If evolution is true,,,

[sfs]

humans are NOT apes!!!!!!!!!!!

Adding exclamation marks to false statements does not make them true.

 

[RiemannZ]

Adding exclamation marks to false statements does not make them true.

!false

 

[ViaCrucis]

humans are NOT apes!!!!!!!!!!!

And ducks aren't birds.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sfs]

!false

Okay, that one really did make me laugh out loud.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course there are still apes . . . and some of them are human.

This question is like pointing at ducks and asking, "If evolution is true, why are there still birds?"

Even this question has been given many answers, I don't think it is an answered question at all.

If so, why aren't there more human-like apes?

 

[sfs]

Even this question has been given many answers, I don't think it is an answered question at all.

If so, why aren't there more human-like apes?

There are -- they're called humans. If you mean why aren't there non-human apes that are more like humans, the answer is that there were, but the others are now extinct. The planet can only support a limited number of large mammals occupying very similar niches.

 

[juvenissun]

There are -- they're called humans. If you mean why aren't there non-human apes that are more like humans, the answer is that there were, but the others are now extinct. The planet can only support a limited number of large mammals occupying very similar niches.

According to this chart, does the evolution go toward the right or toward the left?

 

[starlightbright]

the bible says god made men in their present form 6000 years ago. /topic

 

[sfs]

According to this chart, does the evolution go toward the right or toward the left?

Assuming it shows species, it almost certainly goes from right to left. (The only way it could be otherwise would be repeated hybridization events with subsequent loss of the parent species.) What's your point?

 

[sfs]

the bible says god made men in their present form 6000 years ago. /topic

Then the Bible is wrong. So perhaps you should reexamine what you think the Bible says.

 

[theFijian]

the bible says god made men in their present form 6000 years ago. /topic

No it doesn't. /topic

 

[juvenissun]

Assuming it shows species, it almost certainly goes from right to left. (The only way it could be otherwise would be repeated hybridization events with subsequent loss of the parent species.) What's your point?

If so, why is there not more human-like apes?

We have one species of human now. So, I would suggest the evolution path goes from the left toward the right.

 

[Calminian]

No it doesn't. /topic

Actually if I could just interject. Yeah it does. /topic

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Actually if I could just interject. Yeah it does. /topic

Um......if i could just interject as well. No it doesn't.

 

[gluadys]

If so, why is there not more human-like apes?

We have one species of human now. So, I would suggest the evolution path goes from the left toward the right.

No.

If you were correct, hybridization played a huge role in producing the one species of human on this planet today.

But there is no evidence of that.

Instead of your lines joining, they should remain separate and come to an end before the present. The open lines coming to an end in the past signify extinctions. It is not hybridization that left us with just one Homo species, but the extinction of other Homo species.

 

[theFijian]

Actually if I could just interject. Yeah it does. /topic

Then please show us where it says it.

 

[juvenissun]

No.

If you were correct, hybridization played a huge role in producing the one species of human on this planet today.

But there is no evidence of that.

Instead of your lines joining, they should remain separate and come to an end before the present. The open lines coming to an end in the past signify extinctions. It is not hybridization that left us with just one Homo species, but the extinction of other Homo species.

Lines toward right on the figure may be combined by extinction or by hybridization. They are going toward the right anyway. Right? Because the fact is that we have only one species of human, but none human-like ape.

 

[gluadys]

Lines toward right on the figure may be combined by extinction or by hybridization. They are going toward the right anyway. Right? Because the fact is that we have only one species of human, but none human-like ape.

On this chart (which is actually one from a sporting event, eliminating teams till there is one left) "species 5" and "species 6" each have two species "ancestors". That has to be hybridization, not extinction.

Interpreting left to right, you get speciation. But suppose "species 6" became extinct before speciating. Then you would have only one branch on the bottom, and the group of three on the top. Then if either "species 1" or "species 2" became extinct, you are left with just one species. (Not the same one you began with).

That would fit the evidence we have.

And since humans are apes, all apes are "human-like". That is why they are classified as hominids. All hominid species are more like humans than any other animals are.

 

[sfs]

If so, why is there not more human-like apes?

I already answered this question: "If you mean why aren't there non-human apes that are more like humans, the answer is that there were, but the others are now extinct. The planet can only support a limited number of large mammals occupying very similar niches." What didn't you understand about the answer? Whatever it was, just asking the question again isn't the way to find out.

We have one species of human now. So, I would suggest the evolution path goes from the left toward the right.

As gluadys said, merging lines do not represent extinction. Since you've left out extinction, which is clearly what has happened to almost all human-like species from the last several million years, your chart bears no relation to human evolution, whichever direction you read it from.

 

[juvenissun]

I already answered this question: "If you mean why aren't there non-human apes that are more like humans, the answer is that there were, but the others are now extinct. The planet can only support a limited number of large mammals occupying very similar niches." What didn't you understand about the answer? Whatever it was, just asking the question again isn't the way to find out.


As gluadys said, merging lines do not represent extinction. Since you've left out extinction, which is clearly what has happened to almost all human-like species from the last several million years, your chart bears no relation to human evolution, whichever direction you read it from.

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.

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? 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.

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