Why are there no human apes alive today?

No actually we are not. If we were directly decendent from todays species of apes, our ancestry would be knucklewalking, which it isn't.With Ardi, evolutionists require a non knucklewalking ape, as a human chimp common ancestor, which by definition would be named a different species. As a creationists the species definition problem is an evolutionists problem.Like I said that is why you need a common ancestor at all, because mankind did not decend from the chimps around today.

I did not say species do not go extinct today. I said exitnctions to day are related to mankind. The Chaos theory link I put up also speaks to this and the writer is an evolutionist."What of extinction? Of course, species have gone extinct during the past 20,000 years. However, almost all examples involve some degree of human activity, either directly (think dodos) or indirectly (large mammals at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago)."
The chaos theory of evolution | New ScientistCatastophe does not explain all the supposed extinctions and neither does competition nor natural selection. It is myth based on assumptions. Below is a link to a creationist refute for TOE. Natural Selection vs. Evolution | Answers in Genesis I am not ignorant enough to think a dog gives birth to a cat. I am using scientific theory by your own researchers words, not bible quotes.We all know about the cuffuffle with florensisenses being human then chimp then deformed human bla bla and you still have researchers that disagree. Equally you still have researchers squabbling as to whether or not neanderthal did breed with other humans, suggesting it was marginal, if at all. In other words, it is all as clear as mud.Once again, the fact that they were here along side humans so recently lends support to the fact that not all of them should have disappeared if they managed to survive so well for so long. It is all about the interpretation of the evidence. At least one nitch of hairy half humans should have been able to survive in it's nitch not taking the 'accelerated evolution' to fuly human, and be there in Africa or somewhere. Well..there isn't. That is the FACT. The rest is theory.I am thrilled that you would even suggest I have any remote capability of constructing my own creationist phylogenic tree according to Mazzy.If I did, it would start at around about the rank of 'Sub family' where there is one in the classification, and Family where there is not. But like the species concept there are exceptions, like mankind. After all I am working with a flawed and biased system.So created kinds, in animals anyway, would begin at sub family or family, which ever the lower available. However, a created kind may mean a single breeding pair or many breeding pairs in the case of sexual reproduction. They may have been all identical, or there may have been varieties within kinds also created. There are exceptions where some are closser to say the genus level. Mankind is an exception. Of course if biblical creationists scientists were constructing the phylogenic models based on their assumptions, it may look quite different to the current one.I think any support has something simlar to 'rooting' in heirarchies or something. Maybe this is some indication of one breeding pair or many.So no I cannot put up my complete theory of everything. I can just weigh up the evidence for all versions of how life came to be. Decide what weight I put on what....and in the end....hope I am right.What happened to the dire wolf. Nothing at all. It's decendent kind are still with us today. I did not say that extinction has never happened, but there is no connection to catastrophe. Toba and KT both had a majority of survivors, not as initially theorised. Also I understand that pop is not going to live forever. If I had a daughter that married a short guy and all my grandchildren were short who also married short people and so my great gandchildren were all short. I'd be dead but my great great children would not be another species, just a different size to me.Generally, Dinosaurs are extinct, but lived for 800,000 years past KT.Saber toothed cat, was a cat. They are here today. Different teeth do not make a different kind. Your species concept is akin to naming the various in-kind adaptations that one observes. That in itself is fine. That is observed..it does not mythically magnify into macroevolution. God likely made quite a few variations of this kind, most of which are still here today, just a little better adapted to this environment.Similarly people with different shaped eyes, skin an hair colour, height, various craniums are all still Homo sapiens sapiens, and not different species. Evos had to invent 'races' instead so they did not look silly.All in all, evolutionists have no satisfactory answer as to why there are no half hairy people getting around anywhere. I'd say this supports creation in its simplicity. Evolutionists need to complicate the whole thing to make some plead for the theory of evolution...an theory in evolution itself.Here is an example of a creationists ability to interpret what "is observed" in favour of creation.http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.aspYou evos would have been better off if an ape man was found. But it hasn't and that supports creation in its simplicity and parsinomy.

So basically you agree that the reason why there are no hairy half humans is because of speculation. That is fantastic. Maybe, likely and possibly are used alot in evolutionary explanations and hypothesis.Could not survive when it changed is speculative. I have provided evidence that even catastrophy does not kill off most species. Statistically if the human line survived, variations survived untill recently, and the chimp line survived, something in the middle should have also until today, just another lousy 30,000 years compared to the 6-8 million all this supposed branching was happening. If just one little group survived, you would have your evidence. Now all you appear to have is speculation.However, my assertion, that the reason there are no half humans around is based on fact that there aren't any around today, fact; and the fossils you have found appear clearly within either human variation or ape variation, fact. Brain size does not necessarily denote intelligence and a famous author had a brain only 1000cc. Besides, who knows how misrepresented some reconstructions are!So you have found apes alongside man. A creationists support. Homonid fossils and bits thereof prior to erectus are all apes. Given mankind was created last, that again is in support of creation without the need for convoluted theories to explain it.Similarly there are no mid human/chimp species today because there never were any in the first place. Simple!.

It is not my uneducated word that I rely on. You are also refuting very well creationists such as Sanford and Sarfarti that do not find your theoretical evidence convincing.Here is another article that entertains the crocodile analogy. It is dimisssed"In contrast to pakicetids, Ambulocetus had a narrow snout and laterally directed orbits, relatively short legs, and an overall robust skeleton. An intriguing possibility regarding the palaeobiology of Ambulocetus is that it was a crocodile-like ambush predator that stalked prey while concealed in shallow water (Thewissen et al. 1996). This conclusion is based on the crocodile-like skull of Ambulocetus: both groups have long but robust snouts, pointed teeth, strong jaw-closing muscles and eyes located high up on the head."
Darren Naish: Tetrapod Zoology: When whales walked the land and looked like antelopes and mimicked crocodiles. and evolved trunks. What?So here you have some similarities between Natans and crocs. You choose to see what you want to see, regardless of the fact that Natans looks like a croc. The blatantly obvious, is ignored often by evolutionists.and No a horse and a cow are not the same according to my definition, if you know your taxonomy at all.Bovinae
Cephalophinae
Hippotraginae
Antilopinae
Caprinae
Reduncinae
Aepycerotinae
Peleinae
Alcelaphinae
PantholopinaeThese above are representative of kinds. A cow is Bovinae and a horse is from the family Equidae.So far it appears...I WIN..........Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

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.

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.

It is no more bullshit than your species definition with its plethora of inconsistency. You asked for a definition of kind, I provided one.You do not have to like it!

Portillo...just so you know, I agree with your post 349.In the case of humans Ardi, although not the missing link, is proposed as an intermediate. Ardi is now being refuted by some reasearchers as not being in the human line.This is the sort of thing you can see and I can see, and it happens often.I can see no rebuttal at all to your post. I see some talk about what a kind is, some questioning some statistics, another suggesting your family are illiterate, another suggesting to not pay attention to news headlines. These are not rebuttals.Here is a rebuttal to the ignorant evolutionists totally unaware of the garbage bin of evo delusions past, and prepared to follow the flavour of the month like sheep to the slaughter."Some of the most solid evidence for Ardi being included in the hominin branch is her small canine teeth. But the researchers are quick to point out that other ancient non-hominin species, including Oreopithecus and Ouranopithecus, also came to have reduced canine teeth, "presumably as a result of parallel shifts in dietary behavior in response to changing ecological conditions," the researchers suggest in their article. "Thus, these changes are in fact, not unique to hominins."The placement of a hole at the base of the skull, known as the foramen magnum, also might suggest Ardi as an upright walker, and thus perhaps a solid hominin. But in looking to other apes, "this feature is more broadly associated with differences in head carriage and facial length, rather than uniquely with bipedalism," Wood and Harrison note. Some extinct primates, such as Oreopithecus bambolii, evolved outside of the human line but nevertheless possessed similarly hominin-like traits, which, the authors write, "encourage researchers to generate erroneous assumptions about evolutionary relationships."
We're Sorry - Scientific AmericanI have also posted links to Lluc a flat faced primates and rebutted the fossil evidence as being either ape or human, with no intermediate all all being found.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htmArdi, meant to be very similar to the common ancestor, and thought to be in the human line that is a now being refuted is yet another example of lost intermediates, if not common ancestors.Here is a flavour of the year shot down in flames and delegated to the evolutionary garbage bin of delusions past.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/03/100302131719.htm"However, Kirk, Williams and their colleagues point out that short snouts and deep jaws are known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage. They further argue that Darwinius lacks most of the key anatomical features that could demonstrate a close evolutionary relationship with living haplorhines (apes, monkeys, humans, and tarsiers)."So above we see that really evolutionary researchers themselves in their rebuttal of Darwinius as a human ancestor have confirmed that human traits have evolved multiple times and is not necessarily anything to do with human lineage, as I have asserted.The thread is about the human line and human ape intermediates not being around. Evolutionary bla bla bla is not a refute to either of us. Any so called support for TOE could be delegated to the garbage bin of delusions at any time. This is not just headlines, This was research put up in 2009. Then boofheads have the hide to swear at you when it is they themselves that are ignorant.here is another intermediate delegated to the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions, "Little foot"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...61208-little-foot.htmlHere is more:The study reconsiders the evolutionary relationships of fossils named Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus, dating from four to seven million years ago, which have been claimed to be the earliest human ancestors.Ardipithecus, commonly known as 'Ardi', was discovered in Ethiopia and was found to be radically different from what many researchers had expected for an early human ancestor.Nonetheless, the scientists who made the discovery were adamant it is a human ancestor."We are not saying that these fossils are definitively not early human ancestors," said co-author Terry Harrison, a professor in NYU's Department of Anthropology."But their status has been presumed rather than adequately demonstrated, and there are a number of alternative interpretations that are possible," he added.Wood and Harrison cautioned that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships.They pointed out the cases of the Ramapithecus discovery in south Asia, which was touted in the 1960s and '70s as a human ancestor, and Oreopithecus bambolii discovered in Italy, which was assumed to be a human ancestor because of some of its skeletal features.After more detailed research was done on both of them, both were found to be fossil apes instead.The study will be published in the upcoming issue of the journal Nature.
Andhranews.netSo above we see some fossils no longer human ancestors but apes, once AGAIN delegated to the garbage bin of delusions, of once irrefuteable evidence for TOE.You evos have no intermediates and no common ancestors for the human line. What you do have is a hope list of support for human evolution. You HOPE it doesn't get tossed aside.So basically, I see that it is some evolutionists here that are unable to defend their 'so called' evidence for evolution with any more than faith, and wish lists......They are also unable to explain why there are no intermediates around today with any more than possibly likely and maybe.Evos just know there aren't any intermediates here with us today and they need to explain it with what ever twoddle they can come up with.You, Portillo, are doing just fine..........Don't listen to this lot of TOE faithful, particularly not Nuggin.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

If ones beliefs being contradicted by the facts means someone should give up their beliefs then you should not be an evolutionist.Evos have one belief "It ll evolved", the rest is delusion, wish and hope listing.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."http://nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/...ion_error.phpWhat is dishonest is the evolutionists claim that the evidence for human ancestry with todays apes is solid. It isn't.

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.phpThe 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 Touma 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.

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.Hot Debate: Are You More Like Chimps or Orangutans? | Live ScienceNow 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.htmlThe 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.You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED#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.

Don't worry about your common ancestors lovey, you do not even have any intermediates anymore.

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.Fossil Human Teeth Fan Diversity Debate - Scientific AmericanI 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.htmHere is another link demonstrating your researchers have no clue.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070813093132.htmReally 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.

These are pictures of kinds here today.Why are you suggesting this is evidence of anything other than the creation of various kinds.I have to go but I will speak to birds. Again simply stated your researchers have no clue. Some even challenge the dino to bird thing.http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/231/65/Your whale evolution includes fossils of crocodiles as ambulocetus natans, Tiktaalic the fist land walker had predated tetrapod footprints, coelecanth is not walking around on the sea bed floor it is alive today.I will have fun derailing this post tomorrow.