The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

Hello, Nothingness.I'm afraid that you miss the point. It is not the similarities that are important, but the patterns we see in the similarities.Let me remake my earlier point. Any scientific confirmation of a theory starts off by making a prediction and then making an observation to check that the prediction is confirmed. The point about the "ape-men" is that it was predicted, a priori that there should be fossils that bear characteristics intermediate between humans and our ape ancestors. Without evolution, there is no reason to think that such fossils should ever exist, because according to straight creationism there is no reason to believe that such species ever existed. So the discovery that such species did, in fact, exist, must be a surprise under the creation model, but confirmed the evolution model.Now, let me make another prediction.According to modern taxonomy and modern molecular biology, bats are most closely related to the flying lemurs and to primates. According to the theory of evolution, by looking at the characteristics in common, the common ancestor should have been a tree-dwelling shrew-like creature. If and when fossils of creatures that show characteristics between small tree-dwelling animals and bats are found, this will be confirmation for evolution.On the other hand, if creatures intermediate between birds and bats are found, this will have profound consequences for the theory of evolution. Since bats are indisputably mammals, since they quite cleary fit within the phylogenic branch of mammals based on morphology and molecular biology, such a discovery of bird/bat transitionals would indicate that this type of taxonomic and cladistic analysis cannot be trusted to give the true ancestor/descendant relationships. But too much of evolutionary theory assumes that taxonomic phylogeny and actual ancestor/descendant phylogeny are the same. This type of discovery will be a blow against the theory of evolution. So another prediction of evolution is that bird/bat transitionals will never be found.So, I have given an example of a discovery which, if made, will strengthen trust in evolution. I have also given an example of a discovery which, if made, will count as evidence against evolution. And both of these examples are independent of the hypothesis of a common designer -- I see no reason why a common designer would create tree-dweller/bat transitionals, nor do I see why a common designer would refrain from creating bird/bat transitionals. So I have made two predictions that evolution does make that the common designer hypothesis does not make.Now, what I ask of you is to do the same thing. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis of a common designer that evolution does not make.

That's very interesting. I wonder how everyone from Marie Curie until now that's studied nuclear chemistry and nuclear physics missed that little fact? Can you clarify for me, Nothingness?

NOTHINGNESS says " Simply put, the decay of uranium if you wish to call it that, speeds up when water is involved."to which Coragyps replys [cliffie mode on]
But Cliff propounds.That is a well known fact and is the reason that nuclear reactors have water around their cores. That is why you never leave uranium out in the rain. If you did, it would start producing electricity and that is the source of ground lighting. [cliffie mode off]But do you know what connection any of this has with what an ape-man might look like?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That depends entirely on how much wet uranium he handles.

quote:

---

You still trust radioactive dating?

---

Yeah. We're stupid that way.

Good point. Nothingness, you will define the "ape man" or take a rest from posting anything at all. Enough evasion and changing the subject and twisting.

that rocks! Did you make it?

LOL!! how funny.

I'm bookmarking this so I can refer to itROFLOL

You're off topic. On the contrary, you're free to define it however you like. Surely since you introduced the term into the discussion in your thread title, you must know what it means. Won't you please tell us your definition of "Ape Man"? These are not your words, but come from C. G. Hunter's Why Evolution Fails the Test of Science. This isn't yours, either. You took this from http://www.bible.ca/tracks/homology.htm, which tries to make it seem like Gavin de Beer thought he had demonstrated that similar species do not have similar embryological development. But de Beer was an evolutionist who thought no such thing. If someone has a copy of de Beer's Homology: An Unsolved Problem, perhaps they can figure out how that website arrived at this misinterpretation. And keeping with the Creationist pattern of citing works from long ago, de Beer's book is from 1971. I can't tell you if homology really represented an "unsolved problem" in 1971, but it certainly is not unsolved today, if by unsolved is meant being unable to tie it in to the theory of evolution. This claim arises out of blue - you offer no supporting evidence, and it is clearly wrong. Man and chip have very similar embryological development, and they share around 97% of genes which do extremely similar things in both.--Percy

I made a mistake. It's a good thing you guys are here to correct me.
I'm used to arguing my side, not your side.
What characteristics would I expect between the fossils if they were intermediate? Well, first of all, let's rephrase it with the following statement.What characteristics would I expect between the fossils if they were mutations/intermediate? Considering mutations are the initation process which allows the transitions. I would say that the characteristics which I would expect would have been the mutated/transitioned fossils with less brain cavities and continue to downsize, rather than increase from the original state. The reason is because the mutations are always degrading, not upgrading.And we as humans would be the last part of the transition/mutation therefore, we would have the least of all not the most. If we deveoped from apes by mutations, which are the attributes of transitional steps, then we would have less intelligence than the apes.The apes would be our "cause" and we would be the "effect." The effect is always equal, or less than the cause.In our modern day situation, we have the reverse. The effect is "greater"(more intelligent) than the "cause"(less intelligent). The transition/mutation would have made us made us less intelligent, not more intelligent.The evidence of mutations shows degression, sterilization, and always negative "effects." And since the cause (apes) would be greater than the effect (humans), we would by default and by the evidence of mutations/transitions, become a lot dummmmmer "not" a lot smarter.In saying all that, I would like to show that mutations could not even begin to have produced these transitional/mutational fossils.
Therefore, could not have produce humans.A good scientist is one who raises his conclusion on experimental data and observations. Where things go wrong , is when scientists claim to be experts on evolution, because evolution is not a science, it is a philocephy.Since scientist trust each other they often accept the claims of evolutionists that evolution is a science, when it is not. It is an opinion of theoritical ideologies and philocephies that evolution is a science.What is claimed to be evidence is the university observable fact that every organism has parents or at least one parent. Now, this couppled with the knowledge that there was a time when there were no ants, no frogs, men. This leads to the unscientific postulate that the first frog was born from a non frog, the first ant from a non ant, and the first human from a non human.Why is this idea unscientific? Well, because the available evidence does not support it. The signs of genetics clearly shows that such changes is not possible. The evolutionist even goes further. They claim that living things have evolved from non living matter.Their main argment is that there are small positive or beneficial mutations, which occure in the production cell and are retained by natural selection. These mutations, supposedly accumalate and cause the species to gradually change into another species.However, in all the studies ever done around the world. Where any generations of organisms have been produces. Nowhere, have positve mutations have EVER been observed. Also, in the most studies population of all, the human population. All known mutations are either neutral or harmful. They are never improvements.IN fact, they fight to protect genes from changes and to correct errors, which have occured.But mutations do not cause changes from one species to another species. Then what causes the differene changes in all the varieties within their own species?Good question. The varieties come from recompunations, from the mixing of genes during sexual reproduction. Organisms adapt to a set of conditoins . They reconcentrate in an environment which has such conditions. By breeding within their species, they will form a population , which becoms a "VARIET."Now also, if by accident the population is isolated some features mayh concentrate in that population and create a distinct "appearance", called genetic drift.YOu might argue that these changes represent some form of evolution. Well, many claim that through this process , new biological types , but this is not so. ALL that has happened is that some genes have been SEGREGATED OUT from the population. And the population that we obtain, is inprovanished, it is poorer in gene content.NO NEW GENES HAVE BEEN FORMED. Now, if there are new genes, there is no potencial for new organisms. Just a different variety of the same species that are out there. We do this ourselves all the time in breeding. By selection, we obtain new varieties or animals, and plants, vegetables, etc.We select those, which are useful to man., which have certain patterns and characteristics, and that are of special interest to us. THese populations are restricted in the genetic pool. And they are very much dependent on the cndtions that are provided for them.They are also dependent on the conditions that man will create for them. And if they are left alone, they will either die, of if they survive, they will return to their wild state. They will cease to be a separate varieityJust the mixing of genes during naturla conditions, or domisticated conditions, does not provide NEW GENES. For evolution we would need NEW GENEES, full of new GENETIC information.
THere is no natural proces known to scienc,e which will produce new genes. Either by isolation, selection, mutation, or breeding. This is not possible.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 09-03-2004 10:50 AMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 09-03-2004 10:51 AM

Almost everything you posted is off topic, but let me address the one point that you included that was close to being on topic. So, based on what you have said, we should see a lineage of increasing brain cavities. The earlier, ancestral ape-man would have a smaller brain cavity than Homo-sapiens.Well, guess what. That is exactly what is seen. As we look at the fossils over the millions of years we find brain-size increasing.But brain size is not a very useful indicator, even brain size related to body size doesn't mean much. For example, a whale has a much larger brain than a man. Does that mean the whale is more intellegent than man? And a mouse has a larger brain in proportion to body size than a man. Does that mean the mouse is more intellegent than a man?So the next step is for you to outline what characteristics (note plural) would be seen in an ape-man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If we deveoped from apes by mutations, which are the attributes of transitional steps, then we would have less intelligence than the apes. The apes would be our "cause" and we would be the "effect." The effect is always equal, or less than the cause.

​

In this situation, we have the reverse. The effect is "greater"(more intelligent) than the "cause"(less intelligent). The transition/mutation would have made us made us less intelligent, not more intelligent.

​

The evidence of mutations shows degression, sterilization, and always negative "effects." And since the cause (apes) would be greater than the effect (humans), we would by default and by the evidence of mutations/transitions, become a lot dummmmmer "not" a lot smarter.

---

First of all, we are asking what a transitional between ape and men would look like. What you claim is that the common ancestors of apes and men were smarter. Therefore, could you please show me that common ancestor with a larger brain size?Next, go with what the fossil record actually shows, a common ancestor with a larger lower jaw and a smaller braincase than humans today. Therefore, we would expect a mutation or a set of mutations that would allow this to occur. This mutation has been found. This mutation caused the jaw muscles to be smaller which allowed the brain case to enlarge due to the reduced stress from the jaw muscles. Also, there are numerous examples of beneficial mutations. Your claims that all mutations are bad is absolutely false.

We did not develop from apes. Modern apes and modern man evolved from a common ancestor. Uh, that's exactly what we do find. Hominid fossils from around 15 million years ago, the estimated branching off point, have far smaller brain sizes than man. Even the largest modern ape, the gorilla, has a brain size of around 500 cc, while modern humans have a brain size of around 1400 cc. So after you've touched a match (the cause) to a stick of dynamite, you would have no problem sticking around for the explosion (the effect), because you know by your stated logic that the explosion will be less than a match flame.By the same token, you must therefore also know that an extremely minor genetic accident, namely an extra 21st chromosome, could not possibly cause the cascade of events resulting in Down's syndrome.Even worse, the ape/man common ancestor is not a "cause", and ape and man are not "effects". That would be like saying a car is the cause of a journey. Of course, now we're getting into allele frequency changes and mutations, the true cause of change, which is where you light next: But unforunately, this is not only untrue, but off-topic, as is the entire rest of your post. Are you ever going to return to the topic of your thread and tell us how you define "Ape Man"?--PercyPS - If you truly want to discuss the other issues you keep raising, it might be a good idea to submit a copy of this post starting at paragraph 5 to [forum=-25].

Well, I believe that evolutionists claim that the linnaesn hierarchy is a means of proving the theory of evolution. Howerver, if that was the case, then, I guess that deviation disproves it. I see too many "convenient" changes in the theory of evolution, which spring forth.From mutations-punctuated equilibrium-non gradualistic evolution-massive horizontal gene transfre-and last but obviously not least, computation adjustments.Now, how is it that whenever you get backed into a corner, and can't explain it with observable evidence, these new concepts appear out of thin air? If evolution can explain away all "deviations" so well, then it can hardly claim the 'general hierarchical patterns as a valid test.'What if more deviations come up again? Can you explain at what point will evolution be unable to "add" to its theory? You will explain everything away. In fact, I tend to lean that evolution isn't even clear that evolution even "predicts" a linnean hierarchy.Let's suppose that evolution produces large scale change, that change would on the one hand, have to create tremendous biological variations and yet, on the other hand, have to create no so much variation that evolutionary relationships would be lost through saturation effects.Now, because evolution purported process of creating large-scale changes, it remains undefined. Therefore, I do not have the necessary details to seriously verify the claim tht it predicts in the hierarchy.You have gone from Darwins tree, to Darwins bush (related-not vertical) to catchy phrases as -cladograms, paradigms,and the pentadactyl pattern, etc. Since evolution believes that organisms that have identical structures must be from same lineage. According to Stephen J. Gould- Wonderful Life:The Burgess Shale And The Nature of Histry New York, NY , N.W Norton & Company, 1989 p. 48/51"No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early evern, ever so slightly , and without apparent importance at the time , and evolution cascades into a radually different channel.What new hypothesis is going to explain this away? NOw, if evolution was true, then I would think that biologists would find some, cases in which evolution has repeated itself. Otherwide, it shows that the evolution paradigm fails the tests of evolution.In addition, "Why should we believe the fossil record mandates evolution? As a matter a fact each fossil species is "an infinitesimal dot, lost in a fathomless sea of time, whose relationship with other fossils and organisms living in the present day is obscure."-Henry G.