Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 886 of 1075 (624970)
07-20-2011 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 822 by Coyote
07-18-2011 9:52 PM


Re: NO CHIMP ANCESTRY
Coyote says
First, look at the shape of the ilium in these two full-body images. Apes, such as gorilla and chimpanzee, have long, blade-like shapes, while human have more rounded shapes. You probably can't see this difference, lacking the training in osteology, but folks who have studied these bones and fossils can see it instantly. In the case of Turkana boy we clearly see a rounded shape.
Second, look at the curvature of the femur, and the relative length in the full-body images. Gorilla femurs are relatively shorter and significantly more curved, as well as being much more robust. Also, look at the angle of the femur from acetabulum to knee. These too are quite different--Turkana has knees close together, while gorilla has them far apart. In all of these cases Turkana fails to resemble a gorilla, and is much closer to the human shape.
Now let's look at the crania. Notice any differences in the canines? How about the area behind the brow ridges (i.e., cranial capacity)? The occipital crest? Sagittal crest? How about the overall robusticity? See any differences there? The differences are astounding to anyone who cares to look. These two critters are far from being the same, or even very similar.
Listen here to me. If you look at the top of the leg bones in your picture one can easily see they align outside of the hip bone, unlike a human skeleton. That is just for starters...
The cranium you post is obviously not human. I hope you did not post it to demonstrate any relation to the human skull. The interesting thing is the skull is angled such that the eyebrow ridging on Turkana Boy is not sitting on top of the head like other non human primates. In other words, I am alledging that this skull has been fraudulently tilted to an angle that minimises the pronagnathism. In fact, if you tilt the head back slightly so that the ridging sits atop the skull this Turkana lad of yours is even more ape like than initially misrepresented.
An orangutan has a different style ribcage.
While the coexistence of H. habilis and H. erectus doesn’t invalidate human evolution, this discovery highlights a couple reasons why it’s premature to claim that the hominid fossil record substantiates human evolution.
1.Human evolutionary models, even the ones that appear to be the best-established, are highly speculative and, at best, have tenuous support from the fossil record. Time and time again a single fossil find overturns a well-established idea in human evolution. It’s hard to know what other entrenched ideas will soon be abandoned as new hominid specimens are unearthed and studied. It’s hard to accept human evolution as a fact given the actual level of uncertainty about the relationships among the hominids in the fossil record and the constant flux within the discipline.
2.It is hard to know which hominid fossils are transitional intermediates and which ones are not. Prior to this most recent discovery, the hominids recovered in Dmanisi, Georgia, were considered important transitional intermediates between H. habilis and H. erectus that supported an anagenetic transformation. The coexistence of these two hominids means that the Dmanisi hominids can’t be transitional forms. This raises questions such as, How many other transitional intermediates in the hominid fossil record have been misinterpreted? and Could it be that other key transitional fossils have been misclassified?
It is very easy to find the most dissimilar primate examples. what you need to do is point out stuff like Lucy's bit's of bones look similar to an orangutan or gorilla. Lucy has been dethroned.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9...
Ardi was sold as partially bipedal despite its ape feet. Now it is not in the human line. What happened? This ape head, Ardi, started on the way to bipedalism then decided the trees were a better bet..or what? There is no sense in this. I will not refer to common sense as I know the blasting a creationist gets when they try to relate common sense to evolutionary theory.
Similarly the so called complete Turkana Boy fossil was pieced together from this mess in the link below. Besides you have homo erectus of varying sized skulls demonstrating that this ape was varied as far as size goes.
The problem of course rests in evolutionists trying to demonstrate that any variation of ape in the past is becoming human. This is also why there are stuff all examples of ancestry from modern chimp or gorilla back to our common ancestors. These intermediates are all slowly being dethroned.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by Coyote, posted 07-18-2011 9:52 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 12:03 AM Mazzy has replied
 Message 904 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 8:26 AM Mazzy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 887 of 1075 (624971)
07-21-2011 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 886 by Mazzy
07-20-2011 11:16 PM


Re: NO CHIMP ANCESTRY
These intermediates are all slowly being dethroned.
Isn't that rather like a flat-Earther saying that the Earth is slowly being flattened?
If you can't "dethrone" all the intermediate forms in the fossil now, it's not really a substitute to daydream that some glacially slow process may eventually achieve it at some unspecified point in the future. Well, perhaps it's a weak sort of emotional substitute for actual success, but as an argument it's worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by Mazzy, posted 07-20-2011 11:16 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 889 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 1:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 888 of 1075 (624980)
07-21-2011 1:15 AM


Here look at this all. I, as a creationist, am not the only one to speak to the evolutionary confusion over simple species variation being seen as more than what it is.
"Homo sapiens apparently evolved from H. erectus, possibly via an intermediate species, in Spoor's view. H. habilis was a sister species of H. erectus and eventually hit an evolutionary dead-end.
The newly discovered fossil brain case belonged to the smallest known H. erectus individual. The find thus indicates a size range for H. erectus fossils of eastern Africa that almost equals that for modern gorillas. The gorilla pattern reflects males' large size advantage over females, a condition that may also have applied to male and female H. erectus, says study coauthor Susan C. Anton of New York University "
Fossil sparks: new finds ignite controversy over ape and human evolution. - Free Online Library
So above we see Homo erectus may well be one species of ape that showed the extreme sexual dimorphism displayed by gorillas.
Regardless, it is your own researchers that lump all these skulls and bits and pieces into one lump of homo erectus. I guess this must be for some reason... is it?
So by your own classification you have classified this species of homo erectus as a group.
Next you have what you call archaic homo sapiens which is a ridiculous rank as these show no more variation than what we find alive and well today in the human species.
Also read this below
""Palaeoanthropologists often have this assumption that every hominid found from that time period is a H. erectus," said Jeffery Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh, US. "They group hominids not on the basis of what they look like, but the time when they lived, which is totally unfounded. "
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Skull fuels Homo erectus debate
Now we have a mess for evos, really.
In conclusion it is by your own classification system, that all these variations of erectus are one group. Then come Homo sapiens, archaic or not. I am glad you guys came up with 'race' to divert from the sillyness of these names for every variation of the same species.
Look at the variation of skulls of homo erectus. Clearly some exhibit clearly ape like features, huge prothagnathism, even more so than Ardi and Lucy in some cases. These erectus creatures have been separated out of the jolobaramin of human by the connection to ape eg extreme sexual dimorphism and simply by naming them all as a group called homo erectus.
Homo Erectus are apes. Homo sapiens are all human. There are no intermediates.

Replies to this message:
 Message 891 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 2:30 AM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 889 of 1075 (624981)
07-21-2011 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 887 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 12:03 AM


Re: NO CHIMP ANCESTRY
Dr Adequate said
Isn't that rather like a flat-Earther saying that the Earth is slowly being flattened?
If you can't "dethrone" all the intermediate forms in the fossil now, it's not really a substitute to daydream that some glacially slow process may eventually achieve it at some unspecified point in the future. Well, perhaps it's a weak sort of emotional substitute for actual success, but as an argument it's worthless.
I am not surprised that you deny the concerns and research I posted re Ardi. Care to place your status here on the line and assert that Ardi and Lucy are both human ancestors as is Homo Erectus?
Just which bits will you put your reputation on, here, today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 12:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 2:07 AM Mazzy has replied
 Message 905 by Admin, posted 07-21-2011 8:37 AM Mazzy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 890 of 1075 (624994)
07-21-2011 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 889 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 1:20 AM


Re: NO CHIMP ANCESTRY
I am not surprised that you deny the concerns and research I posted re Ardi.
I am not surprised that you are making stuff up.
Care to place your status here on the line and assert that Ardi and Lucy are both human ancestors as is Homo Erectus?
No, I do not wish to "put my status on the line" by asserting something that I have never said and do not believe.
Just which bits will you put your reputation on, here, today.
I would be willing to put my reputation on many of the things that I have actually stated. I would not, for obvious reasons, wish to put my reputation on things that you have made up in your head, because I have found the fatuous blitherings of creationists to be singularly unreliable.
Now, although your silly ramblings have nothing to do with my post, I have still answered the questions contained in it. How about you answer some of mine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 889 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 1:20 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 6:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 891 of 1075 (624995)
07-21-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 888 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 1:15 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 1:15 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 893 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 3:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 892 of 1075 (624996)
07-21-2011 2:50 AM


Ardipithicus or Erectus. much the same!
Here is your Turkana Boy skeleton, reconstructed from a mess of bones according to how these researchers think it should look.
http://ww.crystalinks.com/turkanaboy.jpg
Below is a reconstruction of Ardi's mess of bones as assumed.
Take away the feet and the hands from Turkana Boy, that were not found with Turkana Boy or any other Homo Erectus or Eragaster fossil, and what you get is Ardipithecus Ramidus.
Male and female skulls and other morphology of these Erectus apes are likely very varied due to the extreme sexual dimorphism.
Any lone skull could be either male, eg Turkana Boy or female, and you may simply be seeing variations of Ardi's species, who may resemble the first ape kind that adapted into other varieties of ape kinds. The reconstructed length of arms are speculative and even via an assumptive ancestral comparison are longer than modern man. Ardi and Homo Erectus may well be a monobaramin within the ape kind that did not survive. Either way Erectus and Ardi, as well as Lucy, are apes.
Erectus looks just like Ardi in comparison. In fact the lower leg bones on Turkana Boy looks comparatively shorter to the top bone than Ardi's does. They are just apes.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 4:21 AM Mazzy has replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 893 of 1075 (624998)
07-21-2011 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 891 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 2:30 AM


Dr Adequate said
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.
You may also call any variation of ape an intermediate but that does not make it one.
Your chap could be anything from a juvenille orangutan, adult male Aboriginal if the jaw was incorrectly reconstructed, or A Africanus. Do you and your researchers know what it is?
I will need more info about how it was put together and some side views. I, unlike your researchers am not going to guess without more information.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
A.Africanus in these pictures looks more human than some of the ones representing Homo. Are you sure your theory does not prove apes decended from Mankind??????????????????
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 894 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 4:01 AM Mazzy has replied
 Message 896 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2011 4:31 AM Mazzy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 894 of 1075 (625000)
07-21-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 893 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 3:24 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 3:24 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 918 by Mazzy, posted 07-22-2011 1:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 895 of 1075 (625001)
07-21-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 892 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 2:50 AM


Re: Ardipithicus or Erectus. much the same!
Take away the feet and the hands from Turkana Boy, that were not found with Turkana Boy or any other Homo Erectus or Eragaster fossil, and what you get is Ardipithecus Ramidus.
I think you'll find that paleontologists can in fact tell the difference. This is why they did not classify them into an already existing group.
Maybe you can't tell the difference, but then you can't tell the difference between a modern human and an ape, or an orangutan and an Australian --- but that doesn't mean that others are similarly handicapped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 2:50 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 6:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 896 of 1075 (625003)
07-21-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 893 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 3:24 AM


Mazzy writes:
Are you sure your theory does not prove....
Theories never prove anything.
We look at all the evidence available and theories explain that evidence. For this reason nothing is "proved" in science. Proof is for maths and alcohol.
Mazzy writes:
... apes decended from Mankind??????????????????
The theory is that apes and humans have a recent (in geological terms) common ancestor. This is undeniably, for rational people, evidenced in the fossils already shown in this thread. They are called transitional fossils or intermediate forms.
Nowhere does the theory entertain any of the ideas that humans decended from apes, nor that apes decended from humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 3:24 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 5:08 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 906 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 3:08 PM Pressie has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 897 of 1075 (625005)
07-21-2011 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 896 by Pressie
07-21-2011 4:31 AM


Nowhere does the theory entertain any of the ideas that humans decended from apes
Modern apes surely, after all the most recent common ancestor of modern great apes and humans, or chimpanzees and humans, would almost certainly have been an ape of some kind.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2011 4:31 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 6:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 898 of 1075 (625009)
07-21-2011 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 890 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 2:07 AM


Re: NO CHIMP ANCESTRY
Dr Adequate says this about the research I posted re Ardi being contested as a human ancestor...
I am not surprised that you are making stuff up.
Now here is the article I posted that speaks to the researcher that is suggesting Ardi is not in the human lineage.....This is what you say I made up..hey?
'The 4.4-million-year-old "Ardi" might have split off from the main stems of the ancient ape family tree before the last common ancestor linking humans and chimps, which is thought to have lived between eight million and four million years ago, Harrison and Bernard Wood, of George Washington University's Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, noted in their new review paper, published online February 16 in Nature.
"I think it's equally likely, or perhaps even preferable, that it is an ancestral form or an early representative of the African great ape" groupthat "it's not necessarily uniquely linked to humans," Harrison said of Ardipithecus in the podcast.
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."
We're Sorry - Scientific American
I have demonstrated how some evolutionists choose to waste creationists time with blatant disregard and ignorance of the links posted.
So it is not me that makes stuff up. Rather it is you that appears to demonstrate some cognitive challenge in interpreting, remembering and retaining information or..... perhaps it is you that chooses to simply make stuff up that sounds good at the time.
Now Mr Adequate...do feel free to refute the findings of this researcher and put Ardi back in the family tree! For now it appears he isn't.
I see you have nothing to say about Neanderthal being classed as a separate species that can supposedly interbreed with humans of the day. Neanderthal is 99.5% similar to humans and within the 99.5% of usual human variation. It has the human variation of the Foxp2 gene.
Sequencing and Analysis of Neanderthal Genomic DNA - PMC
http://www.jcvi.org/...searchers-at-j-craig-venter-institute
It doesn't even matter which evo researcher is right or wrong on this Ardi lass. Her skeleton may be the female version of your so called male erectus. Ardi is more continuous with being a female version of Erectus, both being apes and being more continuous with the triats of an ape. Ardi, Lucy, Erectus (or what little you have of them) are apes. You are a human.
You should be glad you are not an ape afterall!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 2:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 901 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 7:23 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 899 of 1075 (625010)
07-21-2011 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 895 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 4:21 AM


Re: Ardipithicus or Erectus. much the same!
Dr Adeuate I posted the skeletons of Turkana Boy and Ardi. They look much the same as one would expect a male and female ape to be regardless of any psychobabble that is produced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 4:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 902 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 7:25 AM Mazzy has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 900 of 1075 (625012)
07-21-2011 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 897 by Wounded King
07-21-2011 5:08 AM


Wounded King says
Modern apes surely, after all the most recent common ancestor of modern great apes and humans, or chimpanzees and humans, would almost certainly have been an ape of some kind.
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.
Hang on ...maybe the common ancestor of chimps and humans will be a lemur or a bushy tailed squirrel creature like Plesiadapis. Who knows what the common ancestor will be made to look like over the next decade?
Wounded King..Indeed these evolutionists have no idea what mankind supposedly descended from. Your and my guess is as good as theirs, including the scientifically educated ones.
This is how clear these very well educated researchers are on Africanus, a major player in the whole deal....
"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."
Australopithecus africanus - Wikipedia
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.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by Wounded King, posted 07-21-2011 5:08 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 7:45 AM Mazzy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024