Did humans descend from other primates?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Did humans descend from other primates?

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

otseng wrote: Man did not descend from the primates.
Did humans descend from other primates?
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

WinePusher

Post #211

Post by WinePusher »

otseng wrote:However, it does not necessarily follow that human evolution is true if evolution is true.

nygreenguy wrote:Actually, it totally follows. There is no logical or scientific reason to exclude humans from the evolutionary process.
There are reasons that would lead reasonable people to believe that humans are excluded from the evolutionary process, such as morality and consciousness.

The idea of "survival of the fittest" applies to individual organisms, not communities and populations as some on here suggest. And the pervasiveness of human altruism cuts aganist the idea of human evolution.

Evolutionary Psychology has been successful in explaining things such as sexual mating and human behavior, but it cannot explain consciousness. The fact that we are conscious, self aware, rational beings also cuts aganist human evolutionary theory. Why do human demonstrate emotional levels far beyond animals? And if you claim that they evolved, then you must provide a reason for why they would evolve. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes changes in the enviroment that forces the species to adapt and evolve.

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #212

Post by nygreenguy »

WinePusher wrote:
There are reasons that would lead reasonable people to believe that humans are excluded from the evolutionary process, such as morality and consciousness.
There may be what some perceive as reasons, but none of them are legitimate.
The idea of "survival of the fittest" applies to individual organisms, not communities and populations as some on here suggest. And the pervasiveness of human altruism cuts aganist the idea of human evolution.
No one ever claimed that fitness was anything but an individual trait. Fitness by definition is an individual trait. Whats claimed is that evolution works on populations. This is 2 different things.

As for altruism, its exceedingly rare if it exists at all.
Evolutionary Psychology has been successful in explaining things such as sexual mating and human behavior, but it cannot explain consciousness
Really? Have you read the volumes and volumes of literature explaining it?
. The fact that we are conscious, self aware, rational beings also cuts aganist human evolutionary theory.
Once again, there is no human evolutionary theory and your claim simply doesnt fit with the research thats out there. There are many other conscious, self-aware animals out there.
Why do human demonstrate emotional levels far beyond animals? And if you claim that they evolved, then you must provide a reason for why they would
Why do birds demonstrate flying skills far beyond that of any other organism? Why do bacteria demonstrate survival skills far beyond that of any other organism? Humans, just like these other organism evolved in a way beneficial for themselves. Consciousness is no different than any other evolved trait except for we put it on a pedestal because we have it.


Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes changes in the enviroment that forces the species to adapt and evolve.
Yes, it can "just" happen. Look at sexual selection. This is exclusively limited to how sexy one mate appears to the opposite sex. The sexier you are, the better your fitness. This has nothing to do with the environment.

Selection pressure just alters the rate.

sorry if this is a little concise or incomplete. Im really just trying to occupy my mind while trying to ignore my intense tooth pain...

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #213

Post by bernee51 »

WinePusher wrote:
otseng wrote:However, it does not necessarily follow that human evolution is true if evolution is true.

nygreenguy wrote:Actually, it totally follows. There is no logical or scientific reason to exclude humans from the evolutionary process.
There are reasons that would lead reasonable people to believe that humans are excluded from the evolutionary process, such as morality and consciousness.
I am a reasonable person - I do not see any reasons presented as to why humans are exluded from the evolutionary process.

What I see is an argument from ignorance.
WinePusher wrote: The idea of "survival of the fittest" applies to individual organisms, not communities and populations as some on here suggest. And the pervasiveness of human altruism cuts aganist the idea of human evolution.
Wrong.

What is supported is the survival of genes, not necesarily individuals. If the survival of genes is supported by the development of coommunity then that is what will be seleted.

WinePusher wrote: Evolutionary Psychology has been successful in explaining things such as sexual mating and human behavior, but it cannot explain consciousness.
Of course it can.

I suggest you read Dennett, Consciousness Explained and Humphrey, Seeing Red, for very cogent explanations of why consiousness has evolved and is continuing to do so.

For the incurably religious the Phenomenon of Man by Teilhard de Chardin should help dispel misconceptions regarding why man and consiousness is definately part of an evolutionary apotheosis.
WinePusher wrote: The fact that we are conscious, self aware, rational beings also cuts aganist human evolutionary theory.
Because you say so?
WinePusher wrote: Why do human demonstrate emotional levels far beyond animals? And if you claim that they evolved, then you must provide a reason for why they would evolve. Evolution doesn't just happen, it takes changes in the enviroment that forces the species to adapt and evolve.
That depends on what you mean by 'environment'
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

WinePusher

Post #214

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:The idea of "survival of the fittest" applies to individual organisms, not communities and populations as some on here suggest. And the pervasiveness of human altruism cuts aganist the idea of human evolution.

nygreenguy wrote:No one ever claimed that fitness was anything but an individual trait. Fitness by definition is an individual trait. Whats claimed is that evolution works on populations. This is 2 different things.

As for altruism, its exceedingly rare if it exists at all.
When it comes to survival, some on here claim that the individual species duty is to the population, not to itself. Which you disagree with, yes?

But altruism is certainly not exceedingly rare in humans. Humans are altruistic beings, we give blood, we have cops and firefighters, we care for the wellbeing of others (even animals). That does cut aganist the idea of survival of the fittest when applied to individual species.
WinePusher wrote:Evolutionary Psychology has been successful in explaining things such as sexual mating and human behavior, but it cannot explain consciousness

nygreenguy wrote:Really? Have you read the volumes and volumes of literature explaining it?
I've read articles by Stephen Pinker.
WinePusher wrote:. The fact that we are conscious, self aware, rational beings also cuts aganist human evolutionary theory.
nygreenguy wrote:Once again, there is no human evolutionary theory and your claim simply doesnt fit with the research thats out there. There are many other conscious, self-aware animals out there.
Again, not on the level that humans are. And I was particularly responding to your statement that there are no reasons that humans should be excluded from evolution. Human's have a level of self awareness that exceeds animals, can evolution account for this?
Why do human demonstrate emotional levels far beyond animals? And if you claim that they evolved, then you must provide a reason for why they would

nygreenguy wrote:Why do birds demonstrate flying skills far beyond that of any other organism? Why do bacteria demonstrate survival skills far beyond that of any other organism? Humans, just like these other organism evolved in a way beneficial for themselves. Consciousness is no different than any other evolved trait except for we put it on a pedestal because we have it.
But evolution can account for bird aerodynamics and bacterial survival. Can it account for consciousness? As of now, no.
nygreenguy wrote:sorry if this is a little concise or incomplete. Im really just trying to occupy my mind while trying to ignore my intense tooth pain...
Orajel works wonders.

User avatar
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #215

Post by nygreenguy »

WinePusher wrote:
When it comes to survival, some on here claim that the individual species duty is to the population, not to itself. Which you disagree with, yes?
I would argue with that. Its all about the individual, or more specifically, the genes.
But altruism is certainly not exceedingly rare in humans. Humans are altruistic beings, we give blood, we have cops and firefighters, we care for the wellbeing of others (even animals). That does cut aganist the idea of survival of the fittest when applied to individual species.
See, altruism, in a biological context, is sacrificing your fitness for the benefit of another. Giving blood certainly isnt a sacrifice. Being a cop gives someone a good steady job and they rarely get killed, so there is no effect to their fitness either.





Again, not on the level that humans are. And I was particularly responding to your statement that there are no reasons that humans should be excluded from evolution. Human's have a level of self awareness that exceeds animals, can evolution account for this?
All sorts of organisms have traits and abilities that are above and beyond all other organisms.




But evolution can account for bird aerodynamics and bacterial survival. Can it account for consciousness? As of now, no.
Firstly, even if this was true, its simply an argument to incredulity. We see, just as we do with all evolutionary traits. gradients in the animal kingdom. We can see levels of consciousness and self awareness in all sorts of animals which sows the differing levels of evolution.


Orajel works wonders.
I wish. Ive tried it all. Get, liquid, paste.... I need 2 root canals asap, but my "insurance" (medicaid) doesnt cover it and its about $1000 a tooth! I have some hydrocodon which takes the edge off, but doesnt get rid of the pain!

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #216

Post by McCulloch »

WinePusher wrote: Again, not on the level that humans are. And I was particularly responding to your statement that there are no reasons that humans should be excluded from evolution. Human's have a level of self awareness that exceeds animals, can evolution account for this?

And cats' level of self awareness exceeds that of fish. Yes evolution accounts for this.
WinePusher wrote: But evolution can account for bird aerodynamics and bacterial survival. Can it account for consciousness? As of now, no.
Why do you say that?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

sniper762
Apprentice
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:08 am
Location: north carolina

Post #217

Post by sniper762 »

The Bible states in the book of genesis, written by Moses between 1500-1600 BC, that (GEN 2), in the beginning, the earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM and on the first day, (GEN 3), God said, let there be light and there was light. On the second day of his six-day creation, (GEN 6), God moved upon the earth, separating the waters, dividing them from the waters below and the waters above the firmament and all in between was called heaven. On the third day, (GEN 9), he CAUSED the dry land to appear and LET the earth bring forth grass and trees and seeds that reproduced after its kind. It appears that within these three days, God merely manipulated what was already here, not creating it all from NOTHING. Gen 5,8 and 13 says that the morning and the evening were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days. What defines a day? I perceive the morning and the evening to be defined by the rising and setting of the sun, but wait a minute….the sun was not set into the firmaments until the 4th day.??????? Then, on the fourth day, (GEN 1: 14-19), he set the sun, moon and stars, all called lights, in the firmament called heaven, (which was between the waters below and the waters above). We know, now that the moon is not a light, but yet a reflection of light from the sun. Furthermore, there is no water ABOVE these celestial bodies which Moses says were placed in the firmament between the divided waters. It is evident that Moses had no knowledge of the size or distance from the earth of these bodies and made an attempt to explain their existence to man in a way that would maintain his claim that God was their creator and thus greater than them and before them. On the fifth day, (GEN 20), he made the fish of the seas and the fowls of the air. On the sixth day, (GEN 24), he made all the land dwelling animals, man and woman. All of these animals, fish, birds and humans were made with the ability to multiply.

Now let’s back up a bit. The generation of man can be accurately traced back to Adam, by historical data and Biblical record to approximately 6000 years ago. All scientists and theologians alike agree to this. Many theologians agree that each of the six days of God’s creation, as stated in the Bible, (2 Peter 3:8) that a day with God is a thousand years with man, therefore adding 6000 years to the 6000 years since the creation of Adam culminating in approximately 12000 years total since God’s beginning of the Earth’s creation. This time frame difference is where science and theology disagree.
Now, the Bible states that God destroyed all living things on the face of the earth around 2344 BC save it Noah, his three sons, their wives and the animals taken aboard the ark, saving them to replenish the earth. Who is to say that God had not done the same thing to the earth before? God would have no reason to inspire his prophet to explain any creation, formation, or destruction of this earth or its inhabitants other than that of which concerns us, the relatives of Adam, and God’s latest RESTORATION of the earth that was reformed as our home. Furthermore, for those who believe in science’s theory of evolution, maybe the earth, dinosaurs and prehistoric man DID evolve over billions of years prior to God’s insertion of Adam and his restoration of the earth from it’s VOID state 12000 years ago into the earth as we know it today as our home. If, God didn’t create the prehistoric earth and man it would explain why prehistoric man remained ignorant and primitive for millions of years and since God’s new earth and insertion of man, his creation, in his likeness and with his knowledge, have technologically advanced so quickly in the past 6000 years to what we are today. Just imagine our advance, at that same rate in the next 6000 years.
After all, God’s word teaches us to be Christians, or Christ-like. Christ being God in the flesh means that we are to strive to be God-like, therefore someday becoming a creator of a world and mankind just as did our creator.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #218

Post by McCulloch »

sniper762 wrote: The Bible states in the book of genesis, written by Moses
Did Moses write the part about his own death?
sniper762 wrote: [...]It appears that within these [first] three days, God merely manipulated what was already here, not creating it all from NOTHING.
You are correct to point out that the creation myth in the first chapter of Genesis does not explicitly state that God created anything from nothing. That idea comes from other passages in the Bible.

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Romans 4:17 ... God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

1 Corinthians 1:28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
sniper762 wrote: The generation of man can be accurately traced back to Adam, by historical data and Biblical record to approximately 6000 years ago. All scientists and theologians alike agree to this.
You seem to be misinformed. Richard Dawkins is a scientist and he disagrees. John Shelby Spong is a theologian and he disagrees.
sniper762 wrote: Many theologians agree that each of the six days of God’s creation, as stated in the Bible, (2 Peter 3:8) that a day with God is a thousand years with man, therefore adding 6000 years to the 6000 years since the creation of Adam culminating in approximately 12000 years total since God’s beginning of the Earth’s creation. This time frame difference is where science and theology disagree.
It is one of the many disagreements between science and revelation.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

sniper762
Apprentice
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:08 am
Location: north carolina

Post #219

Post by sniper762 »

this is "my" interpretation of the bible, the way that "i" perceived it after sincere prayer and dilligent investigation.

i have done th e genealogy from christ to adam per biblical scriptures (? begot ?) and have compared the dates with those of historical records (kings of israel), etc.

google "king david", "solomon", or "saul" and you will see

User avatar
Scotracer
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Post #220

Post by Scotracer »

Again, not on the level that humans are. And I was particularly responding to your statement that there are no reasons that humans should be excluded from evolution. Human's have a level of self awareness that exceeds animals, can evolution account for this?
All I can ask is: So?

All sorts of other traits in the animal kingdom are gradiated between species. Some are much faster than others, some much bigger than others, some live much longer than others and some are much more intelligent than others.

Is it any surprise that the primates (which includes us), which have the most developed neo-cortex are the most intelligent? No.

But evolution can account for bird aerodynamics and bacterial survival. Can it account for consciousness? As of now, no.
Cognition research is getting much closer to fully understanding what consciousness is and how it's caused. And even if it couldn't at present, you're proposing an argument from incredulity.

And since we can't actually show that someone else is truly conscious, we don't know how conscious other animals are. The other great apes and many whales show cultural signs once thought to only be associated with human behaviour; they mourn the dead, they have close-knit families, they have non-biological mothers caring for offspring of others etc etc. We don't know how conscious they are because they can't talk - humans have a very specific mutation in our larynx that allows proper speech.
Why Evolution is True
Universe from nothing

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
- Christopher Hitchens

Post Reply