Why are there no human apes alive today?

This is how science works. Nothing is 100% certain. Over time scientists might reach a consensus on the likelihood of something being true, but it could change. If it stands up to future data, then it can be considered the best theory, but that doesn’t mean it is absolutely, beyond a doubt, 100% certain. Scientists will defend their theories and offer up the strongest arguments and data they can find in support but that doesn’t mean they don’t leave room for doubt (they’re human though and it is hard to give up a long cherished, or personal theory). Science advances slowly, to slowly for some, but there is a reason for it. We make mistakes.Anyways, debating whether an ancient species is ancestral or not is going to be tough. We are, after all, related very closely to the other great apes. H. floresiensis existed up until about 18 kya. H. neanderthalensis existed until perhaps 25 kya and mixed with us on a limited basis before going extinct. Denisovians were around until roughly 40 kya and also interbred with us on a limited basis. They were around the same time as we were, so I’m not sure how it matter that they are still not around. Nobody ever said that if extinctions happen evolution is false. It’s just a fact of life.I’d like to also point out that nobody is suggesting that a species directly related to us is going to be some half-ape half-human hybrid. We do expect to find certain derived features that it would share with us, though the farther in the past the more ancestral features it should have. Of course, it isn’t even that easy, because we have to deal with convergence and parallel evolutionary paths.

I'm sorry but 'Turkana Boy' did not have a chin and neither did the Neanderthals. Turkana Boy is classified as H. erectus or H. ergaster
because it has certain derived and ancestral traits that correspond with those classifications. Off of memory, those cranial traits include but are not limited to: Aveolar Prognathism, fused molar roots, supraorbital torus, postorbital constriction, zygomatic constriction, pentagonal shaped cranial posterior, thick cranium, no chin, low forhead, and 'spongy' cranial base.These are traits that our skulls do not share with H. erectus or H. ergaster but rather traits that allow us to classify them as a separate species. Other traits that we share with H. erectus or H. ergaster are why we place them in the same genus as us and why we conclude that they are ancestral to us, H. sapiens.If you're interested, I am more than willing to debate with you in the Great Debate, concerning the placement of H. erectus in the phylogentic tree with H. sapiens vice ancestral to gorillas or just another type of gorilla. I left a message in your pm, as well. Let me know. Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : Changed titleEdited by DBlevins, : previous edits corrected italic mistakes from mobile and spelling errors, and added 'no chin' to traits

Neanderthals lacked a mental eminence (lacked a chin). We Homo sapiens have a chin. Lacking a chin in no way removes Neanderthals from the genus Homo.The full suite of cranial and post-cranial morphological features, plus the added bonus of the DNA, are why we place Neaderthals with the genus Homo.More to come...(work calls)Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

H. ergaster and ‘Turkana Boy’ both lacked a chin. Whether or not they had a chin is not why we place them with us, in the genus Homo, versus placing them in the direct ancestral line to one of the other great apes. That you suggest he might be placed in the direct ancestral line with the other great apes because he ‘lacks a chin’ tells me you don’t understand why he is placed in the genus Homo, with us.The other great apes have a U-shaped dental arcade. H. ergaster and ‘Turkana Boy’, like us, have a parabolic dental arcade. H. ergaster also has thicker enamel than the other great apes, though thinner than ours, as well as significantly reduced canine and post-canine teeth, though earlier individuals had a small diastema and larger canines. This has led to them also having a slimmer jaw than earlier hominins and a reduced prognathism. Their brain is larger than the other great apes, as compared with their body, with a brain morphology that more closely resembles ours. ‘Turkana Boy’ also has a greater basicranial flexion as compared to the other great apes.As far as their post-cranial skeleton, they have a pelvis which to the untrained eye would look virtually indistinguishable to our own, and shows that H. ergaster, like ALL hominins, was obligate bipedal. In case you forgot, our pelvis has evolved to carry the weight of our organs as we walk and allow the muscle attachments that keep us from falling over, and this can be seen in the broad pelvis of ‘Turkana Boy’. The pelvis of the chimpanzees, by comparison, are significantly more long and narrow, shaped for ‘knuckle-walking’. The femur is also virtually indistinguishable from ours, though it is slightly different and would have allowed for a more efficient bipedal gait (Ours has diminished to allow for the birth of larger brained babies). And so on..and so on.The basic gist is H. ergaster, or the individual you know as, ‘Turkana boy’, has been placed in our genus, and is a likely ancestor to us, because of the broad range of traits that they/he shares with ourselves.If we look at culture, we know that H. ergaster had a capable tool technology which improved over time and used fire in hearths to cook meat. NO ape even approaches the tool technology of h. ergaster or ‘Turkana boy’, nor do they use hearths to cook their food. If you look at the top of the page you will see a button for messages. If you click that it will take you to your private messages. Let me know. As I stated before, Neanderthals and the flores species were around at the same time as us, 25 kya and 18 kya respectively. We definitely engaged with the Neanderthals, as some of us have Neanderthal genes. The flores species lived on the island of flores in Indonesia, and humans started occupying that land around that time. Neanderthals likely came into direct competition with us, and having a much lower population density and a tool technology that was slightly less advanced, it should come as no surprise that they went extinct. Same thing with the flores species, especially as their tool technology was very primitive, they were an isolated species, and they were very much smaller and not as bright as us.I am still confused why you think extinctions don’t happen and why you feel they falsify evolution. The reduction in the species of apes as compared with monkeys has been going on since the Miocene. Apes just seem to have had a tougher time. Bad monkeysbad. Why are you suddenly talking about African tribes? Stone tool technology of H. sapiens is way more complex than that of H. ergaster or earlier hominins. For whatever reason the other hominins went extinct.

The problem anytime we run into with disarticulated skeleton is having the full remains. If we are lucky then we find bones from different individuals that allow us to fill in the gaps and reconstruct a complete skeleton. Seeing as how it would be foolish to exclaim that the skeletal morphology of one individual is so completely different from another that we couldn’t piece together a complete skeleton, I am not sure what the complaint really is?As far as searching for Neanderthal feet, here is an example. Notice that the Neanderthal foot is very similar with us and there are distinct differences with a gorilla’s foot. H. sapiens H. Neanderthalensis G. gorilla Neanderthal skeletons are robust because of their environment, but their skeletal morphology and DNA places them firmly in our genus. If we consider just the pelvis and ignore ALL the other similarities, we can see that they resemble the H. sapiens pelvis and many differences from the gorilla pelvis. Notice particularly the lack of a bowl shape in the gorilla pelvis and its elongated shape, built for knuckle-walking. H. sapiens pelvis Gorilla pelvis Neandertal pelvis I wouldn’t call identifying bone fragments as particularly difficult. Anthropologists and other scientists who study bones have studied osteology and can usually figure out what bone the fragment is a piece of. In those cases where it is difficult to identify the bone fragment and who or what it might have belonged to, we have specialists in that field and they are not likely to confuse an ape bone with a human’s. Even if they did, they would be corrected by other scientists. Can you provide any example of such an occurrence that was NOT corrected?I assume you meant to say I do not think they have done so accurately If that isn’t the case you’re contradicting yourself, and if I am correct in assuming what you meant, I can only ask that you describe specifically an instance where a bone fragment has been misidentified, and NOT corrected. Science is, after all, self-correcting. Nobody has been posting photos of extreme examples. I hope you’re not accusing one of us of trying to mislead you?The intermediate species that we have been discussing so far have mostly been in the genus Homo with us, and as such, also considered to be in the Great Ape clade. See above. Who is Lucy the Gorilla? A famous gorilla from the zoo?There are examples of the foot bones from various intermediate species that show primitive and derived traits, such as with A. ramidus. Other traits found in intermediates also point to their affinity with us and the other great apes. (Strangely enough that you have so far failed to recognize the differences between a gorilla and H. Erectus, H. Neanderthalensis, and the various australopithcines but catch their similarity. Both similarities and differences which can be explained by evolution.) If you could explain in some detail your reasoning why Neanderthals should not be considered human, it would be greatly appreciated. I would also hope that you could explain
with your own words, with references. You do realize that placing fossils in a genus is done by studying the morphology of MORE than just the brow ridges? We would appreciate more than just a one-liner from you. Explain, in detail, why you think some erectus fossils should not be considered in the genus Homo. If you’re interested I would take you up on that discussion in a great debate. Let me know if you’re interested either on the post or Private messaging. I don’t think that this is a proper thread for that discussion? You might get a more thorough response in the dating and dating techniques thread? I am sure a lot of FBI and forensic anthropologists would be surprised to hear that they’ve been living a lie. I put in bold and italicized what I thought was the most honest part of that sentence. Are Nephalim taller than us? Allometry and brain morphology, not just brain size.Anyways, if you think that we’ve devolved from Neanderthals and that Neanderthals are apes, does that make us the monkey’s uncle? Just to help make it clear, most anthropologists would not place H. sapiens as evolving directly from H. erectus. H. sapiens likely evolved from H. Heidelbergensis or maybe some other population of H. antecessor. H. erectus is thought to have evolved from H. ergaster through cladogenesis and H. floresiensis is thought to have diverged from H. erectus.A nice chart explaining the possible evolutionary path: Edited by Admin, : Grow last image a little.Edited by DBlevins, : resizing fun...

Mazzy seems to have the idea (not surprisingly as there are many poeple who do) that if scientists can't agree on some theory, that means it is a wrong idea or faulty, and they are lying or not telling the whole truth. Otherwise they would all agree with each other. Either she didn't read what I explained to her, or she can't seem to rap her head around the idea that science is not 100% certain but that doesn't mean we throw it all away.I could be wrong but I'm pretty confident that that is her major beef. And thus, because certainty is given by the bible and/or religion, she navigates toward that?Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : edited after re-reading nuggin's post.

Like I alluded to, Mazzy doesn't recognize the self-correcting nature of science. I have run into this and i am sure we all have run into the idea that because we can find scientists who disagree with other scientists it means that the science being debated is faulty or unclear, and therefor why believe anything they say. To take your example: Why believe that there ever was a split or that it happened the way many anthropologists think if they can't even agree on the time period or new evidence points to a different date than what was shown before?This becomes especially troubling to non-scientists when they see the confidence that a scientist will "profess" for his find, not recognizing that scientists will defend their hypothesis (even intransigently at times) but the vast majority will still leave room for doubt and new information that might falsify their ideas. In other words, the 'messiness' of science turns people off when they are looking for certainty.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

Evidence and what the evidence means are two different things. The evidence doesn't suddenly go away if we disagree on what the evidence means. That is why you hear people speak of the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory. Whether or not scientists agree about the theory, the evidence remains. In other words, we can see that species have changed over time and have the fossils that record those changes (evolution); we have a 'theory' that describes how/why we think those changes occured (The Theory of Evolution). The evidence is in the fossil record. The Theory of evolution has withstood more than a century of attempts to falsify it. That doesn't mean it hasn't undergone some changes. Scientists did not have the understanding of genetics 100 years ago that we do today. The basic underpinnings of the theory remain; that variation in individuals exist, that natural selection weeds out the unfit, and therefor that populations evolve over time or go extinct. We just have a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved.Just because your roof is leaking doesn't mean you tear down your house. You build a better roof, and you keep it up and stop neglecting it. I'm not sure how this supports your position? Saying that bat's use echolocation to navigate and find prey and humans now use it as well is not in dispute. Birds fly using wings and we have machines with wings that help us do the same. This does not falsify evolution. How could it? Science works with uncertainty. If we knew everything we wouldn't need to work at it. That doesn't mean we don't come closer to an understanding of the mechanisms at work. Would you throw out all we know about chemistry just because we don't know everything about the sub atomic particles that work to keep it all together. Even if we are still looking for that elusive higgs boson, doesn't mean we can't use our knowledge of chemistry to make new compounds.I apologize if you thought I was making fun of you. That was not my intention at all. Nobody, that I know of, is suggesting that creationists are wrong because they can't answer every question (even though it appears some creationists are saying science is wrong because it can't answer everything). They are objecting to creationists saying they are doing 'science' when they are not. Science requires the ability to test ones hypothesis, and requires the possibility that something might be falsified. Creationists appeal to God as the one who created all the species or moved that hurricane or making you trip and breaking your arm in order for you to have met your husband is what scientists object to. It isn't testable, and therefore isn't falsifiable. You're under the misapprehension that once scientists develop a hypothesis or theory, that that is the end of the story. Science doesn't operate like that. We GROW into our understanding over time. We make mistakes. We correct mistakes and we look for more data so that we can provide ourselves a better or deeper understanding of what is going on. We throw out what doesn't work and sometiems we start afresh. Just like we don't completely throw out Newton's theories. They still work to a certain degree. Einstein developed a more accurate understanding of gravity, light and time.Likewise with human evolution. You can't expect that scientists will have everything 100% correct when they don't have all the data and never will. that doesn't mean we don't have a broad understanding of what took place. We know we share many similarities in genes with chimpanzees and the other great apes. We have the fossils that tells us there were once species that had traits intermediate between us and the other apes. We see a gradual change in the shape and size of the cranium and post-cranial skeleton of these intermediates over time until we get to a point where the fossils appear more and more Homo sapiens-like. We have the evidence of species changing today, that give us clues into how species might have diverged.To take your example: What I am trying to say is that not knowing which of the dinosaur species was the direct ancestor of birds today doesn't mean we can't say dinosaurs evolved into the birds we see today. The transition is evident in the fossil record. We see the intermediates.

I'm not sure why you are having a hard time understanding that science is inherently self-correcting. As an analogy (too many?): whether you realize it or not, you are constantly making corrections in the direction of your car as you drive. That doesn't mean you stop going in the same direction. Sometimes you make a mistake (wander too far and cross the lines or turn into the wrong street) but you hopefully correct yourself. You see where you need to go and you make a plan on how to get there. Maybe someone else has a better plan or route, but are you really going to take the suggestion, if offered, that you ignore all the street signs and stop lights and trust that you will get there intact and unharmed?Science has the map (the evidence, the fossils) and we see where we are now. We are just trying to understand how we got here. For the purposes of this analogy, we were blindfolded. We know we didn't just 'pop' at the quickee-mart without taking a route. Scientists might disagree on which route we took, but we know we are not complete idiots to have taken a route that would have lead us across the ocean and back (after all we're in a car).Perhaps I take the analogy too far, and any mistaken inferences are my own. I hope you'll pardon me but that's a bunch of tripe. The reason it is called a Theory is because of its predictive power. It is called the Theory of Evolution because it has predictive powers concerning Evolution.A Theory will never be 100% correct, because we can never be 100% certain we didn't miss something or make a mistake. That doesn't mean we can't make a prediction using that theory. The Theory of Evolution predicts that we should find a fossil species that has intermediate traits between us and chimpanzees, if it is true we share a common ancestor. Notice the italicized bit. Not finding a fossil species that has traits intermediate between a chimpanzee and us doesn't mean that evolution isn't true. It might be we share a common ancestor with Orangutans instead. But not finding a fossil showing intermediate traits also doesn't mean that our theory of a common ancestor between us and the chimpanzees isn't true. Not finding evidence doesn't falsify a theory or give it support. Maybe the evidence is still out there we just didn't find it (in this case we have...but you get the point I hope). If a creationist will deny that the Earth is slightly over 4.5 billion years old, and that we have evidence of life for roughly 3.8 billion of those years, and it shows a rise in more complex organisms over time with extinctions and diversification, then I can say they are denying what has been observed. We can argue about whether the theory of evolution explains what we observe or whether God did it all ex nihio, but if the basis for our disagreement is a fundemental denial of these observations, then there is no reason to have further discussion on this topic. Please, Mazzy, I implore you to stop and think about what I am telling you. Just because there are no T-rex's alive today doesn't mean they never existed. Disagreements on why something died out (went extinct) doesn't mean it never existed. The fact that we observe in the fossil record, these species means they existed at one time. We can argue about whether it belongs on one evolutionary line or another*, that is to say, we can argue about whether the fossil is more akin to a gorilla or homo sapiens, but arguing that it never existed just defeats the purpose.I think I understand your point that, if it was intermediate, then it should have survived somewhere, but then we could say the same thing about a lot of species. We don't know why some died out and others survived. We can propose theories, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs being caused by a meteor strike. We make a prediction that a crater exists somewhere around the time of the extinction and one day we find the Chicxulub Crater. That doesn't mean that is what killed them though. Other scientists propose their theories and try to falsify that one, and so. In no case does that mean dinosaurs never existed or evolution is falsified.We don't know why the intermediates died out, but we do know that some existed alongside us up to 18,000 years ago. It could be they couldn't compete with us and they starved out. Maybe we killed enough of them that they couldn't keep a viable population and they went extinct. Whatever the case is, it doesn't make evolution untrue. I agree with you that evolution is a puzzle. One in which we don't know where all the pieces go. But like most puzzles that come in a box, we have a picture. Either God cut the pieces and made the puzzle or evolution did.Saying you are scientific doesn't mean you are scientific. To be scientific, it requires that you present testable ideas that can be falsified. It requires an openness to the idea that you could be wrong, but not so open that your brains fall out.*Not saying you need to believe in evolution, just trying to be as clear as possible.

I'm glad to see that you remain open to the idea that there could have been a common ancestor between chimps and us.I'm sorry to see that you are still having trouble with this common misaprehension about dating and the falsification of evolution. Just because we might not have the exact timing of the split between chimps and us, does not falsify the theory. We have some of the intermediate fossils, we have the DNA. We might not have all the pieces of the puzzle but it is coming together into a coherent picture. It will never be resolved conclusively when it happened and we will never be able to say conclusively which species is our direct ancestor, but we can tell which ones are intermediate between us.In order to falsify a theory you need positive evidence, not the lack of it. Any view in science could be wrong, otherwise it wouldn't be science. Nobody is saying you have to agree with a position. You just have to be able to support your position, either by presenting positive evidence refuting a position or an alternative supported by the evidence. You could be wrong though. You are...only human after all. Disagreements about whether one fossil is ancestral to us or not does not falsify the theory that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. As they say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."To reiterate: Not knowing the exact time that a split occured doesn't mean that the split never happened. We have the evidence that a split occured; it's in the fossil record. The TOE is just that: a theory, and it will be nothing more. If you wish to present a different position, supported by evidence, then this is the place to do it. Just saying the facts support creation doesn't make it so. You have to present the evidence. Show that your position can be tested and falsified. Use it to make predictions about what we should find in our search of the past and what we might find in the future.Engage us in dialogue. Show us evidence that falsifies our position. Don't just tell us we're wrong: support it with positive evidence.

Not having the skull in hand I...It doesn't look anything like a Neanderthal to me. I would hazard a bet that they are both skulls from Dmanisi. While there are recognizable similarities with Erectus, they do seem to retain more primitive morphologies. Some anthropologists have proposed a new species name for them, H. georgicus.