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.

[Wyvern]

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?

You say it's a proven fact, fine let's see your proof then. I would really like to see evidence the ancient Egyptians used electric saws. What possible correlation do the pyramids have with evolution?

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.

I'm sure you can show some evidence they actually exist.

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.

That's easy inappropriate test on a sample that was known to be way outside of the dating range of the test used.

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?

Whoever said DNA is a closed system?

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.

How old do you think the world is? I see you putting up a lot of objections but not coming up with any answers yourself.

[Jester]

Moderator Caution

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.

Please be careful to avoid comments like this in the future. They can be seen as inflammatory, and don't otherwise add to the discussion.

On a personal note, may I also suggest some paragraph breaks? That would make this much easier to read.

[sinebender]

the great pyramid of Geza is the thorn in your evolutionary side. first of all , it wasn't created by the egyptians. it demonstrates a technology that is superior to ours. it wasn't created to be a tomb. it was created to be multiple reference marks depicting earth. if you do a computer analysis of the earths surface you will find that the mean height above sea level is 454 feet. which is the height of the great pyramid at geza. whoever created this monument knew facts about earth that weren't discover until centuries later. the sides of the monument are concave elipses. the very curvature of the earth. the stones were cut to within 100th of an inch and are fitted at 1/50th of an inch. the monument is placed at true north better than the paris observatory. all of this at roughly 3000 BC? it also depicts the distance around the earth, the distance to the sun. it also gives the average depth of the ocean. The golden triangle is found throughout this monument. the numbers go on and on, creating a mystery that teaches us that there was knowledge and technology that was superior to ours. the astronomical numbers i haven't even touched on except for the distance to the sun, those were discovered by napoleons engineers. the question is who built it.....Isaiah 19:19,20...In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border. And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt........if you take the numeric equivalent of the hebrew letters that form that passage and add them up.....you have the height of the Great Pyramid of Egypt.....Coincidence? You want evidence to the technology?.....see the book- 'the puzzle of ancient man"......you will see pictures of the evidence of electric lathes, and drills that could only have been done with high tech equipment powered by electricity.
you will find dishes made from granite, with the lathes marks in the dish. you will find pure granite that has been shaved, like rounded concrete, yet it is granite. We don't know how they did that. They created vases out of granite with hollow handles, how did they do that? The point is, there were civilizations on the planet that had superior technology than ours. Don't take my word for it, do your own homework. You won't believe me, you have way too much pride for that. You must find out for yourself. Manatho, a primary historian attributes the Great Pyramid of Geza to a group outside of egypt referred to as the Hyxssos....translated roughtly to english as 'the shepherd kings'. the took over egypt without a battle, closed all the polytheistic temples and instituted monotheism. I'll stop here. You will believe only what you want to believe, for that reason, you must do your own homework. go ahead blow off all this information, i expect you to. If you don't see the design inherent through out mankind and the earth, to the Great Pyramid of Geza- why would you believe anything i have to say. If you took the time and studied the Bible......studied it, you would be a changed man. You would give up your theories and accept the truth. There is a Stone, one piece. in a wall in the peruvian mountains. it weights 100 tons. it was quarried at a distance and carried over a swamp, then placed inside a wall. Our best crane today can only move 30 tons. Like i said, pure silver artifacts are being found at the bottom of the pennsylvania coal fields.......how is that possible. please explain that away for me. potassium argon testing is a theoretical approach to dating. Yet when it doesn't work, you propose another theory why the theory didn't work. it's an endless loop. but its your making , not mine.

next question you asked......what is my explanation of the age of the earth. I don't deal in theories . I don't know. But it's definitely a lot younger than you think. You need the earth to be a ridiculously old place to support your theories. you need near infinite time, that is why you believe what you believe. That is your Religion

[GrumpyMrGruff]

the great pyramid of Geza is the thorn in your evolutionary side. first of all , it wasn't created by the egyptians. it demonstrates a technology that is superior to ours. it wasn't created to be a tomb. it was created to be multiple reference marks depicting earth. if you do a computer analysis of the earths surface you will find that the mean height above sea level is 454 feet. which is the height of the great pyramid at geza.

A quick Google pulls up the average elevation of the continents at 840m (2750 ft) above sea level.[1] Even if your 454 ft Giza height happened to represent the average height above sea level (it doesn't), Earth was still recovering from a glacial period 5000 years ago. That would throw your average height off by about +30 ft.[2]

if you take the numeric equivalent of the hebrew letters that form...

Numerological data-dredging allows people to find whatever patterns they want.[3]

go ahead blow off all this information, i expect you to.

As Wyvern already asked, care to provide references for your claims? We're more apt to consider them if you do.

You also say

I don't deal in theories .

Would you mind giving us your working definition of theory?

[Wyvern]

the great pyramid of Geza is the thorn in your evolutionary side.

You still haven't answered what correlation there is between the pyramids and evolution.

first of all , it wasn't created by the egyptians.

So you say, have any proof to back up your claim?

the numbers go on and on, creating a mystery that teaches us that there was knowledge and technology that was superior to ours.

Whose knowledge and technology? You say the pyramids were not built by the Egyptians even though we have records from that period that state otherwise. If this mysterious civilization had such superior technology and knowledge to ours why is there no records from this supposed civilization or even any artifacts other than what you claim even though it goes against what is known. Certainly a civilization with such great technology and knowledge as you claim must have left something behind to indicate it existed, would not other civilizations have made records of their dealings with such a power? Please show us something other than your claims that what you say is true.

You want evidence to the technology?.....see the book- 'the puzzle of ancient man"......you will see pictures of the evidence of electric lathes, and drills that could only have been done with high tech equipment powered by electricity.
The point is, there were civilizations on the planet that had superior technology than ours. Don't take my word for it, do your own homework. You won't believe me, you have way too much pride for that.

I am not taking your word for it which is why I am asking for evidence to back up your claims, instead you restate your claims and refuse to provide any evidence. You have made the claims so it is your duty to provide the evidence not mine.

Manatho, a primary historian attributes the Great Pyramid of Geza to a group outside of egypt referred to as the Hyxssos....translated roughtly to english as 'the shepherd kings'. the took over egypt without a battle, closed all the polytheistic temples and instituted monotheism. I'll stop here. You will believe only what you want to believe, for that reason, you must do your own homework. go ahead blow off all this information, i expect you to.

I am actually familiar with the Hyksos, along with misspelling the name everything else you mention about them is incorrect including what the name means. The big one of course is that they only took over the nile delta and they were much too late to have built the pyramids.

There is a Stone, one piece. in a wall in the peruvian mountains. it weights 100 tons. it was quarried at a distance and carried over a swamp, then placed inside a wall. Our best crane today can only move 30 tons.

I don't think you are aware of what modern cranes can do. Plus of course who says you need a crane to move a heavy object.

Like i said, pure silver artifacts are being found at the bottom of the pennsylvania coal fields

I'm sure you are busily coming up with that evidence that shows this claim is true.

potassium argon testing is a theoretical approach to dating. Yet when it doesn't work, you propose another theory why the theory didn't work.

Any dating method when used incorrectly will give you an incorrect answer.

next question you asked......what is my explanation of the age of the earth. I don't deal in theories . I don't know. But it's definitely a lot younger than you think. You need the earth to be a ridiculously old place to support your theories. you need near infinite time, that is why you believe what you believe.

Lets see you claim there were ancient civilizations before Egypt that had knowledge and technology greater than ours but also claim the Earth is much younger than what is commonly believed. If the former is true then the latter can not be true. When asked how old you think the Earth is you refuse to answer but continue to complain about the sciences which continually tries to answer said questions with ever increasing accuracy. Science provides answers to these questions and provides mounds of evidence to demonstrate that they speak the truth, you on the other hand merely state otherwise and refuse to put up any evidence to support your claims.

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Again, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

But similarity of DNA sequences strongly suggests lineage.Why? Because...

• Ancestors pass their genes to descendants
• Mutations in ancestral genes are often (but not always) retained by descendants
• Over time, this leads to the most closely-related descendants having highest similarity
• It also predicts (an observed) nested hierarchical pattern of previous mutations among related descendants

If my last post on ERVs was inducing 'tl;dr' yawns, consider the following analogy:

If I make a model to predict a physical process, I incorporate mechanistic knowledge about the process. However, the model doesn't account for noise. Consider the following from an electrode model I'm working on (data in blue, model in red).

Many data points lie off the line predicted by the model. Is this experimental noise or does it absolutely disagree with predictions? Could I invoke post hoc explanations for the noise? Most importantly, is the model false?

I'd argue that this situation is analogous to ERV phylogeny. As with noisy circuits, we know in advance that the data will not always support the model because we know there are mechanisms in play that introduce noise. However, so long as the data supports the model on the whole (whether it's electric current data or ERVs), we don't reject the model or consider it falsified.

[Goat]

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.

The difference between life and the pyramid of Egypt is that life is composed of self replicating molecules that get imperfectly replicated, while the pyramid of egypt is not.

The reason you find artifacts in 'the bottom of penn coal fields is that the mining process of the coal produces coal dust, which buries the objects, and then solidifies. It anybody who actually KNOWS something about coal formation attempts to look at it, they will find that rather than raw coal, these alledged artifacts are embedded in solidified coal dust that is fairly recent..

As for mount st hellens, you can't use a yard stick to try to measure a micron. This
article here shows how Austin knew he was using an invalid sample, yet dishonestly did it anyway

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt ... ite_kh.htm

[otseng]

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

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.

Here is further evidence that the Linnaean taxonomy has been hijacked to imply lineage.

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.

Chimps with wings? Flowers with bony skeletons? Humans with hooves? How about a man with straw?

An all-powerful creator, of course, could create almost any combination of such fantastic and fanciful creatures.

Since God did not create flowers with bony skeletons, therefore God did not create flowers?

[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

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.

Here is further evidence that the Linnaean taxonomy has been hijacked to imply lineage.

Nope, not at all. That is your prejudice talking. That is showing that the grouping is evidence for evolution. The classification is a group of data, and evolution can explain that data in purely naturalistic terms, without out invoking an unprovable and unsupportable assumptions.

What puts the nail in the coffin about it being 'special creation' is the fact that when the DNA is compared, the degree of relationship of DNA to the taxonomy match.

I noticed you are still in the process of 'Let's attack evolution and it's evidence', and have yet to provide any evidence of your own.

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.

Chimps with wings? Flowers with bony skeletons? Humans with hooves? How about a man with straw?

Hardly a straw man, since that is one of the arguments I have seen creationists actually USE.

An all-powerful creator, of course, could create almost any combination of such fantastic and fanciful creatures.

Since God did not create flowers with bony skeletons, therefore God did not create flowers?

It is phrased wrong. Either this hypothetical creator does not exist, or uses evolution as it's method, or is deceitful, since the evidence shown is exactly what you would expect if evolutionary processes exist. The evidence is there that exactly would lead one to the conclusion that evolution happens.

[nygreenguy]

Here is further evidence that the Linnaean taxonomy has been hijacked to imply lineage.

As I have corrected you on before, you need to get your science straight.

Systematic biology (hereafter called simply systematics) is the field that (a) provides scientific names for organisms, (b) describes them, (c) preserves collections of them, (d) provides classifications for the organisms, keys for their identification, and data on their distributions, (e) investigates their evolutionary histories, and (f) considers their environmental adaptations. This is a field with a long history that in recent years has experienced a notable renaissance, principally with respect to theoretical content. Part of the theoretical material has to do with evolutionary areas (topics e and f above), the rest relates especially to the problem of classification. Taxonomy is that part of systematics concerned with topics (a) to (d) above.

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

We cant use taxonomy to infer any sort of evolutionary relationship.

Linnaeus only came up with a clever way to name and organize things based upon characteristics. Now, linnaeus had no clue about chemical physiology or genetics, yet you still somehow clasp to his outdated method of classification. Are you saying we shoudnt rank organism based upon secondary metabolites, or what classes of alkaloids they produce because carl didnt do this? You logic and science are critically flawed here.