Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 931 of 1075 (625296)
07-22-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 924 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2011 3:11 AM


Dr Adequate says
We are aware that you are ignorant of the scientific method; you need not have gone to such lengths to prove it.
Maybe you have quals in research methods but listen pal, so do I. I also know how easy it is to misrepresent data based on false assumptions.
Here is something else for you to ignore
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/03/070324133018.htm
""Dr. Leakey produced an intrinsically biased reconstruction based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development," said Dr. Bromage, whose reconstruction, by contrast, shows a sharply protruding jaw and, together with colleague Francis Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, South Africa, a brain less than half the size of a modern human's. These characteristics make the 1.9 million-year-old early human skull more like those of two archaic, apelike hominids, Australopithecus and early Paranthropus, living at least three million and 2.5 million years ago, respectively. "
So do please explain how Homo Rudolfensis, dated to 1.9mya now very much aped faced (since the misrepresentation was addressed) poof into Turkana boy, Homo erectus/eregaster dated to 1.5mya?
Your researchers suggest Neanderthal and humans were separated for around 300,000 years, yet could concievably still mate sucessfully and are phylogenically within human variation range still. They are human and likely nephalim. No change outside of adaptive changes and certainly no macroevolution.
Yet in 1.7my years your researchers propose an ape, like Lucy, with huge prothagnathism poofed into a modern human. Get Real!
I can see why you like to project your inadequacies and accuse ignorance to others. What the heck else can you do ?
This is not a matter of taking 5-8my for an ape like creature to become human. It is more like a poofing event of around 1.7my from ape-like to modern Human. OMG..this thread just keeps getting better as the absurdity of your so called evidence for human ancestry, and lack of, becomes apparent.
Anyone care to offer a theory of 'accelerated' evolution for this ape to human one?
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 924 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2011 3:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 932 of 1075 (625299)
07-22-2011 5:39 AM


Mazzy and Dr Adequate Suspended 24 Hours
Mazzy's suspension is because it's becoming clear that more words from me are not going to be any more helpful than the earlier words from me.
Dr Adequate's suspension is for not knowing when to let up. Mazzy's claims of victory and torrents of unsupported assertions whose rebuttals she refuses to engage or even understand do indeed invite derision, but there's a limit.
I sincerely regret both suspensions, but I feel I've exhausted my options as far as verbal persuasion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 938 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:12 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 933 of 1075 (625301)
07-22-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 918 by Mazzy
07-22-2011 1:17 AM


Hi Mazzy,
I'm posting this reply to correct a matter of fact. You said:
Mazzy writes:
Turkana Boy was a great discovery because now we see Homo Erectus or eragaster did not have sophisticated language as mankind has. He is an ape along with Ardi, whom Percy agrees, is not in the human line.
The issue of fact is that I did not say this. This is what I actually said:
Percy as Admin writes:
My role as moderator is merely to keep discussion constructive and on-topic, and correcting misunderstandings like the one I described to you is one way I do that. This means that I take no position concerning whether Ardi or Lucy or Homo erectus are direct human ancestors or not.
So you were incorrect in stating that I agree these species are "not in the human line." I said I take no position on the issue.
My actual opinion on the matter is this: I do not know whether any of these species lie on a direct line of descent to humans. The evidence indicates that it is possible, especially for Homo erectus, but it seems very unlikely to me that any conclusive evidence would ever become available.
Let me add a moderator comment: I earlier pointed out to you that you were ascribing opinions to Dr Adequate that he never expressed, indeed, that no one in this thread has ever expressed. Now you've ascribed to me an opinion that I have never expressed. And there have been other times when I've noticed you doing this to others, and then there's the problem that most of your posts are filled with assigning positions to evolution that it does not hold.
As moderator in this thread I take no position on any issue, but does that doesn't mean I play dumb. It just means I don't take sides. I have been a part of the creation/evolution controversy for a very long time, and I am very familiar with the claims of both sides. I know what the claims of creationism are, and I know what the claims of evolution are. As moderator I take no position on whose claims are right or wrong, but I do know what those claims are, and for the most part you are arguing against positions that evolution does not hold, and then you're ignoring or dismissing all attempts at correction.
The goal here at EvC Forum is constructive dialogue. I'm here to try to help make constructive dialogue possible, something that is relatively rare on the Internet where controversial topics are concerned. Anyone who exhibits an interest in constructive dialogue will have no problems with me as moderator.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 918 by Mazzy, posted 07-22-2011 1:17 AM Mazzy has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 934 of 1075 (625337)
07-22-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 873 by Mazzy
07-20-2011 12:57 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Humans form a holobaramin, a kind. They are discontinuous with apes. I have spoken to some of the discontinuities eg, small pelvic girdle unable to birth a large brained infant, pronaganathism outside that of Mankinds, pronounced eyebrow ridging, lack of forehead, others may include genetically comparative human/chimp variabiliy of 30%, where human variation is at 0.5%, remarkably different Y chromosomes, chimp genome 10% larger with different surface structure, human variant of the FOXp2 gene, chromosome 2, regardless of whether or not it is the fusion of two similar genes in other organisms. Quite clearly Apes do not belong in a holobaramin with Mankind as too many morphological features and the genome are disconinuous. Rather these traits put apes into a holobaramin of their own.
Since you used genetic comparisons to construct your holobaramin it is easily falsifiable. All I need to do is demonstrate that humans are more similar to chimps (using your same criteria) than chimps are to other apes. As it turns out, chimps are genetically more similar to humans than they are to orangutans (or any other ape for that matter). Therefore, your separate holobaramins are falsified.
Also, transitional hominids form a morphological continuity with other living apes species. H. erectus, for example, has a mixture of modern human and basal ape features that are found in other modern apes.
Therefore, your holobaramin is falsified by both the genetic and morphological data.
Let's look at this from a different angle. Where have you shown that humans and other apes can not share a common ancestor? I could also point to the differences between chimps and gorillas in order to put them in separate holobaramins, but how does that stop them from sharing a common ancestor? It would seem to me that you have falsely assumed that any difference between two species indicates that they could not share a common ancestor. Using your same criteria I could show that chihuahuas and wolves form two separate holobaramins, but obviously they share a common ancestor.
So apes become a holobaramin as they share a common ancestor.
The ERV data demonstrates that humans share that same common ancestor with other apes:
quote:
Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). . .
Second, as with other sequence-based phylogenetic analyses, mutations in a provirus that have accumulated since the divergence of the species provide an estimate of the genetic distance between the species. . .
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. ​(Fig.11A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
emphasis mine
Inaugural Article: Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences - PMC
All three forms of baraminological indicators that ERV's supply put humans squarely in the ape holobaramin, as shown in figure 2. Specifically, in Fig. 2 B (HERV-K18) humans and chimps are shown to be more closely related than chimps are to gorillas. If humans and non-human apes were in separate holobaramins then you should not find the same ERV's at the same position in humans and non-human apes, but you do. Not only that, but humans group more closely with chimps than chimps do with other apes.
If you seriously think that after all my posts that I think a chimp like creature gave birth to a human, I will not respond to you further as I have better things to do with my times than play silly games of ignorance with you.
Then why do you discount fossils with intermediate morphology as viable evolutionary transitionals?
YOUR SO CALLED TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ARE APES, A HOLOBARAMIN OF THEIR OWN, THAT DO NOT NOT NOT SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH MANKIND...GET IT??????
Arbitrarily drawing a line does not stop species from sharing a common ancestor.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by Mazzy, posted 07-20-2011 12:57 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 2:53 PM Taq has replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 935 of 1075 (625340)
07-22-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 923 by Mazzy
07-22-2011 3:09 AM


Mazzy writes:
Zen monkey. Percy commented on your adequate post and I disagree it is adequate at all.
First, I believe that what Admin was referring to was my attempt in Message 915 to explain the difference between direct and indirect ancestry. I thought that it would be helpful for someone to clarify this for you.
Second, I'm done with you and this thread, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone.

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 923 by Mazzy, posted 07-22-2011 3:09 AM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:03 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

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


Message 936 of 1075 (625510)
07-23-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by Taq
07-22-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Taq said
Since you used genetic comparisons to construct your holobaramin it is easily falsifiable. All I need to do is demonstrate that humans are more similar to chimps (using your same criteria) than chimps are to other apes. As it turns out, chimps are genetically more similar to humans than they are to orangutans (or any other ape for that matter). Therefore, your separate holobaramins are falsified.
Actually you need to do much more than provide the research that just suits you. I have posted research that demonstrates yu can clad these primates as you wish really. Now you deny this first and call it nonsense and I will then post the relevant research as you would have demonstrated you have little clue if any about it.
Here is something else that shows your genomics is nonsense from its inception. What is factual is that humans did not descend from todays chips. Hence you guys need a common ancestor. There researchers once again had to go and invent more convoluted theories to explain what they found...as usual
Comparative analyses of multiple alignments of small fragments of human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan sequence have revealed that the human genome is more similar to the gorilla genome than to the chimpanzee genome for a considerable fraction of single genes [2,13—15]. Such a conflict between species and gene genealogy is expected if the time span between speciation events is small measured in the number of 2N generations, where N is the effective population of the ancestral species (see Figure 1).
Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model | PLOS Genetics
Also, transitional hominids form a morphological continuity with other living apes species. H. erectus, for example, has a mixture of modern human and basal ape features that are found in other modern apes.
[1] There is no morphological continuity at all. That is why you have had to invent a bush rather than a tree. Also why researchers cannot agree on what they see and why evos had to think up Punctuated Equilibrium to explain what they actually found[1/]
Therefore, your holobaramin is falsified by both the genetic and morphological data.
Unfortunatey you do not get to say what constitutes anything. Obviously some creature would be more similar to mankind than an other. It happens to be chimps according to your biased algorithms. I have produce research that demonstrates Turkana Boy was incapable of complex speech, He was found in pieces so all the headlines are misrepresenting this find anyway. Only God knows what this creature actually looked like. After the Neanderthal fiasco with heaps of bones they still initially got it wrong as they were influenced by flavour of the month and made it an apey looking dude that fit in with flavour of the month. That is how easy it is to misrepresent.,, and this has been done heaps
\
Let's look at this from a different angle. Where have you shown that humans and other apes can not share a common ancestor? I could also point to the differences between chimps and gorillas in order to put them in separate holobaramins, but how does that stop them from sharing a common ancestor? It would seem to me that you have falsely assumed that any difference between two species indicates that they could not share a common ancestor. Using your same criteria I could show that chihuahuas and wolves form two separate holobaramins, but obviously they share a common ancestor.
I do not have to show anything like that at all. There is no common ancestor and guess what???? You still haven't found one for anything that has lasted more than 5 minutes in the headlines. Your own lack of evidence supports there is no such thing. Now you refute this and I will pit up the link AGAIN that states Erectud is on the way out due to new finds
The ERV data demonstrates that humans share that same common ancestor with other apes:
I have refuted this before. You need to pay attention.
"In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
ERV's show no more than species were exposed to the same or similar virus. eg Hendra goes from bats to horses to humans without descent being involved. There are also virus that are in primates and NOT humans. Your researchers need to come up with more fancy convoluted theories to explain this also. These ERV's are often not found where they are supposed to be abs yet anbother plethora of theories ensue to fix it. What ERV's actually show is that you have a mess that makes no sense without convoluted theories to explain the inconsistencies.
All three forms of baraminological indicators that ERV's supply put humans squarely in the ape holobaramin, as shown in figure 2. Specifically, in Fig. 2 B (HERV-K18) humans and chimps are shown to be more closely related than chimps are to gorillas. If humans and non-human apes were in separate holobaramins then you should not find the same ERV's at the same position in humans and non-human apes, but you do. Not only that, but humans group more closely with chimps than chimps do with other apes.
So now you are an expert in evolution, creation and baraminology are you?
You do not get to choose what I use or don't. I have already explained what separates erectus from homo and places him in with apes. Yoi do not have to like or accept it, Nor do you have to turn.
What you do need to do is understand that your likely's and maybe's as to why there are no intermediates alive today sits along side another several, equally robust hypothesis that suggest there never were any intermediates. It is all based on speculation and assumptions.
Turkana was a good find although in pieces and needing reconstruction. It could be anything as your researchers have assumptions they base their reconstructions on.
All life is very similar re MTDNA. However this is a small portion of the genome. In actual fact I have psoted info demonstrating that a chimp is 30% different to a human and this does not count the Y chromosome being remarkably different, the surface structure being different, the genome size is 10% different also. It is only biased and desperate reasoning that searches for similarities and uses these to support ancestry. In other words regardless of a 98% mtdna similarity intially, then a 94% mtdna similarity and a holistic distinction of 30% minumum you will class chimps as close to humans because your biased research puts them there. Something had to be close. 30% means we are not related and never were.
Now I want you to deny some points I have not backed by research in this post,(cause I am tired of doing it repeatedly) so I can put up research from your own that supposrts my claims and that may get you to actually pay attention and hopefully embarrass you slightly. This I think is the only way to stop you guys from constantly making comments that I have already refuted amd posting circular arguments
I have offered an alternative explanation as to why there are no intermediates today. There never were any. It is based on my interpretation of the evidence at hand not unlike your own researchers that debate just about everything except 'it all evolved'.
You do not have to like it, nor accept it. I am not here to change your mind only propose an alternative view that I feel is better backed by evidence.
You have very few fossils, it appears, that any of you are willing to put your credentials on as a human relative. Lucy and Ardi are on the outer as is homo erectus with eregaster being your LIKELY relative now.
I have provided research that states we are not related nor descended from any erectus, perhaps not even in Africa. Was it Eragaster or erectus. I am sure yu will make Turkana Boy what it needs to be. If you deny it I will repost but you or others need to deny it first. Let's just see whom here is atop of their own game.
I have lots of info and lines to refute Turkana boy as your ancestor and you should be pleased you are not an ape. I'll save those for a later thread.
.
.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Taq, posted 07-22-2011 11:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 955 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 10:53 PM Mazzy has replied

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


Message 937 of 1075 (625512)
07-23-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by ZenMonkey
07-22-2011 12:13 PM


Zen Monkey. That's a shame you are done. I apologise if I was abrupt or rude which happens when one is constantly degraded without cause and perhaps directed at the wrong people.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-22-2011 12:13 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

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


Message 938 of 1075 (625513)
07-23-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 932 by Admin
07-22-2011 5:39 AM


Re: Mazzy and Dr Adequate Suspended 24 Hours
Admin says
Mazzy's suspension is because it's becoming clear that more words from me are not going to be any more helpful than the earlier words from me.
Dr Adequate's suspension is for not knowing when to let up. Mazzy's claims of victory and torrents of unsupported assertions whose rebuttals she refuses to engage or even understand do indeed invite derision, but there's a limit.
I sincerely regret both suspensions, but I feel I've exhausted my options as far as verbal persuasion.
Percy I have answered stacks of rebuttals. The fact that I cannot respond to every one is hardly justification for accusing me of not taking up any challenge. That comment is likely more offensive than anything Dr Adequate has ever said to me. It is also inacurrate.
I think evos need to decide if they have fossil evidence for human ancestry or not.
Do please post the message no for any good refute you would like to see responded to particularly and I will happily oblidge.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 932 by Admin, posted 07-22-2011 5:39 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 949 by Admin, posted 07-24-2011 5:43 AM Mazzy has not replied

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


Message 939 of 1075 (625517)
07-23-2011 3:19 PM


I was hoping to see Blevins post here by now, but I cannot see it.
He also would like to step up to a challenge and I am really looking forward to it. Please repost your initial submisssion to admin.
I am ready to debate you specifically.

Replies to this message:
 Message 950 by Admin, posted 07-24-2011 5:49 AM Mazzy has not replied

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


Message 940 of 1075 (625519)
07-23-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Larni
07-22-2011 4:16 AM


Larni says
Why are there no human apes (I'm assuming she means our cousins such as neanderthal et al) alive today?
Because they are all dead.
Larni .. the latest is that Neanderthal are human beings and no different to you or I as far a s humanity goes. They are 99.5% similar which is the same differences cited within the human population today.
Page not found - Digital Journal
I have asked numerous questions which no one has bothered to answer. I understand why. It appears that creationists are the only ones that need to answer questions and every post.
Can you perhaps tell me why Neanderthals are classified as a different species to mankind? They meet your morphological and phenotypic definitions of the same species they are not classified as Homo Sapiens by the majority of your researchers.
Perhaps you could explain this little inconsistency.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Larni, posted 07-22-2011 4:16 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 942 by Larni, posted 07-23-2011 5:22 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 944 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2011 7:55 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 957 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 11:01 PM Mazzy has replied

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


(1)
Message 941 of 1075 (625521)
07-23-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 5:13 PM


Dr Adequate says
Ray Bohlin is not "one of our leading researchers in the field". He's a creationist propagandist who has published nothing whatsoever about human origins, or, indeed, primates, in the peer-reviewed literature, as his own bibliography shows, and who indeed has published nothing but creationist nonsense since he got his doctorate. "
I found this while looking for posts that I should respond to and found this. I think I need to clarify that the evolutionist assertation that no appropriately credentialled researcher could possibly deny the theoretical and observed evidence for TOE is erraneous.
Firstly let me say that yur Max Plank Insitute has contaminated evidence and pushlished the results, much to their embarrassment. This is not the only time this kind of contamination has occured. It is very common tot he point that more theories, maths, algorithms and assumptions are required to be inserted into your models to address contamination.
Now I haven't gone anywhere near this. I don't need to.
I can also pull to pieces many of your researchers. This therefore means nothing in so far as the credibility of any hypothesis goes. TOE is still going despite it.
There are researchers, such as John C Sanford, that have published papers and are well credentialed. He used to be an evolutionist now a YEC.
You know this debate will go on untill I get sick of it. Your fossil evidence is lacking, not only in the human line but in many. This is not the topic but briefly I speak to Ambulocetus Natans that is a variety of crocodile and looks more like one than a deer or whale. If you are looking for ancestry on a preconceived assumption you will not see a crocodile or aligator, you will see a whale and mouse deer intermediate.
The same goes for the bushy tailed tree dwelling ancestor of humans and apes. I see a squirrel-like creature. Your researchers see a human-ape ancestor.
In these I see what the fossil most resembles today. For me if it looks like a squirrel then it is more like to be a squirrel than something leading to an ape. If I see what looks mostly like a corc then I say it is more likely to be a croc than a deer and whale intermediate. This is my basis for asserting my evidence is more in line with the fossil record than evolutionary assertions. However in the end it seems it is a matter of interpretation.
Your researchers have difficultly in identifications and often it is about dating as to what they are and where they fit. You see Turkana Boy an intermediate. There is enough variation in both humans and apes for us to argue both. Similarly there are cats that look like dogs and dogs that look like cats, yet both are disticly either dog or cat and the distinguishing features are obvious and clear in life and DNA. You see Turkana the intermediate. I see Turkana the ape. That is that, really; and neither you or I are going to have anything more than the theoretical as back up.
It is all a matter of interpretation of the data. This is involved in the debate within your own sciences.
I guess I may never get answers to questions, re Neanderthal being a separate species, eregaster being an obvious ape that evolved into modern human in 1.7my. Why there are only excuses for the lack of ancestry of chimps and other non human primate fossils dating back to our common ancestor etc
We could go around in circles for ages. I will refute and discredit your models and methods and your fossils. I may or may not be able to answer every question and really that is irrelevant. Neither can your researchers answer every question.
I am happy to have a respectful discussion with Blevins at his request and answer any presssing posts pointed out to me and then I think I'll be done on this thread. It is time for some one else to have a go.
The hanging main point here is "Does Homo Erectus consitute a member of mankinds ancestry".
This is a fitting point to debate as apart from this really you have little fossil evidence for ancestry to anything past erectus to apes. Both Ardi and Lucy are in question. Most Erectus are out of the line. Rather, what you appear to have, is a stack of bits and pieces that may or may not relate to sister species, mostly quiet apey looking sister species. However, few now are our supposed direct ancestors.
So let's see what happens!
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 5:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 943 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2011 7:49 PM Mazzy has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 942 of 1075 (625523)
07-23-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 3:29 PM


They meet your morphological and phenotypic definitions of the same species they are not classified as Homo Sapiens by the majority of your researchers.
I think you will find the Neanderthals had different shoulder joints so they could not make use of missile weapons such as spears.
So what you say above is clearly false.
Anyway, closing statements only. I gave mine.
Sleep tight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:29 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 943 of 1075 (625528)
07-23-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 941 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 4:33 PM


I found this while looking for posts that I should respond to and found this.
Then why didn't you respond to it? A simple "sorry" would have sufficed.
Instead, we got another slab of off-topic ramblings and unsupported assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 941 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 4:33 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 944 of 1075 (625529)
07-23-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 3:29 PM


Can you perhaps tell me why Neanderthals are classified as a different species to mankind? They meet your morphological and phenotypic definitions of the same species they are not classified as Homo Sapiens by the majority of your researchers.
The majority, eh? Could you please show me the poll on which you base this assertion?
Or are you making stuff up?
Do bear in mind that Neanderthals meet your morphological criteria for being an "ape", since this is in fact how you classified the skull of a Neanderthal. But feel free to argue that you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:29 PM Mazzy has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 945 of 1075 (625537)
07-23-2011 8:41 PM


Dr Adequate is now banned from this topic and forum
"The Public Record" of this action.
Adminnemooseus

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024