Why are there no human apes alive today?

The only way for this thread to improve is for Mazzy to tell us how she determines if a fossil is transitional or not.At this point, if a fossil differs at all from modern humans she disqualifies it as a transitional. I would really like to see Mazzy defend this. Is Mazzy really saying that if evolution is true then a chimp-like ancestor should have given birth to a fully modern human without any generations in between that had a mixture of chimp-like features and modern human features?

All the posts after my previous one raise specific issues addressing the topic, which gives me something to work with since I can require replies to address what was said.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Taq says... I have defended this to some extent. At this point I am wondering what your first language is. My interpretation is based on Baraminology. I do not claim to be an expert in its application. Below is a link that may demonstrate the concepts of Baramins better than I. ....Not that you are interested in anything more than belittling creationists and offering a demonstration of your inablility to percieve anything outside of your own square.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.OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology"In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry.""A cyrptobaramin is a holobaramin that is currently hidden from Mankind. By hidden, I mean that members of the baramin in question have not been seen since some time after the Flood by all but a very few people, if any. Notable examples include the pterosaurs (the saraph), sauropods (of the Behemoth apobaramin), and plesiosaurs (Leviathans)."What are the Genesis kinds? - ChristianAnswers.NetSo apes become a holobaramin as they share a common ancestor. This is according to the biased research creationists need to refer to. It is possible that this kind had more than one ape variant created and this may be seen in future research. Your homo erectus fossils belong in this holobaramin, along with Ardi & Lucy etc. This holobaramin can be further broken down to monobaramins of gorillas, chimps etc and the Erectus fossils aligned to the monobaramin they are most continuous with. Some baramins are now extinct.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.And still you and no one else has satisfactorily resolved the Dawkins-Gould debate. I guess no one here is up for an award just yet!Taq....How many times and in what language do you need to be told that there are no transistional fossils in my assertion "there are no intermediaties alive today because there never were any", yet you continue to grumble, belittle me. play ignorant perhaps, and request classification of mythical transitional creatures that are simply apes.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?????? THEY ARE APES AND WILL FOLD IN UNDER A MONOBARAMIN IN THAT CLADE. eg Java man & Turkana Boy are variations of apes and may fit into the monobaramin of orangutangs or gorillas etc. That's the general way it works.Now additionally you can explain why you class Neanderthal as a separate species to Homo Sapiens when you believe successful mating may have occured? Indeed if you believe sucessful mating could have occured then these 2 organisms had not speciated yet and are not 2 separate species according to your general definition nor your phylogenic one. So before you pay out on my classifications, do not forget the mess your 'species definition' is in!

None of this waffle answers the question Taq actually asked, which is how you would recognize an intermediate form if you saw one. It's a very simple and straightforward question, so I can well believe that you don't understand it. Nonetheless, for the sake of forwarding the discussion, would you please try to concentrate? If Ritalin would help, I don't think the moderators object to the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

It appears to me that Mazzy has worked very hard to provide something specific that respondents can engage with. She provides these specific differences for judging humans unrelated to non-human apes: She further provides these baraminology quotes that provide criteria for judging which forms reside within the same holobaramin: Respondents should address this material.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is nonsense.I have pointed out where you are wrong, as has Dr. Adequate.You have chosen to ignore our data and continue posting creationist nonsense.I am still waiting for a response to my post showing you a comparison of the gorilla vs. Turkana skulls and skeletons. Instead we just get more Gish gallop.Are you ever going to address the specifics of my post, or are you just hoping I'll forget all about it?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I haven't seen Mazzy use the word "holobaramin" before, though the supporting arguments look familiar. Could you please explain again where the errors lie in what Mazzy has said. You can cut-n-paste from your previous posts.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

From something I wrote elsewhere:There is an article titled Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms, by Wayne Frair, which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000), and appears on the christiananswers.net website. It notes:

The four terms, holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin formally and publicly were introduced by Walter ReMine (1990) at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, PA 30 July 1990. Later in the week of the same conference Kurt Wise (1990), who had had extensive interchange with ReMine since 1983, endorsed ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, wedded it to his own young-earth creation position, and stated that the name of this new systematic procedure was “baraminology” [emphasis added]. Source.

From reading the article, the basic difference between traditional science and baraminology appears to boil down to this: Traditional science examines the world as it is, while baraminology interprets the data in terms of religious belief.Modern science examines organisms and follows the data wherever it leads. Creation “scientists” examine the same organisms and formulate a classification scheme designed to accommodate the Biblical version of creation, right down to a young earth and the global flood–in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!This is shown in a comparison of these two diagrams:Figure 1.Figure 2.The Frair article also notes:

To repeat and expand this somewhat further, the Darwinian macroevolution model is represented by a single tree of relationships, every form of life being related to every other form of life (Figure 1). In the baraminic model there is a forest of trees without connecting roots (Figure 2). One of these rootless trees would have branches representing only human diversification, another for canids, another for felids, etc.

​

For people reared on an evolutionary diet the above menu can be difficult to swallow and digest because students of biology have been taught to think genetic relationship rather than genetic discontinuity. But there is a lack of evidence for connecting any holobaraminic group to any other holobaraminic group. This is true for both extinct and extant types of life.

So, there is a lack of evidence for connecting any holobaramin to any other. Why? Because the Bible speaks of “kinds” — which are, as Frair writes, “categories of genetically unrelated organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week.” And to keep the kinds separate, as per the Biblical creation account, they cannot be represented by a single tree–as they are separate and unrelated “kinds”! Because of this a priori belief, any evidence to the contrary must be ignored, denied, or somehow explained away no matter what.(Interlude: Doesn’t sound like science to me.)But wait, there’s more! Frair provides us with a series of taxonomic guidelines:

Guidelines

​

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. …
​
6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments. [Emphasis added]

The article claims, “ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.” Perhaps. But discontinuity systematics, coincidentally, comes up with the same answers as baraminology! For all practical purposes baraminology and discontinuity systematics can be considered interchangeable, even though some efforts are being made to separate them.This is not science! The bolded passages in the guidelines above offer a real clue as to where this new branch of “science” is coming from.To be fair, I checked another article; a relevant quote:

Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups “after their kind” in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) “trees bearing fruit”; 1b) “herbs bearing fruit”; 1c) “grass”; 2a) “great whales”; 2b) “every living creature” in the sea; 2c) “fowl”; 3a) “cattle”; 3b) “creeping things” on the land; 3c) “beasts of the earth”; and 3d) man. Other methods of dividing groups of organisms would include fundamental differences in genetic code, chromosomes, cell structure, metabolism, cell organization, and development. As research continues many more methods will probably be discovered. Source.

ConclusionBaraminology is not science; it is not even close. Baraminology is apologetics (defense of religious belief), pure and simple. It is religion trying to masquerade as pseudoscience hoping to be passed off as real science. The ultimate goal, as we see from these articles, is to impose a Biblical view of creation onto traditional science.Finally, the Frair article notes: “For those who have been steeped in Linnaean taxonomy and evolutionary thinking, discontinuity systematics may appear to be a preposterous proposal.”At last! Something we can all agree on!

Hi Percy. I am unable to see my recent post here so am posting a reply to see if they will load.Cheers

Here's a link to your post, if that helps: Message 873

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Neither is TOE is science. Likely, probably, maybe and woops we have changed our mind on that, will also never be regarded as a science by any creationist given the gift of reasoning.The request was for a method of classifying transitional fossils. You do not have to like it anymore than I like your species definition that has many contradictions. Nether do I like the plethora of excuses invented to satisfy unexpected research data born of biased presumptive research eg convergent evolution, accelerated evolution, homoplasy.Are some here so silly as to really believe that a taxonomic system is the decider of whether or not homo erectus and other intermediates are apes or not.You appear to be getting desperate.Species concept - WikipediaYour phylogenic definition of species speaks to 'high genetic similarity'. What the hell does that mean? It means you will use your crazy algorithms to ascertain what looks more similar to what, as if nothing is going to be more similar to another as created, and use this everchanging nonsense as a bases for irrefuteable evidence that often ends up in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions of evidence past.eg knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA, ArdiIf Neanderthal and humans can successfully mate to produce viable offspring they are the same species...aren't they? Why have you given them different species names?A bison and cow, not even from the same genera can successfully interbreed yet are not the same species and lead to reclassification. So can a killer whale and dolphin. Even a sheep and goat have succesffuly bred to produce viable offspring, rather than still borne. What are you on about? If picking something to pieces is a solid descreditation of a system, your system is rubbish and therefore is discredited also...or are evolutionists the only ones with the self imposed right to offer ever changing messes and contradictions as suport for their systems.Discontinuity, does not require a scriptural basis to demonstrate it's effectiveness. I have given examples of how Erectus is discontinuous with mankind. This is a fledingling system just strating out. What excuse do you pose for your mess that is 150 years going and is still a mess of contradictions? You do not have to like it. Nor is your acceptance required.Do not try pathetic refutes as a basis for dicreditation of baraminology. It has an ID base is is being varied by YECs. I also refute some creationist stances and therefore align with the concept of dicontinuity as the basis for differentiation of kinds.Your own definitions are a mess as is your evolutionary science that consists of flavour of the month, more than evidence,and you still have faith in TOE.There are no intermediate ape/humans, regarldless of your dislike for baraminology. Rather an over developed sense of self entitlement would lead an evolutionist to demand a more solid classification system then they themsleves can provide. Another name for this behaviour is hypocricy.Your researchers have found human footprints 3.6 million years old as well as a human metatarsel foot bone. Your researchers attribute these to the chimp brained, tiny, curved fingered ape eg Lucy's kind, Afarensis, out of nothing more than desperation.What you have found is evidence that mankind was here before all these apes and so called intermediates. How astonishing that none have been found with their feet, likewise neither has any feet been found for Erectus with its' skeleton. How suspiciously convenient for you that your researchers are able to speculate on these by non colocated human bones!There are no intermediate ape/humans and that is the reason why none have survived. If Turkana Boy were with us today it would look like an ape and there would be no suggestion that it was human. It would be hairy like and ape, look like an ape and is just an ape that you lot have tried as best you can to humanise out of desperation.Rather what you see here today are the decendants of these creatures that are adapatations of earlier ape forms and other varieties that have gone extinct.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Thanks Percy. It seems my former reply got the thing going again.Thanks muchly.....

Hi Mazzy,You have written yet another essay consisting of many of your oft-repeated points, but without directly addressing anything Coyote said. Could you please take another stab at rebuttal, this time quoting a small piece of Coyote's message and rebutting it, then quoting another small piece of Coyote's message and rebutting that, and so forth.Also please keep in mind that denigrating things can be said about anything, but just saying them proves nothing. To actually carry a point you have to build an argument around evidence.We actually try to discourage rebuttals that are primarily bare assertions and disparaging comments. A good example of this style of rebuttal is where you said, "It means you will use your crazy algorithms to ascertain what looks more similar to what, as if nothing is going to be more similar to another as created, and use this everchanging nonsense as a bases for irrefutable evidence that often ends up in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions of evidence past.eg knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA, Ardi." We much prefer to see discussion focus on evidence and rationale.Glad you found your post!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There comes a time one must heed the old saying,

You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down to their level....then beat you with experience !

Amongst the questions you have not been asked lately is: "Would you please recite your dogma again, 'cos I didn't hear it the first time? And could you throw in some irrelevant nonsense and windy rhetoric, 'cos we enjoy that so much?"I do quite understand why you want to avoid the questions that have been put to you, but you could do so with greater economy of effort by posting nothing at all as by wasting your time typing up another slab of this dreck.