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.

[bernee51]

I started reading this thread this morning but after about 18 posts I realised it was too big a task to read it all but I do have one question;
If we don't know exactly what 'life' is, and as I understand it we don't, how is it we are game to speculate on how it all started?

Who ever said we dont know what life is? Much like everything in biology there are exceptions and gray areas. It has more to do with definitions than anything. It doesn't prevent us from searching for life's origins.

Then please tell me what it is because as I understood it we don't know. Certainly not nearly enough to be able to 'produce' it?
No I guess it doesn't mean we can't search for it's origins but it might be easier if we knew exactly what it is.
I read the Wiki ref and found;
"...living matter, while not eluding the "laws of physics" as established up to date, is likely to involve "other laws of physics" hitherto unknown, which however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of science as the former."
Which is enough to satisfy me that Schrödinger could only hypothesise, not exactly what I was looking for.

So taking something out of context and quoting it back is meant to somehow justify coming to a decision on 'what you were looking for.'. Of course Schrodinger is 'only' hypothesising...that is what scientiest do. Build hypotheses. And 'other laws unknown' is exactly what has come about since Schrodinger write this.

[nygreenguy]

Then please tell me what it is because as I understood it we don't know.

Life

Certainly not nearly enough to be able to 'produce' it?

We know an awful lot about spider webs and we cant prdouce them in lab either. Being able to produce something, has nothing to do with knowledge about an item. Its more often a technological constraint.

No I guess it doesn't mean we can't search for it's origins but it might be easier if we knew exactly what it is.

This has more to do with linguistics and the inability to create a proper definition. The term "life" is much like the term "species". Its grossly inadequate, but its the best definition we have for now. It applies 99% of the time. Now, that little 1% grey area isnt really enough for us to say we dont know what life is.

[Berny]

What I meant was that hypothesis is not fact.

So taking something out of context and quoting it back is meant to somehow justify coming to a decision on 'what you were looking for.'

Sorry, I don't know what you mean?

We know an awful lot about spider webs and we cant prdouce them in lab either.

But, unlike 'life' we do know that web is silk and it likely wont be long before we can replicate it.

Being able to produce something, has nothing to do with knowledge about an item. Its more often a technological constraint

I beg to differ. If we are to postulate on the origins of something we know exists, it's my position that we should, at least be able to replicate it, so as we fully understand exactly what it is, i.e., not only the consequences of it's existance. Just my view you understand.

[nygreenguy]

What I meant was that hypothesis is not fact.

Who said anything about a hypothesis?

But, unlike 'life' we do know that web is silk and it likely wont be long before we can replicate it.

We have know about the origins of spiders silk much longer than life, or evolution yet we still cant make a comparable products. Also, scientists are now, awfully close, to making life.

I beg to differ. If we are to postulate on the origins of something we know exists, it's my position that we should, at least be able to replicate it, so as we fully understand exactly what it is, i.e., not only the consequences of it's existance. Just my view you understand.

There are literally hundreds of things in nature we cant replicate. This is because biology operates on a different technological level than people. Life builds its stuff out of living things. We build our stuff out of non-living things. Its two totally different methods of engineering.

[Berny]

There is nothing that lives in nature that we can replicate, not one solitary thing that I'm aware of anyway. Maybe you know more than I do. Please enlighten us.

Also, scientists are now, awfully close, to making life.

Please elaborate on this statement? More details would be nice. It might be a surprise to many of us!

[Grumpy]

Berny

There is nothing that lives in nature that we can replicate, not one solitary thing that I'm aware of anyway. Maybe you know more than I do. Please enlighten us.

Not being able to replicate things has nothing to do with being able to understand them. We can't replicate a hurricane either, but we are getting pretty good at understanding the forces involved. Besides, it only been 60 years since we discovered the DNA molecule, yet we have already synthesized a genome for a bacteria that can reproduce. It's a start.

Also, scientists are now, awfully close, to making life.

Please elaborate on this statement? More details would be nice. It might be a surprise to many of us!

Again, we have already replaced a living organism's DNA with a man made version and had it reproduce(it is still alive today). We manipulate the DNA of much of our foods and farm animals(Genetically Modified crops, clones, spider silk producing sheep), we manipulate our own DNA(gene therapy)and we test our DNA to find disease. The medical profession is the study and treatment of life, we've come a long way from leeches and voodoo. You, if you live out your normal life span, will drive your car on products produced by artificial genomes, eat food produced by genetically altered crops, be treated by the replacement of some of your genes, maybe even receive artificial organs grown from your own DNA in a laboritory.

People are often surprised by what they do not know about. Good thing those who have been keeping up are not.

Grumpy

[bernee51]

Berny

There is nothing that lives in nature that we can replicate, not one solitary thing that I'm aware of anyway. Maybe you know more than I do. Please enlighten us.

Not being able to replicate things has nothing to do with being able to understand them. We can't replicate a hurricane either, but we are getting pretty good at understanding the forces involved. Besides, it only been 60 years since we discovered the DNA molecule, yet we have already synthesized a genome for a bacteria that can reproduce. It's a start.

Also, scientists are now, awfully close, to making life.

Please elaborate on this statement? More details would be nice. It might be a surprise to many of us!

Again, we have already replaced a living organism's DNA with a man made version and had it reproduce(it is still alive today). We manipulate the DNA of much of our foods and farm animals(Genetically Modified crops, clones, spider silk producing sheep), we manipulate our own DNA(gene therapy)and we test our DNA to find disease. The medical profession is the study and treatment of life, we've come a long way from leeches and voodoo. You, if you live out your normal life span, will drive your car on products produced by artificial genomes, eat food produced by genetically altered crops, be treated by the replacement of some of your genes, maybe even receive artificial organs grown from your own DNA in a laboritory.

People are often surprised by what they do not know about. Good thing those who have been keeping up are not.

Grumpy

And as Julian Huxley noted 'humankind is evolution become aware of itself'. Not only do we engage in the evolution of our own and other organisms in the biological but also on the level of consciousness we are masters of our own evolution.

[Berny]

Again, we have already replaced a living organism's DNA with a man made version and had it reproduce(it is still alive today). We manipulate the DNA of much of our foods and farm animals(Genetically Modified crops, clones, spider silk producing sheep), we manipulate our own DNA(gene therapy)and we test our DNA to find disease. The medical profession is the study and treatment of life, we've come a long way from leeches and voodoo. You, if you live out your normal life span, will drive your car on products produced by artificial genomes, eat food produced by genetically altered crops, be treated by the replacement of some of your genes, maybe even receive artificial organs grown from your own DNA in a laboritory.

Man made version? Man altered/manipulated version to be precise, developed from things which already exist. That's a very very long was from creating anything. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest it is beyond 'man' to 'create' anything, but can only modify what already exists.

People are often surprised by what they do not know about. Good thing those who have been keeping up are not.

No need for that remark.

[Grumpy]

Berny

Man made version? Man altered/manipulated version to be precise, developed from things which already exist.

Things like phosphorus, carbon, oxygen, etc.

"...this scientific team headed by Drs. Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith and Clyde Hutchison have achieved the final step in their quest to create the first synthetic bacterial cell. In a publication in Science magazine, Daniel Gibson, Ph.D. and a team of 23 additional researchers outline the steps to synthesize a 1.08 million base pair Mycoplasma mycoides genome, constructed from four bottles of chemicals that make up DNA. This synthetic genome has been "booted up" in a cell to create the first cell controlled completely by a synthetic genome. "

Like I said, "synthetic", man made, artificial, non-natural. They created the DNA from scratch, injected it in denucleated cells and had the cells follow the man made DNA and reproduce.

Grumpy

[nygreenguy]

Man made version? Man altered/manipulated version to be precise, developed from things which already exist. That's a very very long was from creating anything. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest it is beyond 'man' to 'create' anything, but can only modify what already exists.

And the same goes for nature. The whole first law thing. We are simply replicating that which nature did by itself.