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]

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.

If I read you correctly, you are the one claiming that there is some sort of qualitative difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution". I see only a quantitative difference - the amount of genetic change that has accumulated. There is no known biological mechanism which stops accumulation of genetic changes at some arbitrarily defined threshold (the species or genus or kind). We know that small changes can accumulate over a short time. We know that speciation can impose reproductive boundaries between two populations formerly of the same parent species. It follows that many small changes would then accumulate independently in each species over longer periods of time, leading to the pattern of genetic similarity we see today.

Which confirms my point. Macroevolution would be an extrapolation of microevolution. It is an inherently unobservable since it requires a long period of time.

Macroevolution observed in the laboratory

Now, we have evidence of macoevolutiion in th elab. We have a prediction for human lineage.. the older the fossil , the more differences there will be from modern man,
we have evidence given for lineage.. ERV's, genetic simularities , the proven chromosome fusion even (that was predicted) when the number of chromosomes were found to be different between chimps and men).. and we have the fossil record.

We have the point that the 'mdna' even and the y-chromsome adam were 100,000 years apart, and have the predictions that every gene and every chromosome will have a different 'common ancestor' based on the patterns of replacement. Models have been shown to explain why this happens.. despite your refusal to acknowledge or address those models.

Now, let's go and hammer the point about 'gene replacement' a little bit more.

The gene MCPH1 regulates the size of the brain development. The gene that 70% of the world population was an “introgression� that appeared in the human population about 37K years ago, but the last common ancestor for that gene for all of man was about 400K years ago!

How does your 'creation model', and your 'flood model' explain that?

And, rather than having your evidence as something you say 'the creation model explains that too', or an attack on evolution, what is your evidence for the creation model. You have been avoiding that question.. and all your comments have been 'the creation model explains that too', and attacks on the evidence for evolution.

Show the evidence for the creation model.

[otseng]

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.

Would you agree that mtEve was not the only female on the planet 200,000 years ago? If there were others, then it would need to be explained how all other female lineages died out. And only the same would need to be explained for yAdam.

That has been explained.. that is just the one that 'replaced' the others. The same thing with the 'y-chromosome' Adam... he is just the male that didn't get 'replaced' by any other male.

Answering that one replaced the others would only be a truism. The question is what can account for it? What can cause all other females lines (and male lines) to become extinct?

Also, the human creation model predicts that all humanity would be traceable to one woman (and one man). I have not seen anywhere that human evolutionary theory would predict this.

For example, the last common ancestor for people with blue eyes was 10,000 years ago!

That is interesting. What source do you have for this?

Except, of course, according to the evidence, the last common ancestor for all the y-chromosome people, and the last common ancestor for the mdna women live 100,000 years apart, and the migration patterns we see via DNA testing do not match the flood model.

The 100,000 year figure is not an exact figure. There is no way that they can give an exact figure of when Eve actually lived. Even more recent figures are given, such as "Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Also, there is evidence that mtDNA mutation rate is faster than assumed.

DNA studies of the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II illustrate troubling questions in forensics and the dating of evolutionary events. The Tsar inherited two different sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mother, a condition known as heteroplasmy that was previously considered rare but which new studies show may occur in at least 10% and probably 20% of all humans. This may mean that mtDNA mutates perhaps as much as 20-fold faster than expected, according to two controversial studies. Since evolutionists had assumed that mtDNA mutations occur at a steady rate, these studies cast doubt over the dating of such events as the peopling of Europe. The new results are already prompting changes in DNA forensics procedures.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/279/5347/28

[otseng]

As you find fossils , there will be small changes between species. These 'small changes' will increase as the age of the fossil increases.. the further distant in time, the more we see 'adaptations', so the fossils will be less and less similar the bigger the distance in time. This is indicitive of small changes adding up to larger changes.

Rather than giving predictions on evolution, I'm asking for predictions on human evolutionary theory. And the reason I ask for a list is so that everything will be out in the open at one time. Otherwise one can just give a post-hoc "prediction" to account for any evidence. And since I've already produced my lists, I also expect the same to be producible by evolutionists.

[Goat]

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.

Would you agree that mtEve was not the only female on the planet 200,000 years ago? If there were others, then it would need to be explained how all other female lineages died out. And only the same would need to be explained for yAdam.

That has been explained.. that is just the one that 'replaced' the others. The same thing with the 'y-chromosome' Adam... he is just the male that didn't get 'replaced' by any other male.

Answering that one replaced the others would only be a truism. The question is what can account for it? What can cause all other females lines (and male lines) to become extinct?

You mean for that specific chromosome.. Random chance, genetic drift, and possibly there was selective forces that gave reproductive advantages to that specific line. Same thing with every other gene and chromosome out there. Repeating a question that has been answered several times won't make the answer go away. Mind you, the other 'lines' did not go extinct... it is just that one set of DNA that eventually replaced other 'lines'.

Many of the 'male' lines that went 'extinct' (bad terminology actually), are still alive and well, because they produced daughters instead of sons.

Many of the 'lines' of the 'mdtna' that are no longer with use still have their genes in the gene pool, because they produced sons, not daughters.

This has been explained to you many times.. and you don't seem to want to acknowledge it. Why is that?

Also, the human creation model predicts that all humanity would be traceable to one woman (and one man). I have seen anywhere that human evolutionary theory would predict this.

Yet, when you look at the mdna and the y-chromosome model, the two individuals lived 100,000 years apart, according to the evidence. .. your creation model does not explain that.

For example, the last common ancestor for people with blue eyes was 10,000 years ago!

That is interesting. What source do you have for this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22934464/wid/11915773

Except, of course, according to the evidence, the last common ancestor for all the y-chromosome people, and the last common ancestor for the mdna women live 100,000 years apart, and the migration patterns we see via DNA testing do not match the flood model.

The 100,000 year figure is not an exact figure. There is no way that they can give an exact figure of when Eve actually lived. Even more recent figures are given, such as "Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Also, there is evidence that mtDNA mutation rate is faster than assumed.

DNA studies of the remains of the last Russian tsar, Nicholas II illustrate troubling questions in forensics and the dating of evolutionary events. The Tsar inherited two different sequences of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from their mother, a condition known as heteroplasmy that was previously considered rare but which new studies show may occur in at least 10% and probably 20% of all humans. This may mean that mtDNA mutates perhaps as much as 20-fold faster than expected, according to two controversial studies. Since evolutionists had assumed that mtDNA mutations occur at a steady rate, these studies cast doubt over the dating of such events as the peopling of Europe. The new results are already prompting changes in DNA fohttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/279/5347/2rensics procedures.

And of course, there are other studies showing that this claim is not as strong as it might be http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 5396/1955a

I will note that you have continued the pattern of 'The creation model explains that too', without being able to explain the discrepancies of the data.. and there is no positive evidence you have for the creation model that isn't better explained by the current evolutionary theory.


It's all saying 'Creation model explains that too', or an attack on the evidence for evolution... You have yet to meet the criteria of your own challenge.

[Grumpy]

otseng

As for "no known biological mechanism which stops accumulation of genetic changes", this can be demonstrated in the breeding of animals. Though we can produce a variety of animal breeds, there is no example that I've seen where any major novel morphological features have been produced. Hair length and color can change. Length of necks, legs, beaks, ears, etc can change. Features from different animals can be combined, but no new major features arises.

"Remains of domesticated cattle dating to 6,500 B.C. have been found in Turkey and other sites in the Near East approach this age also. Some authorities date the domestication of cattle as early as 10,000 years ago, and others almost half that amount of time. Regardless of the time frame it is generally accepted that the domestication of cattle followed sheep, goats, pigs and dogs.

Modern domestic cattle evolved from a single early ancestor, the aurochs. In addition to prehistoric painting that help us identify the appearance of the auroch the species actually survived until relatively modern times. It is believed the last surviving member of the species was killed by a poacher in 1627 on a hunting reserve near Warsaw, Poland. The species may have survived in small number in other parts of the world until a later date but there is no evidence to support this theory. "


"With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day— 10 times more than they would produce in nature."

http://139.78.104.1/breeds/cattle/

Sounds to me like you are wrong, man has indeed made large morphological changes in cattle(and other animals)in the last 10,000 years.

So, there appears to be a limit to microevolutionary changes when we breed animals. And if there is a limit to artificial selection, why should we expect natural selection to be limitless?

There is no limit, given time. Man has been at this evolution business for about 10-15 thousand years and we have already created new species. Imagine having a few hundred MILLION years to act on creatures more complicated than a single cell. You really don't have to imagine anything, we have lots of fossils of the myriad of different lifeforms nature created, including men.

Man is clearly the only creature to control fire. It is one of the first things men were able to do that marked us as different in a qualitative way than all the other creatures. So every creature(whatever you call it)for the last million years or so that controlled fire were men of one species or another. Which were our direct ancestors? One, some or all of them, it does not matter, somewhere from this diverse group of primates modern men arose about 200,000 years ago. Ancestor is never a simple direct line, interbreeding, hybridization and all the other processes we observe today in nature were just as likely then.

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 not extrapolation at all. Man is a primate, there are men who left fossils that were quite different from men today, yet they were men as they used fire. And when they existed modern man did not, he had not developed yet and no fossils of modern man were cotemperaneous. The further back in time we go, the less like modern man these creatures were. Four million years ago the only features that defined man(upright stance and opposable thumb)were on a creature that was otherwise a modified chimp in features. The oldest primate fossils are about 35 million years old and share features like grasping feet and opposed thumbs and big toes, it appears that when it was alive it was one of the only primates in a world of lemurs and thus the likely ancestor to ALL primates(including man). And no, no modern man fossils have been found from that time period.

Grumpy

[SailingCyclops]

This is not entirely true, but I would agree that it is generally true. However, it is entirely possible that in the future we would have the genome mapped for all extant species. And then determine all the genetic changes necessary to go from one species to another.

And indeed this has been done with an intermediate form of elephant: Woolly-Mammoth Genome Sequenced

Bob

[nygreenguy]

Rather than giving predictions on evolution, I'm asking for predictions on human evolutionary theory. And the reason I ask for a list is so that everything will be out in the open at one time. Otherwise one can just give a post-hoc "prediction" to account for any evidence. And since I've already produced my lists, I also expect the same to be producible by evolutionists.

You act like they are divisible. Unlike creationists, we dont put humans in a different category. There is no such thing as human evolutionary theory.

[nygreenguy]

This is not entirely true, but I would agree that it is generally true. However, it is entirely possible that in the future we would have the genome mapped for all extant species. And then determine all the genetic changes necessary to go from one species to another.

It doesnt work like that. Speciation isnt like a switch. Species is simply a term that we apply to groups of interbreeding organisms right now. In reality, species are very plastic (like in ring species) and its an unpredictable amount of changes that cause a species to STOP being one species and become another.

While I fully support mapping the genomes of every living species (even though its impossible, especially for bacteria and fungi) it is something that also would need to be done over time to map the changes. Even then, the amount of "new species" we would see would be minimal.

[McCulloch]

Rather than giving predictions on evolution, I'm asking for predictions on human evolutionary theory. And the reason I ask for a list is so that everything will be out in the open at one time. Otherwise one can just give a post-hoc "prediction" to account for any evidence. And since I've already produced my lists, I also expect the same to be producible by evolutionists.

You act like they are divisible. Unlike creationists, we dont put humans in a different category. There is no such thing as human evolutionary theory.

NYgreenguy, you misunderstand evolution as understood by creationists. Because of the Flood story and the limited capacity of the ark, they are forced to believe that some of the diversity of life on earth is the result of a kind of hyper evolution from the kinds saved on the ark to the current modern day species. This evolution must have happened at a rate currently thought by biologists to be impossible. But on the other hand, because of the Adam and Eve story, they also believe that humans are exempt from evolution. They do not follow the evidence where it leads, but try to fit the evidence to what they already believe.

[Scotracer]

Rather than giving predictions on evolution, I'm asking for predictions on human evolutionary theory. And the reason I ask for a list is so that everything will be out in the open at one time. Otherwise one can just give a post-hoc "prediction" to account for any evidence. And since I've already produced my lists, I also expect the same to be producible by evolutionists.

You act like they are divisible. Unlike creationists, we dont put humans in a different category. There is no such thing as human evolutionary theory.

NYgreenguy, you misunderstand evolution as understood by creationists. Because of the Flood story and the limited capacity of the ark, they are forced to believe that some of the diversity of life on earth is the result of a kind of hyper evolution from the kinds saved on the ark to the current modern day species. This evolution must have happened at a rate currently thought by biologists to be impossible. But on the other hand, because of the Adam and Eve story, they also believe that humans are exempt from evolution. They do not follow the evidence where it leads, but try to fit the evidence to what they already believe.

Therefore, of course, it isn't science. Otseng, you really are being incredulous here firstly not understanding common ancestors (despite it being explained several times) and now species. Perhaps time to throw in the towel on this debate? It's getting a bit embarrassing, and I'm not even participating.