Where are all the apes leading up to humans?

And you have been supplied with it. Is there anything you'd like to know about in more detail, or are we done here? There are fossils. They are hard. They're noted for it. Possibly some scientist said that back when it was true, i.e. when there were fewer fossils. No scientist would say so today unless he was brain-damaged or a creationist, but I repeat myself.This is why in your endless pointless trawling through creationist quote-mines you can't find any living scientist saying that there are no intermediate forms between more basal apes and modern humans. To get a paleontologist to say something so retarded you'd have to beat half his brain out with a brick. Apes are inhabiting a different ecological niche from humans. Duh.That said, they are still under threat from humans because we are destroying those niches. It's fucking obvious, and consistent with all the evidence, and therefore probably true.Let me ask you again. Can you think of any scenario under which they would have survived?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You asked You have been told that the theory of evolution makes no predictions that intermediates between species need to survive to modern times, that the fossil record shows those intermediaries and you have been given some good reasons that why, in H. Sapiens case, they became exinct.You may find it inconvenient - or a cop out, if you prefer- but those are the facts.Now, is there something else you need to know? If so it would be best if you put down the scatter gun cartridges and reload with single shot. We're familiar with copy and paste diatribes from creationist web sites; it doesn't help your case, it just makes us feel very tired and rather depressed for you.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Hi CryptoGod,I'm still having trouble understanding your position. On the one hand you say that there is no hard scientific evidence of extinct hominid species, and on the other you ask why they're extinct. Can you clarify?You've been provided quite a bit of information already, but you keep asking for more. When someone says a species went extinct because they were outcompeted, which is all we can know given the paucity of evidence of specific events, you need to be specific about what you're looking for when you ask for scientific evidence. Do you think there are more reasonable explanations than competition? Would you like to see catastrophic events like volcanoes, earthquakes and floods included in the list of possibilities? Would you like to see more emphasis placed on changing environmental conditions? We could use some clarification about this, too.The problem I see with your current approach is that while we understand you do not accept the information being provided, your brief dismissals give us no idea why and provide no hint whether you even understand it.--Percy

Hi CrytoGod, Why should we respond to a new set of assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation when you have yet to respond to the information provided to you on your previous assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation? Just repeating assertions that HAVE been answered is not a refutation.I'd like to see your answer -- in your words, not in more copyandpaste regurgitations from creationist sites full of misrepresentations and misinformation -- to my previous post: Message 34.I believe we have answered your questions in the opening post, and you need to either acknowledge these answers or refute them.For instance you have asked repeatedly for scientific evidence of extinctions, and you have been given answers, such as: Do you or do you not understand WHY Pelycodus ralstoni no longer exists at the time of Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus?Do you or do you not understand that this IS scientific evidence for the extinction of Pelycodus ralstoni?Do you or do you not understand that this same process is seen in the human fossil record as shown by Do you or do you not understand that the scientific fossil evidence of the transition from Australopithicus afarensis to Australopithicus africanus is the same degree of scientific fossil evidence of the transition from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus trigonodus?Do you or do you not understand WHY Australopithicus afarensis no longer exists at the time of Australopithicus africanus ?Do you or do you not understand that this IS scientific evidence for the extinction of Australopithicus afarensis?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ? added

OK, please provide some evidence for this. If you had actually read the research rather than taking a headline from a creationist propaganda site on faith you would have found out that the vast majority of the evidence relates to the amino acid sequence being convergent, not the DNA.In fact when the DNA sequences are used the tree does not have the anomalous placement of the dolphin in with the echolocating bats (Liu et al., 2010).Similarly when the researchers included data from a wider range of cetaceans, such as sperm whales the trees return to their expected configurations. There is perhaps a weak convergence if you look solely at nucleotide mutations underlying the non-synonymous changes at specific amino acids which is one of the supplementary analyses form the Li paper referenced in your cut and paste, without re-performing the analysis ourselves it is unclear how extensive the convergence is however or how many of the 14 convergent sites, which is an aggregate for the many species involved as no individual bat shares 14 convergent sites with the bottlenose dolphin, are actually convergent at the DNA level.So in fact this is more a demonstration of the typical lack of rigour on the part of ID/creationist scholarship than of "'convergent evolution' on the DNA level".TTFN,WK

For the love of (insert favourite deity)!So much bullshit in just one post.Please, will you actually think about the things you are posting. e.g.

quote:

---

Theobald's conclusion has been rigorously challenged.

---

You do realise that you are taking the word of a Lawyer who was briefly a geologist over that of a Biochemistry Ph D about his particular field of biochemisty? Do you also realise that the only fundamental problem the lawyer had with the research was that he didn't assume a creator who created lots of nearly identical creations?I would hardly call one article from an armchair scientist a rigorous challenge. Particularly one who doesn't address the actual science.I love the fact that the other quotes you mine to 'back up' your pasting predate the research by at least five years. Well done.Can't resist this one...

quote:

---

I'm not sure who writes:

​

There are many intermediate species that have become extinct through one of two processes: (1) they evolved into later species or (2) they were outcompeted by other species.

​

Oh, riiiiiight they evolved to other species so that's why we don't see sub humans or they got outcompeted by other species.

​

Scientific evidence please?

---

Oh, good answer. Really intelligent. Bravo.Here's an example of the process of this sort of natural selection in progress today. Note that this is actual evidence...Two types of frogs in Australia the green and gold bell frog and the striped marsh frog. They share similar habits and habitat. One notable difference is that the bell frog shows a preference for areas with more undergrowth near the water while the marsh frog is more flexible in this regard.In the areas where water bodies have been stripped of undergrowth i.e. urban areas, the bell frogs are dying out while the marsh frogs are abundant. They are competing for the same resources in a changed environment and the ones who suit the new conditions are more successful and may soon lead to the demise of the other.I know you will say that these are frogs and not hominids but the principle is the same. When in direct competition the species which can adapt to the current conditions most successfully will tend to displace its competition. In the case of the hominids, it seems to me that our development owes much to the adaptability that comes with our intelligence. We outcompeted our cousins because we could adapt to a changing world better than them.I'm not going to sift through this whole pile, so I'll just try and find your 'responses' to my comment from now on.

quote:

---

But if there is no new scientific evidence that contradicts it then the 'old' evidence is still valid. I have yet to read or hear any scientists recently who say the fossil record supports gradual evolution.

---

The very first thing you referred to in your post was new evidence. Since most of your references were written, a lot of new evidence was found.

quote:

---

I writes:

​

I believe I have already done so. Please reread my response and tell me why I haven't proven it - show us your evidence.

​

I believe you haven't.

---

I wouldn't give a rabid pack of weasels what you believe if you can't back it up. This is in the science forums and I believe the protocol is to present actual evidence of your claims. Pasting random quote mines from creationist/ID websites doesn't cut it here.Once again - prove me wrong. Please.

quote:

---

What scientists endorses it? Is there a consensus among scientists of the interpretations of relationships of the fossils to one other? How do we know there are not hoaxes? Evolutionists have a history of presenting hoaxes as the 'missing link'?

---

How about the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History?I challenge you to find a single genuine hoax that was uncovered by a creationist. Scientists have uncovered every hoax we know about and many of these were never accepted by the scientific community to start with.

quote:

---

I just go by what evolutionists have said and they say in essence the hominid fossil record is horrible and open to many different interpretations. That's not hard scientific evidence.

---

No you don't.You go by what creationists say that evolutionists have said and you're even mixing a lot of that up.Here's an article by a theist discussing hominid fossils and a useful set of links to other information.If you want to know what scientists think, find articles by the scientists in stead of articles by creationists about what scientists think. Maybe start by finding the articles you quote mined and actually read them.This is the core of your argument as best I can get to it though all of the copypasta...

quote:

---

The explanation is just that... an explanation. Where is the scientific evidence to back it up?

---

The explanation is the one that best fits the real evidence we have. Simple. If you want all of the scientific evidence, all you have to do is google and you can begin. I do have some suggestions for you though...If religion and evolution are both part of the same site, you can guarantee that it is going to have a lot of misinformation trying to 'destroy' evolution.Check your sources.Check their sources.Actually read the articles.Use what millions of your ancestors fought so hard to pass on and actually think about what you are reading.Edited by Warthog, : format error

Assuming that you actually want evidence of how similar species living in the same ecological niche compete to extinction.The UK's indigenous population of squirrels was the Red Squirrel. In the 19th century some idiot introduced the North American grey squirrel. The results were catastrophic to the red squirrel to the extent that I see grey squirrels everyday but have never seen a red one in my life.This is how their populations have changed. Comparison of the distributions of the grey (left) and red (right) squirrels in the UK. Grey squirrels are well established in England and Wales with an estimated population of 2.5 million (Pepper and Patterson, 2001), while red squirrels have retreated to the north.The red squirrel now only survives in the South of England on preservation sites and it's future is not at all certain.If you want the full story it's here:http://conservation-issues.co.uk/...uirrel_Article_07-07.htmEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I think squirrels in the UK are a good example of competition in nature - particularly since the grey squirrels are now being out-competed by black squirrels.But it will be wasted on the likes of CTG.

Hi Tangle and Panda And then there are the numerous examples of species introduced by modern man into island habitats, australia, south and north america ...There is so much documented evidence even from only the last 100 years that only blind willful ignorance can deny it.Enjoy.

True, but one aspect I think is different to most of those is that the changes in squirrel population are all within living memory.Fundamentalists often complain that "No-one was there to see it!" but the squirrel example has been witnessed first-hand by many people.

Hi again CrytoGod,I see that what you do is mix up your replies to everybody without attributing them or properly linking them to the specific messages. This is like trying to obscure your lack of evidence by piling on mountains of BS.Please either reply to specific messages so that the forum software links them or do the link manually with:type [qs=RAZD]There are many intermediate species ...[/qs] and it becomes: If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.Personally I like to use the [qs]Comments ...[/qs] or [qs=Person]Comments ...[/qs] for replyiing to posts and the [quote]Quoted material...[/quote] for quotes from websites and books, as this distinguishes one from the other visibly on the page and adds clarity to the post. Later species means that Australopithicus afarensis no longer exists at the time of Australopithicus africanus because the population has evolved over time from one to the other. The line between them is rather arbitrary as it is hard to distinguish one from the other: Do you not understand how evolution actually works? Already given in the previous post, and repeated in Message 49, and just repeated again above. Your apparent inability to recognize evidence when given does not mean that it is not given. When you keep asking for something that has been provided you begin to look silly. In other words, (A) no, you do NOT understand how evolution actually works, (B) no, you CANNOT show how the theory of evolution would predict that "living sub human populations" should be walking around, and (C) your ONLY response is to repeat your previous assertion.Epic fail. Again: WHY? you have not answered the question.What is your reasoning here? Can you explain it? Curious minds want to know.AGAIN: Do you expect to see great great grandparents roaming the world? Their great great grandparents? Do you understand why these questions are pertinent? Do you understand that evolution (and common sense) predicts that ancestral species will actually be ancestral rather than contemporaneous?Do you understand that the fossil record actually shows this to be the case?Do you understand that chimpanzees and bonobos are not ancestral species to humans, that they are sibling species? I looked at your reference. Pitiful. A creationist\IDologist website that quotemines, rather than original research published in peer reviewed journals for the appropriate field of study. Why don't you find the original articles in the peer reviewed articles, read them and then post what you think?You can start here: Google scholar search for human+chimp+genome+comparisonIf you find it difficult to understand some of the articles, there are actual biologists here capable of helping you through the rough spots ... if you actually want to learn what the scientific evidence shows.I suggest you also read Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

... There are nine other major chromosomal differences between chimpanzees and humans: chromosome segment inversions on human chromosomes 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18. ...

---

Note that these are the same differences noted in your creationist\IDologist polemic, and that this shows how disingenuous your article is: the difference is that one is "backwards" in sequence compared to the other -- yet this would not affect the function of the sequence.Enjoy.

I just happened to stumble across this, that you've replied to some of what I posted. I could have easily overlooked it because its hidden in the middle of a huge post. Its better to reply to each individual post: its easier to find the replies, easier to read, and I get an email notification whenever someone replies to my posts so I know that it happened. Anyways: I asked you a question and you insult me Don't be a jerk. They used to exist. We do exist. They don't exist anymore. Ergo, we won the competition. Simple, no?Why do you think they went extinct? Dinosaurs supposedly existed. Do you expect them to be walking around? Why or why not?One more thing: Whenever I see those long cut-n-pastes of quotes from other people, I do not read them and instantly skip past them. Just FYI, you're wasting your time posting them. We're all here to discuss with each other, not throw quotes around.

It should be shockingly obvious why they are extinct. They all died. They are extinct for the same reason that wooly mammoths are extinct, they all died. What more of an explanation do you need? We have their fossils. We can compare those fossils to modern hominids. Guess what? None of the modern hominids match the fossil hominids. What more need be said? No need for belief. They left fossils for us to study. No, they haven't. Scientists agree that these fossils are transitional. What they debate is the exact placement of these species into the family tree of hominids.If you disagree that these fossils are transitional then please tell us what features a real transitional would have. Because they went extinct. What more need be said? Do you likewise believe that wooly mammoths never existed because they are not alive today?

Hi Panda See Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium for additional examples:

quote:

---

One of the problems that creationists seem to have with evolution is how new species can disburse and displace existing species. This is especially true for the punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") model of Gould and Eldridge. This article is to discuss the dispersal aspects of small populations into a new environment, removing the issue of new species evolution from the discussion.

​

Bird species introduced into North America, both intentionally and accidentally, have shown different levels of dispersal across the continent. In some cases we know that they had only small initial populations located in one place, the point of release. We also know that they were not here before being introduced. Thus such species are good models for new species dispersal behavior into a new environment.

---

There are lots of well documented historical instances of intentional or accidental introduction of non-native species. Being historical means of course that someone was there to see it.

quote:

---

Conclusions

​

Thus we see two extremely successful dispersions and others of limited success and finally some that succeeded only to lose out to later competition. Obviously not all introductions are successful, and just as obviously not all newly evolved species will win out in similar circumstances.

​

Native species are being impacted by the "successful" introductions (Starlings and House Sparrows) but they are still viable at this time (probably most impacted is the Eastern Bluebird). There was no eco-niche vacuum for the newcomers to fill and there was competition, but they have been able to disperse across the continent.

---

The easy spread of introduced species during the recent past is a telling example of how easily a newly evolved species with a fitness advantage could rapidly (in geological time) spread to fill and displace older species in an ecological niche.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : coding

CryptoGod welcome,Boy, you are a really good writer. You must have a fantastic library for all the references you are posting and a great memory. Have you read all those books and papers that you referenced? You must've been studying evolution for a long time. Are you a biologist or an anthropologist?I especially liked the way you jump around from topic to topic. It keeps those evolutionists on their toes.