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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20853
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 366 times
Contact:

Post #381

Post by otseng »

SailingCyclops wrote:
otseng wrote:
Can anyone guess when it's supposedly dated to and who used it?
A survivalist in the Ozark mountains circa 2001?
Good guess, but nope.
AkiThePirate wrote:God, and 13.75 billion years ago? :lol:
Nope again.
Out of interest, what does that have to do with the topic?
I brought up bifaces in post 260. Bifaces are typically associated with prehistoric man. But, this biface was found in Tennessee and dated to around 3000 to 500 BC. So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.

User avatar
SailingCyclops
Site Supporter
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #382

Post by SailingCyclops »

otseng wrote: So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.
I don't think anyone here has made that particular assumption. Tools are dated by the age of the strata they are found in, as well as by the technology used and any associated artifacts found in the immediate area/depth some of which can be carbon dated. Some are dated to the stone age, some more modern. Native Americans used the technology in very recent geological times. The reason I used survivalist in 2001 as my guess, is because creating a biface weapon/tool is a modern-day survival technique.

EDIT: Some evidence....
Ehringsdorf CATEGORY: site DEFINITION: A Middle Pleistocene site in eastern Germany near Weimar. A badly broken skull and other human remains have been found with stone tools resembling the Mousterian. The fossil man is of generalized Neanderthal type and the artifacts include scrapers, points, and bifaces which were typical of the Middle Palaeolithic. Often ascribed to the last interglacial (about 120,000 years ago), the remains have also been dated by the uranium series method to about 225,000 years ago.

Bob

Religion flies you into buildings, Science flies you to the moon.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Bless us and save us, said Mrs. O'Davis

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20853
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 366 times
Contact:

Post #383

Post by otseng »

SailingCyclops wrote:
otseng wrote: So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.
I don't think anyone here has made that particular assumption.
If you say that finding a biface at any location would not indicate any particular timeframe, then I would agree with you.
Tools are dated by the age of the strata they are found in, as well as by the technology used and any associated artifacts found in the immediate area/depth some of which can be carbon dated.
As for carbon dating, the maximum it can date is on the order of tens of thousands of years.
The reason I used survivalist in 2001 as my guess, is because creating a biface weapon/tool is a modern-day survival technique.
The thing with a biface is that it is sharpened all the way around the edge. There is no spot to hold it safely to use it as a weapon or as an axe/hoe/knife. If I was a survivalist and had to create a tool out of chert, I would not spend extra time to sharpen the entire edge so that I would then cut myself when I used it.

User avatar
SailingCyclops
Site Supporter
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #384

Post by SailingCyclops »

otseng wrote: If you say that finding a biface at any location would not indicate any particular timeframe, then I would agree with you.
Correct, the timeframe would be determined by other factors.
otseng wrote:As for carbon dating, the maximum it can date is on the order of tens of thousands of years.
I anticipated your objection to carbon dating alone. That's why the "Evidence example I gave used Uranium-thorium dating.
otseng wrote:The thing with a biface is that it is sharpened all the way around the edge. There is no spot to hold it safely to use it as a weapon or as an axe/hoe/knife. If I was a survivalist and had to create a tool out of chert, I would not spend extra time to sharpen the entire edge so that I would then cut myself when I used it.
An intelligent survivalist, or caveman for that matter would bury the wide end in wood, bone, vines, or leather, constructing an ax. hoe, knife, or spear.

We are talking intelligent hominids here, not Chimps.

Bob

Religion flies you into buildings, Science flies you to the moon.
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Bless us and save us, said Mrs. O'Davis

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #385

Post by Goat »

otseng wrote:
SailingCyclops wrote:
otseng wrote: So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.
I don't think anyone here has made that particular assumption.
If you say that finding a biface at any location would not indicate any particular timeframe, then I would agree with you.
Tools are dated by the age of the strata they are found in, as well as by the technology used and any associated artifacts found in the immediate area/depth some of which can be carbon dated.
As for carbon dating, the maximum it can date is on the order of tens of thousands of years.
You are correct.. The theoretical limit of carbon dating is 50,000 years, although very few labs will give a result if it's older than 30,000. However, there are other types of radiometric dating.

The proper phrasing would be 'radiometric dating', not carbon dating.

The test would not be on the rock itself of course.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

dona123
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:44 am

Post #386

Post by dona123 »

Hi

Thanks for sharing this nice information.
Please keep sharing more and more information

Thanks


(Link edited out)

User avatar
Lux
Site Supporter
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Post #387

Post by Lux »

Moderator Comment

dona123 wrote:Hi

Thanks for sharing this nice information.
Please keep sharing more and more information

Thanks
Please avoid making comments that don't add anything new to the debate (such as "I disagree" or "Well said") Also, repeatedly posting links is considered spamming, according to the forum's rules.
[center]Image

© Divine Insight (Thanks!)[/center]



"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith." -Phil Plate.

PRESBYTERIAN
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:56 am

Post #388

Post by PRESBYTERIAN »

Hi everyone

I am no scientist so please bear with me.

If humans came from monkeys then how come we still have monkeys!

We have many different shapes of human ie black,white,chinese,asian etc.
We have many types of dog ie Alsatian, greyhound,collies etc
We have many types of bears ie grisley,black bear etc (couldnt think of many)
we even have many types of spider (to my wifes great dissapointment)

Please reply as i am new to this forum stuff

User avatar
perfessor
Scholar
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Illinois

Post #389

Post by perfessor »

PRESBYTERIAN wrote:If humans came from monkeys then how come we still have monkeys!
If we came over from Europe, how come we still have Europeans?

The answer is the same.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #390

Post by Goat »

PRESBYTERIAN wrote:Hi everyone

I am no scientist so please bear with me.

If humans came from monkeys then how come we still have monkeys!
This is a horrible creationist parody of what evolution says. It is so far as to what the TOE points out that it shows a deep lack of education about the sciences.

Evolution does not say that humans descended from monkeys. It says that humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor. That ancestor between monkeys and humans was well over 20 million years ago.

The closest relative when it comes to the hominid line verses other primate is the chimp. A recent statistical analysis pushed back the split between the two lineages to be about 8 million years ago.
We have many different shapes of human ie black,white,chinese,asian etc.
All those 'shapes' of human are the same shape. There is a little difference in skin tone, and the shape of the eyes. However, from a morphological point of view, as well
as a genetic point of view, they are extremely close. The human race does not have as much genetic variety as could be expected. There is more variety of genetic variation between individuals of an ethnic group than between the various ethnic groups themselves. We are all pretty close cousins.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply