Why are there no human apes alive today?

More divergent does not equal more evolved. Selection of already existing features is as much evolution as selection of new features.

What seems to be confused is the process vs. the end result. Every lineage has been influenced by the process of evolution, but the end result of that process is different for each lineage.As an analogy, if a random number generator spit out a series of numbers would the highest number be called the most random? Of course not. All numbers are equally random even if some numbers are larger than others. They are all products of the same process.However, there is a term that does describe what people are trying to get at, and it is the term that scientists actually use. That word is "derived". A more derived species is one that has more changes than sister species as compared to the common ancestor. This would make modern bacteria less derived than humans since modern bacteria share more features with the common ancestor of bacteria and humans than humans do. Does that make sense? False. The only way that stasis can occur is through evolution. Stasis is the selection of alleles found in previous generations. Without evolution the prevalence of alleles from previous generations would be swamped by variation found in each subsequent generation. Whether it is selection of new alleles or pre-existing alleles the process is the same: evolution.

Sanford's work is strictly anti-evolution. His model seeks to demonstrate that evolution working alone would result in genetic meltdown, therefore species could not have evolved. Period. Nowhere does Sanford run experiments that test whether or not species were magically poofed into being. It is impossible for species to get stuck anywhere since every generation has new mutations not found in any previous generation. Evolution doesn't stop. It continues in every lineage.We can use the Romance languages (e.g. French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese) as an example. All share a common ancestor which is Vulgar Latin. All language groups have acquired their own specific differences over time. None are a transitional form of the other, nor are they in-between versions of one langage and Vulgar Latin. Each language lineage diverged from the others and continued to change. At the same time, there are obvious homologies in each language that come from their common ancestral tongue. In order to find the "in between" stages you have to travel back in time along the lineage of each language.

The process is evolution. The end result is varying degrees of divergence. Is Mecury more gravitated because it's orbit is more heavily influenced by the Sun? Nope. That is described by fitness. Species are more fit or less fit, not more evolved or less evolved.ABE: Just thought of some better examples. Let's look at the camel and polar bear. If we put the polar bear and camel in the desert you would say that the camel is more evolved. If we put them both in the arctic you would say that the polar bear is more evolved. So how can the polar bear (or camel) be both more evolved and less evolved at the same time? It was only an analogy that is not meant to be strained this far. That would only affect the speed at which populations change. They are still evolving, just as both Mercury and Pluto are orbitting the Sun through the same process, just at different rates.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This is true of each generation in both the French and Spanish lineages, clear back to the point where the languages diverged. At no point were children incapable of speaking to their parents, but the same can not be said of generations separated by longer time periods (try reading the Canterbury Tales in Old English). The difference is that each lineage acquired different changes. It is the divergence due to lineage specific changes over time that moved the two languages apart, just as it does in biology.Languages actually make for a good analogy when discussing evolution. It isn't a perfect analogy, but then no analogy is. For reference, wiki has a nice diagram of the Romance Languages here.

Just so you don't feel picked on, I have heard biologists on TV programs talking about more and less evolved lifeforms. I wish they wouldn't do it, but they do nonetheless. If you were to push them on the topic they would probably agree that the phrasing is incorrect. The problem is one of communication. Scientists try to adopt a more colloquial vocabulary when talking to the public, and in doing so they can misrepresent what science actually says.More on topic, the term "ape" is colloquial. In scientific papers scientists will not use the term ape, at least not in my experience. Most often, they will usually just use the term "primate". A discussion on the every confusing classifications can be found here.

What criteria are you using to differentiate between ape and not ape in those skulls?What features must a fossil have in order for you to consider it as intermediate between humans and non-humans? Until you share with us the criteria you are using you can claim no such thing.

So what do you call it one someone's opinions and beliefs are directly contradicted by the facts, but they keep pushing those opinions and beliefs as if they were not contradicted by the facts?I would call this dishonesty. What about you?

So what features must a fossil have in order for you to consider it transitional? How did you determine that the fossils in the picture below were not transitional? What criteria are you using?

Which facts are these? Why isn't it solid?

What criteria are you using to determine whether a fossil is ape or human? What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to accept it as transitional? So you are saying that if humans and other apes do share ancestry that we should not find any similarities between us and and other apes? Similarly, are you saying that we should not find transitional fossils if evolution is true? It doesn't take any faith to conclude that these fossils do have a mixture of modern human and basal ape features just as one would expect to find if evolution is true. These fossils are used to test the theory, and the theory passes those tests. If you found a fossil with a mixture of ape and dog features then you would falsify the theory. See how that works? Could you discuss this material in your own words, please? H. erectus is younger than 6.3 million years, so this doesn't disqualify H. erectus or H. habilis, H. ergaster, A. afarensis, etc. All of these fossil transitionals are younger than the 6.3 million that you posted here. So what features must a fossil have in order for it to be transitional in your eyes? Why can't you answer this question?

So what facts contradict shared ancestry between humans and other apes? Please cite their peer reviewed papers so that we can discuss this. The genetic evidence is irrefutable. One of the prime examples is orthologous endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) as discussed in this peer reviewed paper: As it turns out we share tons of ERV's at the same location in our genome. This is the smoking gun evidence of shared ancestry.Do you notice how I cite peer reviewed scientific papers instead of websites run by crackpots? See how that works?And you still haven't answered my question. What features must a fossil have in order for you to consider it transitional between modern humans and our common ancestor with chimps?

I never co-existed with my great grandfather. Does this mean that my great grandfather is not one of my ancestors?

A gorilla? Really? Here is a gorilla skull: Notice any differences?

This, coming from someone who can't tell the difference between a gorilla skull and H. erectus. Sorry, but your credibility is shot.