How come there is no ape species more human like than chimps or bonobos?
Why is there such a huge gap?
It's not actually that big, as gaps go.
You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right?
Wrong ... I would not.
There should be sub-humans and sub-sub-humans and sub-sub-sub humans walking around.
Please don't post ad hoc explanations with no scientific evidence to back up it up.
Saying they are not alive today because X reason without any scientific evidence to support it is not science, but a cheap cop out.
Well, I may not be able to achieve the high degree of intellectual rigor attained by creationists' explanation for everything ("An invisible man in the sky did it. By magic. Because he wanted to.") but there are certainly some highly suggestive facts available to us.
First, it seems from the evidence that the earlier hominids were trying to fit into the same ecological niche as each other and as us. This must inevitably cause competition in which the better adapted would survive.
We would expect increasing adaptation on theoretical grounds --- one does not just go overnight from being a well-adapted jungle ape to being a well-adapted tool-using biped with a preference for the plains --- and this is confirmed by the evidence. If intelligence accounts for our success (and can it be doubted?) then we have evidence for increasing intelligence as reflected both by increased encephalization and an increasingly sophisticated material culture.
It would be our expectation, then, that the more intelligent, better adapted hominids would out-compete their less well-adapted competitors.
To this we may add the observation from history that we have a grisly record of more technologically advanced races destroying less technologically advanced races, even though these were members of our own species and innately our intellectual equals. How much more likely is it then that we would have visited the same fate on members of other species that were our intellectual as well as our technological inferiors?
In this connection we may note that the evidence shows that our species has driven a large number of other mammal species into extinction, and have failed to exterminate a large number of others only by a conscious attempt at species conservation.
Based on the evidence, then, it is probably the case that more advanced hominids caused the extinction of less advanced hominids either indirectly by competition, directly through violence, or by some combination of the two.
But if you can think of an alternative hypothesis, I await it with an open mind. Can we hear your explanation of why autralopithecines, H. erectus, and H. habilis are no longer with us?
If not, then I would suggest that if we have only one plausible explanation for their extinction, and as this explanation is eminently plausible, it is likely to be correct, subject of course to the usual scientific caveats about potential falsification by an increase in our store of evidence.
Actually, there is a huge gap between humans and its supposed closest ape relative in terms of biology, anatomy, physiology etc.
Why not? Evolutionists claim they are a reality.
And that they're extinct.
So, why would you expect them not to be extinct?
Round here is is customary to have reasons for the things you think rather than just thinking stuff at random.
It's just mere speculation. Anyone can conjure up a just-so story to explain something away. What I am asking for is scientific evidence to back up the story.
And evidence there is, as I have pointed out. We know that encephalization increased, and we know that tools became more sophisticated, and we know that technologically advanced nations have destroyed technologically inferior ones, and we know that if two species compete for the same niche the better adapted will win and we know that our species has an unpleasant habit of causing the extinction of other species.
This is not, therefore, mere speculation, it is a hypothesis consistent with the known facts. If I know that my dog habitually steals pizza, and I leave my dog alone with a slice of pizza for five minutes, and when I come back the pizza is gone, it is more than mere speculation to suggest that the dog ate the pizza. We may entertain other conjectures, but how would you bet?
You say that "anyone can conjure up a just-so story". Well, I'm all ears, let's hear your just-so story and see how it measures up. Go on, have a go. Why are australopithecines extinct?
You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right? There should be sub-humans and sub-sub-humans and sub-sub-sub humans walking around.
The more I think about this, the sillier it seems.
They were living where we wanted to live, using the resources that we wanted to use, hunting the game that we wanted to hunt and inhabiting the land that we wanted to cultivate, and they were our technological and intellectual inferiors. What is there about the history of our bloody and warlike species that makes you expect that for tens of thousands of years we'd have (in effect) established nature reserves for them, while visiting unrestrained war and death on members of our own species, and while driving dozens of other mammal species into extinction?
Around these nature reserves --- are we to suppose? --- empires rose and fell, wave after wave of invaders came and fought and settled and were conquered in their turn, armies of thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands struggled for land, and all this time every culture that came into contact with H. erectus said "But we mustn't kill them and take their land. Because one day someone will invent the theory of evolution and then they will be seen as being of great scientific importance."
I think not.
It is obvious that they would be driven to extinction, because if nothing else got them, we would. So I think the explanatory burden is on you. Can you think up any plausible scenario at all under which they would have survived to the present day?
You're asking for scientific evidence that our species fights wars for territory?
Have you spent your life in a cave or something? How come you have internet access?
Because they supposedly existed?
They definitely existed, the fossil record is full of 'em. The question is, why did they go extinct. I'd still be interested to hear your explanation, if you have one. Does it involve magic in some way?
Oh, but of course they just so happened to be extinct... because humans out competed them according to you.
Not that interesting, because it's so bleedin' obvious.
Now, perhaps you could answer my question, and construct any scenario under which they would have survived. How would we not have competed with them and won?
You seem to have broadened your scope to being wrong about everything. Now, I can see that the actual topic of the thread is not going very well for you, but I still think you should stick to it. Look on it as a character-building exercise.
I am asking for scientific evidence for the claims why they are extinct. Is there anything wrong with asking for scientific evidence?
And you have been supplied with it. Is there anything you'd like to know about in more detail, or are we done here?
You believe they exist however there is no hard scientific evidence they ever existed.
There are fossils. They are hard. They're noted for it.
The fossil record surely doesn't support it. Scientists have said it themselves.
Possibly some scientist said that back when it was true, i.e. when there were fewer fossils. No scientist would say so today unless he was brain-damaged or a creationist, but I repeat myself.
This is why in your endless pointless trawling through creationist quote-mines you can't find any living scientist saying that there are no intermediate forms between more basal apes and modern humans. To get a paleontologist to say something so retarded you'd have to beat half his brain out with a brick.
If apes are still alive today then why not the half human-apes?
Apes are inhabiting a different ecological niche from humans. Duh.
That said, they are still under threat from humans because we are destroying those niches.
They became extinct because of competition. Evolutionists say it so it must be true. Forget scientific evidence to back it. Let's just believe their stories.
It's fucking obvious, and consistent with all the evidence, and therefore probably true.
Let me ask you again. Can you think of any scenario under which they would have survived?
To summarize, the creationist will recite a collection of words that he thinks are true.
But these words do not describe a view of the world that the creationist thinks is true.
CrytoGod is a good instance of this case. He believes a set of words: "If apemen had existed they'd still be around", something like that.
But this is not an account of a mental model that he possesses. When he is asked how primitive hominids could possibly have survived, he has no idea. He's got nothing. He believes (I'll grant him this much) that the words that he recites are true. But he does not believe in the meaning of the words that he recites. He has never considered the actual meaning of the words that drool out of his mouth. And so when he is repeatedly challenged to explain how early hominids could have escaped extinction, he has nothing, because he has never constructed a mental model in which they could do so. Instead, he has learned to recite certain phrases which are not descriptive of any model that he has in his head, not because he is deliberately deceptive but because he has no such model.