Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 33 of 1075 (512659)
06-19-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Yes, you are "agaisnt science"
Hi Doubletime and welcome to EvC Forum! I hope you enjoy your time here; I have a feeling that there is much you can learn.
Now, you've already got a fair weight of replies, so I won't add to it too much by answering your whole post. There are a few things that I'd like to comment on though.
quote:
For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"
Strangely though, none of those articles say "Guess what! Humans aren't descended from apes after all!". They don't say that because all the evidence is that humans, modern apes and extinct hominids all share common ancestry.
Another reason why they don't say that is because we are apes. I'm an ape. I'm descended from apes. My Mother is an ape. You're an ape. Henry Kissenger is an ape. You get the general idea.
quote:
Instead of blindly believing in evolutionist. How about studying the evidence your'e self.
And how about you? have you looked at the evidence yourself? Have you ever handled a hominid fossil? Have you ever even seen one? Because there are plenty of people out there who have dedicated their careers to studying such fossils and I have a feeling that they are a bit better acquainted with the evidence than you are.
quote:
Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.
The problem with this is that you don't say which fossil you are referring to. How can we assess the validity of your claim if you provide no details? You say we should look at the evidence for ourselves? How about you provide some?
quote:
Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?
Well, gee, it's kind of hard to say, when you don't say which fossil you mean. Also, there is no such thing as "Archapitetus". Perhaps you meant Australopithecus?
quote:
First of all there are very few fosils considering all the species who lived, so its not a very good base at all.
Leaving aside the general problems with this line of reasoning, may I ask you a question?
How many hominid fossils do you think there are in the known fossil record?
How many Neanderthal fossils do you think we have?
How many Australopithecines?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 2:34 PM Doubletime has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 62 of 1075 (515634)
07-20-2009 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-19-2009 11:36 PM


Silly Questions, Silly Answers
Oh dear.
Doubletime writes:
If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?
Traste writes:
Excellent question, double time,the plain answer is because there is no such thing.
No, silly question. There are about six billion human apes alive today. I am one, you are one...
If you were to ask why there are no modern hominids or other extant members of the genus Homo, now that might be a better question.
traste writes:
The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's mismeasure of man)
Funny, they seem to have left an awful lot of fossils for things that didn't exist. Are you just going to pretend that the human and hominid fossil records don't exist? That would be very silly and rather dishonest.
For the record, I agree with Anglagard; your attempt to hijack Gould is dishonest in the extreme. Gould never claimed what you are trying to make him claim. Who do you think you are kidding?
Again excellent question, since evolutionary theory predicted that as organasism advanced they are more suited than there predescors.
No it doesn't. You have forgotten one important factor; environment. What is well suited to one evolutionary niche might do very badly when forced to compete in another niche. Have a think about that, because it's central to answering Doubletime's question.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-19-2009 11:36 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:58 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 73 of 1075 (520243)
08-20-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by traste
08-20-2009 1:58 AM


Re: Silly Questions, Silly Answers
Hi traste,
Well, you are free to believe that you came from cows carabaos, dogs or even mosqutoes, just dont involve me in your belifs because it is unrealistic.
Okay. If you don't want to discuss evolution, feel free to go away. Bye.
You involve yourself by coming here and posting erroneous comments. As long as you insist on doing that, people are going to "involve you" in their evolutionist opinions, as ought to be obvious.
You wrote "you are one" If evolution is correct? Is evolution correct?
Yes it is. Thank you, come again!
No, seriously, you are an ape whether evolution is correct or not. Humans and apes have been classified together since Linnaeus, who, living some time before Darwin was even born, was no no Darwinist. This classification does not depend upon evolutionary theory, although such theories do explain the reason behind our similarities.
With an assertion of power many proponents of evolution will reply will it "is science,as we define science and we have to be content with it" . Well Im not content with it and amny otehr brilliant scientist are not content with it.
Did you just describe yourself as a "brilliant scientist"? I sincerely hope that was a mistake.
As it goes, it is completely irrelevant whether you are content or not. It doesn't matter whether "brilliant scientists" are content or not. All that matters is evidence and you have not presented any that challenges the ToE, which remains one of the best evidenced theories in the whole of science.
For the record, evolution has the overwhelming support of bio-science professionals. It's opponents are few to the point of negligibility and mostly motivated by religious dogma.
Im not saying that human fossil doesnt exist,but I am saying ape men fossil doesnt exist,many so called fossils of ape men have been disproven by extensive investigation.
Is that a fact? Come on then, name them. I can think of two (both debunked by scientists, not creationists), but that hardly qualifies as many...
Meanwhile, here is a satisfyingly long list of human family tree fossils which very much do exist. Do you really think you are going to be able hand-wave them all away? Dream on.
This a responds for second paragraph. So what do you think was in the mind of Gould when he and Eldridge proposed punctuate equlibrium?
Was he thingking that gradual evolution was realistic?
Trying to move the goalposts eh? More dishonesty.
You did not say anything about punctuated equilibrium, you said;
traste writes:
The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's )
Now you and I both know that Gould never even implied that there are no human ancestor fossils. That was something that you made up. In fact, let's be clear; that was a lie that you made up. Or perhaps you are repeating a lie from some other source. Have you even read The Mismeasure of Man? I doubt it.
If I am wrong, then by all means, when you get back from your suspension, prove me wrong. Show me where Gould, in The Mismeasure of Man, denies the existence of the human fossil record. Of course, you can't, because he said no such thing.
Do you really think that telling pathetic lies is going to impress anyone?
Actually that what is evolutionary theory say that as organism progress up to the ladder of complexities they are more suioted than there predessor.
No it doesn't.
To claimed the opposite is dishonesty.
No, there is no dishonesty here. What there is is only a profound lack of understanding on your part.
Your claimed of environment as a factor,yes it is a factor but it doesnt prove that the advance form is disadvantage than thre predessors.
No, you are making several mistakes here. I will address the most relevant one.
"Survival of the fittest" only means the survival of those most fitted to their environment. If an organism adapts to suit a wet, swampy environment, and the climate changes, drying up its habitat, it will no longer be suited; it will no longer be the most fitting and it will be forced to find a new environment, adapt or die out. Environmental change is a major driver of evolution. If you insist on ignoring it, no wonder you are confused.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 1:58 AM traste has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 91 of 1075 (525618)
09-24-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by traste
09-23-2009 11:42 PM


Evolution is Not Advancement
Hi Traste,
Actually they are advanced because the theory of evolution itself claimed as complexities increased they became more advanced than there predessors
No it doesn't. If you think this is the case, why don't you go and find a reputable source that uses this as the definition of evolution?
Bluescat is correct. Derived forms are not more advanced, just different. If you said more complex, that might be more accurate, over the long term, but even that is not necessarily true at all times.
Because if they are not advanced. Why they survived?
Because advanced or not, their genetic inheritance just happened to equip them well enough to survive.
The theory of evolution claimed that natural selection choose only those organism that are better adapted, it cannot be called better adapted if it is not advanced.
If this were true, then the earliest and most primitive lifeforms would inevitably died out as soon as they emerged. Not advanced enough.
Good job it's not true then.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by traste, posted 09-23-2009 11:42 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by traste, posted 09-25-2009 11:54 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 134 of 1075 (526251)
09-26-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by traste
09-25-2009 11:54 PM


Re: Evolution is Not Advancement
Traste, there is no need to be rude.
Im, very much afaid I cannot for the simple reason that if I present those source you just simply said they are lying, Idont like to waste my effort.
You seem to be accusing me of a dishonest response before I have even responded. That is extremely poor form.
The fact remains that evolution is not defined by "advancement".
Different in what sense?
Different in that they display morphological and genetic differences from their parents and other ancestors.
Yeah, I know that they are much more complex and more advanced in the same time, like the many machine we observe today, the complex one is more advanced than the other.
Wrong. Imagine that I have a wheelbarrow. Now imagine that I make it more complex, by adding some gears, levers, flashing lights, pulleys, pistons, and a little machine that goes *ping!*.
Is my wheelbarrow more advanced? It isn't going to be any better at moving soil around my garden. In fact, it is going to be worse, since it's bogged down with useless gadgetry.
It has been made more complex, but not more advanced in any meaningful sense.
Advancement is a human conceit. To advance, there must a clear line from worse to better. These are purely subjective judgements. You may think that a human is a big improvement on a jellyfish and I would be inclined to agree with you insofar as it goes. Nature however has no such opinions. Nature does not differentiate between good and bad, advanced or primitive. All that matters in nature is whether an organism can survive long enough to reproduce or not. That's it, the bottom line.
Your faith in evolution is showing..Hasty generalization.
Three winking smilies? Are you having some kind of seizure?
Nothing else you have to say seems relevant to me, so I think I'll leave it there. The take-home message is that evolution is not dependant on any human notion of advancement.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by traste, posted 09-25-2009 11:54 PM traste has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 155 of 1075 (534445)
11-08-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by traste
11-08-2009 2:24 AM


Re: What is the Meaning of Complex?
Hi Traste,
You say;
Complex means advanced
In Message 134 I said;
Imagine that I have a wheelbarrow. Now imagine that I make it more complex, by adding some gears, levers, flashing lights, pulleys, pistons, and a little machine that goes *ping!*.
Is my wheelbarrow more advanced? It isn't going to be any better at moving soil around my garden. In fact, it is going to be worse, since it's bogged down with useless gadgetry.
It has been made more complex, but not more advanced in any meaningful sense.
Advancement is a human conceit. To advance, there must a clear line from worse to better. These are purely subjective judgements. You may think that a human is a big improvement on a jellyfish and I would be inclined to agree with you insofar as it goes. Nature however has no such opinions. Nature does not differentiate between good and bad, advanced or primitive. All that matters in nature is whether an organism can survive long enough to reproduce or not. That's it, the bottom line.
You have not responded to this. Since you are still repeating the same argument, I would appreciate a response.
Complex ≠ advanced. In fact, if you are going to insist upon using engineering as a (poor) metaphor for evolution, more complexity is very often undesirable. Simplicity is usually better. If you have two machines that do the same thing, and they both do it equally well, the simpler machine will always be the better.
The same is true in maths. Consider the following;
1+1=2
1+1+0+0+0+(2x0)+6-1-5+0=2
The second equation is more complex, but it adds nothing to the actual statement. Redundant complexity is always bad maths. Complex ≠ advanced.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:24 AM traste has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 959 of 1075 (625912)
07-26-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 11:22 AM


Classifying Primates
Hi Mazzy,
Evolutionists have constructed various systems of classifications that creationists need to work with. Homonids is one classification of modern or extinct bipedal primates of the family Hominidae, including all species of the genera Homo and Australopithecus.
Except that this isn't an entirely accurate picture, as has already been pointed out to you.
The grouping "Hominidae" may be comparatively modern but "evolutionists" were not the first to place humans and (non-human) primates in the same group. The first to categorise humans and (non-human) apes together was Linnaeus and Linnaeus was by no means an "evolutionist". Nonetheless, his masterwork, Systema Naturae places humans, chimps, monkeys and others in the same group; primates. Here is a quote from Linnaeus on that decision;
quote:
It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of Natural History.
Basically, he was aware of the disturbing theological implications of his system of classification, but he felt that the facts outweighed such concerns. It was not that he was hostile to religion, far from it. Indeed, he saw himself as being engaged in the glory of God;
quote:
Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit
"God created, Linnaeus organised"
Carolus Linnaeus
quote:
Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum
"The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone."
Carolus Linnaeus
Linnaeus saw the study of biology as granting him a glimpse into the mind of God and considered this a form of religious devotion. However, this did not cause him to flee from the evidence of the natural world when it proved problematic for a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The classification of humans as primates is nothing new, it is in fact very old, dating back to 1758, and far from being part of some "evolutionist" plot, it was fist documented by a very devout creationist Christian.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed double word.

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 11:22 AM Mazzy has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 1030 of 1075 (626415)
07-29-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1023 by Mazzy
07-28-2011 10:57 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Hi Mazzy,
I was disappointed to read this;
It is a silly request to ask a creationist what a transitional fossil would like like as there aren't any. Apes are apes and mankind is mankind. This is an evolutionary dilemma.
No. It is an entirely reasonable request. How do you know that there are no transitional fossils if you can't define what a transitional fossil would look like if it did exist? If you have no idea of what a transitional form would look like, you might walk right past one and not realise it. Taq is asking you an entirely reasonable and actually quite important question. He is asking you to imagine, as a hypothetical exercise, what a transitional fossil would look like if one existed. Only when you have defined terms in that way will you be able to say whether transitional fossils exist or not. If you refuse to define what a transitional fossil is, you're going to be unable to say whether they exist or not.
In taking this attitude, you are performing the debate equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and shouting la-la-la. You are discounting any and all potential evidence without even giving it a chance. You are basically declaring that you refuse to even consider that your opponent might have any evidence that disagrees with your position. This is bull-headed, unhelpful and appallingly rude.
Let's take an example. Imagine a sceptic being asked an example of what kind of evidence might him believe in the historicity of Jesus (just for example). He might answer "A contemporaneous account of Jesus' execution", or "A Roman record of Jesus' activities". These would serve as acceptable evidence for the reality of the person of Jesus. The conversation could then continue in a reasonable fashion, by looking at the actual evidence available and seeing if it met those standards or not.
But this isn't what you're doing. What you're doing is equivalent to our sceptic, upon being asked what evidence would convince him of the historicity of Jesus, saying "It doesn't matter. There couldn't be any evidence because there isn't any. I have already made up my mind. There was no such person as Jesus and nothing you say can persuade me otherwise. Not only is there no evidence that can convince me otherwise, it is impossible to even conceive of any evidence that might persuade me."
Would you accept that argument? I hope not. It is deeply unreasonable.
Basically, this attitude is a big single digit pointed at your opponent. In debate of this nature, you need to treat each other's arguments with respect. In refusing to even consider, even as a hypothetical possibility, what any potential evidence against your position might look like, you are refusing to engage in honest debate.
So please, pretty please, answer Taq's eminently reasonable question.
If a transitional form/fossil did exist, what would it look like?
If you cannot answer this question, then you can't claim that none exist.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by Mazzy, posted 07-28-2011 10:57 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:31 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 1052 of 1075 (626591)
07-30-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Mazzy
07-29-2011 10:31 PM


Definitions and Classifications
Hi Mazzy,
I think the question is akin to asking me what any mythical creature may or may not look like for example a gorgon.
Right! Excellent example.
Say I claim to have a genuine fossilised gorgon in my garage. How can you tell if it's real?
Well a first step would have to be defining what a gorgon looks like. Unless we can agree that a "gorgon" is a female humanoid with snakes for hair, we will be unable to properly examine my evidence.
If we cannot define what a "gorgon" is, we will be unable to make any comparisons.
So, for example; what is a Hufflegurgble? Do any live today? Are there any fossilised Hufflegurbles? How common are Hufflegurbles?
Can you answer those questions? No, of course not. I haven't defined my terms. The questions cannot meaningfully be answered without further definition of exactly what a Hufflegurble is. Without such definitions any statement we make about Hufflegurbles is meaningless. They might be non-existent, or they might be common, with "Hufflegurble" merely being an alternate name for a blackbird. Until you can define terms you just don't know.
I most certainly do not have to describe a mythical being any more than you need to describe what a Nephalim may look like if you were refuting their existence.
But you don't have to. The Bible decries the Nephilim (Note spelling).
quote:
We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.
So they were big. Very big. So we can now examine this evidence and come to a conclusion; any hominid shorter than modern humans is clearly not a Nephilim.
This is a nonsense Granny. You and others are requesting a differentiation of fossil evidence, not a desription of a person an entire dating system is based on.
No. Please don't get hung up on the example.
What I am asking you to do is to define what set of criteria you are using to make judgements about the interrelatedness of species or the lack thereof. If you refuse to define terms, you cannot possibly have a robust system for even describing species, let alone making judgements about their ancestry.
Would you be put off if I demanded such a thing, then called you rude because you could see no sense it it? Indeed, I'd say you would.
Well it looks like you're wrong. since I've done that above, without taking offence. If you want to claim that Nephilim existed, we must first define what you mean by that. This is only reasonable.
No I think evolutionists like to dance around with silly requests and never ending straining of mute points to avoid having to answer the important issues, like why call Turkana Boy a rise to humanity when it is clearly an ape.
Moot points, not mute. And Turkana Boy is now off-topic.
This is called straining a useless point and avoiding the real comparisons that we are meant to be discussing.
Potential evidence to refute me may look like actually coming up with some skull, rather than fragment, that looks intermediate, which you cannot do.
This is, of course, a pathetic pile of piffle, since many skulls have been depicted on this very thread that display both ancestral ape traits and modern human traits. If that is your definition of intermediate, it has already been met.
Whatever I come up with past a mix of human and apes, I really would have no clue.
Yes, you have demonstrated that with great aplomb. In point of actual fact you (by which I mean you specifically) have been unable to identify Lluc's skull, unable to differentiate the skulls of a human and an orang and now you claim that you would be unable to tell the difference between a cat skull and a dog skull.
I believe you. Have you ever considered that you're just not very good at identifying skulls?
As I have said a dog can look like a dog but clearly they are very different species.
Oh dear.
You are trying to force me into the folley of your own taxonomic system and I will resist.
No. I would be perfectly content for you to bring yourself up to date with the system of classification designed by the great creationist Carolus Linnaeus, in 1758. As I previously pointed out, the Linnaean system places humans and other apes together as primates. Your repeated falsehood about classification systems being "evolutionist" devices are complete rubbish.
The rest of your post descends into irrelevant rambling, so I think I'll leave it here.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Mazzy, posted 07-29-2011 10:31 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by Mazzy, posted 07-30-2011 4:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 1059 of 1075 (626628)
07-30-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by Mazzy
07-30-2011 4:18 PM


Re: Definitions and Classifications
Hi Mazzy,
Granny Magda. let me tell you that I have scoured the forums and have friends I caught up with last night that have years of experience on foums. Most are evolutionists. I asked them about this last night and they have never heard of anything more ridiculous.
I do aim to please.
I also have never heard of anything more ridiculous. This is a game you are setting up apparently out of desperation.
In which case you'll be able to show me a picture of a Hufflegurble.
No? Then you have to admit that you can't judge whether an object falls into a category (or not) without first defining that category.
Unless I define what I mean by the nonsense-word "Hufflegurble", you can't say whether or not you've seen one.
Similarly, until we can agree upon a definition of what would, hypothetically, constitute a human/ape transitional fossil, you can't say that none exists.
Unless we can define and predict what observations we would expect to see, given any particular theory, we can't test that theory. In order to test any theory against the evidence, we have to understand what we are actually looking for. We have to understand what the theory actually predicts. Defining what you would expect to see in a transitional fossil is a vital first step to testing the proposition that transitional fossils exist.
See if you can address my last post re the skulls with fangs...
You mean the post with the big pictures of extinct hominids, that you posted after Admin told us that extinct hominids were off-topic? I think I'll pass on that thanks.
Let me say this for fun...A human intermediate should not have the capacity for sophisticated speech and their fossil, when they are found sufficiently complete, will reflect same.
Off-topic or not, I can't resist...
That is exactly what the fossils show. Sophisticated speech seems to have been a very novel innovation in the human lineage. If that is your criterion for transitional status, then the fossil record bears it out very well.
That's evidence for human evolution.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by Mazzy, posted 07-30-2011 4:18 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