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]

One interesting thing is that dispersion of humans from mtDNA data and Y chromosome data is similar. Yet, mtEve and yAdam span a difference of up to 100,000 years apart. From what I can tell, evolutionary theory does not predict that the migration patterns would be similar. Yet, this would logically follow from the Human Creation Model.

Here are maps from mtDNA data:


http://www.oldthingsforgotten.com/dna/mtdna.htm


http://palscience.com/science/biology/h ... the-mtdna/


http://racialreality.110mb.com/genetics.html


Here are maps from Y chromosome data:


http://www.familytreedna.com/snps-r-us.aspx


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4260334.stm



http://racialreality.110mb.com/genetics.html

[SailingCyclops]

I want to confirm this with everyone else that is participating in this thread. Do you all agree with nygreenguy's statement? Does no human evolutionary theory exist? Is the only thing that the human creation model can be compared with is the TOE?

I would have to say that the "human creation model" can only be compared to the "life creation process", the TOE. I see nothing special in the evolution of man as compared to the evolution of zebras. All life is the result of the same process.

I don't see any alternative for creationists either. The bible says all life was created by god; it does not differentiate in process, or in time, between the creation of vegetation, animals, and man. All was created at the same time (within days of each other) by the same process, the word of god.

Your "human creation model" must fit within the biblical "creation model" the same way that human evolution must fit within overall evolution. Everything is connected, nothing stands apart from everything else.

Bob

[Goat]

For a good description of how drift affects mtDNA and the y-chromosome, I recommend reading this blog post.[1]

I read through the blog post. But still fail to see how it explains things. Could you cite the parts where you feel answers the issue?

This kind of gene genealogy is the focus of coalescent theory within population genetics.

I read through this also. But I do not see where it addresses the extinction of all the other original lines.

However, if mtEve was located in the Mideast rather than Africa, we would expect to see a pattern similar to this:

Figure 2: A human mtDNA phylogeny consistent with Mideastern mtEve

Yes, I understand what you are saying. And if it was one female after the flood, your proposal would make sense.

However, it's complicated by the fact that is was not one female that repopulated the world after the flood, but four. And all those four would've shared a common mother in their ancestry. So, it would not have necessarily bifurcated after the flood.

You seem unduly skeptical about the ability of phylogeny to reconstruct species' lineages.

My source of skepticism is that I have not seen any objective test to determine if a feature is analogous or homologous.

How about phylogeny's ability to track lineages of non-interbreeding populations within a species?

Again, I have no problem with microevolution.

We been through this before.

Let's take for example, your family,and let's make up some assumptions about it.

Suppose your mother had no daughters, and 4 sons.

How many of her prodigy has her genes in it? 4!!!

How many of her prodigy has her Mt-dna?? NONE! Yet she passed on her genes to all her offspring.


Let's take her father..

Let's say your mother had no brothers, and 4 sisters??

How many direct offspring had your maternal grandfathers genes in it? ... 5.

How many direct offspring had your maternal grandfather's y chromosome in it.. ZERO!


Now, if you use that same kind of logic, and go back generations, you will see some 'male' lines not passing their y-chromosome down to male children, and some women not passing on their Mt-dna because they had no female children (that reproduced at least).

Through random chance, this means some 'Y-chromosome' lineages will disappear.
Through random chance, this means some 'Mt-dna' lineages will disappear.

You don't need to start with a 'single' mother'. There is no evidence there was a 'single mother' when it comes to modern homo sapiens. There is evidence that the last common ancestor is 200,000 years ago.. by a number of different models. This study was done last year, using the latest information about mutation rates and the best model with that information.

The last y-chromosome adam was 100,000 years ago.. a gap of 100,000 years between the so called 'eve', and the so called 'ADAM'... ..

Another point you are refusing to acknowledge is the fact each chromosome and each gene has it's own last 'common ancestor. One gene(microcephalin) has
has a variation called 'haplogroup D' that appears to be an introspection from an archaic human species appears in 70% of the human population. It's last common ancestor was approximately 1 MILLION years ago. .. which is a much longer period of time between the 'y-chromosome adam' and and the 'mt-dna' eve. Your 'creation' theory does not cover that.

[Zeeby]

I think this is the misunderstanding - actually a later person would probably be able to trace to many of the original females (for instance, you have two grandmothers). As time progresses, the number of females each person can trace to becomes larger, and so the number of people who can't trace back to any individual female (say F1) becomes smaller, and eventually 0. At this time everyone can trace back to F1, but the other lines have not died out.

The misunderstanding is not mine.

Yes, we have two grandmothers, but we only have one (genetic) mother. And my mother only had one mother. And her mother only had one mother. And so on until you get to time 0. There would be only one maternal line from me to a female at time 0.

Apologies, you are correct.

I will attempt to model a population and see what happens.

[SailingCyclops]

Let's look at the art from your source.

[...]

Here is another image:



It claims "Venus of Berekhat Ram dating from 230,000 - 700,000 BCE."

Frankly, it looks like a plain ole rock to me.

Frankly, it looks like an old rock to my untrained eyes as well. However, it is not.
Venus of Berekhat Ram

The early Stone Age figurine of Berekhat Ram (Birkat Ram), discovered in hills north of Israel, is believed to be one of the oldest pieces of prehistoric sculpture known to archeology. Although initially highly controversial - as paleontologists preferred to see it more as a product of natural erosion rather than a deliberate human act of creativity - its status now seems more secure following the discovery of a second similar and contemporaneous figurine - the Venus of Tan-Tan, in Morocco.

Furthermore, microscopic analysis by Alexander Marshack appears to confirm that humans were responsible for the figurine.
[...]
Specifically, it exhibits three or more groove-like incisions, made by a sharp-edged stone, which give it the appearance of a human body. One incision is a deep groove that encircles the narrower end of the pebble (indicating the head), while two shallower, grooves cut into the sides (marking the arms). Recent microscopic research confirms that these incision are not the work of nature but the result of artificial intervention, indicating that the stone is definitely a "work of art". Its sister figurine, the Venus of Tan-Tan is morphologically so similar that it could have been sculpted by the same artist.
[...]
The Venus of Berekhat Ram was created during the Acheulean culture of the Lower Paleolithic period of the old Stone Age, and has been dated to 230,000-700,000 BCE. The reason for the vagueness of its provenance is that it was found sandwiched between two layers of volcanic residue: an upper one dated about 230,000 BCE, and a lower one dated roughly 700,000 BCE. This makes it (together with the Venus of Tan-Tan) the oldest piece of sculpture ever recorded, and remarkably, it means that it predated Neanderthal man, and was created by an earlier hominid like Homo erectus.

The evidence seems clear. This is indeed art from nearly one quarter to possibly three quarters of a million years ago.

Bob

[nygreenguy]

We're not discussing the general theory of evolution here. We are narrowing the focus to human origins.

Which is fine. Call it human origins, but do not call it human evolutionary theory. There is a big difference when you add those words in.

Only if one assumes naturalistic processes are the only thing in play.

Its the only logical choice, and the only one science can address.

I'm not claiming they are authorities. I simply gave one example of where a belief in evolution does not necessarily lead to a belief in human evolution.

Ok, but this is a scientific discussion and the opinion of the public is irrelevant. The public can believe what they want but the fact that humans underwent and are undergoing the same evolutionary transformations as the rest of the life on earth is a fact.

If you want to call it a theory, I will not stop you. But, I'd rather not play the semantics game of what to call it. So, I generally the generic term model to all explanations that I present.

This isnt semantics, this is a discussion about science. If you want to discuss science, you have to be very precise in the words that you use and you have to follow the same rules as real scientists. If I turned in a paper for review using the terms you did it would be returned for me to correct because by saying model, you imply something very specific and it just doesnt fit.

Then if you do not suggest that evolution cannot make predictions, is there a list of predictions in regards to the origin of humans?

Im sure a list could be created.

[nygreenguy]

One interesting thing is that dispersion of humans from mtDNA data and Y chromosome data is similar. Yet, mtEve and yAdam span a difference of up to 100,000 years apart. From what I can tell, evolutionary theory does not predict that the migration patterns would be similar. Yet, this would logically follow from the Human Creation Model.

Thats because it doesnt really have as much to do with evolution as it does ecology. However, could you explain your point a little better (bolded) I dont really understand what your point is.

[GrumpyMrGruff]

For a good description of how drift affects mtDNA and the y-chromosome, I recommend reading this blog post.[1]

I read through the blog post. But still fail to see how it explains things. Could you cite the parts where you feel answers the issue?

I'm referring to the section beginning "If we treat genes as individual organisms, we can create a "gene genealogy" - a gene family tree - for individual genes. Here's an example I just made. ... " The blogger's model shows in practice what others in this thread have been saying in words: Probabilistic birth-death processes (like those within animal populations) can cause an arbitrary past individual to become the MRCA for a particular gene (or mtDNA or y-chromosome) without requiring the kind of extreme post-flood bottleneck you think this implies.

However, if mtEve was located in the Mideast rather than Africa, we would expect to see a pattern similar to this:

Figure 2: A human mtDNA phylogeny consistent with Mideastern mtEve

Yes, I understand what you are saying. And if it was one female after the flood, your proposal would make sense.

Phylogeny of y-chromosomal variants recovers the same African deep ancestry found in mtDNA lineages. Even in your flood model there is only one surviving male progenitor. If you accept the logic of this phylogeny, then you are admitting that your model is at variance with the data.

My source of skepticism is that I have not seen any objective test to determine if a feature is analogous or homologous.

This has been rehashed several times now. If the only features we could compare were morphological, there might be cause for confusion (since different sequences can sometimes encode similar structures). However, we know a mechanism that can cause the the hierarchical differences in species' sequences. Note that every phylogenetic tree we make assumes homology. However, I've also explained ad nauseam how this can be falsified - simply show that different genes from the same set of organisms infer the same tree no more often than randomized trees.

Conversely, you have not yet described the mechanisms by which species are designed or what types of genetic data can be used to falsify this hypothesis. Maybe you will elaborate in your response to my other post.

[Zeeby]

If there were others, then it would need to be explained how all other female lineages died out.

I will attempt to model a population and see what happens.

I'm back from my adventure in population modelling. Here are the main features of my model:
- start with 5000 females (tying in with population bottleneck of 10000 humans)
- each female produces a random number of offspring (and in this case it is relevant to mean breeding female offspring)
- the total population grows fairly slowly due to competition for resources (so not all offspring survive)

Within 1000 generations, the number of surviving female lines had dropped from 5000 to around 50. Why? The reason is due (almost entirely) to the 3rd point above. When one line flourishes (through chance), it can further dominate the other lines, as if it produces many offspring one generation, the other lines will be reduced, but if it produces less, the other lines do not necessarily produce more.

Naturally there are limitations with this model (offspring die independently, whereas in reality natural disasters would be more likely to kill individual lines; I limited surviving offspring per female to between 0 and 3 fairly arbitrarily) but it does serve to show that lines can die out naturally fairly easily.

[SailingCyclops]

Let's look at the art from your source.



It claims "The oldest known art of prehistory. A cupule at the Auditorium Cave at Bhimbetka, Madhya Pradesh, India. It dates from (290,000-700,000 BCE)."

It is disputable that this would be considered art, or even made from man.

Not disputed actually.
Cupules

Cupules are the earliest known prehistoric art, have been found on every continent except Antarctica, and were produced during all three eras of the Stone Age - Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic - as well as in historical times. They have been described as "the most common motif type in world rock art".
[...]
Identifying a true example of cupule art requires the elimination of all natural causes.
[...]
Cupule Art Markings Must Not Be Not Utilitarian

There are a wide range of man-made cup-like hollows which must also be distinguished from true cupules. Here are some examples
[...]
When Were Cupules Made?

The oldest cupule-bearing rock is the rounded cobble discovered in the primordial Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, dating to approximately 1.7 million BCE. Although not unlike one or two examples from the much later Upper Paleolithic era, the Oldowan specimens are probably utilitarian hollows rather than exemplars of cupule art. Be this as it may, true cupules have occurred from the earliest tool-making cultures. Indeed, the oldest art on every populated continent consists of linear grooves and cupules. It dates from as early as the Lower Paleolithic era, and therefore pre-dates the more celebrated Gravettian and Magdalenian cave painting by hundreds of millennia. However, cupule-making is not just a type of Paleolithic art. In India, for example, home of the Daraki-Chattan and Bhimbetka Petroglyphs - the world's earliest art - cupules were made during the Holocene epoch (10,000 BCE onwards) as well as the preceding Pleistocene. In Europe, many cupules have been dated to both the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, and even the Middle Ages.
[...]
What Are the Main Characteristics of Cupules?

Cupules are typically found in groups, often numbering several hundred (even a thousand) in a single location. Singletons are highly unusual. Almost all specimens are between 1.5 and 10 centimetres in diameter, but larger examples have been found. Average depth is between 10 and 12 millimetres (less on very hard rock) although examples over 100 mm deep have been found. They can occur on horizontal, sloping or vertical rock-surfaces, but very rarely on overhead rock ceilings
[...]
Where Do Cupules Occur?

In general, cupules exist in nearly all of the world’s petroglyph-rich zones.

They have been discovered throughout the Americas, including: the United States, especially in the west; in Canada (Herschel Petroglyph site, Saskatchewan); in Mexico (Cerro Calera); Costa Rica, Panama (Chiriqui site), Colombia (Roca de Los Afiladores, Roca de Las Cúpulas, Roca de Las Espirales, Roca La Familia and Roca Del Mangón); Brazil (Caiçaras or Riacho Santana, Piauí); Argentina (Cueva Epullán Grande); Peru (Lungumari Puntilla, Toro Muerto complex); Bolivia (Achocalla, Inca Huasi, Lakatambo, Toro Muerto, Cochabamba); Guyana, Suriname, and Chile. Outside the Americas, cupules exist throughout the continent of Asia, including India, Inner Mongolia, eastern Siberia, China, Nepal and especially Japan - in fact, the Japanese trove is probably the best classified of all cupule art. In the Middle East, cupules have been discovered across the Arabian peninsula. In Europe, there are a great many specimens, and Estonian cupules comprise all the locally known rock art. In both Macedonia and Ireland, cupules constitute over half of all known petroglyphs.
[...]
What Are the Oldest Known Cupules?

The earliest known cupule art, dating to between 290,000 and 700,000 BCE, are in central India. Two quartzite caves in the Madhya Pradesh region of central India - Auditorium Cave at Bhimbetka and another rock shelter at Daraki-Chattan
[...]
How Were Cupules Made?

The technology of cupules has in part been confirmed in a recent series of research experiments conducted by the Indian archeologist G Kumar, designed to replicate cupules found at Daraki-Chattan, India. In the course of five experiments, details were recorded of the hammer-stones used, the time needed to create each cupule, and the number of percussion strikes required.
[...]
The experiments clearly demonstrated that pounding a cupule out of hard rock required a colossal expenditure of energy. Given that Daraki-Chattan has over 500 cupules, one can readily appreciate the serious nature of the endeavour. Cupule-making was no trivial exercise - at least not where hard stone was involved.
[...]
The last word on the subject belongs to Bednarik himself who admits that he finds it "difficult to see [cupules] as an artefact of our taxonomy." Our only option, he says, is to "consider them as the surviving traces of specific behaviour patterns. In some form or fashion, they represent an endeavour of penetrating into rock in a very specific way".

Clearly world-wide, man-made, and ancient art.

Bob