Did humans descend from other primates?

[McCulloch]

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.

[sniper762]

my op addressed religious as well as scientific. if you dont believe in either, then what do you believe?

[WinePusher]

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.

Well, the ignorance you suggest comes from cognitive scientists and evolutionists who have yet to provide workable theories for morality, rationality 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

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.

Even if this Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene view of evolution were true, it would only explain altruism found amoung families and kin. Quite frankly, this type evolution pushed by Dawkins is best known as Metaphysical Darwinism.

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.

Dennett has been on my reading list for a while, but I find the books by the new atheists equivalent to institutions such as AiG. Wherein both sides begin their research with a preconcieved notion, and try to conform the evidence to fit their preconcieved conclusion instead of just following the path where it leads.

The fact that we are conscious, self aware, rational beings also cuts aganist human evolutionary theory.

Because you say so?

Because the scientists don't say so.

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'

Nature..? It takes changes in an organisms enviroments that forces the organism to adapt and evolve to conform with those changes. That is the crux of descent with modification.

[SailingCyclops]

then moses or who ever mortal man you perceive that wrote genisis didnt know what we know today, therefore how could he intelligently explain the origin of anything?

Good point. However, you quote genesis as your authority, the basis for your belief. So how can a book which can not "intelligently explain the origin of anything", be of any value in the explanation of creation?

Bob

[nygreenguy]

Even if this Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene view of evolution were true, it would only explain altruism found amoung families and kin. Quite frankly, this type evolution pushed by Dawkins is best known as Metaphysical Darwinism.

There is a reason why the selfish gene was such a ground breaking book. Its because its true. You mentioned several examples of perceived altruism which I demonstrated were NOT altruistic.

And there is no such thing as "metaphysical darwinism"

Evolutionary Psychology has been successful in explaining things such as sexual mating and human behavior, but it cannot explain consciousness.

Dennett has been on my reading list for a while, but I find the books by the new atheists equivalent to institutions such as AiG. Wherein both sides begin their research with a preconcieved notion, and try to conform the evidence to fit their preconcieved conclusion instead of just following the path where it leads.

The fact that we are conscious, self aware, rational beings also cuts aganist human evolutionary theory.

Because you say so?

Because the scientists don't say so.

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.

Except for the atheists are back by actual peer-reviewed research and when you start with a "pre-conceived notion" that is proven to be true, there is no error.

Nature..? It takes changes in an organisms enviroments that forces the organism to adapt and evolve to conform with those changes. That is the crux of descent with modification.

Did you read anything I posted? I gave a direct example on how this isnt true.

[Grumpy]

WinePusher

Well, the ignorance you suggest comes from cognitive scientists and evolutionists who have yet to provide workable theories for morality, rationality and consciousness.

Evolution explains this very well, you just resist any such explanation due to personal bias...

"I always feel that facts that are inconvenient for certain theories should be faced straight-on rather than be neglected."

Frans de Waal
"Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals"

"De Waal likens the question of morals in other species to similar inquiries about culture, politics, language, intelligence and so on. Of course, other species do not have human morals, culture or language, any more than a cat has the same view of life as a dog. Yet animals do behave in ways that, if seen in humans, would be automatically credited as having a moral basis: they appear to express altruism, empathy, righteous indignation, retribution, community concern and tolerance. "

http://www.believermag.com/issues/20070 ... iew_dewaal

Fran de Waal posits two driving forces that direct the evolution of morals.

1. An organism must live in groups on which it depends for subsistence and defense.
2. These group members must cooperate even though they also have disparate individual interests.

A school of fish will satisfy the first condition, but only a few species of social mammals meet the second one. Resolution of conflicts(to the benefit of the individual)is the evolutionary pressure from which morality emerges.

That is not to say that our morals have a strictly biological source. Our intelligence and reason(the result of evolution)ALLOW the development of society, society REQUIRES the development of morals. But we are far from the only animal species that can do that, all mammals have these abilities to one degree or another. Wolves, chimps, killer whales and dolphins all have societies in the wild. The rules of those societies ARE morals, even if we would not agree with many of them.

Grumpy

[otseng]

I understand that the theory of evolution is foundational to the discussions here. I'm not saying that they are unrelated.

Its not foundational to the discussion, it IS the discussion

From the OP:

Did humans descend from other primates?
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.

We're not discussing the general theory of evolution here. We are narrowing the focus to human origins.

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

Actually, it totally follows. There is no logical or scientific reason to exclude humans from the evolutionary process

Only if one assumes naturalistic processes are the only thing in play.

Even some Christians accept evolution from single-cell to hominids, but believe that man was specially created.

So what? They are not an authority.

I'm not claiming they are authorities. I simply gave one example of where a belief in evolution does not necessarily lead to a belief in human evolution.

Firstly, you never gave us a model. I think you need to re-examine what a scientific model is. You are trying to create a theory.

If you want to call it a theory, I will not stop you. But, I'd rather not play the semantics game of what to call it. So, I use the generic term model to all explanations that I present.

The plain old TOE is sufficient to compare your model to, we just limit it to a single species.

I want to confirm this with everyone else that is participating in this thread. Do you all agree with nygreenguy's statement? Does no human evolutionary theory exist? Is the only thing that the human creation model can be compared with is the TOE?

Are you suggesting that evolution cannot make any predictions?

No, I was trying to (if you see what statement of yours I quoted was) is clear up some of your misconceptions of after the fact explinations.

Then if you do not suggest that evolution cannot make predictions, is there a list of predictions in regards to the origin of humans?

[otseng]

For a good description of how drift affects mtDNA and the y-chromosome, I recommend reading this blog post.[1]

I read through the blog post. But still fail to see how it explains things. Could you cite the parts where you feel answers the issue?

This kind of gene genealogy is the focus of coalescent theory within population genetics.

I read through this also. But I do not see where it addresses the extinction of all the other original lines.

However, if mtEve was located in the Mideast rather than Africa, we would expect to see a pattern similar to this:

Figure 2: A human mtDNA phylogeny consistent with Mideastern mtEve

Yes, I understand what you are saying. And if it was one female after the flood, your proposal would make sense.

However, it's complicated by the fact that is was not one female that repopulated the world after the flood, but four. And all those four would've shared a common mother in their ancestry. So, it would not have necessarily bifurcated after the flood.

You seem unduly skeptical about the ability of phylogeny to reconstruct species' lineages.

My source of skepticism is that I have not seen any objective test to determine if a feature is analogous or homologous.

How about phylogeny's ability to track lineages of non-interbreeding populations within a species?

Again, I have no problem with microevolution.

[otseng]

The broader question is when did art itself become manifest? There is much evidence that it began between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago.
When Was Art First Created?

According to the latest paleo-archeological information, the oldest art was created by humans during the prehistoric Stone Age, between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago.

Let's look at the art from your source.



It claims "The oldest known art of prehistory. A cupule at the Auditorium Cave at Bhimbetka, Madhya Pradesh, India. It dates from (290,000-700,000 BCE)."

It is disputable that this would be considered art, or even made from man.

Here is another image:



It claims "Venus of Berekhat Ram dating from 230,000 - 700,000 BCE."

Frankly, it looks like a plain ole rock to me.

Also, just because a rock might look like something doesn't mean it's manmade (or even hominid made).

Now, if you want to look at a rock that appears manmade that is really old, take a look at Klerksdorp spheres.

If one considers the artistic nature of early stone technology, then that has been shown to have existed about 1.6 million years ago:
From Cave Paintings to the Internet

Acheulean or Mode 2 Industries Circa 1,650,000 BCE – 100,000 BCE

A flint biface, discovered in Saint-Acheul, France.

OK, I'll post later to address stone artifacts.

[otseng]

What you would expect after many generations is that there would be a population of a bunch of Eve, Everest, Fran, and Francis. But if after many generations, all you have is Eve and Everest, then it would need to be explained how did the Fran line die out. For human evolutionary theory, it would have to also explain how did all the other female lines die out.

What I believe to be the more parsimonious explanation is that there was no Fran (or any other females) to begin with and all originated from a single female.

All it takes for a line to die out is there to be either no children, or only males. If you only have a male, your maternal line ends.

Right. And since this happened for all the other female lines (by some estimates, at least tens of thousands of other females), what can account for it?

[otseng]

I think this is the misunderstanding - actually a later person would probably be able to trace to many of the original females (for instance, you have two grandmothers). As time progresses, the number of females each person can trace to becomes larger, and so the number of people who can't trace back to any individual female (say F1) becomes smaller, and eventually 0. At this time everyone can trace back to F1, but the other lines have not died out.

The misunderstanding is not mine.

Yes, we have two grandmothers, but we only have one (genetic) mother. And my mother only had one mother. And her mother only had one mother. And so on until you get to time 0. There would be only one maternal line from me to a female at time 0.