Why are there no human apes alive today?

I ask again, as you didn't get around to answering this question from a previous post:

Have you ever taken an evolution class? Human osteology? Have you studied casts of the major fossil man specimens? If not, from where do you get your vast learning?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And your supporting evidence for that is ...?

---

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

PuhlEEEZe, Mazzy! Really? Chimps resemble humans no more than they resemble quolls or frogs? Those have "4 limbs and a head," too, the last I looked.Are you so blinded by your religion that you can't even admit the plain fact that your "apes" and humans are a tiny bit more of a "common appearance" than either shares with non-primate quadrupeds?

---

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

Tigers have forward facing eyes also. It means little as far as ancestry goes.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/08/080828120312.htmWith genetic and morphological homology demonstrated between distantly related species and HGT, I'd say one can pick and choose what suits them as support or denial of common ancestry.It is very unfortunate for evos that no mid ape/human species are around today, like the famous Yeti. But there aren't, and this is a fact that creationists expect and have found without the requirement of 'probably' to explain.

Hi Lucy, nice diagrams.So let me get this straight.You have no problem grouping insects, snakes, rats, pigs and humans in the Amimalia kingdom.And you have no problem grouping catfish, snakes, rats pigs and humans in the Chordata phylum (mostly vertebrates).And you have no problem grouping whales, snakes, rats, pigs and humans in the Mammalian class.And you have no problem grouping lemurs, probiscus and spider monkeys, gibbons, chimps, gorillas and humans in the Primate Order.And you have no problem that humans are all alone in the Homo genus.But it drives you crazy grouping chimps, gorillas and humans in the Hominidae family, popularly called apes.Why?--Percy

It is true that evolutionists are the only ones that can place a chimp and human side by side and say they are the same. It appears to be you that is blinded by faith.Creationists can clearly see the obvious defference.Any kind will obviously appear closer to one species than another. Percy already suggested that I must admit we are closer to chimps than any other species. I challenged this by posting research that speaks to the closer morphological similarity to orangutans.To suggest that the species that most closely resembles mankind is ape is one statement. To look at both side by side and say they are similar is a totally different claim, one of which is ridiculous.

Who is saying chimps and humans are the same?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

We're talking about classification, not ancestry. Classification is performed by examining characteristics and seeking groups that share a set of characteristics, not just a single characteristic. I think most predators have forward facing eyes, which provide better tracking of prey through stereoscopic vision. And most herbivores have sideways facing eyes, which provide better detection of predators through peripheral vision.When we classify life according to shared characteristics we get a nested hierarchy. So humans reside within the Homo genus, which resides within the ape family, which resides within the primate order, which resides within the mammal class, which resides within the vertebrae phylum, which resides within the Animal kingdom.It's just a classification system. It says nothing positive or negative about any organism. Being a mammal doesn't reflect positively or negatively on humanity. Being a primate doesn't reflect positively or negatively on humanity. Being an ape doesn't reflect positively or negatively on humanity.--Percy

I am looking forward to Lucy's reply.I would like to add this....."What my colleagues and I did was apply all of these new methods to the problem of the origin of modern birds, with each method making different assumptions about how mutation rate changes across the tree," Brown said. He hoped the analysis would narrow the gap between fossil and molecular data, but in fact it only reinforced the rock-clock split by underscoring the finding that modern birds arose more than 100 million years ago."http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/02/080205171749.htmSo once again I have provided evidence of an evolutionary mess.The bible states bird kind was created before the majority of land animals. The biggest mess in your classification system is birds. Birds and reptiles are also not settled cladistically. As you should be aware cladistics is favoured by many scientists as opposed to the Linnaeus system, although not without its problems also. Cladistics favour monophylies. Monophylies are akin to created kinds.Cladistics - Wikipedia
Monophyly - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBasically the trunk of your evolutionary tree is the divide of created kinds that are able to adapt by in-kind variation which is limited.This is further supported by research such as this...a limit to continuing adaptation where fitness levels out and ceases to adapt, while contuinuing to aquire mutations. Creationists accept speciation and observed evidence, but they deny what is observed leads to macroevolution. Macroevolution is what evos must assume, and cannot prove due to time contraints or whatever. The fact being it is assumed and not proven.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/11/091102171726.htmHomo is a monophyly and in line with biblical creation. There are no mid species, only apes and humans, now and always.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

No one here has said this except you. No evolutionist is claiming chimps and humans are the same. They share a set of characteristics, but they are not the same. If they were the same then they'd be the same species. Chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans are all in separate categories at the species level. Humans even have a genus all to themselves - how about that for being special!Whales, squirrels, horses, chimps and humans are all considered mammals because of certain shared characteristics, such as bearing live young. You don't object to this classification, right?In the same way, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans are all considered apes because of certain shared characteristics, such as opposable thumbs and no tail. Why do you object to this classification and not the other?--Percy

--delete double post--Edited by Percy, : Delete.

RE: Your perspectiveUnfortunately for you, your perspective is simply wrong.I can say that my perspective is that trout are not fish. Doesn't make it so.

It's extremely easy to be certain when you don't hold to the facts.For example, I am absolutely certain that you only have one arm.Since other people on the forum would say that you PROBABLY have two arms, and they are uncertain - then, in fact, you have only one arm.That may come as a surprise to you, given that you have access to the facts. But, we're using your logic now.And you better be careful, lest I proclaim your other arm gone and you can no longer type.

yes, and I can clearly see that you have only one arm. Therefore you have only one arm.

Percy what you say sounds so convincing on face value.The problem being genetic and morphological homology between non related species. means evos get to accept what suits them and then have a theory to explain what doesn't fit.Many traits have arisin independently and it is about time evolutionists stopped looking at the evidence that suits them and inventing excuses via theories about what doesn't. eg accelerated genomic regions on the Y chromosome.Chaos theory, homology and homoplasy, speak to the mess and confounding variables relating to comparisons across closely related and distantly related species.The chaos theory of evolution | New Scientist
Homology - Wikipedia(biology)
Homology and homoplasy :: features and relationships - john hawks weblogSeriously, this looks like a game of pick what you want that suppports TOE and invent a theoretical excuse for that which doesn't.Creationists do not need the mumbo jumbo. The facts support the creation, including a monophyletic group of human beings being the only group alive today as expected.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.