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.

[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. What is predicted is the NUMBER or ERV's in common. Your misunderstanding of the phenomena does not mean it is not evidence, it just means you don't understand it, and build straw man attempts against it.

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.

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?

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.

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

Now, add to that mix, we have two 'cousin' species that are not in the direct line

Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

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.

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. 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.

[Goat]

This is from Humans as a Case Study for Evolution

12 LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION OF HUMANS (& OTHER PRIMATES)
SEVEN LINES OF EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGY

1. Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification (Linnaeus)
* primates naturally forming nested hierarchical groupings
2. Comparative Anatomy
* homologies
* general adaptive attributes of all primates (including humans)
* distinctive brachiating anatomy possessed by hominoids
3. Comparative Embryology (Ernst Haeckel)
4. Comparative Biochemistry (1950's)
* served as a substantial test of evolutionary theory (and illustrates concordance between independent lines of evidence)
* amino acid sequences of proteins (genetic products)
* chromosomal banding patterns (genetic loci)
* DNA structure itself (genes)
5. Adaptive Compromises or "Imperfections"
* "contrivances" (Charles Darwin)
* "evolution as tinkering" (Francois Jacob)
* human examples:
o pelvic structure adapted both for fully erect bipedalism AND giving birth to big-brained babies
o lowered larynx an adaptation for speech BUT also a liability in that it makes us more likely to choke compared to other mammals
6. Vestigial Structures
* "senseless signs of history" (Stephen Jay Gould)
* human examples: ears with muscles, Darwin's tubercle, appendix, little toe
7. Biogeography
* refers to the geographical distribution of similar species as a result of shared ancestry; for example, lemurs on Madagascar, New World and Old World monkeys, lesser apes
* Darwin's 1871 prediction about finding fossils of early humans in Africa

FIVE LINES OF EVIDENCE FROM PALEONTOLOGY & ARCHAEOLOGY

8. "Paleo-biogeography"
* earliest hominid fossils are from Africa as predicted by Darwin and evolutionary theory
9. Fossil Sequence
* more "primitive" (less modern forms) found earlier and before more "evolved" (more modern) forms
10. Fossil Intermediates
* intermediate fossils theoretically should and DO display a combination of primitive and derived features: Mosaic Specimens
o "Lucy" (Hadar, Ethiopia; 3 mya)
o various archaic/"modern" specimens (for example, Jebel Irhoud, Predmost)
11. Ecological Coherence Of Fossil Assemblages
* fossil assemblages represent ecologically-sensible collections of fossil species (contra the "Flood chaos" model)
* virtually any hominid site but especially those with both hominid remains and faunal and/or floral fossils
12. Chronological Sequence Of Stone Tools
* the same sort of developmental sequence seen in more "primitive" to more "advanced" fossils is seen in the archaeological sequence of stone tools from cruder to more sophisticated and refined

It then discusses each one in depth.. One key one that specifically talks about 'making predictions' is as follows

Category number 1 (Hierarchical Taxonomic Classification) is a good example of a pattern that can, of course, be explained by special creation. Linnaeus did just that. But Darwin a century later explained the same set of ordered relationships between organisms as being the result of divergent evolution and shared ancestry. More important, though, is the fact that organisms created de novo need not show varying degrees of similarity to one another. Each creature could be constructed completely differently from every other creature and made from very different materials. Humans need not look like apes, but we do. We show varying degrees of similarity to them and we are made of the same stuff. We could have been created this way but we must look like this if, indeed, we have evolved and diverged from a relatively recent common ancestor.


Another important and seldom appreciated characteristic of the evolutionary explanation for the existence of organisms in naturally nested or hierarchical groupings is that it allows us to predict that organisms with certain combinations of features -- such as chimpanzees with wings, flowers with bony skeletons, or humans with hooves instead of feet -- are biologically impossible because of the unbridgeable gaps produced by the major divergent evolutionary events that separate chimps from birds, flowers from vertebrates, and humans from horses. An all-powerful creator, of course, could create almost any combination of such fantastic and fanciful creatures.

[Grumpy]

More than worth an hour of your time...

Darwinius masillae

Grumpy

[GrumpyMrGruff]

However, the authors point out that this is consistent with the current understanding of primate phylogeny. ...

What this demonstrates is that evolution is unfalsifiable. It can take in any evidence and present an ad hoc explanation for it.

Parsimony is key here. You're right that Barbulescu et al. provide post-hoc explanations for the the unexpected ERV pattern. Why? Because it conflicts with the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

As with any historical investigation, we have to apply mechanistic knowledge (in forensics: physics, chemistry, etc.; in phylogeny: biochemistry, genetics, population genetics) to infer past events from necessarily incomplete data. Whenever we perform phylogenetic analysis (tree-building) on species' ERVs (or their other traits), we are asking a question incorporating mechanistic knowledge:

• If a set of organisms are related, we expect them to be arranged so that descendent species inherit the traits (ERVs) of their ancestors.
• Species pass on their sequences in groups (genomes), this means...
• We expect that if we compare different sets homologous sequences (different genes, different ERVs) from the same set of organisms, they should (on the whole) recapitulate the same same tree

To ask questions about relationships, we arrange the species according to the inherited-trait relationship (point one). If species are in fact related, resampling different traits (different ERVs, different genes) and arranging them in their own inherited-trait relationships should yield the same tree (by points two and three).

The study cited by Goat and McCulloch does just this: Arranging ERVs this way, the paper shows twelve examples of ERVs all consistent with a single inferred ancestral relationship in primates. Why not twelve different inferred trees from twelve different ERVs? (If special creation occurred, there is no a priori mechanistic reason to assume any consistent pattern would emerge because points one and two don't hold.) The most parsimonious explanation for this agreement, all else being equal (considering observed retroviral and genetic mechanisms), is that this inferred ancestral tree describes the ancestry of primates.

Is this a guarantee that all ERVs will show the same pattern? No. We know of mechanisms that can affect the inferred ancestry. Some ERVs will be inherited by only a few members of an ancestral population and die out (we never even see these sequences in extant organisms). Some may be partially or totally lost due to deletion. In some species, mutation may rewrite the ERV to the point that it is no longer recognizable as such. Etc.

These events are probabilistic; therefore the data is noisy. Because there is a nonzero probability that noise will lead to incorrect inferences, these historical propositions can only be evaluated in terms of relative confidence. Phylogenetic "signal" refers to independent data that are all consistent with the a hypothetical true ancestral tree. Phylogenetic "noise" refers to genetic events (like the examples above) that obscure signal, leading to inference of many trees from different data. In cases where the signal to noise ratio is low (where different genetic data points to different trees), we cannot make meaningful inferences about ancestry. But in cases where the ratio is high - 12 of 13 ERVs discussed in this thread point toward a single ancestral relationship for primates (as do many more primate sequence comparisons) - we gain confidence in that tree being true.

Stating this more strongly, comparative genomics would falsify the concept of species descent/modification if resampling different traits (different genes, ERVs, etc.) inferred the same tree no more frequently than when using randomized data. In other words, all noise and no signal would be evidence against shared ancestry.

What does this mean for falsifiability of historical evolutionary claims? For certain regions of ancestral trees, we may be unable to collect enough data to resolve many competing trees (low signal to noise). Specific claims made about these unresolved regions remain unfalsifiable until sufficient data (if it still exists) is collected. That said, there is strong phylogenetic signal in primate ancestry. The preponderance of genomic sequence data (including ERVs), mtDNA sequence data, karyotypic evidence, and fossil distribution are consistent with a single ancestral tree.

Finally, in your message to Goat you claim:

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're ignoring the reason why Barbulescu says this. Sequence data is noisy. The great ape phylogeny (gorilla, (chimp, human)) would only be falsified when the preponderance of data suggests another pattern of inheritance (or no single high-confidence pattern of inheritance); otherwise, occasional outliers cannot be separated from noise. It is unlikely at this point (as we are already comparing genomes), but if sufficient new chimp/human/gorilla sequences infer an alternative phylogeny (such that the majority of data favors the new phylogeny), the new tree would replace the old (falsified) one. After all, every scientific claim come with the disclaimer: May be reevaluated, revised, or discarded in light of new data.

You should be careful with your phrasing, though. You ask Goat about "an ERV ... found in humans and not in chimps" - there are many such ERVs. However, they're also absent in gorillas, orangs, and other primates... because we have acquired them after our divergence from chimps (and all other primates).

Incidentally, this seems at odds with your earlier claim that the host-specific functions of some ERVs imply their design. Different human populations have different total numbers of ERVs. While we all have some ERVs in common (including those inherited from our common ancestor), various reproductively isolated human populations have accumulated different ERVs at different positions in their genomes. Just as inter-species ERV distributions make sense in light of evolution, this pattern makes sense in light of virology and population genetics... but not in light of your assertion that ERVs were specifically engineered in the genome. If they're designed to serve a purpose, why do some human populations need different types and numbers of ERVs? Did the Designer continue to tinker after Adam and Eve?

Long-winded. Done now.

[sleepyhead]

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.

Hello mcculloch,

I would say yes. I don't have any evidence for you but I bleieve others have/will be providing it. I thought I'd bring out some Cayce material on the topic.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/cayce03.html

A way to liberate the souls that were entangled in matter was created. A physical form became available as a vehicle for the soul on Earth. A way became available for souls to enter the Earth and experience it as part of their evolutionary/reincarnation cycle. Of the physical forms already existing on Earth, a species of anthropoid ape most nearly approached the necessary pattern. Souls descended on these apes - hovering above and about them rather than inhabiting them - and influenced them to move toward a different goal from the simple one they had been pursuing. They came down out of the trees, built fires, made tools, lived in communities, and began to communicate with each other. Eventually they lost their animal look, shed bodily hair, and took on refinements of manner and habit.

The evolution of the human body occurred partly through the soul's influence on the endocrine glands until the ape-man was a three-dimensional objectification of the soul that hovered above it. Then the soul fully descended into the body and Earth had a new inhabitant: the homo sapien.

[ChaosBorders]

,
I would say yes. I don't have any evidence for you but I bleieve others have/will be providing it. I thought I'd bring out some Cayce material on the topic.

If you don't have evidence on something, perhaps you should find it. If you can't find any, perhaps you should rethink your position or just remain silent on the subject.

[sleepyhead]

,
I would say yes. I don't have any evidence for you but I bleieve others have/will be providing it. I thought I'd bring out some Cayce material on the topic.

If you don't have evidence on something, perhaps you should find it. If you can't find any, perhaps you should rethink your position or just remain silent on the subject.

Hello chaosborders,

I see no reason why I should look for evidence when so many others here have submitted evidence for my point of view.

[nygreenguy]

,
I would say yes. I don't have any evidence for you but I bleieve others have/will be providing it. I thought I'd bring out some Cayce material on the topic.

If you don't have evidence on something, perhaps you should find it. If you can't find any, perhaps you should rethink your position or just remain silent on the subject.

Hello chaosborders,

I see no reason why I should look for evidence when so many others here have submitted evidence for my point of view.

If others have presented the same evidence, and you have nothing new to add, dont post.

Although, I have seen nothing like what you posted in that link here.

[ChaosBorders]

,
I would say yes. I don't have any evidence for you but I bleieve others have/will be providing it. I thought I'd bring out some Cayce material on the topic.

If you don't have evidence on something, perhaps you should find it. If you can't find any, perhaps you should rethink your position or just remain silent on the subject.

Hello chaosborders,

I see no reason why I should look for evidence when so many others here have submitted evidence for my point of view.

If others have presented the same evidence, and you have nothing new to add, dont post.

Although, I have seen nothing like what you posted in that link here.

There's your reason, sleepy. If your position has already been supported by others, posting agreement without adding anything further is pointless. If anything you have added has not been supported, then posting without support is pointless.

[otseng]

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.

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.

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?

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?