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]

400,000 thousand year old sculpture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3047383.stm

Here is a picture of it:



It is dubious that this is a man made sculpture. The articles also states:

"[Mr Bednarik] has effectively presented all the information necessary to show this is a naturally weathered rock," Professor Ambrose told BBC News Online.

200,000 year old home

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3047383.stm

This link is the same as above.

2.6 million year old tools

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/23/us/ol ... ribed.html

If true, this would also predate the genus Homo dates.

[McCulloch]

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.
- A global flood occurred. Noah and his sons and all their wives were the only humans (total of 8) to survive. They repopulated the Earth near the Middle East.

Predictions:
- All humanity traces lineage to one man and one woman.
- There is no gradual transition from animals (specifically primates) to humans.
- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.
- Origin of man traces to tens of thousands of years ago.
- 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.
- Human culture should appear quickly in history.

Falsified by:
- 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.

All humanity has in common one woman estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago and one man who probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago.
Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below some tens of thousands.

Human origins seem to be from East Africa not the Middle East.

Anatomically modern humans evolved about 200,000 years ago.

I really do not understand the point about male and female genetics. I learned in biology class that each of us is a combination of the genes from both of our parents. Half supplied by our mother and half by our father. Thus, even though I am a man, I am a direct descendant of my mother and my father. My sister, a woman, is a direct descendant of my mother and my father as well. Thus if the flood model was correct, all of humanity would be descended from one man (Noah) and four women (Noah's sons wives and Noah's wife who passed on her genes to Noah's three sons).

[Scotracer]

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.
- A global flood occurred. Noah and his sons and all their wives were the only humans (total of 8) to survive. They repopulated the Earth near the Middle East.

Predictions:
- All humanity traces lineage to one man and one woman.
- There is no gradual transition from animals (specifically primates) to humans.
- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.
- Origin of man traces to tens of thousands of years ago.
- 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.
- Human culture should appear quickly in history.

Falsified by:
- 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.

otseng, I can quickly point out many problems with the above the first may be your classification of it being a 'model'. You have no verifiable, physical evidence to back up your assertions therefore you don't even reach the level of hypothesis with it.

[Goat]

This is particularly true if there is a bottleneck event, such as appears to have happened about 70 to 80K years ago. Then, a lot of 'y-chromosmes' and 'mitochondria dna' gets filtered out.

Right, the only way I see how the discrepancy can be resolved is by a male bottleneck event. Now, the difference is that this is predicted by the human creation model. Whereas human evolutionary theory does not predict this.

Also, what is the bottleneck event you are referring to 70-80K years ago?

Uh, Where does the evolutionary theory not predict this, and how does the 'creationist theory' predict a male bottleneck 150,000 years away from the female bottle neck?


You see, every solitary gene, and every solitary chromosome will have a different 'common ancestor'.. they just so happened to have concentrated on the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA because those are gender specific. But every chromosome, and indeed, every individual gene can be analyzed with the same methodology.

I think you are getting all hung up because the male line and the female line has all these religious connotations to you... when in essence they are must to gender specific DNA that can be looked at.

[nygreenguy]

400,000 thousand year old sculpture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3047383.stm

Here is a picture of it:



It is dubious that this is a man made sculpture. The articles also states:

"[Mr Bednarik] has effectively presented all the information necessary to show this is a naturally weathered rock," Professor Ambrose told BBC News Online.

I like your selective reading of the article.

Writing in the journal Current Anthropology, Robert Bednarik, president of the International Federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO), suggests that the overall shape of the Tan-Tan object was fashioned by natural processes.

But he argues that conspicuous grooves on the surface of the stone, which appear to emphasise its humanlike appearance, are partially man-made. Mr Bednarik claims that some of these grooves were made by repeated battering with a stone tool to connect up natural depressions in the rock.

Tan-Tan figurine/tools, Bednarik
Handaxes were found close to the figurine
"What we've got is a piece of stone that is largely naturally shaped.

"It has some modifications, but they are more than modifications," Mr Bednarik told BBC News Online.

Mr Bednarik tried to replicate the markings on a similar piece of rock by hitting a stone flake with a "hammerstone" in the manner of a punch. He then compared the microscopic structure of the fractures with those of the Tan-Tan object.

This link is the same as above.

oops! I must have forgot to copy the new link!

If true, this would also predate the genus Homo dates.

Exactly my point. Its shows an evolution of art/technology, not a sudden appearance of it.

[otseng]

And this confirms the prediction that there is more genetic diversity in females than males.

Did I miss something? Has it been established that there is more genetic diversity in human females than in males? What does this mean?

It is referring to the time of the flood as I first mentioned in the human creation model.

Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.

I fail to understand how this differentiates the Creationist model from the Evolutionist one.

There are actually two main human evolutionary theories:
- Out of Africa
- Multiregional

Though the Out of Africa theory is the dominant theory now, the multiregional does not posit that humans trace origins specifically from any particular location.

There is about 3600 miles difference.

On the grand scale of things, it would not be much of a difference. Also, it can be entirely possible that the L lineage migrated to Africa from the Middle East.

[McCulloch]

According to the Flood model of history, the most recent common ancestor from whom all living humans are descended patrilineally would have been Noah. However, the most recent common matrilineal ancestor from whom all living humans are descended would have been older. She would have been the most recent common ancestor of the three wives of the sons of Noah and Noah's wife. This person could be Eve or possibly some woman who lived after Eve but before Noah's wife. So, at most about ten generations older than Noah.

The genetic data indicates that Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and that Mitochondrial Eve is generally estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago most likely in East Africa. The difference being over 100,000 years, a bit more than the ten generations predicted by the Flood model.

Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.

There is about 3600 miles difference.

On the grand scale of things, it would not be much of a difference.

The Biblical creationist model predicts that the origin of humanity is somewhere around the rivers Tigris and Euphrates and that the genetic bottleneck happened near Mount Ararat.

Evidence shows an African origin for humanity and that the genetic bottleneck could have happened on the south or east coast of Africa. The difference is smaller than if the creationists had specified Australia or the Americas as the origin, but the biblical writers didn't even know about those places. From the point of view of the writers of the Bible, they had a massive fail. They said East and the evidence says South.

[otseng]

At no point in my replies am I using the word 'function' in a teleological sense.

I understand. And I'm not trying to infer in any way that you subscribe to any teleological cause.

We have observed speciation via natural selection in the past. Your best defense is to demonstrate biological mechanism(s) which would definitively prevent the divergence of primates into humans, chimps, and gorillas.

Yes, I would agree that we have observed speciation. But, it would be quite an extrapolation to show that this demonstrates evolution of (non-human) primates into humans. So, rather than placing the burden on me to disprove this, the burden is on those who claimed that this indeed has happened.

'I can't believe it happened' is often deployed as an argument from incredulity in creationist circles, but I've never seen them present the mechanism(s) for it.

If you mean a mechanism for microevolution, I have no disagreements with it. If you mean an alternative explanation for the origin of man, I've presented the human creation model.

Again, I would agree with this if ERVs are actually functionless. But, would you also agree that if a significant portion of ERVs are found to have function, then the better explanation is purposeful design?

I assume that you are using function in a teleological sense.

No. I use "function" to mean that it performs a specific beneficial task. The function of the heart is to pump blood. The function of the eye is to see. And I'm not stating that just because something has a function that it was designed by a designer.

So to answer your question: No, if a significant portion of ERVs are found to have host-beneficial behavior, I would still have no way of inferring that they were purposefully designed.

I take this as all evidence for ERVs, no matter if they are found to have function or not, would always be evidence for evolution.

Until an observable species designer (kinds designer?) is produced, the design scenario remains less parsimonious than evolution because it relies on mechanisms we haven't observed.

If we are to only go by what has been observed, then we can also rule out macroevolution. Macroevolution would only be an extrapolation of microevolution, not something that we can observe.

However, there are other retrotransposons that behave similarly (copy/paste) but are structurally very different.

I realize that the diagrams you presented are highly simplified, but at the risk of getting too technical here, how can one distinguish between an ERV retrotransposon and a non-ERV retrotransposon?

Deletions can remove LTRs (see the last example in the figure).

It would appear that deleted sequences would be common in the genome as evidenced by left-over ERVs. Would deletions be an entirely random event? What would cause it?

Don't fall into the same conceptual trap that many creationists do. I too suspect that most mutations are either harmful or neutral. But natural selection (a repeatably observed and uncontested mechanism in biology) acts as a filter. Hence we expect organisms to accumulate the relatively rare beneficial mutations over generations, while harmful mutations remain at relatively low levels in populations.

I think I've already fallen into that trap.

However, it would not account for neutral mutations. And also, I'm not convinced that harmful mutations are filtered out in humans.

Again, how can their host-beneficial behavior allow inference of design? (Not at all a rhetorical question!)

The reasons I would say that if a significant portion of ERVs are found to have beneficial functions would be an indicator of intentional design are two-fold. One is that neutral mutations would not be affected by natural selection, so there would be no mechanism to select them out. Another is that I do not see any evidence that harmful genetic mutations in humans are actually filtered out by any natural selection process. Take for example sickle cell disease. There is no indication that it will eventually disappear by natural selection or any other genetically inherited diseases.

[nygreenguy]

If we are to only go by what has been observed, then we can also rule out macroevolution. Macroevolution would only be an extrapolation of microevolution, not something that we can observe.

Fossils are observation. Observation isnt just limited to guys in labs wearing white coats.

The reasons I would say that if a significant portion of ERVs are found to have beneficial functions would be an indicator of intentional design are two-fold. One is that neutral mutations would not be affected by natural selection, so there would be no mechanism to select them out. Another is that I do not see any evidence that harmful genetic mutations in humans are actually filtered out by any natural selection process.

We see it all the time in the lab and in the field. Have you seriously not seen it, or dont you agree with it? I could give you tons if you want.

Take for example sickle cell disease. There is no indication that it will eventually disappear by natural selection or any other genetically inherited diseases.

This is a bad example for a few reasons. One, we have modern medicine. Our medical techniques help save those who naturally would have died.

Then there is the fact it does offer some beneficial effect in malaria resistance. This also explains who the disease is more prevalent in people of african descent, than those of european or asian. Remember, in order to get rid of a harmful mutation, it must have an effect on fitness (ability to increase the proportion of your genes in the population). This is why diseases like huntingtons stick around. They really dont get bad until after breeding age.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Yes, I would agree that we have observed speciation. But, it would be quite an extrapolation to show that this demonstrates evolution of (non-human) primates into humans.

It is no extrapolation at all to observe the forms of man back through time. The further back in time, the more primitive the traits. It takes an active intent to deny reality not to accept the fact that modern man did not exist prior to 200,000 years ago, yet other forms of man DID exist prior to that. It really does not matter which forms led directly to man, that man descended from creatures we would not call men is undeniable(rationally)by anyone.

If you mean a mechanism for microevolution, I have no disagreements with it. If you mean an alternative explanation for the origin of man, I've presented the human creation model.

I thought that was a joke! You certainly haven't supported it with evidence. And it certainly is not based on any science. You get your "model" out of a book of fiction, myth and superstitious beliefs, it has absolutely no scientific value, nor does it explain anything. It is an adult fairy tale, not reality, not science.

And only creationists separate evolution into micro and macro. There is no difference, there is only evolution.

I take this as all evidence for ERVs, no matter if they are found to have function or not, would always be evidence for evolution.

Yep. They are markers in the genome indicating common descent(regardless of having any function). They, on their own, show common descent of all apes alive today to such certainty that it is perverse to deny it. Humans and chimps are as alike as a movie with two alternative endings for the last two minutes, identical EXCEPT for the endings.


per·verse   /pərˈvɜrs/ Show Spelled[per-vurs]
–adjective
1. willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.
2. characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.
3. wayward or cantankerous.
4. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5. turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.

If we are to only go by what has been observed, then we can also rule out macroevolution. Macroevolution would only be an extrapolation of microevolution, not something that we can observe.

This statement is a falsehood, speciation has been directly observed in not only the lab but in nature...

"•Ring species provide strong evidence for evolution causing the appearance of new species, demonstrating that many small changes can eventually accumulate into large differences between distinct species. Some critics of evolutionary theory think that evolution can only cause limited change within a species and cannot lead to the evolution of new species. Ring species show that they are wrong; variation between species is qualitatively similar, though different in degree, to variation within a species. "

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

To say we have not observed speciation is factually incorrect(as you have been shown before). You can not claim ignorance, so there must be other reasons for promoting falsehoods like this. I will not speculate about what those reasons are motivated by, but that motivation cannot be a search for the truth about whether man descended from other primate forms.

I'm sorry, the facts do not support the story out of an ancient text you call a model.

However, it would not account for neutral mutations. And also, I'm not convinced that harmful mutations are filtered out in humans.

Neutral mutations(eye color or nose length or ear lobes)end up scattered haphazardly throughout the population. Advantageous mutations drive evolution. Harmful mutations, in natural circumstances, are eliminated by death or failure to reproduce.

Another is that I do not see any evidence that harmful genetic mutations in humans are actually filtered out by any natural selection process. Take for example sickle cell disease. There is no indication that it will eventually disappear by natural selection or any other genetically inherited diseases.

Once intelligence takes over from nature then harmful mutations may not be so effective in killing. Our compassion leads us to work to keep those with such defects alive long after they would have perished in nature. Diabetes(type 1)is a good example. By keeping diabetics alive through childhood and allowing them the ability to reproduce we perpetuate the genes that cause the disease.

Sometimes such harmful mutations are chosen for by man for his own purposes. An example would be modern milk cows, whose outsized mammary apparatus is so untenable in nature that they die of sepsis within a couple of weeks if not milked daily(some, twice daily).

Sickle Cell has not been eliminated mainly because it offers some immunity to Malaria. It delays the worst ravages of the disease until after reproductive maturity.

Grumpy