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.

[otseng]

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.

Yes, I completely agree with you.

But, the article that goat pointed to has as its very first evidence the Linnaean classification.

1. Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification (Linnaeus)
* primates naturally forming nested hierarchical groupings

So, since we cannot infer any sort of evolutionary relationship from Linnaean classification, it does not serve as evidence for evolution.

[sinebender]

Paleoanthropology

If human evolution is truly a scientific theory, the fossil record shows that it has been falsified. The fact that the evidence is ignored or disguised indicates that the concept of human evolution is a philosophy that is perpetuated in spite of and independent of the facts of the human fossil record.

No tool has been as successful in promoting human evolution as have been the pictures and reconstructions of our ancient ancestors. Since no one has ever seen these ancient ancestors, the abilities of the artists who constructed them have been nothing short of miraculous. It gives the term 'science fiction' a whole new meaning.

David Van Reybrouch has studied the pictures and drawings of fossil humans and their reconstructions, starting with those to the original Feldhofer Neanderthal. Writing in the journal ANTIQUITY, he states that these pictures, drawings, and reconstructions- always go beyond the archaeological data, always involve the speculations and prejudices of the fossil discoverers, who advise the artists --always involve interpretations that are theory laden, always are nonobjective but are trusted as being accurate- and are used so extensively because they sell evolution so effectively.

Evolutionists will stop at nothing in attempting to influence the public toward human evolution and against creation. From a scientific point of view, their drawings and reconstructions are outrageous.

Evolutionists will ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas. To the evolutionist there is but one primary fact in the universe; evolution. Everything else is just data. The value of this data does not depend upon it's intrinsic quality but upon whether or not it supports evolution and it's time scale. Good data is that which support s evolution. Bad data is that which does not fit evolution, and it is to be discarded.

Evolutionists will ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas. To the evolutionist there is but one primary fact in the universe; evolution. Good data is that which supports evolution and it's time scale. bad data is that which does not fit evolution . That one of the oldest human fossils ever found, reveals that man was virtually the same as far back as the evolutionist would like to imagine- that he appeared suddenly without evolutionary ancestors.

In plane ENGLISH- ONE OF THE OLDEST FOSSILS REVEALS MAN UNCHANGED AS FAR BACK AS THE EVOLUTIONIST CAN LOOK BACK IN THEIR IMAGINARY TIME SCALE.One of the oldest hominid fossils ever discovered, KNMKP 271 supports special creation.

In 1997 a German team using 150 year old maps rediscover the caves as representatives for the preservation of archaeological monuments . in these original caves where the Neanderthal received their name , they found 36 humans , some fitting Neanderthal right along side what one would refer to as modern man . The radiocarbons matched and smothered with the riches of culture including art and tools. That Neanderthal man, because of the prejudicial way in which he has been handled, was bigger boned, more brawn, stronger, faster, and his brain in most cases was bigger than some of ours. The evidence points more to an observation in human variation.

78 homo erectus skeletons were found- and some carbon dated 6k years.....and carbon dating is fairy tale....




The popular myth is that the hominid fossil evidence virtually prove human evolution. The reality is that this evidence has been a disappointment to evolutionists and is being de-emphasized. In actuality, the human fossil evidence falsifies the concept of human evolution.

Fossils that are indistinguishable from modern humans can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the evolutionists time table. The evidence suggests that true modern humans were on the scene before the australopithecines appear in the fossil record.

Homo erectus , Neanderthal, Homo sapiens all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. All fossils ascribed to the homo habilis (apes) are contemporary with homo erectus. Thus homo habilis not only did not evolve into Homo erectus, it could not have evolved into homo erectus.

there are no fossils of Australopithecus (southern ape) or of any other primate stock in the propreme period to serve as evolutionary ancestors to humans. As far as we can tell , when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human. It is the abrupt appearance of our ancestors in morphologically human form that makes the human fossil record compatible with the concept of special creation.
Even when we accept the evolutionist's dates of the fossils, the result do not support human evolution. The results, in fact, are so contradictory to human evolution that they effectively falsify the theory.

the human fossil record, like the fossil record in general, has failed to furnish evidence for evolution.

In 1978 human footprints were found at site G, Laetoli, thirty miles south of the Olduvai Gorge in Northern tanzania- in stratum dated to be near the beginning of earth time according to the evolutionists. the footprints were found to be 'remarkably similar to those of modern man' (mary leaky) Three parallel trails are seen, made by three individuals, with one individual partially walking in the foot prints of another. A unique combination of circumstances- ash fall, rain, time to harden, and another ash fall that hardened and protected them- caused these amazing prints to be preserved. virtually everyone agrees that the footprints are strikingly like those made by modern humans


Here is the illustration of outrageous evolutionist artistry portraying a 'parade' of fifteen figures, artists' drawings, used to demonstrate human evolution. The parade starts with erect-walking protoapes, then apes, and then goes all the way up to modern humans. this parade first appeared in the time-life nature library series book EARLY MAN, by F. Clark Howell ( university of California Berkeley) The book was originally published in 1965, with revisions appearing in 1968 and 1973. The parade was on a 36 inch foldout on pages 41-45 in the original edition.
This parade has been one of the most successful tools ever used to promote human evolution. It constituted powerful visual 'proof' for human evolution that even a small child could grasp. It was a masterpiece of Madison Avenue promotion. There were few social studies classrooms and school library bulletin boards where this parade was not prominently displayed. Because of it's graphic power, it is still indelibly etched into the minds of billions of people worldwide. What is ironic, is the book even stated that the parade was fictitious, but not everyone read the book , what they did see was the distribution of the 'parade'.

What about Neanderthal MAN

A COMPLETE SKELETON OF A NEANDERTHAL TYPE INDIVIDUAL WAS FOUND BURIED RITUALISTICALLY IN THE FLOOR OF A SMALL CAVE NEAR THE VILLAGE OF LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS,FRANCE

Marcellin Boule who made the discovery - made detailed descriptions of the bones emphasizing what he felt were simian (apish ) features and down played the human features based on his preconceived ideas of evolution. Although there was evidence that the vertebrae were severely deformed because of arthritis and rickets, Boule ignored the pathological evidence. He claimed that the spine lacked the curves that enable modern humans to walk erect.

This twisted view of the Neanderthals dominated the world for forty four years until William L. Straus (john jopkins medical college) and a.j.e. Cave (St. bartholomew hospital medical college, london) published their paper in 1957 on the reexamination of the Neanderthals. Attending an anatomy conference in Paris in 1955, straus and cave decided to take a look at the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton. They immediately recognized that there were some very serious problems with the reconstruction. Their study revealed that the neanderthals, when healthy, stood erect and walked normally as any man would. It is now admitted that the differences between what we call modern humans and Neanderthals is superficial. the average Neanderthal had a cranial capacity 1620cc...larger than many people living today.

In 1992, a team led by Juan Luis Arsuaga (Complutense University, Madrid) reached undisturbed fossil deposits in the Sima de Los Huesos Cave- the pit of the bones. This cave is just one cave in a complex of caves in the Sierra de Atapuerca limestone hills of northern Spain.
The pit of the bones is no ordinary cave. It is very deep and very narrow and the bottom is not visible from the entrance. No ancient humans ever lived in this cave. Instead, this cave was used as a burial ground or a cemetery by the ancient inhabitants of that area.
When a member of the group died in this area of Sierra Deatapuerca, the body was carried to this hidden niche and deposited there. That is how it got it's name. In the undisturbed deposits, Arsuaga and his associates found 3 preserved fossil skulls., plus the remains of 33 individuals. The remains have so much variation within one contemporaneous population that it demonstrates that the human differences are a fact of humanity. They found one of the smallest adult skulls and one of the largest. The Neanderthals were present, the archaic human homo sapiens were present.
In a Nature article, Chris Stringer gives a list of fifteen cranial differences, states the remains of homo erectus, Neanderthal, and homo sapiens. Among this group he further finds seven similarities with homo erectus, seven similarities with homo sapiens, and ten similarities with the Neanderthals.
The sima de Los Huesos fossil assemblage has powerful and profound implication for creationists. because of the relative isolation of the various areas of the ancient world and the slow means of transportation, this extreme variation within populations such as what is seen at this cave, is exactly what one should expect to find. It is obvious that the extreme variation seen in this collection was not caused by evolution. Since they were all a part of the same population living at approximately the same time, evolution cannot be the explanation. This group of dead people....suggests that the differences between Homo erectus, early Homo sapiens, Neanderthal , and anatomically modern homo sapiens have a non-evolutionary cause.

[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.

Nope, not at all. That is your prejudice talking.

Prejudice? Your source acknowledges that Linnaeus believed in special creation, but that the Linnaean classification is now evidence for evolution - "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."

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.

Noticed correctly. As I asked before, I'm still waiting on the list of the claims of human evolutionary theory, a list of predictions, and a list of ways to falsify it. When this list is produced, I'll produce mine and the evidence to support my claims.

The evidence is there that exactly would lead one to the conclusion that evolution happens.

Well, if you claim that, then I claim that God designed it that way that would exactly lead one to conclude that it was designed.

[KillerOfTheSun]

Sinebender -- "One of the oldest hominid fossils ever discovered, KNMKP 271 supports special creation."

Can you prove to anyone here that KNMKP 271 was created by your designer ( god )?

[otseng]

Again, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

Says who?

Because similar features can either be homologous or analogous. If it's homologous, they would not be directly related. So, similarity doesn't prove lineage.

Homologous is, by definition, derived from a common ancestor.

Like the hands/fins/wings of mammals. They all look an awful lot alike. Why is that?

Their hand bones have all the exact same parts, and the same number of parts, and are arranged in the same way. But only in what we classify as the mammals. Birds are different, but the same among birds.

If we follow the fossils in the reverse direction we even see the gradual changes in these parts.

If all of this doesnt prove lineage can be assumed from similarity, than Im not sure what can.

Sorry, I meant analogous would not be directly related.

My point is that there are two possibilities for similar features. Similar features are not only homologous. But it can also be analogous.

[nygreenguy]

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.

Yes, I completely agree with you.

But, the article that goat pointed to has as its very first evidence the Linnaean classification.

1. Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification (Linnaeus)
* primates naturally forming nested hierarchical groupings

So, since we cannot infer any sort of evolutionary relationship from Linnaean classification, it does not serve as evidence for evolution.

It was linnaeus who was the one who first hypothesized (formally) the classification of men with the great apes.

Now, lets look at the link:

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.

The article doesnt say taxonomy is necessarily the evidence, rather the fact that the similarities which taxonomy was based upon reveals to us patterns which can be explained by evolution. It is a way of answering "Why do this organisms look so much alike".

[nygreenguy]

Sorry, I meant analogous would not be directly related.

My point is that there are two possibilities for similar features. Similar features are not only homologous. But it can also be analogous.

In this image we can see an example of homologous structures, being the hands of mammals. While the bones are different sizes, they all share the same bones in the same orders.



In here, we see analogous structures. We can see on the outside they look the same but they are different bones with totally different orders to them.

So yes, they can be analogous or homologous, but its quite easy to separate the traits.

[nygreenguy]

Prejudice? Your source acknowledges that Linnaeus believed in special creation, but that the Linnaean classification is now evidence for evolution - "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."

Carl never tried to really defend special creation. In fact, when he first grouped primates with man, people got quite upset.

According to German biologist Ernst Haeckel the question of man's origin began with Linnaeus. He helped future research in the natural history of man by describing humans just like he described any other plant or animal.[110] Linnaeus was the first person to place humans in a system of biological classification. He put humans under Homo sapiens among the primates in the first edition of Systema Naturae. During his time at Hartecamp he had the opportunity to examine several monkeys and noted several similarities between them and man.[79] He pointed out that both species basically have the same anatomy; except for the speech he found no other differences.[111] Thus he placed man and monkeys under the same category, Antromorpha, meaning "manlike."[112] This classification received criticism from other botanists such as Johan G. Wallerius and Jacob Theodor Klein who believed that humans could not be placed under the category "manlike." They were also concerned that putting man as the same level as monkeys would lower the spiritually higher position man had. The classification as such also invoked another problem for religious people. The bible says that man is created in the image of god, if monkeys and humans were related that would mean monkeys were created in the image of god as well. This was something many could not accept.[113]

After this criticism Linnaeus felt he needed to explain himself more clearly. In the 10th edition of Systema Naturae introduced new terms including Mammalia and Primate, the latter which would replace Antromorpha.[114] The new classification received less criticism but many natural historians still felt that human had been demoted from its former place to rule over nature, not be a part of it. But Linnaeus believed that man biologically belongs to the animal kingdom and thus should be there.[115] In his book Dieta Naturalis he said "One should not vent one's wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a soul and that the animals are mere aoutomata mechanica, but I believe they would be better advise that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility."[116]

It would seem to me he stuck to the morphological classification and creation had nothing to do with it.

Even then, this is almost 300 year old science. Why would we try to use the views of a 300 year old scientist on creation today?

[otseng]

This characterization only holds with respect to viral behavior. As has been previously pointed out, spawning actively infectious retroviruses isn't good for survival. However, loss of viral activity has no bearing on whether natural selection jury-rigs an ERV for host-beneficial functions after it is in the host genome. Conversely, some ERVs contain viral genes which are not completely inactivated and can promote retrovirus-related diseases such as cancer[1] and MS.[2]

Which leads me to wonder, is there data showing roughly what percentage of mutations result in detrimental, neutral, and beneficial results?

And another question, how do geneticists decide if something is an ERV?

1% versus 8% is a bit of a non sequitur. More sequence information was processed between 2000 (1%) and 2004 (8%), leading to more identified ERV sequences.

It seems peculiar that if an ERV insertion would be a remote event, that 8% of our entire genome would consist of leftover virus injections.

You're also focusing on a false dichotomy here. There is no reason to assume that ERVs must be completely inactive genetic elements OR have host-beneficial functions.

It seems to me there would be three possibilities of viral injections - pathogenic, neutral, functional. If it was pathogenic, it would cause the destruction of the cell, so the only thing left would be the other two.

Also, the prediction that I mentioned before is that we will continue to find functions for ERV and that they will not all just be considered "defective" and "containing nonsense mutations". However, if they are all indeed found to be completely functionless, it would make more sense that it is an inactive remnant from an ancestor.

See the above regarding function. Again, why is it either-or? Why do they all need to be completely functionless?

It doesn't. My point is that if all ERV are found to be defective, then the most reasonable explanation is a common ancestor and not a common designer. If more functions are found, it becomes less reasonable. If a large majority of ERV are to be found with function, then it would be more reasonable to accept that it was designed.

I'll make my own prediction, though it may be a while before I can dig up the relevant papers: ERV sequences shared by all primates, all mammals, etc. (and therefore thought to have been acquired by a distant ancestor) will be more likely (on average) to have host functions than ERVs shared by only great apes or those found only in humans (or recently acquired ERVs in any other genus/species). Why: Mutation and natural selection will have had more time to co-opt old ERVs than those incorporated only recently.

Makes sense, I accept your prediction.

This line of reasoning might hold in genes and regulatory elements controlling morphology (e.g., homeobox genes, bone morphogenetic proteins, hedgehog genes, etc., and their promoters), but it cannot logically be extended from morphological features to all genetic sequences in an organism.

Yes, I agree that it cannot be extended to all genetic sequences.

Bear in mind that regardless of whether an ERV has acquired a host-beneficial function, it will most likely have its own pathogenic genes broken by mutation (a few known examples don't - cancer, MS, causing ERVs).

Another question. Is it possible to compare an ERV and a virus genome and show that an ERV was derived from an actual virus? Can it be determined what actually mutated?

Conversely, convergent evolution of all these inactive ERVs from different initial states is exceedingly unlikely.

I would agree. And this can be ruled out.

[SailingCyclops]

Which leads me to wonder, is there data showing roughly what percentage of mutations result in detrimental, neutral, and beneficial results?

And another question, how do geneticists decide if something is an ERV?

I have been following along this debate very studiously, and am finding this discussion rather fascinating on both an intellectual and scientific level. I must confess that the technical nature of much of this debate has made me wish I studied more biology and less math and physics in college. Being an applied scientist, an engineer, I am used to taking theoretical constructs, and research/laboratory data, and applying it to the real world. Over the years, I have developed a profound respect for those working in the fundamental sciences.

As with all fundamental sciences, and their possible real-world application, one must decide what is and what is not accepted by the majority of the relevant scientific community. In the development of a SAM missile defense system for the f-15 aircraft I was privileged to work with cutting-edge engineers in the defense industry. We took Fundamental scientific works about the ability of crystalline structures under the influence of magnetic fields to create tuned microwave filters, to design a system which could scan SAM lock-on frequencies rapidly, allowing our aircraft to evade Russian SAM missiles.

The point of this post is that we had to filter out the real science from the pseudo-science, and determine who was likely to have real scientific data which was worth the effort to pursue in the real world.

With respect to this thread, it is clear that the preponderance of the evidence for evolution among the scientific community is overwhelmingly positive. When I research Level of support for evolution among the scientific community, I find that there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] .

As much as it is intellectually stimulating to think about your theories of Creationism, Why should I ignore the vast majority of fundamental scientists claiming your ideas are in error? We can't all be experts in biology, but why shouldn't I go along with the vast majority of scientists in the field, and agree with them as opposed to your ideas?

Bob