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.

[nygreenguy]

And you expect me to accept something from the IRC?:?? Honestly?

Yes, I knew there would be pushback from me quoting any Christian source. But, I was willing to post it because they use secular sources (in addition to Christian sources). So, unless you can provide evidence to refute their sources, then yes, I do expect it to be considered valid evidence.

The thing is, when you present a published article, your use sources to back up your own research (unless its a review). Just because the author uses secular sources is meaningless. They are not the basis of the research. Just little snippets of facts from each citation are used. The issue with this article is the interpretation of the facts/sources.

[nygreenguy]

Some more problems about the bacteria hypothesis:

The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.

bacteria/fungi hypothesis: Lowe then makes a reasonable case for fungi and bacteria - there are fungi that can degrade lignite (Polyporus versicolor and Poria montiola), as well as autotrophic "thiobacillus-like" bacteria that oxidize pyrites in coal, and he points out that bacteria have been found 3km underground apparently living on granite. Lowe states that fungal and bacterial activity is particularly likely in warm, damp coal exposed to air, and he points out that microbial action only has to result in the deposition of ~0.1% by weight of modern carbon in the coal to produce an apparent age of 45,000 years for the specimen.

Since Lowe's paper, there have been many more reports of deep subterranean bacteria, which apparently form a heretofore unrecognized ecosystem deep below the earth in rocks and in oils (abstracts below). Presumably most of these bacteria never interact with the "modern" 14C of the atmosphere. But some deep bacterial activity apparently can result in increased concentrations of 13C.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Not a single person here has claimed that the bacteria are the sole reason for the c14. You are arguing a strawman here. Myself, along with other have also pointed out radioactive decay by surrounding rocks.

3/4 of the page you just cited talks about this!

[GrizzFanDan]

Most of the time when you see a person rejecting evolution it is not because they have not seen facts that prove it, it is because they are brought up to believe something different, so no matter what you say to that person they will plug ears and hum. you'll hear phrases like "I'm open to it if I just got some strong evidence..." but they don't mean that. There is insanely strong evidence for it, people just reject it.

[GrizzFanDan]

Most of the time when you see a person rejecting evolution it is not because they have not seen facts that prove it, it is because they are brought up to believe something different, so no matter what you say to that person they will plug ears and hum. you'll hear phrases like "I'm open to it if I just got some strong evidence..." but they don't mean that. There is insanely strong evidence for it, people just reject it.

[blueandwhite]

"This does not address the problem that I presented. If rocks are permeable enough for water and bacteria to go through, oil would likewise seep out."

The oil pools, and collects in pockets, and much of the time is mixed with dirt and water as well. They all collect in the same places often enough. Nothing is "seeping out". It just changes frequently as rock and ground positions change.

"Carboniferous coal is at least 300 million years old. Rocks above that would likewise be quite old. Microorganisms would only be present in rocks if they travelled down also. And what microorganisms would you be talking about"

Yes they would, which is what we are arguing DOES happen. They get in the water, and the water moves down. The microorganisms would most likely be eubacteria or archaibacteria. Fungus are not as adaptive usually.

"I've been trying to find this. But, I don't think this is something that people do much research on."

Well maybe thats because they understand that its a poor scenario to do carbon dating on. Allmost all radiometric dating is done on igneus rock so that you know that no C14 has leaked in or out. Doing that test in other circumstances risks high degrees of error.

"Those who believe in evolutionary timeframes would assume that things millions of years old would be radiocarbon dead. So, they would not look for it. And even if they did, it would raise more problems for their position. So, I don't think they would do much research on this."

I have a number of points:
A) Without the proper igneus rock nearby the test has a high degree of error.
B) How do I know you aren't making this up?
C) These are not "Evolutionary" timeframes. Geologists and physicists came up with these dating methods.
D) No scientists worth his salt would ignore or intetionally not gather information on the basis that it "would raise more problems for their position"
E) If this test was done with C14, they should also do longer radiometric tests, like uranuim to see if the data correlates (ie. if 4 radiometric tests say its 300 million years old, and 1 says its 2000 years old, theres likely a problem with that one test).

"However, I found one article on this: Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model.

It cites 90 items from various journals that have been measured to have C14 that should be C14 dead. It also presents 10 coal samples from various locations that have measurable C14."

Creation research isn't science. Let me ask you this, how many scientific journals have cited this article? My guess is zero.

[nygreenguy]

"Carboniferous coal is at least 300 million years old. Rocks above that would likewise be quite old. Microorganisms would only be present in rocks if they travelled down also. And what microorganisms would you be talking about"

Yes they would, which is what we are arguing DOES happen. They get in the water, and the water moves down. The microorganisms would most likely be eubacteria or archaibacteria. Fungus are not as adaptive usually.

I disagree on two points. First, the bacteria do indeed reside in these extreme environments. I posted a paper talking about this. Secondly, fungi are highly adaptable, almost as much as bacteria. Most people think of fungi as mushrooms but most are microorganisms including single celled organisms.

[blueandwhite]

"Carboniferous coal is at least 300 million years old. Rocks above that would likewise be quite old. Microorganisms would only be present in rocks if they travelled down also. And what microorganisms would you be talking about"

Yes they would, which is what we are arguing DOES happen. They get in the water, and the water moves down. The microorganisms would most likely be eubacteria or archaibacteria. Fungus are not as adaptive usually.

I disagree on two points. First, the bacteria do indeed reside in these extreme environments. I posted a paper talking about this. Secondly, fungi are highly adaptable, almost as much as bacteria. Most people think of fungi as mushrooms but most are microorganisms including single celled organisms.

I don't think anybody was thinking of mushrooms, I thought we were all clear that it was micro-organisms like yeast we were talking about. My apologies if there was confusion.

I would be very interested to see if in fact fungi do populate these envronments (coal and oil beds). My initial thoughts would have been no, but I'd be interested to find out.

[nygreenguy]

I don't think anybody was thinking of mushrooms, I thought we were all clear that it was micro-organisms like yeast we were talking about. My apologies if there was confusion.

I would be very interested to see if in fact fungi do populate these envronments (coal and oil beds). My initial thoughts would have been no, but I'd be interested to find out.

Remember, fungi are adapted to absorbing nutrients out of their surroundings unlike animals which need to capture food and plants which use the sun. This allows the fungi to exploit many unexpected niches. The whole bacteria hypothesis includes fungi as a source of rogue carbon.

[SailingCyclops]

Those who believe in evolutionary timeframes would assume that things millions of years old would be radiocarbon dead.

No! Scientists don't make assumptions of this sort, they follow the trail of evidence, and come to conclusions based on the evidentiary findings.

I am a retired engineer. I have worked for major airlines, research departments at universities, defense basic-research companies (electronic countermeasure systems), ISPs as a CTO, design engineer, technologist, and as a network architect. By far the biggest hindrance (and personal frustration) to accurate analysis, design, and research (except in the defense industry) always came from the bean-counters and CFOs who wanted a particular result to support their financial and/or political agenda; results tailored to benefit their share holders. Pre-conceived notions NEVER came from the scientists I worked with, but ALWAYS came from those with an alternate personal/political/financial agenda.

As a scientist, I always approached a challenge with a blank slate. Did the research, did the experiments, collected/analyzed the data, and applied scientifically sound and approved "best practices" to the issue at hand, always proposing what the EVIDENCE, and EXPERIMENTS strongly suggested. I always designed and reported on the basis of facts learned, not on what was "believed" by the hierarchy.

Implementation was ALWAYS wrought with political and financial concerns. Those with "pre-conceived" solutions always had a non-scientific/personal/financial agenda.

I am not a "fundamental-scientist". I have always taken basic research (peer-reviewed scientific research/papers and associated experimental data) and applied it to real-world solutions; building something tangible.

From where I sit, I see the very same agenda-induced error happening here in this debate that I have observed in my long career. No scientist in this thread has ever approached the science of Evolution with any pre-conceived notions. They have very carefully followed the EVIDENCE and let the chips fall where they may. That's the way science works, and the way it must work if you are really interested in discovering the truth about ANYTHING.

All I have observed from the "other side" (Otseng in particular) is a religious-based agenda attempting to formulate arguments AGAINST what has been established as scientific fact, while, at the same time providing absolutely no POSITIVE evidence for an alternate explanation for why things are the way they are. No rational human (and certainly no scientist) can ever accept "magic" as an explanation, unless "magic" itself can be shown through experimentation to exist. No scientist that I know of can accept an alternate view of reality based solely on attacks on modern science and knowledge.

What has been deceptively and slickly removed from this particular debate are some fundamental questions related to ancillary (but profoundly relevant) issues directly attributed to the creationist religious/political agenda. How old is the earth? Were all life forms created at the same time as their "book" of "facts" states? Were dinosaurs on Noah's ark? Did the "flood" actually happen (evidence please). The issues are legion; but they have been cleverly removed from this particular debate in a religious/political effort to denigrate science itself and replace it with myth and superstition.

I for one find this tactic rather absurd and disingenuous; and for me, is further proof that the enemies of the scientific method of discovering truth have absolutely no basis for their perspective apart from blind faith and ignorance.

Bob

[nygreenguy]

As a scientist, I always approached a challenge with a blank slate. Did the research, did the experiments, collected/analyzed the data, and applied scientifically sound and approved "best practices" to the issue at hand, always proposing what the EVIDENCE, and EXPERIMENTS strongly suggested. I always designed and reported on the basis of facts learned, not on what was "believed" by the hierarchy.

Well, I wouldnt agree 100%. There is nothing wrong with taking rock solid scientific principals and applying them to research. Its impossible, and impractical to start with a 100% blank slate. If this were the case, we couldnt even formulate a basic hypothesis.

Remember, when we analyze we use things like statistics which themselves are a science. So we rely on the discoveries of those before us to allow us to make informed decisions.

Then theres the issue of methodology! Most of us dont use 100% novel methods before we test something!

I am not a "fundamental-scientist". I have always taken basic research (peer-reviewed scientific research/papers and associated experimental data) and applied it to real-world solutions; building something tangible.

This, in itself is difficult because i've found sometimes what a scientist discovers is not always applicable to real-life solutions and/or implementation.