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]

Again, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

Says who?

[Goat]

If you read the previous response to you about the ERV's, McCollough described out EVR's could falsify evolution. That is one way.

As was pointed out, an ERV is identified not in humans, but in other primates. Does this falsify it? No. Cause ad hoc explanations can add and subtract ERV at any point in time. If an ERV was found in humans and not in chimps, the same ad hoc explanation can be invoked to say that the ERV was deleted from chimps.

Actually. no.. ERV's can happen different times.. and if the ERV happened AFTER the split, then it would not be in the decedents.

The example that was brought up was a missing ERV in humans, not an addition after a split.

Or, perhaps it is an ad hoc information that it was in the common ancestor to begin with.. you have to show that ERV is in other great apes but not in chimps.. that has not been shown to be true.

What is predicted is the NUMBER or ERV's in common.

Please state clearly how it predicts the number of ERVs in common.

And we have the FOSSIL record. That is what we initially started with, the FOSSIL record.

I am sure you have seen this before. Can you show which skulls are human, and which skulls are apes?

Again, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

"PROVE" is such a strong word. However, it does provide the preponderance of evidence of lineage. Then, when you add the DNA evidence, and the evidence of the ERV's, the evidence is extremely overwhelming.

At the risk of repeating ad infinitum, here are the list of homo sapien predecessors

Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo sapiens sapiens

What exactly are you claiming with this list of hominids?

You made a claim 'We don't know what the human ancestors were', I just gave you the list of the human ancestors. That is the human LINEAGE. You said we don't know, I just showed we do.

I will point out that evidence shows a number of 'gene crossing' events in the European/Asian populations, which gives those populations a 1% to 4% amount of alleles that came from Neanderthalensis.

Which doesn't show that Neandertals were forefathers of humans. It only shows that they could've interbred.

How about this? You first list the tenets of the human evolutionary theory, the predictions, and the ways to falsify it. And then I'll do the same for my theory.

Since it's your challenge, you go first. McCullough came up with one when it comes to EVR's.. so you should bring up at least one first.

No, I asked you first. It should be easy to provide these things since "evolution is a fact".

As I pointed out, McCullough gave one already.

What I'm asking for is a list (more than one) of the claims of human evolutionary theory, a list (more than one) of predictions, and a list of ways to falsify it. And ideally comprehensive lists.

When these lists are produced, I will present my lists.

Another one was the prediction that when it was discovered that the humans had one chromosome pair less than the other great apes, there would be a fusion event discovered, and that fusion event was found.

OK, let's explore this.

Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangutans have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). If humans evolved, then the fusion event must have happened at the chimp/human split or after the split. Let's take the first case - at the chimp/human split. When the split occurred, an individual underwent a chromosome fusion by random chance and reduced the count from 48 to 46. But, in order to pass this on, it would have to mate with the opposite gender that underwent the exact same fusion. So the first two male and female humans would've both had the fusion at the same time. So, for three events to happen concurrently - first pair of humans to arrive, a male chromosome fusion, a female choromosome fusion - would be quite improbable.

What would be more probable is that the fusion occurred after the split. There would be many humans with 48 chromosomes. So, the only thing that would be required is a male chromosome fusion and a female chromosome fusion and that they would have to mate. Since it's impossible for them to determine their chromosome count, it would have to be by pure random chance that they would meet. Then one would have to explain why all the humans with 48 chromosomes became extinct. All the great apes survived for millions of years with 48 chromosomes. If they also experienced fusion while they existed, the 46 count became extinct. So, why for humans would the 48 count become extinct?

There might have been many reasons.. .. and you are bringing up red herrings. All that matters is that this was a prediction that was confirmed. You are trying to provide distractions and if/then/buts to deny the evidence.. points that are 100% totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I have seen you try to deny all the points made (unsuccessfully as a matter of fact).

What I have not seen you do is provide a similar structure for creationism. It seems that all the effort of 'proving creationism' is trying to poke holes in evolution, rather than providing positive evidence for that is outside of scripture. The few incidences that any creationsts use to try to 'prove' something scientifically all depends on huge amounts of mainstream science being wrong. It all depends on excuses about why things aren't found, rather than pointing out things that are found.

[Grumpy]

otseng


Nothing prevents interbreeding with different number of chromosomes if the two species are close enough...

"Many members of the dog family can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

Molecular analysis indicates 4 divisions of canids:

1.Wolf-like canids including the domestic dog, gray wolf, coyote, indian wolf, and the jackals
2.The South American canids
3.Old and New World red-foxlike canids, for example, red foxes and kit foxes
4.Monotypic species, for example, bat-eared fox and raccoon dog
The wolf (including the dingo and domestic dog), coyote, and jackal, all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridize freely (barring size or behavioral constraints) and produce fertile offspring. The wolf, coyote, and golden jackal diverged around 3 to 4 million years ago. Other members of the dog family diverged 7 to 10 million years ago and are less closely related and cannot hybridize with the wolf-like canids: the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal has 74 chromosomes, the red fox has 38 chromosomes, the raccoon dog has 42 chromosomes, and the fennec fox has 64 chromosomes. Although the African Wild Dog has 78 chromosomes, it is considered distinct enough to be placed in its own genus."

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

So there is no reason that a population of mixed number of chromosomes could not exist.

"We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. Refs 5, 6, and 7 document both the existence of such chromosomal number differences and the fact that differences do not always result in reduced fertility. I can provide many more similar references if required. The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring."

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Grumpy

[sinebender]

there is a lot of heresy being thrown around because most would rather crucify Christ again rather than to bow down to him. It's a pride thing. Now, the evidence you are looking for is in the dna chain. If you are going to subscribe to that chain as being adulterated or changed somehow, then you are just coming up with another theory, another heresy, another rabbit trail, rather than admit that there is nothing outside the gene pool that allows for evolution, a change yes, from white skin and black skin to mulato, or short to tall, ect......macro change....is the word i prefer than the word evolution. Evidence again from another angle......people really need to do their homework. The Time-life Nature libray series Early Man, published in 1965, with the 'Parade of the ascent of Man' on pages 41-45, has become an almost universal icon for human evolution. The 'parade' was scientific fraud, but for human evolution it was brilliant advertising. Evolutionists have known for many years that this parade was fiction. Yet the first 'official' admission of that fact was not until the year 2000 when J.J. Hublin (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig) wrote- " the once popular fresco showing a single file of marching hominids becoming every more vertical, tall, and hairless now appears to be a fiction(Nature 403 jan 27 2000) There is so much deception that has been perpetrated it's best to get a copy of Lubenows book 'Bones of Contention'. It is the single most book i have found on the subject. The best point made is that Neandrertal Man, the human found in the Neandertal valley, has been racially discriminated against. The model of this human was forced by a secular evolutionary anthropologist whom directed an artist to portray him as such. If you examine the bones, anatomically place them they way he is natually displayed, you find a very old human that was suffering from arthritis and vitamin D deficiency. The natural 'human found in the Neandertal valley', stood erect @ 6 feet tall, more brawn, more muscular, with a cranial vault roughly 2-300 cc larger than ours. In other words, he was stereo typed into something he wasn't. He was stronger, faster, smarter , then we are. Now to finish this little dissertation, the real answer that you are searching for is- Sima de Los Huesos Cave...'pit of the bones'. No one lived in this cave, it was used as a ceremonial burial mortuary. What was found here what we call Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Neandertal, all found with extreme variation and well preserved. They were all contemporaries. All living at the same time and because of the variation, the distinctions become blurred and rendered as insignificant. The bottom line......the Sima de los Huesos fossil assemblage reveals the absurdity of attempting to determine species distinctions in fossil humans. Next comes the culture test. because fossils cannot reproduce, the reproductive test cannot be applied, so the evolutionist goes to the culture test. The Neandertals have been charged with bein cultrue thin and thus subhuman. If this same cultural test were applied to some remote tribes in recent history, logic would demand that they also be considered by many evolutionists to be subhuman because of their alleged lack of culture. Evolution is inherently racist. Evolutionary racism comes through loud and clear when dealing with the fossil record, especially when it concerns the 'Neandertals'. Based upon artifacts and other evidence found in association with this Neandertals, ther is no question that the Neandertals were full members of the human family and probably part of the post-flood/ice age European population. I imagine that the searcher, the originator of the question at hand will next ask....' how old is the planet? my question to you DEAR READER....and i mean that.....dearest one whom seeks the truth......my question to you is.....?how old are the coal fields?. Here is a fact for you. Potassium/argon testing dates Mount St. Helens' lava flow at 500,000 years ago. Mount Kilauea (1952) lava flow as potassium/argon tested at 2.5 million years ago.....it doesn't work. but that is how the secular scientist will age the planet. that same scientist will next tell you that a lava flow that is indeterminate , because we didn't witness it- is 4.5 billion years old - again based upon potassium/argon testing. It doesn't work. So , back to the question.....how old are the coal fields in Pennsylvania?.....here's fact, at the bottom of the coal fields in pennsylvania - pure silver human artifacts are being found. Woops. There was a world wide flood that took out a civilization that was more advanced than ours. The planet isn't as old as you might think. Here's another book for your library.....'the puzzel of ancient man' by Chittick

[sinebender]

next fact. let's cut out the theories and cut to the chase......mitochondira rna has linked all humans to a single woman. That's a fact. Deal with that one please.

next fact. Evolutionist?....deal with this; the human blood coagulation cascade involves 50,000 operations. If one protein doesn't do it's job, is misplaced in the cascade, the creature dies of bleeding. Evidence for design, again, like dna. Let's crunch the numbers so we can get away from theory. If the human blood coagulation cascade is a product of evolution, then we have a real interesting problem here. Let's say we have a super creature. One that can change his dna, his blood coagulation cascade, once a second. In other words he tries this formula, dies, and repeats it , each second until he gets it right. Let's look at the numbers.....50,000 times 49,999, times 49,998....ect ect ect till we get to 50,000 times one. You add up all of those seconds, and what you have is a number that is equivalent to what a secular scientist would quote you as being impossible....250x 10 to the 50th power.....the number in question is beyond that. In other words, the amount of time to evolve the blood coagulation cascade is still in the future.

Need a good book?.....try 'Darwins Black Box' by Behe.....and do you homework.

[Goat]

next fact. let's cut out the theories and cut to the chase......mitochondira rna has linked all humans to a single woman. That's a fact. Deal with that one please.

next fact. Evolutionist?....deal with this; the human blood coagulation cascade involves 50,000 operations. If one protein doesn't do it's job, is misplaced in the cascade, the creature dies of bleeding. Evidence for design, again, like dna. Let's crunch the numbers so we can get away from theory. If the human blood coagulation cascade is a product of evolution, then we have a real interesting problem here. Let's say we have a super creature. One that can change his dna, his blood coagulation cascade, once a second. In other words he tries this formula, dies, and repeats it , each second until he gets it right. Let's look at the numbers.....50,000 times 49,999, times 49,998....ect ect ect till we get to 50,000 times one. You add up all of those seconds, and what you have is a number that is equivalent to what a secular scientist would quote you as being impossible....250x 10 to the 50th power.....the number in question is beyond that. In other words, the amount of time to evolve the blood coagulation cascade is still in the future.

Need a good book?.....try 'Darwins Black Box' by Behe.....and do you homework.

Ah yes, the logical fallacy of 'argument from probably', which totally ignores how the process of evolution works, and also the falsehood about blood clotting.

It has been shown that Behe was wrong about blood clotting, (and the solution to his conundrum was actually published in 1969), and also he was totally wrong about the concept of "Irreducibly complex', which was just a fancy term for 'I don't understand it so it must be God'

[WinePusher]

Again, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

Says who?

Says common sense .

I could look similar to another person, but not be related to them.

[perfessor]

I could look similar to another person, but not be related to them.

And yet you would most certainly be related, probably less than 200 generations back. Even if you didn't look similar.

[Wyvern]

Again, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

Says who?

Says common sense .

I could look similar to another person, but not be related to them.

Actually common sense says if someone looks a lot like someone else it's likely they are related. Being the youngest and least well known of four brothers I get this a lot where someone will come up to me and ask me if I am so and so's brother, all because we have a strong familial resemblance to one another.

[sinebender]

Ah yes, the logical fallacy of 'argument from probably', which totally ignores how the process of evolution works, and also the falsehood about blood clotting.

big words...'logical fallacy' ....50 centers.....'argument from probability'.....more theories, no facts. you have nothing supporting evolution. give me one fact. I understand your position well. It is a religion in itself. It's based upon what the other secularists say.....and that is......'given enough time, anything is possible'. "i would rather believe in what i know is impossible, then to believe in God'. I know your position well. Secular humanism is dying. Even the staunch molecular physicists know this to be true. Where have you been, obviously not doing your homework.

How can there possibly be evolution, when the Great pyramid of Egypt at Geza demonstrates superior technology then our own. do your homework. the electric saws that honed those granite blocks are superior to ours. Proven fact: our drills cut into granite at a rate of .0005 microns per second. the drills used in fashioning the great pyramid of egypt cut at a rate of .2 micros per second. Superior technology 5,000 years ago?

please explain to me how it is that we are finding pure silver articulated artifacts at the bottom of the penn coal fields. I long to here your theories on that one.

While you are at it. explain why potassium argon testing renders mount st. helen's eruption of 1980 at 500,000 years ago. i 'm dying to hear your theory on that one too.

while you are at it. give me another theory on how DNA, which is a closed system allowed for evolution. but , i know your answer......'given enough time, anything is possible. You must start with infinite time, but where is your proof of infinite time?
the world is not that old. that is just another theory. let's see some facts to back up your ideas. because, THAT would make for a debate.