Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
185 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Taq (6 members, 179 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,498 Year: 20,534/19,786 Month: 931/2,023 Week: 439/392 Day: 55/74 Hour: 6/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2825 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 421 of 1075 (621936)
06-29-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 3:46 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:

They are also unable to explain why there are no intermediates around today with any more than possibly likely and maybe.

Just because your great-grandmother isn't still alive, does that mean that you're not related to her?

Congratulations. You've created your own PRATT.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 3:46 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 2:49 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 422 of 1075 (621939)
06-29-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Taq
06-29-2011 4:29 PM


Re: More evolved?
I have already responed to this nonsense line of human evolution.

The erectus fossil is only an ape. Turkana boy, however is human, and was not illustrated as it throws the nice crap line out of whack.

Then you have the last few that are neanderthal and they are perfectly huiman and calssified as a sub species of homo sapiens by some researchers.

I have posted evidence showing that similar morphology is NOT a sign of ancestry, hence your so called 'evidence' is not more than a wish and hope list put forward as flavour of the month.

You need faith to believe than any of these fossil skulls have anything to do with the human lineage.

You have faith in human researchers shown to be fallible so many times and illustrated in my previous posts. I have faith in an all powerfull God that can do anything He wants.

I will repost this link as my support.
http://nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/...ion_error.php

The link above is not about whom is right or wrong but simply demonstrates that the vast majority, at least, of your support for human ancestry is questionable and refuteable.

"But researchers led by David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, now calculate that the split may have occurred no more than 6.3 million years ago, and possibly as recently as 5.4 million. That would make Toumaï older than the time of the split. "

So you all go figure it out and what you come up with will be another rave of possibly, likely and maybe. What dating do you choose to have faith in????????

In other words these researchers have no clue and are best guessing and hoping at best.

Overall, I feel creationists have the stronger basis for faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 4:29 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 5:10 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 425 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 5:10 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 06-29-2011 8:49 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 442 by DBlevins, posted 06-30-2011 5:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 423 of 1075 (621942)
06-29-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
If ones beliefs being contradicted by the facts means someone should give up their beliefs then you should not be an evolutionist.

Which facts are these?

What is dishonest is the evolutionists claim that the evidence for human ancestry with todays apes is solid. It isn't.

Why isn't it solid?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:34 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 807 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 424 of 1075 (621948)
06-29-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:54 PM


Re: More evolved?
Overall, I feel creationists have the stronger basis for faith.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:54 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 11:14 PM Nuggin has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 425 of 1075 (621949)
06-29-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:54 PM


Re: More evolved?
The erectus fossil is only an ape. Turkana boy, however is human, and was not illustrated as it throws the nice crap line out of whack.

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?

I have posted evidence showing that similar morphology is NOT a sign of ancestry, hence your so called 'evidence' is not more than a wish and hope list put forward as flavour of the month.

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?

You need faith to believe than any of these fossil skulls have anything to do with the human lineage.

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?

The link above is not about whom is right or wrong but simply demonstrates that the vast majority, at least, of your support for human ancestry is questionable and refuteable.

Could you discuss this material in your own words, please?

"But researchers led by David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, now calculate that the split may have occurred no more than 6.3 million years ago, and possibly as recently as 5.4 million. That would make Toumaï older than the time of the split. "

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.

In other words these researchers have no clue and are best guessing and hoping at best.

So what features must a fossil have in order for it to be transitional in your eyes? Why can't you answer this question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:54 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Iblis, posted 06-29-2011 10:30 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 431 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 3:57 PM Taq has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18976
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 426 of 1075 (621975)
06-29-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:54 PM


Re: More evolved?
Hi Mazzy,

You still haven't squared yourself with the classification issue. Regardless what you believe about human origins, you must agree that the mammal we are most like is the chimpanzee, and the next most is the gorilla. In any biological classification system, at some level these mammals will be placed in the same group. Whether you call that group apes or Hominoidea or something else, humans, chimps and gorillas will be in the same group. That fact is inescapable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:54 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:31 PM Percy has responded

Iblis
Member (Idle past 2210 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 427 of 1075 (621983)
06-29-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Taq
06-29-2011 5:10 PM


Re: More evolved?
If you found a fossil with a mixture of ape and dog features then you would falsify the theory.

Nope, not at all.

Though a good line of argument in principle I guess, it's doomed to fail when very closely-related mammals like dogs or pigs are used as the goat. But sure, show us whatever, ape / cuttlefish similarities. That ought to do the trick. Something disssstant.

Main flaw in Mazzy's argument (beyond sheer chronic inaccuracy) is that its a long-since PRATT. There's no viable "missing link" question anymore, since the genetic evidence started rolling in. The same test that proves someone is that baby-daddy also independently confirms that the nesting predicted by cladistics and found profusely in the fossil record in the geologic table, is in fact evident in data suitable for family court as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 5:10 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:33 PM Iblis has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 428 of 1075 (622080)
06-30-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Percy
06-29-2011 8:49 PM


Re: More evolved?
I'll answer you first as you appear to be the more emotionally stable and able to debate without resorting to insults. I'll deal with the others later.

Percy the Linneaus system is based on the concept of ancestry. I would say a pig is more like a hippo than a whale, yet your researchers disagree based on genomic comparisons suggesting a whale is more similar to a hippo than a pig is to a hippo. So actually a hippo is more like a pig than a whale if you are talking about morphology. I love this one it is such a screaming chuckle.

Similarly morphologically a human shares more physical characteristics with an orangutan than a chimp, and below is the research that supports the human/orang similarity.

http://www.livescience.com/...-debate-chimps-orangutans.html

Now take a look at the reasoning of these researchers below. Here is the snip...

______________________________________
"Most of the comparisons that suggest that humans and chimps are so closely related are actually only looking at a region of two to three percent of the entire genome," Schwartz said.

Much of the rest of the genome is the non-coding region, where the sequence of molecules is less important because the genes are put together out of order, he said.

Furthermore, genetic similarities could arise independently, and don't necessarily equal an evolutionary relationship, Schwartz and Grehan contend.

Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration, finds some strength in the orang-human claim by Schwartz and Grehan.

"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Ebach, who was not involved in the new study. "Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data. Yet the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny."
________________________________________

So here you have evolutionary researchers clearly stating firstly that genetic similarities can arise independently. We all have heard of genetic homology. Hence evolutionists are able to pull rabbits out of hat when it suits them. If what you find does not fit you invent convergent evolution or explain it away with a variety of concocted theories, rather than admit TOE is dead.

Secondly and more importantly in relation to your comment humans are morphologically more similar to an orang than a chimp.

You see the thing is with a large variety of life it is obvious that some kinds are going to more similar to one than another. Evos use this to suggest ancestry. Prior to DNA testing it was all about morphology. DNA testing disagrees with some of this.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-chimps-related_2.html

The article above also speaks to the human/orang similarity. The refute is that not only one genomic region is similar to chimps many are. However I will also refute this. Look at the chimp/human comparison in this link.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892#

Here is abit of what the Perlagin study says

"Researchers at a company called Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, used a powerful biological computer chip that can scan the entire genetic makeup of an organism, that is, its whole genome. The results, published in Monday's issue of Genome Research, show that chimps and humans are much more different than scientists previously thought. "

I have little faith in your genomic comparisons that are biased in favour of suggesting ancestry.

So in short every kind will be more similar to one than another and we are NOT more like chimps, we are more like orangutans.

A kind is all the decendants of the initial creation of God, Just because one kind is similar to another does not denote they share a common ancestor.

Hominoidea and most of your homo erectus fossils are all just apes, and I can clearly see the distinction between apes and humans even if evolutionists are unable to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Percy, posted 06-29-2011 8:49 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by DBlevins, posted 06-30-2011 6:20 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 445 by Percy, posted 06-30-2011 8:32 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 429 of 1075 (622082)
06-30-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by Iblis
06-29-2011 10:30 PM


Re: More evolved?
Don't worry about your common ancestors lovey, you do not even have any intermediates anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Iblis, posted 06-29-2011 10:30 PM Iblis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2011 3:25 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 430 of 1075 (622087)
06-30-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 2:33 PM


Re: More evolved?
you do not even have any intermediates anymore

Message 196


This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:33 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 431 of 1075 (622088)
06-30-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Taq
06-29-2011 5:10 PM


Re: More evolved?
Dear, if you are suggesting that I need to have a theory of everything you are grossly mistaken. Your own researchers cannot answer many questions and still you have faith.

Are you a lumper or a spliter? What characterists demonstrated that Florensiensis was either a modern human or a homonid ape? Scientists are still debating this and really have no clue. Their desperation at clutching onto any feature, despite the fact that human features were around for 12my in LLuc, as displaying ancestry is straw grabbing at its best. It is likely that many of your homonids are just flatter faced apes. Much of your fossil evidence are chards of bone and bits reconstructed into what they want them to be.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-h...

I will take up your comment re Homo Erectus.

Let's have a look at this research below.

"ScienceDaily (June 29, 2011) — Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus -- a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution -- new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The research, reported in the journal PLoS ONE, offers new insights into the nature of human evolution, suggesting a different role for Homo erectus than had been previously thought."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/06/110629181853.htm

Here is another link demonstrating your researchers have no clue.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070813093132.htm

Really most of your Homo Erectus fossils are nothing more than a variety of gorilla, with a human thrown in here and there eg Turkana boy and possibly the little skull cap from Java man. These are just like those of an Australian Aboriginal and well within the variation of human skulls today that vary greatly. Don't forget your own researchers have problem telling the difference between man and ape fossils.

Evos have lumped them all together, as they do, while clearly there is huge difference between the varous erectus skull types. It is all woffle and desperation in an attempt to make the link from mankind to ape.

I will answer your post by saying this...Your reseachers have no clue what they are talking about. It is simply a case of the blind leading the blind in hope and faith that holds evolutionists together.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 5:10 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Taq, posted 06-30-2011 4:02 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 435 by Taq, posted 06-30-2011 4:05 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 444 by DBlevins, posted 06-30-2011 8:21 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 447 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2011 7:28 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 432 of 1075 (622089)
06-30-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
If ones beliefs being contradicted by the facts means someone should give up their beliefs then you should not be an evolutionist.

So what facts contradict shared ancestry between humans and other apes?

The evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villee, E. P. Solomon, and P. W. Davis admit that man emerged suddenly on Earth-in other words with no evolutionary ancestor before him-by saying, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record."

Please cite their peer reviewed papers so that we can discuss this.

What is dishonest is the evolutionists claim that the evidence for human ancestry with todays apes is solid. It isn't.

The genetic evidence is irrefutable. One of the prime examples is orthologous endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) as discussed in this peer reviewed paper:

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:34 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Joe T
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 433 of 1075 (622090)
06-30-2011 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
To be totally frank, my experience with material produced by Harun Yahya (a noted holocaust denier http://wwww.talkreason.org/articles/YahyaRevision.cfm ) has not been good. Granted his holocaust denial does not make his ideas about evolution false, but it does call into question his judgment. His creationist writings, while beautifully produced, are universally bad, relying largely on misdirection and quote mines. In fact in Yahya's magnum opus, Atlas of Creation, he uses a picture of a fishing lure as evidence that insects have not evolved. http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/...yas-atlas-of.html

I do not think that Yahya is a good source of information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:34 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 434 of 1075 (622091)
06-30-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 3:57 PM


Re: More evolved?
"ScienceDaily (June 29, 2011) — Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus -- a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution -- new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The research, reported in the journal PLoS ONE, offers new insights into the nature of human evolution, suggesting a different role for Homo erectus than had been previously thought."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 3:57 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 435 of 1075 (622093)
06-30-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 3:57 PM


Re: More evolved?
Really most of your Homo Erectus fossils are nothing more than a variety of gorilla, with a human thrown in here and there eg Turkana boy and possibly the little skull cap from Java man.

A gorilla? Really? Here is a gorilla skull:

Notice any differences?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 3:57 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019