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.

[Goat]

A better explanation of ERV is that they were originally designed in the DNA for a purpose, rather than randomly inserted into the DNA. And a prediction that follows from this is that we will continue to find more functions for ERV.

Why?? Prove it. Why is the exact sequence there, at exactly the same point between chimps and humans, but on no other sets of living things??

WHy is proclaiming that it 'has a purpose' a better explaination? Give me the reasoning behind that .

[otseng]

A better explanation of ERV is that they were originally designed in the DNA for a purpose, rather than randomly inserted into the DNA. And a prediction that follows from this is that we will continue to find more functions for ERV.

Why?? Prove it. Why is the exact sequence there, at exactly the same point between chimps and humans, but on no other sets of living things??

Are your evidence to support your assertion?

And even if it was true, similarities between chimps and humans do not demonstrate lineage. It's already been acknowledged in this thread that humans do not come from chimps.

Also, if ERV are caused by a virus insertion, why should similarities be limited to the chimp? Shouldn't there also be ERV similarities between humans and other species in the human lineage?

WHy is proclaiming that it 'has a purpose' a better explaination? Give me the reasoning behind that .

I've given several examples of functions for ERV. So, how can a virus infect a reproductive cell, mutate to become inactive, yet also mutate to have a beneficial function in the host organism? ERV are supposed to be at best functionless, not impart a beneficial function.

[nygreenguy]

I've given several examples of functions for ERV. So, how can a virus infect a reproductive cell, mutate to become inactive, yet also mutate to have a beneficial function in the host organism? ERV are supposed to be at best functionless, not impart a beneficial function.

Argument to incredulity?

[nygreenguy]

I do not object to Linnaean taxonomy when its use is limited to its original intent. It was simply classification based on morphological features. However, nowadays, it has been hijacked to imply lineage.

This sort of anti-science rhetoric is offensive. Classification based upon morphology is limited in its application. It totally ignores things like analagous structures.

In addition, taxonomy is simply the naming. What we are talking about here is systematics, which is meant to imply ancestry. The claim of hijacking is simply baseless.

Rather than having a special taxonomy for humans, the Linnaean taxonomy should be used only to describe physical features and not have any implications of lineage. If this is accepted, then I have no problem classifying humans as primates.

Why are you so obsessed with an outdated classification system?

Similarities do not necessarily mean lineage. It could also mean they were designed is a similar fashion. HP and Gateway computers share many similarities, but they did not derive from the other.

Except computers are not self-replicating organisms. The analogy is moot.

Also, as far as I know, no evolutionist claims that there is a direct lineage from a chimp to a human. So, even if there are similarities, a chimpanzee would not show how humans evolved from primates.

Sure it does. Specific genetic similarities determine relationships. This is done all the time, especially in the areas of paternity tests. The only difference is, in systematics we take it a few steps further.

[Goat]

A better explanation of ERV is that they were originally designed in the DNA for a purpose, rather than randomly inserted into the DNA. And a prediction that follows from this is that we will continue to find more functions for ERV.

Why?? Prove it. Why is the exact sequence there, at exactly the same point between chimps and humans, but on no other sets of living things??

Are your evidence to support your assertion?

And even if it was true, similarities between chimps and humans do not demonstrate lineage. It's already been acknowledged in this thread that humans do not come from chimps.

WHy are you misrepresenting what is said? What has been said is that Chimps and humans share a common ancestor.. and therefore are 'cousin' species. Trying to say that anybody is saying any differently is a straw man.

As for ERV's and chimps, that information is discussed here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Also, if ERV are caused by a virus insertion, why should similarities be limited to the chimp? Shouldn't there also be ERV similarities between humans and other species in the human lineage?

It isn't. It is just that there are vastly MORE similarities between humans and chimps than any other species. And, it isn't just one or two different ERV's, inserted in the exact same place, with the exact same gene sequence.. which, while unlikely is possible. It is many of them. There are ERV's that Chimps and humans share, and then there are ERV's that all the Great apes share. The number of shared retroviruses just so happens to correspond to the closeness on the family tree we are in.

WHy is proclaiming that it 'has a purpose' a better explaination? Give me the reasoning behind that .

I've given several examples of functions for ERV. So, how can a virus infect a reproductive cell, mutate to become inactive, yet also mutate to have a beneficial function in the host organism? ERV are supposed to be at best functionless, not impart a beneficial function.

[/quote]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Why are erv's not support to be functionless. On rare occasions, it might provide a function that gets incorporated later.. or if it is detrimental, it gets filtered out via natural selection. Just like any mutation.

[Grumpy]

otseng

What was the common ancestor? And what is the lineage between that ancestor and humans? And how did the genetic swapping occur between the chimp line and humans?

"What was the common ancestor?"

We don't yet know with any certainty exactly where the split occurred, the oldest hominid, upright-walking(and thus in the same line or sidebranch of the line that led to modern humans)is Orrorin Tugenensis

"Orrorin tugenensis is considered to be the second-oldest known hominin ancestor that is possibly related to modern humans, and it is the only species classified in genus Orrorin. The name was given by the discoverers who found Orrorin fossils in the Tugen Hills of Kenya. By using radiometric dating techniques, the volcanic tuffs and lavas, faunal correlation and magnetostratigraphy, the strata in which the fossils were found were estimated to date between 6.2 and 5.6 million years ago[1], during the Miocene. This find is significant because Orrorin is possibly an early bipedal hominin.

The fossils found so far come from at least five individuals. They include a proximal femur, which is insufficient evidence to prove that it was bipedal, though some scholars suggest that Orrorin walked upright; a right humerus shaft, suggestive of tree-climbing skills but not brachiation; and teeth that suggest a diet similar to Paranthropoids.[clarification needed] The obturator externus groove on the posterior aspect of the neck of the fossil femur suggests that Orrorin tugenensis moved bipedally. The bunodont, microdont molars and small canines suggest that Orrorin ate mostly fruit and vegetables, with occasional meat. Orrorin was about the size of a modern chimpanzee."

"And what is the lineage between that ancestor and humans?"

Again, we don't yet know with any certainty, but this is a good synopsis of what is known and where to find more information...

"Divergence of the human lineage from other Great Apes
Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see Human evolutionary genetics). The fossil record of gorillas and chimpanzees is quite limited. Both poor preservation (rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone) and sampling bias probably contribute to this problem.

Other hominines likely adapted to the drier environments outside the equatorial belt, along with antelopes, hyenas, dogs, pigs, elephants, and horses. The equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago. Fossils of these hominians - the species in the human lineage following divergence from the chimpanzees - are relatively well known. The earliest are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by:

Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;
Australopithecus (4–1.8 Ma), with species Au. anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, and Au. sediba;
Kenyanthropus (3–2.7 Ma), with species Kenyanthropus platyops;
Paranthropus (3–1.2 Ma), with species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei, and P. robustus;
Homo (2 Ma–present), with species Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis. "

"And how did the genetic swapping occur between the chimp line and humans?"

Like horses and Donkeys used to be able to do. They can no longer produce non-sterile offspring, but that is a recent development. The process of two species splitting would happen over time, not overnight.

A better explanation of ERV is that they were originally designed in the DNA for a purpose, rather than randomly inserted into the DNA. And a prediction that follows from this is that we will continue to find more functions for ERV.

No, the better explanation is when the retrovirus inserted itself in the genome in one species of common ancestor the genes are present in all the offspring of that creature. Since these ERVs are identifiable(whether they have a purpose or not is irrelevant)they are a good marker of common descent(just like the inverted retina in all chordates mean we all came from the same ancestor). Given the similarity of our genome, our characteristics and the common ERV the common descent of man and the other apes is as certain as science can be about anything. It is either fact or everything is illusion meant to fool us.

Grumpy

[McCulloch]

Also, if ERV are caused by a virus insertion, why should similarities be limited to the chimp? Shouldn't there also be ERV similarities between humans and other species in the human lineage?

Yes. And according to evolutionary theory, the further back the most recent common ancestor is the fewer ERV similarities there will be. The data so far matches exactly with this prediction. If you find an ERV common to, for example, Gorillas and Humans but not present in Chimpanzees, you will have falsified the evolutionary model we have for primates.



There are two possible explanations:

1. Common ancestry
2. A creative secretive hidden God who wished to deceive humans into believing that there was a common ancestry.

How can ERV have mutations and also sit quietly? It is either one or the other. If mutations do occur on them, then there would be significant differences between ERV in different organisms, especially if there's a large distance of lineage between them. If mutations do not occur, then what kept them from having mutations?

ERVs are viruses. Viruses are pathogens. Pathogens are generally harmful to their hosts. Thus ERVs which do not mutate will continue to be harmful to their hosts. ERVs which do mutate, can become benign. Guess which type of ERV is most likely to be carried forward in the host's genome? And, yes, the greater the distance to the infected ancestor, the greater amount of mutations in the ERV.

A great number of research papers, done by qualified biologists confirm this point of view. Are there any practicing qualified biologists who deny this evidence?

[otseng]

I do not object to Linnaean taxonomy when its use is limited to its original intent. It was simply classification based on morphological features. However, nowadays, it has been hijacked to imply lineage.

This sort of anti-science rhetoric is offensive. Classification based upon morphology is limited in its application. It totally ignores things like analagous structures.

In addition, taxonomy is simply the naming. What we are talking about here is systematics, which is meant to imply ancestry. The claim of hijacking is simply baseless.

Baseless?

"Over time, the understanding of the relationships between living things has changed. Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. The greatest change was the widespread acceptance of evolution as the mechanism of biological diversity and species formation, following the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It then became generally understood that classifications ought to reflect the phylogeny of organisms, the descent by evolution. (emphasis mine)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy

Rather than having a special taxonomy for humans, the Linnaean taxonomy should be used only to describe physical features and not have any implications of lineage. If this is accepted, then I have no problem classifying humans as primates.

Why are you so obsessed with an outdated classification system?

Obsessed? Isn't this part of the debate topic?
Outdated? Is the binomial system still in usage today?

Similarities do not necessarily mean lineage. It could also mean they were designed is a similar fashion. HP and Gateway computers share many similarities, but they did not derive from the other.

Except computers are not self-replicating organisms. The analogy is moot.

Are you saying that only self-replicating organisms can be used as an analogy? This would then be question begging.

Also, as far as I know, no evolutionist claims that there is a direct lineage from a chimp to a human. So, even if there are similarities, a chimpanzee would not show how humans evolved from primates.

Sure it does. Specific genetic similarities determine relationships. This is done all the time, especially in the areas of paternity tests. The only difference is, in systematics we take it a few steps further.

Also, given the fact that we do not know what organism is the shared common ancestor of chimps and humans, there is no link established between chimps and humans. Yes, there are morphological and genetic similarities, but that in itself does not establish lineage. It can also be a result of a common designer.

[McCulloch]

Similarities do not necessarily mean lineage. It could also mean they were designed is a similar fashion. HP and Gateway computers share many similarities, but they did not derive from the other.

No, but their designs were not done in a vacuum. In fact, they share a common ancestor, the minicomputer and the IBM PC. The commonality of their design can be traced to these ancestors and by cross-fertilization of the ideas of the design engineers.

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Yes. And according to evolutionary theory, the further back the most recent common ancestor is the fewer ERV similarities there will be. The data so far matches exactly with this prediction. If you find an ERV common to, for example, Gorillas and Humans but not present in Chimpanzees, you will have falsified the evolutionary model we have for primates.

Really? A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans. Curr Biol. 2001 May 15;11(10):779-83.

However, the authors point out that this is consistent with the current understanding of primate phylogeny:

(d) Segregation of the empty preintegration allele (E) and the provirus allele (V) in the Homo (H.s.), Pan (P.pa.;P.t.), and Gorilla (G.g.) lineages. E + V indicates that both alleles were present in the population of the cognate species. LCA, last common ancestor

It's only a problem if one assumes quick fixation for the ERV - that it's inherited by every member of the population before speciation. In this case, the authors propose that some members of the ancestral species carried the inert ERV (and some didn't). It was only after the species diverged that genetic drift fixed the ERV in some species and led to its loss in our species.