If evolution is true,,,

[sfs]

Most (if not all) evolutionists (include you) agreed that if each line in the diagram represents a species, then the path of evolution goes from the right side toward the left side. This fits the idea of the common ancestor.

Yes. And every evolutionary biologist will also tell you that the chart does not represent real evolution, at least over any appreciable period of time, since it omits extinction. Why do you keep ignoring extinction?

]
If human (not ape) is represented by one of the line in #4, then where are other human-like apes represented by the other seven lines from #1 to #4?

Extinct, as we keep telling you.

We do not see their development anywhere. Nothing, nothing, ever evolved into a life like human. Extinction does not explain it. They never existed at the first place.

Neandertals never existed? Homo erectus never existed? Homo habilis never existed? They all existed, they were all a lot more like modern humans than any other ape, and they are all extinct.

 

[Calminian]

Then please show us where it says it.

In the chronological genealogies found in Gen. 5, Gen. 11 and elsewhere in Scripture. There are different kinds of genealogies found all throughout the bible with different purposes. Some have gaps by design, some are chronological by design. We just happened to have all the chronological data we need to date the world. It's kinda cool when you think bout it.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

Show me an example which can be represented by a line in, say, #2.

As others have pointed out, they are all extinct other than us. However, it's an interesting question, and if things had gone differently, they could be around today, because many of them had descendant populations that survived long past when their line spit from ours. Did we drive them to extinction? Possible.

Anyway, here is an article on exactly that topic - the survival of humanoid populations into the time when humans existed. It turns ouf that many did survive for a long time.

www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/kalthoff/bio301c/readings/04Tattersall.pdf‎ http://www.google.com/search?q=scie...0&bih=576&cad=cbv&sei=t-UcUsKSOcTr2QWAiYCoCw#

• Cached

Papias

&**************************************

Cal wrote:

There are different kinds of genealogies found all throughout the bible with different purposes. Some have gaps by design, some are chronological by design. We just happened to have all the chronological data we need to date the world. It's kinda cool when you think bout it.

As Cal and I have discussed previosly, the Biblical chronologies don't work (are shown to be symbolic by scripture itself), and that modern dating methods (dozens of different methods) all confirm each other, giving the same chronology resulting in a 4.55 billion year old earth.


Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. And every evolutionary biologist will also tell you that the chart does not represent real evolution, at least over any appreciable period of time, since it omits extinction. Why do you keep ignoring extinction?


Extinct, as we keep telling you.


Neandertals never existed? Homo erectus never existed? Homo habilis never existed? They all existed, they were all a lot more like modern humans than any other ape, and they are all extinct.

Are you suggesting that Neanderthals can be represented by a line in #3 and Homo erectus by a line in #2?

Is the one below a mistake? Or we do not really know how to arrange them? It seems to me all these "humans" just evolved from ONE ape species. What about other hundreds of ape species? Why didn't they also evolve a little bit toward something like human?

 

[sfs]

Are you suggesting that Neanderthals can be represented by a line in #3 and Homo erectus by a line in #2?

Yes.

Is the one below a mistake?

No, it's not a mistake. (There are quibbles one could raise, but the main point is correct.)

Or we do not really know how to arrange them?

We do know how to arrange modern humans, Neandertals and Denisovans. Extinct species for which we do not have DNA are more speculative.

So does this answer your original question, about the lack of near-human species? These are after all exactly what you were talking about.

It seems to me all these "humans" just evolved from ONE ape species.

As one would expect. All apes also evolved from one primate species, and all primates evolved from one mammal species, and all mammals evolved from one tetrapod species.

What about other hundreds of ape species? Why didn't they also evolve a little bit toward something like human?

Why would they? They were in different environments. (Are you sure about hundreds of ape species? There are only a handful around today.)

 

[theFijian]

In the chronological genealogies found in Gen. 5, Gen. 11 and elsewhere in Scripture. There are different kinds of genealogies found all throughout the bible with different purposes. Some have gaps by design, some are chronological by design. We just happened to have all the chronological data we need to date the world. It's kinda cool when you think bout it.

Ah right so the Bible doesn't say the world is 6000 years old we just guess that it is from incomplete genealogies which were are a Hebraic device intended for establishing the Kingship of Christ and not for dating the cosmos. Yeah tres cool.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes.


No, it's not a mistake. (There are quibbles one could raise, but the main point is correct.)


We do know how to arrange modern humans, Neandertals and Denisovans. Extinct species for which we do not have DNA are more speculative.

So does this answer your original question, about the lack of near-human species? These are after all exactly what you were talking about.


As one would expect. All apes also evolved from one primate species, and all primates evolved from one mammal species, and all mammals evolved from one tetrapod species.


Why would they? They were in different environments. (Are you sure about hundreds of ape species? There are only a handful around today.)

Find a species of ape (not human) today, and ask the question: Why didn't it evolve toward a more human-like ape?

What is your answer? Different habitat (niche) is not a good one because there was no different habitat. All of them lived together in the same environment.

 

[sfs]

Find a species of ape (not human) today, and ask the question: Why didn't it evolve toward a more human-like ape?

What is your answer? Different habitat (niche) is not a good one because there was no different habitat. All of them lived together in the same environment.

You haven't answered my question: did I answer your original question or not? Do you agree that these various other species or subspecies of Homo were indeed organisms that were different from modern humans but more similar to them than any other ape species? There's not much point in moving on to a second question until on what it was you were originally asking.

 

[juvenissun]

You haven't answered my question: did I answer your original question or not? Do you agree that these various other species or subspecies of Homo were indeed organisms that were different from modern humans but more similar to them than any other ape species? There's not much point in moving on to a second question until on what it was you were originally asking.

It is hard for me to keep the shooting straight on this subject. But I am trying. I like to keep these two figures for reference. They are confusing.

You told me that in this figure, we may take a line on #4 for homo sapiens and a line on #3 for neanderthals. In this way, the neanderthals are NOT a "subspecies", but a species of homo. Right? But both #3 and #4 evolved from an ape(?) species of #6. Correct?

If so, then my question is (it was and it is, I have only one question from the beginning): What happened to ape(?) #5? Why didn't #5 also evolve so we see some thing at #1 and/or #2 that are similar to #3 and #4?

You may say #5 extinct. Fine. But at the level of round_2 on the figure, there WERE many others. Were they also extinct? How convenient.


-----

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

What happened to ape(?) #5? Why didn't #5 also evolve so we see some thing at #1 and/or #2 that are similar to #3 and #4?

Juvi, did you, or did you not, read the article I posted above which provides examples of this very question?

You may say #5 extinct. Fine. But at the level of round_2 on the figure, there WERE many others. Were they also extinct? How convenient.

Oh, so there are no (non-avian) dinosaurs around today? There WERE dinosaurs around in the past. You say they all went extinct? How convenient.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:




Juvi, did you, or did you not, read the article I posted above which provides examples of this very question?




Oh, so there are no (non-avian) dinosaurs around today? There WERE dinosaurs around in the past. You say they all went extinct? How convenient.

Papias

You reminded me one important lesson I learned: When I was an undergraduate student, I had a chance to do some field work with a renowned visiting professor. I asked him a question about the rock which he was explaining, he stopped for a second and continued on his explanation, but totally ignored my question. I was really confused on his attitude for a long while.

I started to understand his reaction to me decades later when I responded in a similar way to my student.

 

[Papias]

Juvi, your reply did nothing to answer my question. Here is my post again for your convenience:

Juvi wrote:

What happened to ape(?) #5? Why didn't #5 also evolve so we see some thing at #1 and/or #2 that are similar to #3 and #4?

Juvi, did you, or did you not, read the article I posted above which provides examples of this very question?

You may say #5 extinct. Fine. But at the level of round_2 on the figure, there WERE many others. Were they also extinct? How convenient.

Oh, so there are no (non-avian) dinosaurs around today? There WERE dinosaurs around in the past. You say they all went extinct? How convenient.

Papias
​

**********************************************

You wrote:

You reminded me one important lesson I learned: When I was an undergraduate student, I had a chance to do some field work with a renowned visiting professor. I asked him a question about the rock which he was explaining, he stopped for a second and continued on his explanation, but totally ignored my question. I was really confused on his attitude for a long while.

Because he was actually explaing something he understood. That situation doesn't apply here. Your response makes me wonder if you actually learned the lesson.

I responded in a similar way to my student.

Are you repeating your previous (false) claim that you are a geology professor?

Papias

 

[The Barbarian]

Find a species of ape (not human) today, and ask the question: Why didn't it evolve toward a more human-like ape?

Because there is a very good way of life open to forest-dwelling apes.

What is your answer? Different habitat (niche) is not a good one because there was no different habitat.

No, that's wrong. At that time, the forests were shrinking, and becoming drier, more like savannas. In some places, the forest remained. In others, the dense forest gave rise to open savanna. And we know there were apes that survived the transition. One group led to us.




All of them lived together in the same environment.

 

[Smidlee]

Ok, but a different ape then we have now.

Right, Mythological apes but not real apes people have seen.

No its not, it's more like saying if there are ducks why are there still eagles (just as silly but the same by analogy as apes do not represent primates in general). Just as there is no proof or actual evidence that apes evolved into mankind (and certainly not according to Darwin's theory), it is also true that there is absolutely no proof or evidence that reptiles became birds. Or that eagles became ducks and so on.

Paul

Do you doubt the existence of Boobzilla too? Of course eagles didn't become ducks. Ducks and eagles came from "whatchamacallit" bird.

 

[juvenissun]

Because there is a very good way of life open to forest-dwelling apes.



No, that's wrong. At that time, the forests were shrinking, and becoming drier, more like savannas. In some places, the forest remained. In others, the dense forest gave rise to open savanna. And we know there were apes that survived the transition. One group led to us.




All of them lived together in the same environment.

Ape A knew the change. Ape B knew the change. Ape C knew the change. Etc.

Why are we special?