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.

[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.

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.

In any population, if you trace back far enough you will eventually find the most recent common father and mother. That's the way lineages work. We're all related to each other if you go back far enough. Guess what, if you go back far enough we're all related to that first complex chemical replication that was the beginning of life. Every single form of life on this planet has the same great ^x grandparent which was probably indistinguishable from pond scum. If theists are offended at being related to apes I can't wait until they realize we're all related to pond scum!

The two primates we arbitrarily designate as the first homo sapiens sapiens were no different than any other homo sapiens sapiens of the time. In fact the current mitochondrial Eve and mitochondrial Adam lived 84,000 years apart. Every other family line died out.

From Talkorigins:

The "mitochondrial Eve," to which this claim refers, is the most recent common female ancestor, not the original female ancestor. There would have been other humans living earlier and at the same time. The mtDNA lineages of other women contemporary with her eventually died out. Mitochondrial Eve was merely the youngest common ancestor of all today's mtDNA. She may not even have been human.

The same principles find that the most recent human male common ancestor ("Y-chromosome Adam") lived an estimated 84,000 years after the "mitochondrial Eve" and also came from Africa (Hawkes 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Yuehai et al. 2001).

The results assume negligible paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, but that assumption has been called into question. Male mtDNA resides in the tail of the sperm; the tail usually does not enter the egg that the sperm fertilizes, but rarely a little bit does. It is also possible that there is some recombination of mtDNA between lineages, which would also affect the results (Awadalla et al. 1999; Eyre-Walker et al. 1999). But these challenges have themselves been questioned (Kivisild et al. 2000).

[Mugview]

[Replying to post 571 by Peter]

In any population, if you trace back far enough you will eventually find the most recent common father and mother. That's the way lineages work. We're all related to each other if you go back far enough. Guess what, if you go back far enough we're all related to that first complex chemical replication that was the beginning of life. Every single form of life on this planet has the same great ^x grandparent which was probably indistinguishable from pond scum. If theists are offended at being related to apes I can't wait until they realize we're all related to pond scum!

The two primates we arbitrarily designate as the first homo sapiens sapiens were no different than any other homo sapiens sapiens of the time. In fact the current mitochondrial Eve and mitochondrial Adam lived 84,000 years apart. Every other family line died out.

From Talkorigins:

The "mitochondrial Eve," to which this claim refers, is the most recent common female ancestor, not the original female ancestor. There would have been other humans living earlier and at the same time. The mtDNA lineages of other women contemporary with her eventually died out. Mitochondrial Eve was merely the youngest common ancestor of all today's mtDNA. She may not even have been human.

The same principles find that the most recent human male common ancestor ("Y-chromosome Adam") lived an estimated 84,000 years after the "mitochondrial Eve" and also came from Africa (Hawkes 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Yuehai et al. 2001).

The results assume negligible paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, but that assumption has been called into question. Male mtDNA resides in the tail of the sperm; the tail usually does not enter the egg that the sperm fertilizes, but rarely a little bit does. It is also possible that there is some recombination of mtDNA between lineages, which would also affect the results (Awadalla et al. 1999; Eyre-Walker et al. 1999). But these challenges have themselves been questioned (Kivisild et al. 2000).

[/quote]

From the 2013 research:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/465

"... These papers further confirm an earlier sequencing study (3) of 36 male donors that pushed the ancestral Y back to 115,000 years before present (yr B.P.), using almost 6800 variants shared by two or more men. This is roughly the same as the dates derived on the basis of mitochondrial genome analysis for the most recent common maternal ancestor (4). So now it seems that a population giving rise to the strictly maternal and strictly paternal portions of our genomes could have produced individuals who found each other in the same space and time. "

"Our" here referred to "homo sapiens sapiens". Yes, we (humans) are all related.

Are we related to primates? Yes, we are. We share the same DNA coding system.
Are we related to horses? Yes, we are. We share the same DNA coding system.
Are we related to shrimps? Yes, we are. We share the same DNA coding system.
etc.

However, which one descends from which one, is not easy to determine.
The chromosomal configuration of primates is quite different in each kind, that now the "common ancestor" is pulled millions of years away from previous estimate, from the current extant one. The notorious image of ape to human is now largely discredited, and the new theory is that the common ancestor may not look like ape nor human at all.

No matter what, all human alive now are from one subspecies only, homo sapiens sapiens, and the link to their past ancestors thusfar can only traced back genetically to the first male and female of homo sapiens sapiens. Beyond that are speculations, hypotheses and imaginative theories.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 572 by Mugview]

Are we related to primates? Yes, we are

I am glad we have reached consensus.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 572 by Mugview]

Are we related to primates? Yes, we are

I am glad we have reached consensus.

Right. I thought he was arguing for a special human creation too.

[micatala]

Here is another piece of evidence supporting common ancestry of man with other primates, one that I had not seen previously.

Borna Virus Disease - a viral disease - caused by the "Borna virus" which causes, amongst other things, unsteady gait and learning deficiencies. The Borna virus can leave insertions(tell-tale genetic "fingerprints") in the genomes of the mammals it infects. And it infects most mammals, including all primates. Humans share 4 of these Borna virus insertions with other primates - in the same region of the genome(which across primates, is almost identical). The chance of these insertions being independently caused 4 times - in the same regions of the genome - is very low. If, however, an ancestor acquired these insertions - a one-time event - then all primates(descendants) would share these insertions at the same place in the genome - exactly as we find. Moreover, why would a creator place these insertions into the genome of creatures he created? Strong evidence for evolution, and against creation. For more, please look at the phylointelligence link above and scroll to "Shared Bornavirus sequence..."

This is from another, non-public forum, so I don't think you can get to the source, but there are other links you can consult to read about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/scien ... d=all&_r=0



This link discusses borna viruses, as well as the fused pair of primate chromosomes that makes up one of ours, hence explaining why we have 23 pairs and other primates 24.

http://phylointelligence.com/genetics.html

Recent researchers have found the distinct mark of viral RNA in the genomes of primates and other mammals(Horie et al. 2010). Sometime over the last 40 million years, a virus called Bornavirus Disease inserted itself in the DNA of our ancestors at least four times.

We know this because mammals, especially primates, share several of these BDV insertions with humans. The chance of highly similar viral elements being inserted into the same regions in the genome of different organisms independently is extraordinarily low. This is where evolution comes in: the explanation for this becomes obvious when one realizes that mammal taxa share these viral elements because they share a common ancestor.

In this same source, retroviruses provide another piece of evidence in a similar way.