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
nygreenguy
Guru
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Syracuse

Post #31

Post by nygreenguy »

otseng wrote: So, there should exist mutated ERV in humans that were originally injected in a distant lineage species?
Yes, but they done necessairly have to be altered

How about if I find an ERV common to primates (including chimps), but not found in humans? Would it falsify the theory that humans came from primates?
No. Deletions can happen.

Again, false dichotomy.
How so. Anyone worth his weight in salt in biology knows how strongly ERV's support evolution. If we didnt evolve, then there was a creator. So, either the creator LET us evolve, or s/he put the ERV's in there.

Yes, this is the basic theory behind ERVs. However, ERVs are not found to just be benign, but to have function.
And this point doesnt really support anyone side.

Then a prediction from this would be that most (if not all) ERV should be functionless. Think of all the ancestor species prior to humans that could've been infected by a virus. This would span a period on the order of hundreds of millions of years. Many ERV injections could have taken place in the human lineage during this timeframe. And these ERV would have mutated since then.
How do you know this is a legitimate prediction?
It is not so surprising that evolutionists would confirm their own point of view.
Is it? What would be the consequences of being wrong? I hear crap like this thrown around a lot but with zero supporting evidence. See, science works much jenga. Its a foundational field where new research depends on old research. If new research is based upon flaws, then the new research simply wont work. If the foundation of biology (evolution) is as critically flawed as you say, how is it possible to have the countless numbers of supporting evidence, fulfilled predictions, etc, etc...

Thing is, you cant. Its just a statical impossibility.

User avatar
Grumpy
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2497
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:58 am
Location: North Carolina

Post #32

Post by Grumpy »

otseng
So, no evidence exists of the common ancestor between chimps and humans.
I don't know where you got that idea. The evidence of our genes is sufficient to establish that we are cousins. Our knowledge of the fossil record is always being added to and I don't keep up that well, but the evidence is there. Accept it or don't but don't falsely claim there is no evidence.
Out of all the species studied for evolution, you would think human evolution would be most studied area. However, we still do not know the lineage prior to humans.
Of course human lineage is intensly studied and we know a great deal about the primates that came before us. We even know that there was genetic mixing between us and Neandertals, our closest cousins who died out ~25,000 years ago. Again, reject the facts if you wish, but do not claim there is no evidence.
What evidence do you have to show that chimps and humans can produce/have produced fertile offsprings?
Never claimed they could, but you asked ""And how did the genetic swapping occur between the chimp line and humans?". In the past, as today, when species are in the process of speciation it is not an overnight process , they can be interfertile for many thousands of years. But there comes a time where the interbreeding only produces more and more sterile offspring. This is seen in horse/donkey=mule(the generic term for a sterile offspring), Lion/Tiger=Liger(also sterile), Cattle/Bison(can still produce occasional non-sterile offspring). Species can be separated by geography, oceans, appearance or even smell in such a manor that they evolve different characteristics, but if the geography, oceans etc. should change and bring the two varieties back together they may swap genes again before separating again. Enough separation and you get two different, non-interfertile species. A perfect example observed in the time of man is ring species...

Image

The original single species is at the top, as the lizard migrated over the years there were several intermediate species until, when they met at the south of the mountain range they were no longer able to interbreed.
False dichotomy. It is not either human evolution is true or everything is an illusion to fool us.
Yes, it certainly is, because the evidence is clear, evolution is a fact, it has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth. The fossil record alone is verification on a huge scale, it cannot be denied honestly by anyone aware of the evidence. You might as well argue that the sun did not appear in the East this morning.

Or it is all an elaborate hoax, a stupendous practical joke by some magical creature.

The exact same thing can be said of Cosmology, Deep Time, Geology, Chemistry or Physics, either they are as they appear to be or someone is making them appear as something which they are not(IE a lie, falsehood, illusion or obfuscation by some trickster).

Grumpy 8-)

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #33

Post by otseng »

Goat wrote: For common ancestry we have a large amount of data, an interpretation of the data, and a way to falsify the interpretation. We have predictions, and we have something that actually explains the data.
Please list the predictions and ways to falsify human evolution.
You have 'you don't know everything', so you want to throw out the evidence we DO have... There is no reason to say that does not show common lineage, and every reason to.
I'm not asking for everything. I'm asking for something that is relevant. You are all positing that humans evolved from other species. Yet not even one species has been presented that is even considered to be a human ancestor.
The problem with trying to invoke 'It can be the result of a common designer' is that there is no way to test for that, and it has no explanatory power other than "maybe god did it'.
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.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #34

Post by otseng »

nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote:
ERV has historically been labelled as "junk DNA" and assumed to have no purpose.
Irrelevant. The world was once labeled as flat, new evidence has shown that to not be the case. Do you wish to throw that evidence out?
Now that recent research has shown that ERV can have a function, it falsifies the original assumption that ERV is junk DNA.
So what? This statement is irrelevant to the discussion.
I would agree that if ERV is functionless, it would be better explained by some random process of virus DNA/RNA insertion than design. However, since science is now revealing that ERV have function, it is better explained by design.
A gene gaining function after being functionless is not some wacky new novel phenomena. We see it all the time in genetics. It is only if you are naive to the science does this sort of stuff seem incredulous.
The original assertion of ERV theory is that "they sit quietly in the genome". Now you accept that they do not sit quietly. Again, this shows that human evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable. It can assert and assume anything it wants. And if the assumptions are found to be false, it is dismissed and marches on.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #35

Post by otseng »

Goat wrote:
otseng wrote:
Goat wrote: WHy are you misrepresenting what is said? What has been said is that Chimps and humans share a common ancestor.. and therefore are 'cousin' species. Trying to say that anybody is saying any differently is a straw man.
I'm not saying that anybody here is claiming that chimps are the forefathers of humans. What I am questioning is the relevance of chimps. If chimps are not in the line of human evolution, then how do chimps show how humans evolved? What would be relevant is evidence of species that are in the direct lineage of humans.

The fact is that nobody knows what is the common ancestor between chimps and humans. Why cannot this evidence be produced? If no evidence can be produced, then it would be a baseless assertion that such an ancestor actually existed. And since this evidence cannot be produced, would producing a species not in the lineage of humans establish how humans evolved?
Because of the similarities in DNA, including ERV's, ti shows they have both evolved from a common ancestor, and the similarities between them show a 'clock' from when the two lines diverged.
Again, similarities do not necessarily mean lineage. And the basic assumption of ERV theory is found to be false.

And why cannot the common ancestor be produced? How did it die off? Why is there no fossil record of such a creature existing?

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

Post #36

Post by Goat »

otseng wrote:
Goat wrote: For common ancestry we have a large amount of data, an interpretation of the data, and a way to falsify the interpretation. We have predictions, and we have something that actually explains the data.
Please list the predictions and ways to falsify human evolution.
If you read the previous response to you about the ERV's, McCollough described out EVR's could falsify evolution. That is one way. If you find a fossil of a human that is 20 million years old, that would falsify it also.

What would have falsified evolution if there was no mechanism to pass on traits, this mechanism was found to be DNA.

[/quote]
You have 'you don't know everything', so you want to throw out the evidence we DO have... There is no reason to say that does not show common lineage, and every reason to.
I'm not asking for everything. I'm asking for something that is relevant. You are all positing that humans evolved from other species. Yet not even one species has been presented that is even considered to be a human ancestor.
[/quote]

Oh sure there has been. Lots of times.. if you read the very dishonest thread that Easyrider brought up.

Now, if you talking about the species that was the last common ancestor to human and apes, no, we don't have that particular fossil (yet). Fossilization is rare occurrence, and tropical forests do not often have good conditions conducive for fossilization. We do, however, have the DNA evidence. You claiim 'But it could be a common designer', yet you give no criteria by which a 'common designer' can be distinguished from evolution. Evolution has a very big advantage, because it makes predictions about what will be found, and can be falsified..

The problem with trying to invoke 'It can be the result of a common designer' is that there is no way to test for that, and it has no explanatory power other than "maybe god did it'.
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.
“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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #37

Post by otseng »

Grumpy wrote:otseng
So, no evidence exists of the common ancestor between chimps and humans.
I don't know where you got that idea. The evidence of our genes is sufficient to establish that we are cousins. Our knowledge of the fossil record is always being added to and I don't keep up that well, but the evidence is there. Accept it or don't but don't falsely claim there is no evidence.
I'll correct my statement, there is no direct evidence of the common ancestor between chimps and humans.

As for your claim that the similarity between chimps and humans is evidence for human evolution, then I claim that they are similar because they were designed by a common designer and is evidence of special creation.

Also, thinking about it, what is the common ancestor of gorillas, chimp, and humans? And what is the common ancestor above that with orangutans? And so on. Has any of these ancestors been identified?
Of course human lineage is intensly studied and we know a great deal about the primates that came before us.
And were any of these primates a forefather of humans?
We even know that there was genetic mixing between us and Neandertals, our closest cousins who died out ~25,000 years ago.
How exactly do Neandertals demonstrate that humans evolved?
What evidence do you have to show that chimps and humans can produce/have produced fertile offsprings?
Never claimed they could, but you asked ""And how did the genetic swapping occur between the chimp line and humans?".
You stated "Like horses and Donkeys used to be able to do." So what do you claim?
Yes, it certainly is, because the evidence is clear, evolution is a fact, it has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth.
Then human evolution should be easy to demonstrate since it's a fact.

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

Post #38

Post by Goat »

otseng wrote:
Grumpy wrote:otseng
So, no evidence exists of the common ancestor between chimps and humans.
I don't know where you got that idea. The evidence of our genes is sufficient to establish that we are cousins. Our knowledge of the fossil record is always being added to and I don't keep up that well, but the evidence is there. Accept it or don't but don't falsely claim there is no evidence.
I'll correct my statement, there is no direct evidence of the common ancestor between chimps and humans.
Incorrect. EVR's and dna evidence is direct evidence. If you mean 'fossil' evidence, no, we currently do not have fossil evidence. However, the DNA evidence is direct evidence,
“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

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #39

Post by McCulloch »

otseng wrote: Similarities do not necessarily mean lineage. It could also mean they were designed is a similar fashion. HP and Gateway computers share many similarities, but they did not derive from the other.
McCulloch wrote: No, but their designs were not done in a vacuum. In fact, they share a common ancestor, the minicomputer and the IBM PC. The commonality of their design can be traced to these ancestors and by cross-fertilization of the ideas of the design engineers.
otseng wrote: Yes, they can be traced back to the ideas of the design engineers.
OK. Computers do not evolve (yet). The designs for them do.

Similarly, humans do not strictly evolve. Our DNA evolves.
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: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #40

Post by otseng »

Goat wrote: 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.
You have 'you don't know everything', so you want to throw out the evidence we DO have... There is no reason to say that does not show common lineage, and every reason to.
I'm not asking for everything. I'm asking for something that is relevant. You are all positing that humans evolved from other species. Yet not even one species has been presented that is even considered to be a human ancestor.
Oh sure there has been. Lots of times.. if you read the very dishonest thread that Easyrider brought up.
You're bringing up Easyrider? Let's just stick to the posters in this thread and the posts presented here.
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".

Post Reply