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.

[McCulloch]

You tell me. Does human evolutionary theory posit that humans arose from one couple?

No, it does not.

And if human evolution is indeed a fact, it should be quite simply to prove, without simply relying on the vast majority of scientists in the field agreeing with it.

If general relativity is indeed a fact, it should be quite simple to prove it, without relying on difficult mathematics, right?

Because similar features can either be homologous or analogous. If it's [strike]homologous [/strike]analogous, they would not be directly related. So, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

The wings of bird and the wings of a butterfly are analogous. They serve similar purpose, but they are structurally different. The wings of a bird and the hands of the primates are homologous, they are structurally similar but serve different purposes. There are features common in all primates which appear to be homologous, pointing to a common origin.

Chimps with wings? Flowers with bony skeletons? Humans with hooves? How about a man with straw?

Since God did not create flowers with bony skeletons, therefore God did not create flowers?

If the god created every species separately, he seems to have done it in a way that appears to be evolutionary. He did not borrow a useful feature from one apparent line of descent and fuse it into another line that might need it. Whales and dolphins with gills. Why not?

[otseng]

- All humanity traces lineage to one man and one woman.

Instead, we find that the mitochondrial Eve lived 200,000 years ago but the comparative Adam lived a mere 60,000-90,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Firstly, as the two did not exist during the same time frame, they certainly could not have produced offspring together. Secondly, as there is not a comparable Adam or Eve in each of their time frames, we are looking at multiple sexual partners, at least for Adam as otherwise an Eve would exist in his timeframe. This prediction is wrong.

Correct, if the two did not exist at the same time, then they could not have produced offspring. So, what is the explanation that the genetic dating of males and females differ? In the human creation model, this is explained by the male genetic bottleneck during the flood. And this confirms the prediction that there is more genetic diversity in females than males.

For human evolution, how can the discrepency be explained?

- There is no gradual transition from animals (specifically primates) to humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

That prediction fails pretty dramatically. We have countless fossils from the past few million years showing gradual changes to what is modern man.

As I mentioned before, even a gradual evolution among hominids to man cannot even be established. We do not have any fossil evidence of the common ancestor between chimps and humans. And we do not have any fossil evidence of a common ancestor with any other primate. So, I have a differing opinion of which fails dramatically.

- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.

Give you this one.

OK, good.

- Origin of man traces to tens of thousands of years ago.

False, per the above, we can trace Man back millions of years with declining degrees of resemblance.

What do you mean by "Man" here?

- Human culture should appear quickly in history.

Falsified by cave drawing and tools dating back tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

What it states is "possibly 100,000 years ago". So, even if this is true, it still falls within the tens of thousands of years.

- Clothing possibly 100,000 years ago.
- Stone tools, used by Homo floresiensis, possibly 100,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... technology

As for other early human artifacts and activity, they all also fall on the order of tens of thousands of years ago.

Cave paintings:
"The earliest known European cave paintings date to Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_drawing

Needles (clothing):
"Archeologists have identified very early sewing needles of bone and ivory from about 30,000 BC, found near Kostenki, Russia in 1988. Dyed flax fibers that could have been used in clothing have been found in a prehistoric cave in the Republic of Georgia that date back to 36,000 BP."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing

Cave paintings:
"The earliest known European cave paintings date to Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_drawing

Ceramics:
"a ceramic statuette of a nude female figure dated to 29,000-25,000 BCE"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Dolni_Vestonice

Animal domestication:
"The tribes that took part in hunting and gathering wild edible plants, started to make attempts to domesticate dogs, goats, and possibly sheep, which was as early as 9000 BC"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

Agriculture:

By 7000 BC, small-scale agriculture reached Egypt. From at least 7000 BC the Indian subcontinent saw farming of wheat and barley, as attested by archaeological excavation at Mehrgarh in Balochistan. By 6000 BC, mid-scale farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, with rice, rather than wheat, as the primary crop. Chinese and Indonesian farmers went on to domesticate taro and beans including mung, soy and azuki. To complement these new sources of carbohydrates, highly organized net fishing of rivers, lakes and ocean shores in these areas brought in great volumes of essential protein. Collectively, these new methods of farming and fishing inaugurated a human population boom that dwarfed all previous expansions and continues today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultur ... nt_origins

Bow:
"The first actual bow fragments are the Stellmoor bows from northern Germany. They were dated to about 8,000 BCE but were destroyed in Hamburg during the Second World War."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_%28weapon%29

Copper:
"Copper was known to some of the oldest civilizations on record, and has a history of use that is at least 10,000 years old."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper

Wheel:

Evidence of wheeled vehicles appears from the mid 4th millennium BCE, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia, the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe, and so the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle remains unresolved and under debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel

Writing:
"The invention of the first writing systems is roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Bronze Age in the late Neolithic of the late 4th millennium BC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_system

- Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evol ... y_genetics

As I've mentioned in this thread, please avoid just posting a URL as a response. Present your evidence and only use links to state your source.

[Dr.Physics]

Here is the evidence for biological evolution:

-Paleontology (fossil record)
-Genetics (comparative sequence analysis, phylogenetic reconstruction)
-Comparative anatomy (common morphology, and living examples)
-geographical distribution (Continental distribution, Island biogeography, Endemism of species, Adaptive radiations)
-Comparative physiology and biochemistry (Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns)
-Observed natural selection (E.Coli in the lab, lactose intolerance in humans, Nylon eating bacteria ect... )
-Observed speciation (examples: Blackclap, Drosophila melanogaster, Polar bear, ect...)
-Artificial selection (dog breeding, ect...)

in summation, evolution is one of, if not the most sound scientific fact that exists, because of the extensive reasons listed above. checkmate, now lets move on

[Goat]

- All humanity traces lineage to one man and one woman.

Instead, we find that the mitochondrial Eve lived 200,000 years ago but the comparative Adam lived a mere 60,000-90,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Firstly, as the two did not exist during the same time frame, they certainly could not have produced offspring together. Secondly, as there is not a comparable Adam or Eve in each of their time frames, we are looking at multiple sexual partners, at least for Adam as otherwise an Eve would exist in his timeframe. This prediction is wrong.

Correct, if the two did not exist at the same time, then they could not have produced offspring. So, what is the explanation that the genetic dating of males and females differ? In the human creation model, this is explained by the male genetic bottleneck during the flood. And this confirms the prediction that there is more genetic diversity in females than males.

For human evolution, how can the discrepency be explained?

It's very simple. For the Y-Chromosome, it just means that random chance, and perhaps some competition has the male whose family group we are all decended from have their y-chromsome replace.

Let's look at how people reproduce today.

We have a couple. The couple produces 3 males and 3 females

However, let's suppose that all the three males only had female children that were able to reproduce (or get born at all). That means the Y-chromosome of the grandfather is no longer in the gene pool.

Same thing with women. If a woman produces nothing but male children, her specific mitochondria is removed from the gene pool.

As we go back in time, the chances of one male or female dominating the entire population increases. This is particularly true if there is a bottleneck event, such as appears to have happened about 70 to 80K years ago. Then, a lot of 'y-chromosmes' and 'mitochondria dna' gets filtered out.

[nygreenguy]

What it states is "possibly 100,000 years ago". So, even if this is true, it still falls within the tens of thousands of years.

400,000 thousand year old sculpture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3047383.stm

200,000 year old home

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3047383.stm

2.6 million year old tools

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/us/ol ... ribed.html

[McCulloch]

And this confirms the prediction that there is more genetic diversity in females than males.

Did I miss something? Has it been established that there is more genetic diversity in human females than in males? What does this mean?

Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.

I fail to understand how this differentiates the Creationist model from the Evolutionist one.

Evolution: Around 100,000-80,000 years ago, three main lines of Homo sapiens diverged. Based on the evidence of mitochondrial DNA, the first group colonized Southern Africa (the ancestors of the Khoisan peoples), the second group settled Central and West Africa, and third group remained in East Africa.

L0 on this map.

Creationist: The Mountains of Ararat is the place named in the Book of Genesis where Noah's Ark came to rest after the great flood. The location has been argued. It could be in northwestern Iran (Syrian tradition and Quranic tradition), eastern Turkey (Armenian tradition and Western Christianity). Others have suggested Armenia and points further east.

Armenian Highlands in the centre

There is about 3600 miles difference.

[Grumpy]

otseng

As I mentioned before, even a gradual evolution among hominids to man cannot even be established. We do not have any fossil evidence of the common ancestor between chimps and humans. And we do not have any fossil evidence of a common ancestor with any other primate. So, I have a differing opinion of which fails dramatically.

We have a lot of evidence of previous forms of man, it has yet to be shown which goes where, though there is also much morphological evidence that indicates descent from the same line as man, no matter what the direct line actually consists of. The hominids show progressively human like features(just as we would expect from evolutionary change)but it isn't known whether these fossils are direct ancestors or sidelines like Neandertals. And it really doesn't matter, the fact that man evolved is really not in question except by religiously motivated non-scientists. All that is in question is the details. Saying there is no evidence of primate evolution and common ancestor is just a falsehood, there is enough similarity in our morphology alone that common descent is shown, and then there is genetic evidence that confirms it. Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, humans and ourang outangs are all cousins in the same family, the genes do not lie.

Grumpy

[WinePusher]

- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.

Doesn't man originate from Africa?

[nygreenguy]

- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.

Doesn't man originate from Africa?

The middle east is the union of 3 different continents, and its definitively africa where mans roots are. McC's map shows it pretty good!

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Before going further, there's an important bit of terminology and epistemology that should be clarified. At one point in your last response, you wrote (emphasis mine):

When you say "mutationally reactivated", it would imply the purpose of the original sequence was to cause cancer or MS.

At no point in my replies am I using the word 'function' in a teleological sense. I thought this would be apparent from my usage: "...these genes (though initially neutral) may be co-opted by natural selection to serve host-beneficial functions." In other words, natural selection acts as a non-intentional (and therefore non-teleological) filter for the preferential accumulation of mutations which improve the host's reproductive fitness. "Host-beneficial functions" no more imply purpose or design than do the characteristic symptoms of some viruses. If you'd prefer, I will use "host-beneficial behaviors" instead. After all, one can talk about the behavior of a physical or chemical system without implicitly assuming that the system was designed. I can't speak for all biologists, but discussions with my colleagues lead me to believe that they also use the word function as shorthand for a nonpurposeful process. We observe natural selection in action. We have observed speciation via natural selection in the past. Your best defense is to demonstrate biological mechanism(s) which would definitively prevent the divergence of primates into humans, chimps, and gorillas. 'I can't believe it happened' is often deployed as an argument from incredulity in creationist circles, but I've never seen them present the mechanism(s) for it.

This point is important to your last question, since we seem to be using the word to mean different things.

Again, I would agree with this if ERVs are actually functionless. But, would you also agree that if a significant portion of ERVs are found to have function, then the better explanation is purposeful design?

I assume that you are using function in a teleological sense. Is ERV host-beneficial behavior consistent with design? Sure. Does it rule out evolution? Only if you assume that the behavior of ERVs is purposeful. Can design be inferred from physiochemical behavior? I don't see how. This is the biggest stumbling block I see in the ID movement.

If I know how paintings are made (i.e., pigment brushed onto a medium by a painter), I can infer a painter from a painting. If I see a watch (a class of objects which I know are made by people), I may infer a watchmaker. Paley's argument conflates design with complexity. I can't infer that a watch on the beach is designed because it is more complex than its surroundings; I infer it because I know how watches come to be. There have been various attempts at maintaining the confusion between complexity and design (e.g., specified complexity). However, they all rely on poorly defined methods of determining a priori what is designed and what is not (often intuitive appeals).

And this is the "problem" with parsimony. A forensic investigator may infer intent at a crime scene only because she already knows she is dealing with human intentional agents. Investigators would not invoke additional types intentional agents in their report to the court - ghosts, angels, deities, etc. - because these explanations are less parsimonious. They are less parsimonious because rely on unknown/unconfirmed mechanisms. Occam's Razor isn't any kind of absolute rule, but so far as I know it's the best we can do. This is why I always stressed that ERV function is consistent with known genetic and molecular biological mechanisms. I also know that observed speciation events in the scientific literature (frequently dismissed by creationists as 'within a kind') are due to cumulative change via mutation and natural selection. An explanation will always be more parsimonious if it relies on known mechanisms.

So to answer your question: No, if a significant portion of ERVs are found to have host-beneficial behavior, I would still have no way of inferring that they were purposefully designed. Until an observable species designer (kinds designer?) is produced, the design scenario remains less parsimonious than evolution because it relies on mechanisms we haven't observed.

Either case (ERV mutations or all mutations) would be fine. Just curious about what is roughly the percentage values.

The only rigorous probability calculations I can recall are for single nucleotide mutations within genes' coding regions. These don't address harmful/beneficial/neutral, but rather neutral/non-neutral (with the assumption being that most non-neutral mutations are harmful). If I recall correctly, Slightly more than four of every five mutations will be non-neutral.

However, most nucleotides in the genome aren't in coding regions. I don't know of a comprehensive method for evaluating noncoding mutation outcomes. Many ERVs are located in so-called "genomic deserts" - stretches of DNA without many genes. This makes sense - if a potential ERV inserted within (and inactivated) an important gene, the host would not likely survive to pass the ERV sequence to any ancestors.

Since ERV and retrotransposon are of similar structure (seemingly identical to me), does that mean that all retrotransposons are an ERV (or can trace its source to an ERV)? If not, how can one distinguish between the two?

I did some more reading on this. It gets more complex. Some ERVs are retrotransposons, but not all retrotransposons are ERVs. An ERV can only be a retrotransposon if it has intact LTRs and POL genes (both needed to copy/paste itself - the hallmark of a retrotransposon). However, there are other retrotransposons that behave similarly (copy/paste) but are structurally very different.

I understand the first and second cases, but for the others, is it simply because of the existence of a LTR that shows it originally was an ERV and has experienced deletion of material?

Basically, but not LTRs specifically. Deletions can remove LTRs (see the last example in the figure). The search is for viral genes or LTRs arranged in the order found in known classes of retroviruses. Lone LTRs are usually counted as ERVs. Lone LTRs can form from full ERVs during homologous recombination during mieosis.[1].

do not totally discount the possibility of a mutation to result in a beneficial function. But my guess is that the percentage of such mutations would be significantly less than detrimental mutations.

Don't fall into the same conceptual trap that many creationists do. I too suspect that most mutations are either harmful or neutral. But natural selection (a repeatably observed and uncontested mechanism in biology) acts as a filter. Hence we expect organisms to accumulate the relatively rare beneficial mutations over generations, while harmful mutations remain at relatively low levels in populations.

Since transposons were only discovered relatively recently, I think it would be fair to say that there is still much research that can be done in this area. If further research confirms that ERVs have no function, I acknowledge that it would be more plausible to explain it by evolutionary common descent.

...

If we do not know the function of something now, it does not necessarily mean that it is actually functionless.

...

And even all ERVs were also assumed to be functionless, but research is starting to reverse this assumption.

Again, how can their host-beneficial behavior allow inference of design? (Not at all a rhetorical question!) I'm a biologist. I take for granted that we currently don't understand many (most?) of the mechanisms at play in eukaryotic life. I have no trouble believing that ERVs may have additional host-beneficial behaviors. How can we objectively infer design from these behaviors without first knowing anything about the designer and its processes? If it is an inherently supernatural process (and thus untestable), it could be used to explain any observation.

Conversely, we can make the strong statement that natural selection cannot select for gene/genome variants that have the net effect of decreasing reproductive fitness relative to their competitors. Demonstrate that primate evolution contradicts this rule and the argument is yours.