh, I dunno, God is magic".That's useless.

And yet Mazzy would still find a way to deny it.

Nah, it's vastly more simple than that. She's just lying.No reason to think any deeper than that.

Remember also that we're not just talking about morphological differences within a species over space, but over time.An extremely early Erectus should be different than an Erectus from 500,000 years later.

Sure, it's both variables. Time and space.I would guess that location (environment) is going to contribute more to both the amount and speed of change, than time would. Flores didn't get small because it was around so long, it got small because it got stuck on an island.

I was never a pure multiregionalist. The idea that different groups would acquire the same or similar mutations in isolation just sticks in my craw.I think people don't give erectus enough credit in his mobility and his sex drive. If he was anything like we are today, gene exchange between even disparate groups could have been fairly regular.The one thing I feel sort of supports multiregionalism was never really brought up when I was getting my degree. Climate.Worldwide climate change towards warmer or colder (and therefore wetter or drier) can drive similar adaptions in groups which aren't connected.Gene variants which could have been in a founding out of Africa migration could still be present in groups all over Eurasia, just not highly selected for. Climate ticks up or down a few degrees and suddenly these genes are heavily selected for - a couple hundred generations and they are the dominant, accentuated trait. And no need for weird mutation mechanics.

It's been a long time, but multiregionalism, as I remember it when I was in school, was taught as the counter to out of Africa waves. It was presented as:Either - a group developed in isolation, then spread out (ie from Africa, or from Java or where ever) and replaced existing populations.
Or - groups all over all developed traits independent of one another.Now, I may just be remembering it wrong, but my thoughts at the time were "We don't have a mechanism for this so even if the fossil record seems to indicate it, that's a problem".

Bullshit.You can't repeatedly make the same errors in the face of evidence without knowingly being dishonest.What boggles my mind is this:We know you are lying. You know you are lying. Yet, you keep doing it. There's literally nothing for you to gain, so why do you keep doing it?

And this is the problem with you Creationists. You think that opinion is on par with facts.There is no "truth" in your worldview.If *** will trick someone into believing in your magic, then *** is perfectly okay.
If the facts of reality disagree with your mythology, then the facts must be changed.This is why we fight you.Facts are facts. Your _opinion_ of them doesn't matter.

I don't give a crap about changing your belief.You can believe whatever the hell you want. It doesn't matter.What matters is reality. You people are trying to get the rest of the world to change reality to fit your beliefs and you are willing to *** to do it.That's unacceptable to anyone who supports reality. It SHOULD be unacceptable to anyone claiming to be moral.However, it hasn't even slowed you down.

This comes down to an age old debate about Creationists."Are they Evil or just stupid?"You are of the camp that they are just stupid. I disagree. I think they are profoundly evil. While clearly some (most) are likely both evil and stupid, it's simple impossible for me to believe that someone able to operate a computer is incapable of understanding such basic sentences as:"Scientists don't call it a missing link, the news media does. They just want to sell stories, so they use that title a lot."There really aren't that many SAT words in that statement. For EVERY CREATIONIST on EVERY FORUM to get this wrong EVERY TIME would require more coordinated stupidity than is capable.No, they are denying things because, to them, doing harm to children through the propagation of ignorance is their highest calling.Put simple, they *** because they are bad people who want to do harm - evil.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

Overall, we feel that creationists are fundamentally retarded and rely on the good will of the educated to survive.The unfortunate thing for your argument is that our position is based in facts while yours is based in wishful thinking.So far, I can sum up the entire line of argument you've presented this way:Mazzy: "I haven't bothered to learn about evolution, therefore I can't tell the difference between two fossils. And since I can't tell the difference, no one can."It's laughably childish, but it seems that's all we can expect to find dealing with Creationists.After all, if Creationists were capable of higher thinking, there wouldn't be any Creationists.

You and I are both apes and we're using language to communicate right now. I am using logic as well, can't say the same for you. Well, "write" and "record" is the same thing - and yes, humans are the only animal we know of with written language.However, many different animals are capable of speech. Some of the languages are are starting to decode. Prairie Dogs for example have a complex series of barks their watchers use to communicate if there is a threat, where it is coming from and when the coast is clear. That's information transfer through sound from one individual to one or more individuals. That is language.Beavers build amazing structures which expand their environment, and they pale in comparison to termites and ants. These things have regularly be observed in animals. There are several species of bird which can reason, calculate and invent. I remember reading something (in Discover magazine I believe - I'll find it for you if you need me to once I have the time) about a study with birds where the bird was given a wire and a bottle with a treat inside. The birds had to bend the wire a certain way, then use it as a hook, to get the treat out.That's a bird ASSESSING the situation, REASONING out a solution, CALCULATING the amount of bend in the wire, and using the wire to INVENT/CREATE a hook.Basically, you just need to read more.

So many logic errors in so few sentences.First, mankind was not "created".Second, mankind does not have the "ability to perceive an after life". There's no evidence of an after life, there's no way to measure an after life. It's nice to believe in one, but believing doesn't make it real.Third, you don't know what chimps can or can not do, nor do you know what other organisms can or can't do.Can you PROVE to me that an oak try can not "offer glory to God"? Nope. You think they can't. You say we are better than they are because you think they can't, but you can't define "offer glory to God" any better than any other fairy tale criteria.

Wrong again. Homo Erectus, and in fact Homo Habilis before him, had fire.Seriously, you have to TRY to get this much stuff wrong this consistently. No, we have not devolved. Neanderthals were an offshoot which was re-absorbed. All out of Africa populations have roughly 8% neanderthal DNA.As for who was smarter, it depends on what you are using as a measurement. Neanderthals certainly lived a lot longer than we have.All the rest of what you wrote is your typical lunacy.