The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

I don't know what is the most complete skeleton but at last count there were over twenty samples.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You're moving down the right path, but the geological column is really getting OT.Can I suggest that you to start with these? One look at the columnIt's not short, afterall, you're dealing with about 15,000 feet.It may help you with the next few steps. It's worth spending the time with it because there are at least 25 spots around the world where you can find the whole column in one place.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But that is not what we see in nature at all.Here are a couple examples.Vision: There is no one system. Instead, what we find are a whole host of solutions, none really well designed, each only good enough. We have vision in a single wavelength, split wave lengths, even systems that combine several types and formats.Locomotion: Again, no one design. There are critters that have all the way from no legs to hundreds. There are electrical systems, hydrolicly moved systems, ones run from cables (muscles), none really great designs, all only good enough.Hearing: More variation in design. There are critters that work from vibrations, ones that are very directional, ones that work a very low levels, others that work at very high levels.When you look around at what is out there, you don't find any indications of design, instead what you find is exactly what you wouold expect from Evolution. No goal, no direction, just good enough to get by.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'd like to return to a question I asked in Message 5.Would a modern ape consider the common ancestor as human?If there is a critter that an Ape could consider an Ape, and a Human could consider Human, is that not proof of its existence?When we find a fossil that has characteristics of both, how can we say that the Ape Man is not Truth?The only way I see around that conclusion is by precisely defining what Man is.Would any of those who believe the Ape Man is Fiction, be willing to outline those attributes that would distinguish man from ape and that would also be testable?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, Ramapithecus is most likely more closely related to the orangutan. The jaw bone in particular is not similar to any of the hominids. It's an early primate but not in the line of Homo.From the Columbia Encyclopedia.

quote:

---

(rmpthks, —pth—) (KEY) , an extinct group of primates that lived from about 12 to 14 million years ago, for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in 1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan.

---

edited to fix spelling.This message has been edited by jar, 08-23-2004 12:08 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, homo actually is a pretty broad category of which homo sapiens is only a small part. Also, Apes, Chimpanzees are not mokeys.But you did not answer the question.If there is a species that has both some of the characteristics found in homo sapiens and some of the charcateristics of modern apes, would that be considered an ape-man?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Again, no one has said we were ancestors to the Apes.The question is if there is something that has both the characteristics of the modern Apes and the characteristics of modern Man, would that be considered an Ape-Man?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If the idea of "similar design" were true we would see similar constructs for similar tasks. But when we look at the record, that is not what we see at all. Instead, what we find are a variety of solutions, none perfect, all just barely good enough, and almost no reuse of very good or great designs.That points away from design and towards evolution. Changes came along, they were just good enough to give the critter a slight advantage, and so were continued.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry Charlie, but those all support the concept of evolution rather than creation.The fact that there are different solutions to similar environmental issues shows the direct result of random chance filtered by natural selection.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

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