There are no human apes today because ToE is bogus. The glitch of Darwinian evolution, or what became ToE is thus:
Evolution claims to be an 'on-going' process. An on-going process is not impacted by the time factor. If an ape evolved to a human 1 B years ago, this process does not cease: it occured one second after a Billion years, continuously, including last friday. The math destroys evolution.
quote:This makes no sense and shows a convincing lack of understanding of ToE.
'An ape' would not evolve into a human. The accurate statement is that over the course of millions of years a population of non-human primates evolved over successive generation into humans because of geographic isolation and changed selection pressures.
You are confusing one organism 'an ape' morphing in it's own life time into a modern human, with a population over millions of years. You do know that is not evolution, don't you?
Nothing wrong with my knowledge of evolution or my math. The indirect and accumulated branching effects, or the millions of years, have no impact here. It does not change the premise of ON-GOING.
The situation does not appear a slight of hand casino science just with apes and humans; it is seen as pervasive - all life forms contradict ToE. The evidence of similar skelatal structures hides the billions of similarities of structures in species which have no relationship to each other. It is the seed factor which causes an offspring to emulate its host - regardless of evolution. Prove evlution without the seed output!?
quote: Can you clarify that you do not believe that 'an ape' morphed into a modern human over one generation? I have no idea what seed output is: you will need to elaborate on that point or point me in the direction of it's meaning.
Why do I have clairfy what was never seen?
How come you are confused of a seed factor: this is an output transmitted from the host parents, which becomes the offspring. I ask instead you prove your ape offspring w/o the seed output of the host parents - this is the yard stick which requires to be proven?
quote:Dr Adequate indicated that he could't make sense of what you said, and a more helpful response than this would nice:
IamJoseph writes: Then deal with it. Unless evolution says every billion years a human evolves from another species, then the process goes into freeze.
Sometimes I cannot read my own hand writings. But this one is less confusing.
I stated that it is the premise of a declared 'on-going process' which KO's ToE, or if you like, why we do not see apes becoming humans. Everyone here rejected my premise - none said why.
If lets say an ape or any other life forms, via any means of twistings and branchings, becomes a human - say 1B years ago. Then we can say this happened long ago and we have to wait another Billion to witness this great event.
But this cannot apply if the process is on-going, namely continuos, because the action would continue without pause. The time factor does not apply. The process which took 1B years, would be seen 1B years plus 1 second thereafter. Because 1 second after the first ape changes 1 bilion years ago, the process would be on-going.
Imagine if blue marbles turned red every 10 years, as an on-going process. Would we have to wait 10 years apart for marbles to turn from blue to red? Negative! This factor is not negated if the marble changes via branches and sub-branches, because the entire process is generic to every marble.