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.

[Mugview]

I guess the question is more towards
"Did humans descend from humans or simians?"

There are obvious differences between humans and simians.

Taxonomists may classify humans and simians into primates, but anthropologists would insist that they deal with humans differently from simians.

Some humans may feel they descend from apes, some insist that their ancestors were humans not apes. Actually it sounds insulting in some cultures to say "your ancestors were apes".

In a strictly scientific forum, it is fine to use accepted taxonomy to discuss about humans in the primate groups.

This appears to be a question best asked on a science forum, or by a science source. Im not clear why its being asked since with a little research the answer can be found.

Maybe interested parties can check the wiki page on human evolution?

As i understand, humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor that was not a human or monkey. Humans are part of the ape branch, but im not sure about monkeys...
Anyhow, if someone asked me the R-value of stone, id go to a source that could best answer it, not ask for opinions.
Human evolution is known and there are extensive resources that could answer the OP.

It is postulated that humans and monkeys may have evolved from a common ancestor, by a series of speculations, but with no strong evidence yet. Many, who are not directly involved in the research on human evolution, are generally made to believe that the statement is "proven". However, it is not correct. Scientists tried to cover huge gaps of missing information with some assumptions, which were also speculations and highly debatable.

This so-called common ancestors are still unknown today, and their description keeps changing. Even the closest one, the so-called common ancestor of chimpanzee and human, previously thought to be chimp-like, lately was doubted, and may not resemble chimps as much as humans.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-human-ance ... ought.html

The pathway from an "ancestor" to either simians or humans is not as direct as many would have liked to believe. The genetic mutations and stabilization leading to the branching are still murky and cannot be easily explained.
For example, more than 30% of the entire chimp Y chromosome has no counterpart in humans.

Hughes JF, Page D, et al (2010) “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content�; Nature 463:536-539.

Thus, the diagram of primate evolution considerably simplifies the problem, pulling the lines while lacking most of the dots to connect them.

Title of the OP:
Did humans descend from other primates?

Sorry to break it to you, but apes are primates (so are monkeys for that matter).

Your link seems to support the OP and I doubt that was your motive.

The article was written as such to give an impression that nothing is changed with the hypothesis "human descending from primates", but actually the real message was the difference between the chromosomes of humans and other primates. The authors didn't want to stir things further by proposing anything more, but the findings actually opened up discussions whether the classification of humans and simians should be reevaluated.

In relation to the OP, this article may give materials to consider "should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity".

[Clownboat]

I guess the question is more towards
"Did humans descend from humans or simians?"

There are obvious differences between humans and simians.

Taxonomists may classify humans and simians into primates, but anthropologists would insist that they deal with humans differently from simians.

Some humans may feel they descend from apes, some insist that their ancestors were humans not apes. Actually it sounds insulting in some cultures to say "your ancestors were apes".

In a strictly scientific forum, it is fine to use accepted taxonomy to discuss about humans in the primate groups.

This appears to be a question best asked on a science forum, or by a science source. Im not clear why its being asked since with a little research the answer can be found.

Maybe interested parties can check the wiki page on human evolution?

As i understand, humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor that was not a human or monkey. Humans are part of the ape branch, but im not sure about monkeys...
Anyhow, if someone asked me the R-value of stone, id go to a source that could best answer it, not ask for opinions.
Human evolution is known and there are extensive resources that could answer the OP.

It is postulated that humans and monkeys may have evolved from a common ancestor, by a series of speculations, but with no strong evidence yet. Many, who are not directly involved in the research on human evolution, are generally made to believe that the statement is "proven". However, it is not correct. Scientists tried to cover huge gaps of missing information with some assumptions, which were also speculations and highly debatable.

This so-called common ancestors are still unknown today, and their description keeps changing. Even the closest one, the so-called common ancestor of chimpanzee and human, previously thought to be chimp-like, lately was doubted, and may not resemble chimps as much as humans.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-human-ance ... ought.html

The pathway from an "ancestor" to either simians or humans is not as direct as many would have liked to believe. The genetic mutations and stabilization leading to the branching are still murky and cannot be easily explained.
For example, more than 30% of the entire chimp Y chromosome has no counterpart in humans.

Hughes JF, Page D, et al (2010) “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content�; Nature 463:536-539.

Thus, the diagram of primate evolution considerably simplifies the problem, pulling the lines while lacking most of the dots to connect them.

Title of the OP:
Did humans descend from other primates?

Sorry to break it to you, but apes are primates (so are monkeys for that matter).

Your link seems to support the OP and I doubt that was your motive.

The article was written as such to give an impression that nothing is changed with the hypothesis "human descending from primates", but actually the real message was the difference between the chromosomes of humans and other primates. The authors didn't want to stir things further by proposing anything more, but the findings actually opened up discussions whether the classification of humans and simians should be reevaluated.

In relation to the OP, this article may give materials to consider "should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity".

From your link:
- "The majority of palaeoanthropologists tend to assume that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans looked like a chimpanzee," said anatomical scientist Sergio Almecija of the Stony Brook University Medical Center in New York.
- ...but that they (apes) have also evolved since their lineage split from that of humans millions of years ago."
- which diverged with humans about 7-6 million years ago.
- reconstruction reveals that some Miocene apes represent a more appropriate model for the ancestral morphology from which hominins (humans and their ancestors) evolved than do (living) great apes,"
- The last common ancestor, whose identity remains uncertain, most likely walked around on all fours like today's apes, but leaning on its palms instead of front knuckles, said Almecija.

I would need a reason to consider "if there should be a special biological taxonomy for humanity".

Thanks for the article in support of evolution though. Perhaps it will come in handy the next time we discuss the Biblical Adam and Eve.

[Mugview]

From your link:
- "The majority of palaeoanthropologists tend to assume that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans looked like a chimpanzee," said anatomical scientist Sergio Almecija of the Stony Brook University Medical Center in New York.
- ...but that they (apes) have also evolved since their lineage split from that of humans millions of years ago."
- which diverged with humans about 7-6 million years ago.
- reconstruction reveals that some Miocene apes represent a more appropriate model for the ancestral morphology from which hominins (humans and their ancestors) evolved than do (living) great apes,"
- The last common ancestor, whose identity remains uncertain, most likely walked around on all fours like today's apes, but leaning on its palms instead of front knuckles, said Almecija.

I would need a reason to consider "if there should be a special biological taxonomy for humanity".

Thanks for the article in support of evolution though. Perhaps it will come in handy the next time we discuss the Biblical Adam and Eve.

May be a bit elucidation is necessary:

- "The majority of ....assume ... but" is a typical way to say "most people got it wrong"
- "tend to assume" means "speculate", no strong evidence to support, just an opinion to hold.
- "reconstruction reveals" means "based on the presumed model" not the real fossils; only an extrapolation or estimation. It can also be applied to "head reconstruction, with facial expression" from a single jaw fossil.
- "most likely" means "IMO, in my opinion" and it can be challenged anytime.

As a scientist, I respect the article and the opinion of the authors. In no way, I would insult their ideas or thoughts, even if it contradicts the majority opinions or my own. As long as their data is obtained with the unbiased scientific standard, the data is valid to be gathered in the vault of Science and be considered for future studies. Aside of the opinions (which tend to gloss the majority views to minimize counter-attacks), the main information stands:
- Human and chimpanzee are much more different than previously assumed.

This is in agreement with the recent discovery:
The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other", says David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led the work. "It looks like there's been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages."

"Dramatic renovation or reinvention"!

[Clownboat]

From your link:
- "The majority of palaeoanthropologists tend to assume that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans looked like a chimpanzee," said anatomical scientist Sergio Almecija of the Stony Brook University Medical Center in New York.
- ...but that they (apes) have also evolved since their lineage split from that of humans millions of years ago."
- which diverged with humans about 7-6 million years ago.
- reconstruction reveals that some Miocene apes represent a more appropriate model for the ancestral morphology from which hominins (humans and their ancestors) evolved than do (living) great apes,"
- The last common ancestor, whose identity remains uncertain, most likely walked around on all fours like today's apes, but leaning on its palms instead of front knuckles, said Almecija.

I would need a reason to consider "if there should be a special biological taxonomy for humanity".

Thanks for the article in support of evolution though. Perhaps it will come in handy the next time we discuss the Biblical Adam and Eve.

May be a bit elucidation is necessary:

- "The majority of ....assume ... but" is a typical way to say "most people got it wrong"
- "tend to assume" means "speculate", no strong evidence to support, just an opinion to hold.
- "reconstruction reveals" means "based on the presumed model" not the real fossils; only an extrapolation or estimation. It can also be applied to "head reconstruction, with facial expression" from a single jaw fossil.
- "most likely" means "IMO, in my opinion" and it can be challenged anytime.

As a scientist, I respect the article and the opinion of the authors. In no way, I would insult their ideas or thoughts, even if it contradicts the majority opinions or my own. As long as their data is obtained with the unbiased scientific standard, the data is valid to be gathered in the vault of Science and be considered for future studies. Aside of the opinions (which tend to gloss the majority views to minimize counter-attacks), the main information stands:
- Human and chimpanzee are much more different than previously assumed.

This is in agreement with the recent discovery:
The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other", says David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led the work. "It looks like there's been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages."

"Dramatic renovation or reinvention"!

My claim is that your link supports evolution (ironically).
Do you reject this claim or not, because your elucidation was not needed it seems?

We either descended from something or we were a special creation, right? I found it ironic that someone that believes that a god created an Adam/Eve would put forth an article that support the competing theory (humans were not a special creation).

Maybe I am mistaken in your beliefs. Maybe you somehow allow for your Adam/Eve to have been created millions of years ago.

[Mugview]

My claim is that your link supports evolution (ironically).
Do you reject this claim or not, because your elucidation was not needed it seems?

We either descended from something or we were a special creation, right? I found it ironic that someone that believes that a god created an Adam/Eve would put forth an article that support the competing theory (humans were not a special creation).

Maybe I am mistaken in your beliefs. Maybe you somehow allow for your Adam/Eve to have been created millions of years ago.

Let's set it straight:

The article is written by authors who support the theory of evolution.
However, what they presented is contradictory to the prevalent opinions of certain aspects in the theory of evolution. Although those with open mind would have no problem to embrace the new finding as the current prevalent opinion of that issue, many scientists who hold different view may not like the idea and label them as antagonistic to evolution theory. That's why they included some known statements supporting the theory of evolution to minimize backlash.

We (human being) are definitely descended from our ancestors, and neither of us presumably is a special creation (I was born to my mother, not materialized or manufactured elsewhere; I presume you too were born to your mother).

There is no irony in having competing theories. It's a part of freewill and freedom of thinking. Just as in murder mystery novels there are many theories to find "whodunit", but only one is correct, among those theories there will be one that's correct. In Science, this is rather a chain of theories closer and closer to the correct one. For those regarding the Bible as containing literal truth, there are biblical statements waiting for the theories to converge and fit to those statements. In years, that already happened a number of times, and it is expected to happen more until all is properly understood.

Unfortunately some theories and interpretations can pull us farther from the correct one. A number of those could be corrected and brought to right path, although many others remain and seemingly so far apart from the truth.

For example: "Adam/Eve to have been created millions of years ago" contains some baseless opinions that may hamper a search for the truth, that is:
Adam/Eve were not created millions of years ago.
The Bible didn't specifically record when they were created, but it may not be millions years ago. Science also didn't trace an Adam or an Eve millions years ago.

Therefore, we can drop "millions of years ago" to deal with Adam/Eve.

[Clownboat]

My claim is that your link supports evolution (ironically).

Let's set it straight:
The article is written by authors who support the theory of evolution.

Thank you.

Therefore, we can drop "millions of years ago" to deal with Adam/Eve.

Can we?:
This, in turn, filled in some evolutionary knowledge gaps, and showed the common ancestor was likely very similar to Orrorin and very different to modern chimps—which diverged with humans about 7-6 million years ago.

[Mugview]

Therefore, we can drop "millions of years ago" to deal with Adam/Eve.

Can we?:
This, in turn, filled in some evolutionary knowledge gaps, and showed the common ancestor was likely very similar to Orrorin and very different to modern chimps—which diverged with humans about 7-6 million years ago.

It's accepted that the divergence, if happened as speculated, didn't produce homo sapiens sapiens until less than half million years ago. In between it was postulated that there were still other divergences which eventually leads to the first true homo sapiens sapiens pair who became the ancestors of modern human.
So yes, we can.

[Clownboat]

Therefore, we can drop "millions of years ago" to deal with Adam/Eve.

Can we?:
This, in turn, filled in some evolutionary knowledge gaps, and showed the common ancestor was likely very similar to Orrorin and very different to modern chimps—which diverged with humans about 7-6 million years ago.

It's accepted that the divergence, if happened as speculated, didn't produce homo sapiens sapiens until less than half million years ago. In between it was postulated that there were still other divergences which eventually leads to the first true homo sapiens sapiens pair who became the ancestors of modern human.
So yes, we can.

As long as you are not trying to maintain a "special creation" account for humans, I have nothing more to add.

[Peter]

It's accepted that the divergence, if happened as speculated, didn't produce homo sapiens sapiens until less than half million years ago. In between it was postulated that there were still other divergences which eventually leads to the first true homo sapiens sapiens pair who became the ancestors of modern human.
So yes, we can.

If you're thinking that there was a "first true" homo sapiens sapiens "pair" then you still don't understand evolution.

Once again, evolution is a slow, gradual process. A homo erectus didn't mutate overnight into homo sapiens and no female homo erectus birthed a homo sapiens. In other words you really can't put your finger on any individual and say, "This is the first homo sapiens".

BTW, we're still evolving today even if it's too slow to notice any difference between generations.

[Mugview]

It's accepted that the divergence, if happened as speculated, didn't produce homo sapiens sapiens until less than half million years ago. In between it was postulated that there were still other divergences which eventually leads to the first true homo sapiens sapiens pair who became the ancestors of modern human.
So yes, we can.

If you're thinking that there was a "first true" homo sapiens sapiens "pair" then you still don't understand evolution.

Once again, evolution is a slow, gradual process. A homo erectus didn't mutate overnight into homo sapiens and no female homo erectus birthed a homo sapiens. In other words you really can't put your finger on any individual and say, "This is the first homo sapiens".

BTW, we're still evolving today even if it's too slow to notice any difference between generations.

I am still learning.

In genetics there is a cut off when the homo sapiens sapiens Y-chromosomes started to be transmitted to all males living today. The counterpart is when the homo sapiens sapiens mitochondrial DNA started to be transmitted to all females living today.

The speculation:
- This male homo sapiens sapiens could have been born from a pair of homo sp. parents which genes did not get transmitted further except through him.
- It doesn't close the possibilities that this male might have siblings, but the mutations in their genes didn't get transmitted further.
- It doesn't close the possibilities that there were many homo sp. living together with this male, but their genes didn't get transmitted further.
- It doesn't close the possibilities that this male was somehow placed on earth as the first male home sapiens sapiens

Similar speculations can be made with the mitochondrial first female.

There is definitely a point of divergence whereby homo sapiens sapiens is the only subspecies extant and all living humans can be traced back to a single male and a single female ancestor (as quoted from Richard Dawkins).
That point of divergence could be followed by the extinction of other homo sp. or the whole hominini except homo sapiens sapiens, or else by the arrival (panspermia-style) of the first homo sapiens sapiens on earth.