Why are there no human apes alive today?

Hi Mazzy,This is where moderation steps in to help keep discussion moving constructively forward. You stated your incredulity that researchers could "get so bamboozled by fossils that are no more than varieties of apes." Dr Adequate has requested that you provide the criteria you allows you to avoid being bamboozled the way researchers are.This seems like a reasonable request, so please provide that criteria.By the way, I'll be enforcing rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines that requests courtesy and civility. Participants should keep their focus on the topic rather than on the shortcomings of the people they're debating with by avoiding comments like this: I'm not happy that Dr Adequate referred to you as uneducated, it does seem uncivil, but since you already applied that label to yourself in Message 346 I would be not be on firm ground raising an objection.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The theory of evolution, the TOE, is not the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss the TOE then please find a thread in the Biological Evolution forum, or propose a new thread over in Proposed New Topics. I am here to prevent personal attacks, but all Dr Adequate did was quote your own words back to you while making a very helpful suggestion: If you're wondering how creationists could conclude that Turkana boy was human then you need only explore your own thinking of a few weeks ago.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I believe I have. Baramins defined by YECs suggest discontinuity as a means of defining kinds. Heavy brow ridges, The face was prognathous, and the protruding jaws supported large molar teeth but lacked a chin, a long, low skull, with little forehead. Homo erectus had a small pelvis and could not give birth to the big brained infants purported by later supposed species. The neural info indicated they did not have speech. These were not human traits but traits that makes them continuous with other non human primates. That is sufficient clarification, unless you are after the theory of every fossil from little creationist me.....Bits of fossils should not be reconstructed by a researchers predetermined presumptions eg Java man totally reconstructed from as few bones and partial skull. This is straw grabbing and using the straw grab as evidence of more straw grabbing.I do not think it fair that evos request more of creationists than they themselves can provide. It is hypocritical to do so.What makes you think that any fossil that lacks eybrow ridging is anything less than a variation of Samatran orangutang or juvenille that do not have ridging or Lluc's relative, with a flatter face morphology likely due to diet? The answer is nothing other than your own predetermined theories. Eg Lluc cannot be in the human line despite facial morphology akin to Homo because it is 12 million years old and predates the human/chimp split?Is Turkana Boy erectus or eragaster? What's the difference? There is still debate from your own.You lot have no classifications system really for these skulls. Rather the fossil is used to provide the dates in many cases to suit yourselves. When dating is done and there are traits that should not be there eg Lluc...poof, it remains an ape with ....what is it this time....Convergent evolution as the excuse. This is hardly robust science!I am uneducated in the sciences. I likely have more credentials in my field of social sciences, including research methods, than any here and probably pull a larger pay packet than most. So Dr Adequate is no more adequate than I. I have excellent reasoning ability and perception and know that I am not any sort of ape. I can control fire a complex task that simpletons are not going to figure out for themselves without a more intelligent teacher. Therefore...I am not offended.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Quote box missed including first paragraph.

Dear.. I know perfectly well why creationists think Turkana Boy is human. I was going along for the ride. However on looking at the side view and using the great reasoning ability God gave me I can plainly see that he is an ape.Some Creationists actually think these reconstructons mean something or are based on some sort of science. They aren't....and this is likely their folley.

Well well. Also, looking at the side view and using your supposed "great reasoning ability" you identified three modern-day humans as apes. Maybe your reasoning ability isn't quite so great as you think it is. They're looking at exactly the same reconstruction as you were when you applied your famous reasoning ability. The thing has only been stuck back together in one way, there being only one of it.

No it isn't.We don't claim that there is a rigid uncrossable dividing line between human and ape. You guys do.If Alice says there aren't fairies at the bottom of the garden, and Bob says there are, it is not "hypocritical" for me to ask Bob, but not Alice, to show me a fairy.

There are no human apes today because ToE is bogus. The glitch of Darwinian evolution, or what became ToE is thus:Evolution claims to be an 'on-going' process. An on-going process is not impacted by the time factor. If an ape evolved to a human 1 B years ago, this process does not cease: it occured one second after a Billion years, continuously, including last friday. The math destroys evolution.

This makes no sense and shows a convincing lack of understanding of ToE.'An ape' would not evolve into a human. The accurate statement is that over the course of millions of years a population of non-human primates evolved over successive generation into humans because of geographic isolation and changed selection pressures.You are confusing one organism 'an ape' morphing in it's own life time into a modern human, with a population over millions of years.
You do know that is not evolution, don't you?Edited by Larni, : clarity

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Joseph, and welcome back. Is this a view of the universe with all of time being created at the creation point that you're describing?And if the maths destroys evolution, could you show us the workings in detail? You could wait until last Friday to show us if you want to.

quote:

---

This makes no sense and shows a convincing lack of understanding of ToE.

​

'An ape' would not evolve into a human. The accurate statement is that over the course of millions of years a population of non-human primates evolved over successive generation into humans because of geographic isolation and changed selection pressures.

​

You are confusing one organism 'an ape' morphing in it's own life time into a modern human, with a population over millions of years.
You do know that is not evolution, don't you?

---

Nothing wrong with my knowledge of evolution or my math. The indirect and accumulated branching effects, or the millions of years, have no impact here. It does not change the premise of ON-GOING.The situation does not appear a slight of hand casino science just with apes and humans; it is seen as pervasive - all life forms contradict ToE. The evidence of similar skelatal structures hides the billions of similarities of structures in species which have no relationship to each other. It is the seed factor which causes an offspring to emulate its host - regardless of evolution. Prove evlution without the seed output!?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Is this a view of the universe with all of time being created at the creation point that you're describing?

​

And if the maths destroys evolution, could you show us the workings in detail? You could wait until last Friday to show us if you want to.

---

You may use whichever time premise you like. The Math still prevails.

Can you clarify that you do not believe that 'an ape' morphed into a modern human over one generation?I have no idea what seed output is: you will need to elaborate on that point or point me in the direction of it's meaning. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

But can you show the detailed workings? And how many dimensions are involved?

Dimensions do not impact here - these are still post universe factors.

quote:

---

Can you clarify that you do not believe that 'an ape' morphed into a modern human over one generation?
I have no idea what seed output is: you will need to elaborate on that point or point me in the direction of it's meaning.

---

Why do I have clairfy what was never seen?How come you are confused of a seed factor: this is an output transmitted from the host parents, which becomes the offspring. I ask instead you prove your ape offspring w/o the seed output of the host parents - this is the yard stick which requires to be proven?