Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4580 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 781 of 1075 (623403)
07-10-2011 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 773 by ZenMonkey
07-09-2011 8:59 PM


Re: Turkana ape-man
Neanderthal is human because he is Nephalim. Hence the differences in morphology and DNA.
Neanderthals are described as brutes and men of renown and they stood out amongst the crowd as one would expect a neanderthal would beside a homo sapiens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-09-2011 8:59 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 783 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2011 8:46 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4580 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 782 of 1075 (623406)
07-10-2011 5:45 AM


This is how easy it is to misrepresent a fossil skull.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/03/070324133018.htm
As you can see in the link a researcher can reconstruct a face as it suits them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 784 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2011 8:57 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 800 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 12:18 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 783 of 1075 (623418)
07-10-2011 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 781 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 4:22 AM


Re: Turkana ape-man
Neanderthal is human because he is Nephalim.
Evidence?
With an average male height of five feet five inches they don't sound much like the Nephilim (note spelling) described in Numbers 13:32, who were described as being "of great size".
Hence the differences in morphology and DNA.
Because they were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men? (Genesis 6:4).
It would follow that male Neanderthals would have God's Y chromosome. Theologians have much to learn from the Neanderthal Genome Project. For one thing, they could find out if God has hairy ears.
Neanderthals are described as brutes and men of renown ...
Where are Neanderthals described as men of renown?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 781 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 4:22 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 784 of 1075 (623420)
07-10-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 782 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 5:45 AM


As you can see in the link a researcher can reconstruct a face as it suits them.
So you might hope, but it's probably harder than you think. How, for example, would you go about reconstructing the face of Turkana Boy to look "just like" that of Anoiapithecus, in line with your delusion-of-the-week?
Making small errors of reconstruction may be possible for scientists, but even a creationist would find it hard to make a really big one of that nature; I will wager you'll find it easier to continue to make your mistakes in written form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 5:45 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 785 of 1075 (623423)
07-10-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 4:16 AM


Re: Turkana ape-man
The point is the skull looks like an ape because it is an ape.
Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes. I am remiss in my ability to understand how such intelligent scientists cannot see the difference. The skulls are clearly ape and human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 4:16 AM Mazzy has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4501 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 786 of 1075 (623434)
07-10-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 4:16 AM


Wait a minute.
Before I attempt to address any more of your claims, I would like you to clarify a point for me. As far as I know, you have never said just how old you believe this planet to be, or more importantly, how long you think that human beings have been here.
Do you agree with the commonly accepted ages of the remains we've been discussing?
Please refrain from using the "Experts are Idiots" defense. If you believe that there is a reason why all of the modern dating methods are in error, please say what that reason is. Remember, your explanation has to account for the fact that independent and distinct methods all converge on the same values.
For example, if you weighed a rock using a balance beam, a spring scale, and water displacement and came up with the same answer every time, that would tend to be conclusive evidence that you had measured correctly. The same situation is true for radiometric and other commonly used dating techniques. They are independent each other, and they all converge on the same values. If they were wrong, they would all be giving different answers. They do not.
Also, please don't use the "If They Said One Thing 30 Years Ago and Something Else Today, They Must Not Know What They're Talking About At All" variation on the "Experts are Idiots" defense. Dating methods today are more accurate than they were in the past. 30 years ago it wouldn't have been possible to use GPS technology to measure the distance between continents to an accuracy of inches. Today it's done daily. Accuracy increases with time.
I've also noticed that you have a practice of finding the work of dissenters and outliers to be more convincing that that of the majority of experts in a field, or at least to cast serious doubt on the validity of what the majority of experts accept as the best answer in any given case. As has been stated many times, one of the strengths of science is that it grows and revises itself to account for new information. Established theories have to account for new data, if that data is valid. Conversely, new models have to account for all previously validated data, and have to provide a better explanation than previous models have.
If you or anyone else wants to dispute currently accepted facts and theories, then you have to provide evidence and reasoning that specifically address those facts and theories. Simply saying that you disagree or that someone else disagrees is not sufficient.
I've gone on much longer than I intended (not for the first time, alas), but only because I wanted to head off any diversions from what is really a simple question.
Do you accept as valid the established dates of the remains we've been discussing?

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 780 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 4:16 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 790 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 3:03 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Meddle
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 787 of 1075 (623436)
07-10-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 778 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 3:11 AM


But as pointed out in the article you cited, the locations of the PtERV sequences are not shared across the genomes of the species which possess them. This is what you would expect if these sequences originated from separate infection events by random insertion of retroviruses.By comparison other families of ERV sequences can be found in exactly the same locations over the genomes of numerous species. This is what would be expected if the ERV sequences were inherited from a common ancestor.
It is also important to remember that since ERV sequences are derived from retroviruses they possess genes capable of multiplying themselves through the host genome, and that over time this ability is lost due to acquiring more mutations. Again these specific mutations in the ERV sequences are also shared between species who shared a common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 3:11 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4580 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 788 of 1075 (623438)
07-10-2011 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 779 by Dr Adequate
07-10-2011 4:00 AM


So Dr Adequate the results sit fine with you do they? Well these sit fine with me also as they demonstate that apes are more closely related to each other than to humans.
"and the very strong experimental evidence that, in some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than any of them is to humans."
Page Not Found - HolySmoke!
All this nonsense on ERV's demonstrates is that organisms were exposed to the same virus eg Hendra, swine flu, HIV. It is a huge fluff to suggest that the only way organisms get markers for virus is by common decent. It is a bigger fluff to use this nonsense as evidence for common decent.
Here is a link that demonstrates HIV is not an ERV.
New myth debunked: HIV is an endogenous retrovirus | AIDSTruth.org
I'd say a stack of organisms were bit by mozquitoes is all your ERVs demonstrate.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2011 4:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-10-2011 2:37 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 794 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2011 8:06 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 798 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 12:12 AM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 803 by Nuggin, posted 07-11-2011 4:44 PM Mazzy has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4501 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 789 of 1075 (623440)
07-10-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 2:13 PM


Mazzy writes:
All this nonsense on ERV's demonstrates is that organisms were exposed to the same virus eg Hendra, swine flu, HIV. It is a huge fluff to suggest that the only way organisms get markers for virus is by common decent. It is a bigger fluff to use this nonsense as evidence for common decent.
No, what ERV evidence demonstrates is that organisms with multiple viral markers in exactly the same place in the genome can only be explained by common descent.
If you don't understand that, you still don't understand ERV evidence.

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 788 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 2:13 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 791 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 3:12 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4580 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 790 of 1075 (623443)
07-10-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by ZenMonkey
07-10-2011 12:38 PM


Re: Wait a minute.
I am about to head off for a week or so but I would like to respond properly to you when I return, if the thread is still going.
I will post links to creationist dating methods and give examples of the flaws in your dating methods.
I will say this, I am not a total YEC.
Dating tree rings is more precise that carbon dating and tree rings go back 9,000 years.
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - The New York Times
With Carbon dating you need closed systems which you have really no idea if this is so, and you need to know the carbon composition at the time the organic matter was alive. You cannot possibly know and can only best guess.
Other problems I will speak to is the use of the fossil to date strata which occured with the Jehol birds.
"One of the first bird fossils to be described from the Jehol Group was that of Confuciusornis sanctus, which was identified as a beaked bird without teeth. It was initially dated to the Late Jurassic period.5 Numerous fossils of this bird have subsequently been found suggesting that it flew in flocks, and in many ways this small bird, with clearly identifiable wings, long tail feathers and a toothless beak is similar to modern birds. This particular species of bird has wing claws, which are not unknown in modern birds. For example, the Hoatzin bird of the Orinoco river delta in South America uses claws for climbing. The dating of this bird initially gave it a Late Jurassic age of 135 to 145 Ma, possibly as old as the Archaeopteryx bird fossil found in the Solnhofen quarry in 1861. However, such early dating of Confuciusornis sanctus presented problems for evolutionists as Archaeopteryx is widely considered to be the best evidence of a transitional dinosaur to bird form."
Chinese fossil layers and uniformitarian re-dating - creation.com
The dates for the Confuciusornis sanctus
birds and strata were pushed forward to suit. I would say this is is a tad biased. Using your own theory to reclassify fossils to suit your own theory is hardly what I would call robust evidence of dates.
Using fossils to date strata is of course based on a preconceived assumption of redetermined ancestry. Dating for the human chimp split is anywhere between 4-8my and each researcher stands by the date they came up with.
Forbidden
http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm
Here is Carbon used to date the earth to 100,000 years. Much is based on assuptions that are simply different to yours.
http://ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
I believe Mankind has been here for around 6,000 years because of the biblical geneology spoken to. As long as kinds were created it does not matter how long they have been here because a day is simply a period of time. However I will defend the biblical order of the creation of kinds, which leads to the misfit in cladistics eg lizards and birds.
ZenMonkey this is a worthy post.....
I will take this up when I get back from holidays...YIPPEEEE!
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-10-2011 12:38 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 792 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-10-2011 4:24 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 793 by Coyote, posted 07-10-2011 7:11 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 864 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-19-2011 6:51 PM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4580 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 791 of 1075 (623446)
07-10-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by ZenMonkey
07-10-2011 2:37 PM


I understand that any ERV evidence that puts apes as being more closely related to each other than mankind is ignored.
I can also work out for myself without a degree in science that if virus like Hendra goes unchecked this is a virus that could spread from bat to horse to human, leave markers, yet has nothing to do with common descent.
The models that you use to sort this stuff are biased and are full of insertion values that will give you the results you need to see.
I have posted evidence that HIV is NOT endogenous and it is one of your leading examples of ERV's that demonstrate the chimp human link.., now falisified.
Look ...it is all just guesswork and playing around with algorithims, and not sufficiently robust that one should shed their current beliefs system in favour of evidence such as this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-10-2011 2:37 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2011 8:17 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 799 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 12:16 AM Mazzy has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4501 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 792 of 1075 (623450)
07-10-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 3:03 PM


Re: Wait a minute.
Mazzy writes:
I am about to head off for a week or so but I would like to respond properly to you when I return, if the thread is still going.
I will post links to creationist dating methods and give examples of the flaws in your dating methods.
I look forward to that. I have yet to read any credible creationist refutations of the validity of radiocarbon dating methods, including those in the articles you refer to here, but I am always willing to listen to something new.
A substantial discussion of dating methods properly belongs in the Dates and Dating forum, and I would gladly continue there in a new or existing thread. The issue at hand here was simply whether or not you had valid grounds to dispute the established ages of the remains in question. Certainly 5 million years of development will give very different results than 6000. But you've at least given a partial and rather direct answer to my question. Thank you.
Enjoy the holiday.

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 790 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 3:03 PM Mazzy has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 793 of 1075 (623470)
07-10-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 3:03 PM


Re: Wait a minute.
With Carbon dating you need closed systems which you have really no idea if this is so, and you need to know the carbon composition at the time the organic matter was alive. You cannot possibly know and can only best guess.
...
Here is Carbon used to date the earth to 100,000 years. Much is based on assuptions that are simply different to yours.
http://ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
This is off topic in this thread, and is just another example of your use of the Gish Gallop.
Further, the creationist article you cite in support of your contentions is just full of the standard creationist nonsense, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, wishful thinking, and ignorance.
We can take this up in more detail in one of the dating threads -- if you dare.
I'm betting you won't.
------------
Add: Here is a thread you can discuss radiocarbon dating all you want, and you can reply to my post correcting some of your errors: Message 30.
I'm still betting you won't dare to debate the topic.
Edited by Coyote, : Add link to other thread.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 3:03 PM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 794 of 1075 (623479)
07-10-2011 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by Mazzy
07-10-2011 2:13 PM


So Dr Adequate the results sit fine with you do they? Well these sit fine with me also as they demonstate that apes are more closely related to each other than to humans.
No it doesn't, you big silly-billy. The article specifically says that the sites of integration are not homologous. I quote:
The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.
See? It has nothing to do with ancestry.
All this nonsense on ERV's demonstrates is that organisms were exposed to the same virus eg Hendra, swine flu, HIV.
No. That would not explain the homology of sites of integration in those cases where this is in fact in evidence.
Here is a link that demonstrates HIV is not an ERV.
I never said it was. What's your point?
I'd say a stack of organisms were bit by mozquitoes is all your ERVs demonstrate.
It may well be all your ERVs demonstrate. The ones at non-homologous sites.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by Mazzy, posted 07-10-2011 2:13 PM Mazzy has not replied

MikeDeich
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 24
From: Rosario, Argentina
Joined: 10-31-2009


Message 795 of 1075 (623480)
07-10-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 741 by Portillo
07-09-2011 3:45 AM


Re: More evolved?
yes portillo I am saying that if another species had language and was able to pass on knowledge/technology as human beings have evolved to do. Then yes they could, with enough generations, accumulate the collective 'intelligence' needed to build a rocket ship. Assuming they have the morphology to use tools in one way or another.
There is a deaf school in nicaragua (?), I think.....which was founded a few decades back where students with no real language, when put togeather have developed their own sign language..... that over the years has developed into a complete complex language.....just looked for a link....here you go
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Children create new sign language
To me the article suggests, as I believe, that language has mental hardwiring as well as environmental influence to make it into its most complex form. But all these children from nicaragua are not feral children & were not raised in an environment free of all human communication obviously. Some concept of language had to have been impressed on them at some point before entering the school. True feral children however, passing certain years with no human contact will never be able to use language the way a normally raised person will. I know this isnt the most impressive link, I did not do a thorough search, but you could research these cases more if you like.
h2g2 - Oops.
Edited by MikeDeich, : classic human error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by Portillo, posted 07-09-2011 3:45 AM Portillo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024