|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days)  Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
* off-topic nonsense snipped * Though I see why you are anxious to change the subject.
If you look back on the thread this, No1) has already been thrashed out. I have already asserted all your so called intermediates are not intermediates at all. But assertion isn't argument. (You have also, let me remind you, asserted that three modern-day humans are apes.) Nothing has been "thrashed out"; you have just made statements you cannot or will not justify. Please address the subject of shoehorning. If there is an unbridgeable gap between ape and human, why do creationists have such a difficult time deciding which side of the line any given fossil is on? Please also explain your own criteria for making this decision. On what basis did you decide that skull 2 below should be classified with skull 3 as an ape and not with skull 1 as a human?
And will you please tell us what characteristics would, in your view, make an "ape man"? You have been asked this several times, and while I understand why you keep ducking it, I don't see why you should be let off the hook.
I cannot believe you are asking me why there are no intermediates after I have stated a plethora of times that there WERE NO INTERMEDIATES. But that is not what I asked you, as you would know if you had read my post instead of thinking of what sort of nonsense you could shout at me next. Whether or not you admit that australopithecines and habilines are intermediate forms, the fact is that once australopithecines and habilines existed, as we know from their fossils. Today there are no living examples of them. Whether or not they were intermediate forms, they are definitely now extinct. How do you account for this?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Homo Erectus are apes. You can call them that if you like. They are still intermediate in form between more basal forms such as australopithecines and H. sapiens, as one can see by looking at their, y'know ... forms.
Homo sapiens are all human. (Apart from the ones that you classified as apes, of course.)
There are no intermediates. Where would you like to put this chap?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You may also call any variation of ape an intermediate but that does not make it one. Its form, however, does.
Your chap could be anything from a juvenille orangutan, adult male Aboriginal if the jaw was incorrectly reconstructed, or A Afarensis. You have outdone yourself. Apparently there's a clear dividing line between ape and human which you creationists can discern (but not agree on) and yet for all you know this might be anything from an Australian to an orangutan to an australopithecine. Here's a juvenile orangutan, by the way.
I will need more info about how it was put together and some side views. "Put together"? It's not clear that it was in pieces, but if it was than the normal, indeed invariable method, with a specimen in such a fine state of preservation, is to join together the corresponding edges. Here's some more views.
I, unlike your researchers am not going to guess without more information. The people who classified it got to look at the actual skull, as you would know if you'd spend five seconds thinking instead of five seconds making stuff up.
A.Africanus in these pictures looks more human than some of the ones representing Homo. That's the Taung Child.
At three years old, yes it would. Juvenile chimps also look more like humans than adult chimps do. But note the muzzle-shaped face. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You now know of late that after all the woffle and headlines for years about mankind descending from a chimp-like creature low and behold ...we didn't, after all. Now they, these well credentialled researchers, think it is likely, maybe, probably and hopefully, we evolved from an ape-like creature, something akin to Ardi. Perhaps this would be a good time to explain that as a chimp is an ape, a chimp-like creature would in fact be an ape-like creature. Here's Ardipithecus and a chimp.
This is how clear these very well educated researchers are on Africanus, a major player in the whole deal.... You seem to have got your tenses mixed up. Surely you mean "were", not "are", unless your confusion extends to thinking that the past is the present.
"Dart claimed that the skull must have been an intermediate species between ape and humans, but his claim about the Taung Child was rejected by the scientific community at the time due to the belief that a large cranial capacity must precede bipedal locomotion,[1] this was exacerbated by the widespread acceptance of the Piltdown Man. Sir Arthur Keith, a fellow anatomist and anthropologist, suggested that the skull belonged to a young ape, most likely from an infant gorilla. It was not until 20 years later that the public accepted the new genus and that australopithecines were a true member of hominidae."
As one can see, in the end any fossil can become anything as suits the time and common thinking. From infant gorilla as seen by a credentialed researcher, to homonid. There is no real science behind it all, just pseudoscience. These apes are certainly not intermediate humans. Yes, well, you were also certain that actual modern humans weren't humans. Your certainty isn't worth a tinker's damn. Though to give you credit, you are uncertain sometimes, as when you vacillated between the same skull being Australian, orangutan, or australopithecine. Personally, my money's on the paleontologists being right and you being wrong. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
