Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


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 331 of 1075 (621403)
06-25-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Nuggin
06-24-2011 5:58 PM


Re: More evolved?
In this representation we see what looks like natans crocodile. It is a croc with legs down. Natans is 3 meters long and meant to be the next transition after a deer mouse. It hunted like a crocodile. Natans is more like a croc, but common sense has no place here.
I know...convergent evolution will explain why things can be whatever I want them to be just like evos.
The reason why evos say its a whale is teeth, which has to do with diet not necessarily ancestry, its periotic bone which a mouse deer likely has a version of, and its nose is no better than a crocs.
It looks like a croc and it is more likely a croc relative or variation.
The Evolution of Whales – Evrim Teorisi Online
See all the so called transitions in whale evolution in above link. None appear related at all. Each is a totally unrelated kind of organism. This is wishlisting and faith at its best....so do not call me ignorant.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed graphic link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Nuggin, posted 06-24-2011 5:58 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2011 5:52 PM Mazzy has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 332 of 1075 (621407)
06-25-2011 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 4:59 PM


Re: More evolved?
In this representation we see what looks like natans crocodile. It is a croc with legs down. Natans is 3 meters long and meant to be the next transition after a deer mouse. It hunted like a crocodile. Natans is more like a croc, but common sense has no place here.
So, let's sum up your weeks worth of argument.
"Duh, it looks like it to me."
You've made 12 posts which make the exact same argument. You are uneducated and can't tell the difference between two things which look superficially alike.
We AGREE. You ARE uneducated. YOU can't tell the difference between things which look superficially alike.
Guess what, DETAILS MATTER.
Just because YOU are IGNORANT it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to pretend to be stupid.
The fact that we've explained this multiple times and it's not getting through means that either you are more profoundly stupid than you appear (which frankly is hard to believe. After all, you are presumably using a computer) -or- like most other Creationists you are just inherently dishonest.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just retarded. After all, you are the only Australian on the forum and also the least educated about Australian history. A fact that the rest of us find endlessly amusing.
So, let's just have it as understood. You don't give a crap about details. A horse and a cow are the same thing in your world. The "experts" be damned.
Each is a totally unrelated kind of organism.
In your world, sure. But, fortunately for the rest of us, we don't live in your world. We have educations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 4:59 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 9:52 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 364 by Admin, posted 06-26-2011 9:23 AM Nuggin has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 333 of 1075 (621409)
06-25-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:35 PM


Re: More evolved?
the classification of apes, does not explain why none of the off shoots, since the chimp human split, are here today.
We keep trying to explain this to you but you don't seem to even want to think about it. I would be surprised if you didn't know species go extinct, even today. That's why we don't see T. Rex terrorizing farms, or Wooly Mammoths roaming with the bison herds. It's why we don't see Neanderthals or Homo Erectus, or Australopiths. Species going extinct doesn't falsify the Theory of Evolution.
Like your own Family tree, the evolutionary tree describes relationships between individuals/species and their families. Losing a family member doesn't erase your relationship with that person, just as extinctions don't negate a species relationship with other species. It would be just as silly to think that you just "popped" into existence one day (perhaps the stork brought you?) as it is silly to think that species just "pop" into existence.
The peppered moth, for example, can revert back to light coloured as they did with environmental improvement. There was no speciation in that light and dark could still mate sucessfully....but a humans cannot revert back to an ape, over 200 years. Did light coloured moths go extinct..Not really. This is just adaptive change and is not permanent.
You seem to have basic misunderstanding of speciation and evolution. The individual peppered moth doesn't change its coloration to fit the environment. The ratio of light and dark moths does change within the species, but they remain the same species. The variation we see in peppered moth populations is a far cry from changing into a totally different species. The analogy is absurd.
Cryptic species in birds shows speciation, but no extinction of other similar species. The concept of ring species also illustrates that exinction is not part of the circle. There are also wolves and many other dog kinds, while their ancestor the wolf is still here with us today. The horse and quagga all still here today etc etc.
Extinctions happen. The fact that they do does not falsify evolution.
Where is the Dire Wolf? What happened to the Sabertooth Cats? Have you ever seen a living Phorusrhacid (Terror Bird)? An Apatosaurus? Diploducus? Iguanadon? Bison Antiquus? The Pleistocene American horse species?
You're not helping your argument by adding something so absurd as, "...exinction is not part of the circle."
If bipedal walking and brains were one lines selective advantage, then the other line that ended up being chimps, should have died out also without the selective, but they didn't. If the chimp line survived there is no good reason why some other homonids or homo erectus niches should not be here untill very recently.
The selection of larger brains and bipedal walking is not the end-all and be-all of evolution. It does not guarantee our survival. It has helped and is a tremendous advantage, but it isn't a sure-thing. Chimps survived because they have adapted to their wooded environment, and there wasn't any pressure for them to develop bipedal walking or larger brains. If the selected adaptation works for the species, then that is good enough.
Again, I will repeat myself from previous posts: Hominins like Erectus and Floresienis and Neanderthals did survive until roughly 30 kya and humans did live and die along-side them. We competed against them and possibly mated with some. Your premise is shown to be incorrect again as other hominins were here until fairly recently.
This is why, although evolutionists have invented a theory to explain it all, the theory often makes no sense in light of what can be observed today.
As biologist and Russian orthodox christian Dobzhansky stated to the anti-evoution crowd: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Mankind found in Africa 400,000 years ago.
Lets see how the out of Africa proponents explain this as opposed to the multiregionalists.
Your link was broken, but if you have a link to the research paper it would be appreciated.
I am not sure if you are proposing that falsifying the "out of Africa" hypothesis would falsify evolution or if you support the alternative multiregional hypothesis of human evolution. The point that is confusing is that both still rely on the Theory of Evolution as the core of their argument. If there were no evolution then there would be no need for either theory!
Even Ardi is being disputed, and about time. Even as unscientific as I am I could clearly see that Ardi did not have gracile fingers, which Lucy does. Something is amiss, although other reasons are cited as the cause for refuting Ardi as any human ancestor.
I must say I am somewhat enthused by your desire to develop your own hypothesis detailing human evolution. There might be the making of an anthropologist or evolutionary biologist within you if you keep this up.
Anthropologists really don't have the full picture of our evolutionary path. Digging through the convergence and parallel evolution in order to infer the phylogenetic relationships between the hominids is difficult. Yet, it is becoming more focused as we discover more species, and like a puzzle, you might be able to make out objects and see possible connections, but the pieces are not always filled in. Anthropologists have the fossils, they see the primitive and derived features of the skeletons, they have the artifacts, but there are competing ideas on how they match up. Over time we hope to see a more complete picture.
What does this mean for Ardi?
First, let's be clear that Ardipithecus Ramidus lived more than a million years before A. Afarensis. Specifically A. Ramidus lived around 5.8 to 5.2 million years ago, while A. Aferensis lived around 4 to 3 million yars ago. There is nothing profound in finding that 'Ardi' has more primitive features, as the species is almost 2 million years older than 'Lucy'. It is also closer to the time range of the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, so finding a species with traits shared with chimpanzees isn't that much of a leap.
Since you have a legitimate 'complaint' about where A. Ramidus lies within the phylogenetic tree, perhaps you would like to think about making your own evolutionary tree and show us where you think 'Ardi' should be placed?
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:35 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 7:33 PM DBlevins has not replied

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


Message 334 of 1075 (621411)
06-25-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by DrJones*
06-23-2011 2:42 PM


No actually we are not. If we were directly decendent from todays species of apes, our ancestry would be knucklewalking, which it isn't.
With Ardi, evolutionists require a non knucklewalking ape, as a human chimp common ancestor, which by definition would be named a different species. As a creationists the species definition problem is an evolutionists problem.
Like I said that is why you need a common ancestor at all, because mankind did not decend from the chimps around today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by DrJones*, posted 06-23-2011 2:42 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2011 6:37 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 337 by DrJones*, posted 06-25-2011 7:21 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 335 of 1075 (621412)
06-25-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 6:32 PM


If we were directly decendent from todays species of apes, our ancestry would be knucklewalking, which it isn't.
And since NO ONE ANYWHERE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE DID, this isn't a problem.
Get it? No, of course you don't.
As a creationists the species definition problem is an evolutionists problem.
As a creationist, there's a whole host of other problems. Like the fact that there isn't any reason for there to be ANY animals which are the slightest bit different than what we see today.
AND, there's no reason for any variation whatsoever within animals we see today.
AND, there no reason for different animals in different areas to occupy the same niches.
AND, there's no evidence of poofing.
AND, there's no explanation of DNA.
AND, there's no explanation of ERVs.
AND, AND, AND, AND, AND...
By the way, going by your standard of "dunno, looks alike to me", how can you distinguish between the Bible and a dictionary? After all, they are both books.
Like I said that is why you need a common ancestor at all, because mankind did not decend from the chimps around today.
With the risk of repeating myself from the TOP OF THIS VERY POST:
And since NO ONE ANYWHERE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE DID, this isn't a problem.
Get it? No, of course you don't.
Jesus, did you even attend any sort of schooling at all growing up? I mean, I know Australia isn't exactly a brain trust, but holy fuck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 6:32 PM Mazzy has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 336 of 1075 (621414)
06-25-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 3:50 PM


Where did they all go?
You are having a harder time in understanding that the idea of extinction is not observed...Over the last 20,000 years the only extinction that has occured has been as a result of human interference, not natural.
I don't believe that you are this foolish. Can you not name any creature that has gone extinct, without human interference? Any dinosaurs even?
I have produced research supporting no link to speciation and catastrophe. eg chaos theory.
Catastrophes, like Toba, do not have to be global to have an impact on species. A regional change in the ecosystem can induce future speciation events, as well as...extinctions.
Lynn Margulis, an evolutionist, also suggests current evolutionary thinking is not sufficient to explain evolution and there are others. Poking holes in current evolutionary theory is another support for creationism.
I don't know any scientists who think that evolution has all the answers. If it did, we wouldn't need to keep researching. It is also how science works. The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is well supported, and has survived more than a hundred years of research and discoveries. You are also under a misapprehension if you think that poking holes in evolutionary theory adds support to creationism. Creationism has no explanatory or predictive power. All it can tell us is, "God did it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 3:50 PM Mazzy has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 337 of 1075 (621416)
06-25-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 6:32 PM


If we were directly decendent from todays species of apes, our ancestry would be knucklewalking, which it isn't.
But WE'RE NOT DIRECTLY DESCENDED FROM CURRENT APE SPECIES so your argument is invalid.
others posters: sorry for shouting but from following the debate it seems Mazzy is particulary dense.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 6:32 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


Message 338 of 1075 (621417)
06-25-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by DBlevins
06-25-2011 6:18 PM


Re: More evolved?
I did not say species do not go extinct today. I said exitnctions to day are related to mankind. The Chaos theory link I put up also speaks to this and the writer is an evolutionist.
"What of extinction? Of course, species have gone extinct during the past 20,000 years. However, almost all examples involve some degree of human activity, either directly (think dodos) or indirectly (large mammals at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago)."
The chaos theory of evolution | New Scientist
Catastophe does not explain all the supposed extinctions and neither does competition nor natural selection. It is myth based on assumptions. Below is a link to a creationist refute for TOE.
Natural Selection vs. Evolution | Answers in Genesis
I am not ignorant enough to think a dog gives birth to a cat. I am using scientific theory by your own researchers words, not bible quotes.
We all know about the cuffuffle with florensisenses being human then chimp then deformed human bla bla and you still have researchers that disagree. Equally you still have researchers squabbling as to whether or not neanderthal did breed with other humans, suggesting it was marginal, if at all. In other words, it is all as clear as mud.
Once again, the fact that they were here along side humans so recently lends support to the fact that not all of them should have disappeared if they managed to survive so well for so long. It is all about the interpretation of the evidence. At least one nitch of hairy half humans should have been able to survive in it's nitch not taking the 'accelerated evolution' to fuly human, and be there in Africa or somewhere. Well..there isn't. That is the FACT. The rest is theory.
I am thrilled that you would even suggest I have any remote capability of constructing my own creationist phylogenic tree according to Mazzy.
If I did, it would start at around about the rank of 'Sub family' where there is one in the classification, and Family where there is not. But like the species concept there are exceptions, like mankind. After all I am working with a flawed and biased system.
So created kinds, in animals anyway, would begin at sub family or family, which ever the lower available. However, a created kind may mean a single breeding pair or many breeding pairs in the case of sexual reproduction. They may have been all identical, or there may have been varieties within kinds also created. There are exceptions where some are closser to say the genus level. Mankind is an exception. Of course if biblical creationists scientists were constructing the phylogenic models based on their assumptions, it may look quite different to the current one.
I think any support has something simlar to 'rooting' in heirarchies or something. Maybe this is some indication of one breeding pair or many.
So no I cannot put up my complete theory of everything. I can just weigh up the evidence for all versions of how life came to be. Decide what weight I put on what....and in the end....hope I am right.
What happened to the dire wolf. Nothing at all. It's decendent kind are still with us today. I did not say that extinction has never happened, but there is no connection to catastrophe. Toba and KT both had a majority of survivors, not as initially theorised. Also I understand that pop is not going to live forever. If I had a daughter that married a short guy and all my grandchildren were short who also married short people and so my great gandchildren were all short. I'd be dead but my great great children would not be another species, just a different size to me.
Generally, Dinosaurs are extinct, but lived for 800,000 years past KT.
Saber toothed cat, was a cat. They are here today. Different teeth do not make a different kind. Your species concept is akin to naming the various in-kind adaptations that one observes. That in itself is fine. That is observed..it does not mythically magnify into macroevolution. God likely made quite a few variations of this kind, most of which are still here today, just a little better adapted to this environment.
Similarly people with different shaped eyes, skin an hair colour, height, various craniums are all still Homo sapiens sapiens, and not different species. Evos had to invent 'races' instead so they did not look silly.
All in all, evolutionists have no satisfactory answer as to why there are no half hairy people getting around anywhere. I'd say this supports creation in its simplicity. Evolutionists need to complicate the whole thing to make some plead for the theory of evolution...an theory in evolution itself.
Here is an example of a creationists ability to interpret what "is observed" in favour of creation.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
You evos would have been better off if an ape man was found. But it hasn't and that supports creation in its simplicity and parsinomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by DBlevins, posted 06-25-2011 6:18 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by AZPaul3, posted 06-25-2011 8:47 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 341 by Nuggin, posted 06-25-2011 9:07 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 342 by AZPaul3, posted 06-25-2011 9:13 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 343 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2011 9:28 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 345 by AZPaul3, posted 06-25-2011 9:48 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 06-26-2011 10:34 AM Mazzy has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 339 of 1075 (621418)
06-25-2011 7:39 PM


Tree diagram
In case any posters are symbol-minded, perhaps this will be of some help.

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

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 340 of 1075 (621425)
06-25-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 7:33 PM


Re: More evolved?
Below is a link to a creationist refute for TOE.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
This "refute" hinges on one assumption. That mutation can only cause a loss of "information". Meaning that information cannot be made by natural processes in evolution.
Here is a refutation to your refute:
Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information
These kinds of studies showing, indeed proving, that biological information can and indeed is increased through mutation and natural selection, have been around for many years. Yet creationists continue to close their eyes, plug their ears and chant "It did not happen. It did not happen."
In other words. Creationists lie.
It appears you support these lies, Mazzy. This doesn't bother you?
By the way, about this "no humans in Australia before 200 years ago" thing.
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by that lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 7:33 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 341 of 1075 (621426)
06-25-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 7:33 PM


Re: More evolved?
I did not say species do not go extinct today. I said exitnctions to day are related to mankind.
So, let's review:
You: "Why aren't there any human ancestors still around?"
Us: "We killed them."
You: "But they should be here."
Us: "No, humans don't accept competition, we wiped them out."
You: "But they should exist."
Us: "They did exist. Until we got to them and killed them."
You: "But they should have been around until recently."
Us: "They were. Right up until we spread into their areas, then we killed them."
You:
I said exitnctions to day are related to mankind.
Us: You have GOT to be kidding us.
species have gone extinct during the past 20,000 years. However, almost all examples involve some degree of human activity,
... in the last 20,000 years. What about the 4+ BILLION years you are ignoring?
I am not ignorant enough
Don't sell yourself short, you are PLENTY ignorant enough.
We all know about the cuffuffle with florensisenses being human then chimp then deformed human bla bla and you still have researchers that disagree. Equally you still have researchers squabbling as to whether or not neanderthal did breed with other humans, suggesting it was marginal, if at all. In other words, it is all as clear as mud.
Yes, when people first propose an idea multiple individuals will have different takes on the subject. Then, research is done, and a consensus is reached.
Flores IS a new species. It is not a chimp. It is not a deformed human.
Neanderthal DNA IS present in Eurasian populations. They DID interbreed.
Period. There is no longer any significant debate.
If you want to try and rule out something based on different people disagreeing, then you have a REAL problem with Creationism. After all, YOU are claiming that things have happened over the last 20,000 years while TRUE CHRISTIANS know that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Clearly neither of you can be right, since there is a debate. Right? Your position, I'm just using it against you.
Once again, the fact that they were here along side humans so recently lends support to the fact that not all of them should have disappeared if they managed to survive so well for so long
I heard a really good response to this earlier in this very post. What was it? Oh yeah, it was this:
I said exitnctions to day are related to mankind
What happened to the dire wolf. Nothing at all.
Can you point me to a zoo what has dire wolves? No? Maybe a wildlife refuge that still has them? No?
Well where are they exactly? After all, since they are so much like timber wolves, they should still be around. Right?
Generally, Dinosaurs are extinct, but lived for 800,000 years past KT.
No, the VAST VAST VAST majority of dinosaur species died LONG before KT.
Saber toothed cat, was a cat. They are here today. Different teeth do not make a different kind.
So, you believe that a sabertooth tiger and a house cat can mate? Care to draw us a picture of how exactly that would work?
Do they have sex education in Australia?
Similarly people with different shaped eyes, skin an hair colour, height, various craniums are all still Homo sapiens sapiens
According to you, anyone who isn't a white European is not human.
Are you now contradicting your earlier statements?
All in all, evolutionists have no satisfactory answer as to why there are no half hairy people getting around anywhere.
that supports creation in its simplicity and parsinomy.
Is "A stork brings babies" a simpler answer than sex education?
Don't actually bother to answer, seeing as doing so will just lead you to lie again. The point is made. Simple is not a good judge of factual.
Read a fucking book.
Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 7:33 PM Mazzy has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 342 of 1075 (621427)
06-25-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 7:33 PM


Whale of a Problem
Here is an example of a creationists ability to interpret what "is observed" in favour of creation.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
Except the creationist interpretation (based on Yahya's 2001 pre-ordained conclusion from Allah then cherry picking the evidence to support it) turned out to be wrong. What a surprise.
Here is a real intellectual treatment of the data from almost a decade after Yahya's Allah-inspired and errant interpretation.
The origin and early evolution of whales: macroevolution documented on the Indian Subcontinent
It's a PDF file.
Again, Mazzy, this information has been around for years, yet you reach back almost a decade to propagate a falsehood.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 7:33 PM Mazzy has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 343 of 1075 (621428)
06-25-2011 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 7:33 PM


Re: More evolved?
Saber toothed cat, was a cat. They are here today. Different teeth do not make a different kind.
But hairyness does make bonobos and humans "different kinds?" How does that work, Mazzy? Bonelike structures don't matter, but thickness of hair does? That seems a little arbitrary to me. And yes, I'm well aware that bonobos and humans have more dissimilarites than hair. But then, Smilodon and my kitty Tomasz have quite a few of those, too. How do you pick what trait to use?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 7:33 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


Message 344 of 1075 (621429)
06-25-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by caffeine
06-18-2009 11:32 AM


So basically you agree that the reason why there are no hairy half humans is because of speculation. That is fantastic. Maybe, likely and possibly are used alot in evolutionary explanations and hypothesis.
Could not survive when it changed is speculative. I have provided evidence that even catastrophy does not kill off most species. Statistically if the human line survived, variations survived untill recently, and the chimp line survived, something in the middle should have also until today, just another lousy 30,000 years compared to the 6-8 million all this supposed branching was happening. If just one little group survived, you would have your evidence. Now all you appear to have is speculation.
However, my assertion, that the reason there are no half humans around is based on fact that there aren't any around today, fact; and the fossils you have found appear clearly within either human variation or ape variation, fact. Brain size does not necessarily denote intelligence and a famous author had a brain only 1000cc. Besides, who knows how misrepresented some reconstructions are!
So you have found apes alongside man. A creationists support. Homonid fossils and bits thereof prior to erectus are all apes. Given mankind was created last, that again is in support of creation without the need for convoluted theories to explain it.
Similarly there are no mid human/chimp species today because there never were any in the first place. Simple!.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 06-18-2009 11:32 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Nuggin, posted 06-26-2011 2:17 AM Mazzy has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 345 of 1075 (621430)
06-25-2011 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Mazzy
06-25-2011 7:33 PM


Simply Dumb
You evos would have been better off if an ape man was found. But it hasn't and that supports creation in its simplicity and parsinomy.
If there were some sister species to H. sapiens alive today this would not affect the Theory. We would know their evolutionary path and why they survived. The fact that there is no sister species to H. sapiens alive today, and we know why, does not present a problem for the Theory either.
Neither scenario gives any support to creationism.
"Godonit" may appear parsimonious but is demonstrably false.
You are right about one thing, however. Creationism is about as simple minded as you can get.
***, ***, ***!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 7:33 PM Mazzy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024