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]

You propose an untestable causal agent. That right there kicks it out of science.

Evolution has abiogenesis as its starting point, which is untestable. Or if you believe in panspermia instead, that is also untestable.

Predictions:
- All humanity traces lineage to one man and one woman.

How does this seperate itself from evolution?

You tell me. Does human evolutionary theory posit that humans arose from one couple?

- There is no gradual transition from animals (specifically primates) to humans.

We dont see this

We don't even see a gradual transition from hominids as I pointed out earlier.

- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.

How does this differ from evolution?

It is only recent that has science has come around to this position. The human creation model predicted this well before science confirmed it. Further, human evolutionary theory could not have predicted this.

- Origin of man traces to tens of thousands of years ago.

Evidence proves otherwise

As Grumpy states - "Maybe you are talking about the end of the last Ice Age between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, that's when Homo Sapiens Sapiens appears."

- Greater genetic diversity of females than males during the Flood. Males were direct descendants of Noah. Their wives were not direct descendants of Noah's wife.

This violates almost every ecological principal known to man.

Go ahead and present "almost every ecological principal known to man" that it violates.

- Human culture should appear quickly in history.

This doesnt prove anything. The development of writing can lead to this.

It's not limited to writing, but in many other areas of human activity - art, agriculture, religion, tools, cooking, language.

- A gradual transition is found from animals to humans in the fossil record.
- Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.

done and done.

Present your evidence.

[otseng]

Your point?? Similar is not the same. The TOE says that things happen in small steps. Having it 'similar' but either bigger or smaller is exactly what would be expected. 100% expected.

Grumpy said "Predictions=brain size smaller, height shorter, weight less". You stated that Homo heidelbergensis is a human ancestor. I presented evidence that Homo heidelbergensis has an average brain size that is larger and an average height that is taller than humans. Now you say "either bigger or smaller is exactly what would be expected". This is yet again an example of an ad hoc explanation and the unfalsifiability of human evolution.

[SailingCyclops]

This is yet again an example of an ad hoc explanation and the unfalsifiability of human evolution.

I think the only way to falsify evolution is to show proof of another specific cause. I see much debate here related to the validity of the evidence presented for evolution, but I see no direct evidence being presented for the creation model. Perhaps I am missing something.

If the basis of the creation model is the bible, is it not fair to question it's overall accuracy and provenance? At least to the extent TOE is being questioned here?

Bob

[nygreenguy]

Evolution has abiogenesis as its starting point, which is untestable. Or if you believe in panspermia instead, that is also untestable.

All we need to show is it was possible, and that has been done several times over.

You tell me. Does human evolutionary theory posit that humans arose from one couple?

No. Evolution works on populations.

It is only recent that has science has come around to this position. The human creation model predicted this well before science confirmed it. Further, human evolutionary theory could not have predicted this.

No, it cant predict the location, just that there should be a single location with radiation outwards.

The creation model doesnt say anything about location. The bible does. And the bible centralizes aroung N. Africa and the middle east when most science believes (IIRC) it started much further south.

As Grumpy states - "Maybe you are talking about the end of the last Ice Age between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, that's when Homo Sapiens Sapiens appears."

Homo sapiens appeared over 200,000 years ago.

Go ahead and present "almost every ecological principal known to man" that it violates.

Why? Its been repeatedly shown how the flood was absolutely impossible in many different ways. If you didnt believe it then, why should I try again?

It's not limited to writing, but in many other areas of human activity - art, agriculture, religion, tools, cooking, language.

All of this occurs in a predictable pattern. We dont go from nothing to everything. We literally see an evolution of these things. If we were created, we should expect to see a change, but not necessarily an evolution. We should start off at some higher, enlightened point.

Present your evidence.

Its been done ad nauseum here. You can only fault yourself for not looking objectively.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Grumpy said "Predictions=brain size smaller, height shorter, weight less". You stated that Homo heidelbergensis is a human ancestor. I presented evidence that Homo heidelbergensis has an average brain size that is larger and an average height that is taller than humans.

Grumpy was thinking more about human ancestors deeper in time than a few hundred thousand years and Grumpy was wrong in the case of Homo heidelbergensis, Grumpy doesn't know everything(and Grumpy knows that).

Er...

Grumpy

[otseng]

Since this is biblically based, can I safely assume that this model mandates that all life including vegetation was created as is, at about the same time? Within the same 6 days?

Vegetation or the creation of any other life would not be relevant to our discussions here. Just focusing in on the origin of man is enough for us to discuss. (Also considering I'm arguing against multiple people by myself.)

[Cathar1950]

Your point?? Similar is not the same. The TOE says that things happen in small steps. Having it 'similar' but either bigger or smaller is exactly what would be expected. 100% expected.

Grumpy said "Predictions=brain size smaller, height shorter, weight less". You stated that Homo heidelbergensis is a human ancestor. I presented evidence that Homo heidelbergensis has an average brain size that is larger and an average height that is taller than humans. Now you say "either bigger or smaller is exactly what would be expected". This is yet again an example of an ad hoc explanation and the unfalsifiability of human evolution.

The mistake I think you are making is that the goal of evolution is to create larger brains.
I was just reading an article in Discovery that shows that the brain size was related to what we eat and how we live. Domestic animals tend to have smaller brains then wild animals.
When food is scarce evolution tends to downsize.
The brain size has been increasing over the last 200 years.
Also the larger brain goes with larger bodies and aggression as we compete for food as there are many factors that contribute to our evolution.

[otseng]

... What it should be based on is the evidence presented. And if human evolution is indeed a fact, it should be quite simply to prove, without simply relying on the vast majority of scientists in the field agreeing with it.

Given the very technical biological discussions upthread, I don't think this is a fair statement. It is obviously not "simple", otherwise several scientific disciplines would not be involved in the discovery process.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that biology or anthropology or archaeology (or any scientific field for that matter) are simple. What I am saying is that if something is considered to be a fact and there is an abundance of evidence to confirm that it is a fact, then presenting the evidence to establish it as a fact should not be difficult. And there would be no need to appeal to authorities to show that it is true.

[SailingCyclops]

Vegetation or the creation of any other life would not be relevant to our discussions here.

Well, except for the fact that you used other life forms, specifically animals, and a specific time frame as an integral part of your definition of the Creation Model:

Human Creation Model:
- God created the first man and woman (tens of thousands of years ago).
- God created the first humans distinct from the animals.
- All humans arose from the first couple.

This definition would indicate that for instance, troglodytes and dinosaurs were contemporary with humans

Just focusing in on the origin of man is enough for us to discuss. (Also considering I'm arguing against multiple people by myself.)

OK, fair enough. I was just trying to point out that the Creation model, which you propose as an alternative to TOE, falls apart when looked at from both the time frame required, and the fossil evidence showing vast periods of time between the existence of various life forms and man.

Bob

[Goat]

... What it should be based on is the evidence presented. And if human evolution is indeed a fact, it should be quite simply to prove, without simply relying on the vast majority of scientists in the field agreeing with it.

Given the very technical biological discussions upthread, I don't think this is a fair statement. It is obviously not "simple", otherwise several scientific disciplines would not be involved in the discovery process.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that biology or anthropology or archaeology (or any scientific field for that matter) are simple. What I am saying is that if something is considered to be a fact and there is an abundance of evidence to confirm that it is a fact, then presenting the evidence to establish it as a fact should not be difficult. And there would be no need to appeal to authorities to show that it is true.

And, there is no need to appeal to authorities, except to point out what the actual FACTS are,. When someone claims the facts are thus and thus, and all the people who actually study the situation show the facts are otherwise, then who do we believe? Do we believe the facts from someone with no training, and not enough access to the evidence, or do we accept the facts as presented by the experts?