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]

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.

Yes, everything is connected. But, I have made specific points and predictions in regards to human origins in the overall framework of creation. Is the TOE not able to do this?

[Scotracer]

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.

Yes, everything is connected. But, I have made specific points and predictions in regards to human origins in the overall framework of creation. Is the TOE not able to do this?

Yet you continue your crusade despite the fact your 'model' falls at the first hurdle: miracles/supernatural events aren't allowed in science!

Game over.

[Grumpy]

otseng

We even have evidence of chimps using stone tools.

Chimps have never been known for using fire(many early tools were fire cracked quartz, the edges are razor sharp), flaking techniques or employing rocks in any more sophisticated uses than as a hammer or projectile. Some chimps are known to create tools out of stems for "ant fishing" etc. but they do not show the ability to create these highly technical tools.

So, the Oldowan artifacts cannot be definitely traced solely to man.

That opinion is in no way supported by the evidence. No known creature alive today could make or use them as anything other than a hammer(Otters can do that)and these artifacts are MADE, INTENTIONALLY, by techniques that are quite difficult to become good at(I have tried it). No creature(other than hominids)appearing in the fossil record has descendents that could do this.

And another problem is that these simple stone artifacts could've just been naturally formed, rather than made.

What, exactly, do you find to be simple about the above hand axe? Try to make one. The skill shown in flaking off just the right chips to form this tool/weapon is far beyond any creature except man. And any time anyone in the tribe needed a sharp cutting tool they simply picked it out of the pile of chips. Evidence exists in North America of a trade in good obsidian or hard quartz, tools being found far from where the rock came from. Such trade may have led to civilization. We may not yet know exactly which form of man did what when, but it was a form of man, whatever each species was called.

Sophisticated tools, controlled fire and other signs indicate that man was there, the sculptures from that time may be simply a conveniently shaped rock that was only improved by someone(it does have tool marks), but the stone tools and fire were the superweapons of the time in the struggle for survival.

But, the surprising thing is that even though they were used for over a million years all over the world, we do not know exactly what they were used for!

They have no modern counterparts(even the stone using tribes today are fully modern men, just restricted by their environment as to materials available). We can not know things that we have no conception of. But a sharp point backed by a kilo of hard rock would be far superior as a weapon to kill game than a big stick, wrapping a piece of rawhide around the big end would give great grip and the point could break the neckbone or bash the head of fairly large animals.(and other men, as well). We may never know all the possible uses, I think it was an all around tool/weapon. It was sharp enough to shave(though I doubt they did), cut meat, break nuts, scrape hide(though a shard would be better), skin game, etc.

There are also many assumptions used to date them. In particular, the assumption that tool complexity evolved over time.

As the scientists acknowledge, that's why the dates are like"1.5 million to 100,000 years ago" on some tools. Those tools were found in strata dated on either side(high and low)by volcanic flows. All we can be certain of is that the tools were made between the date of the eruptions. Other sites have narrower spreads.

And, in general, these tools did become more complex, better made and eventually someone came up with the idea of combining a big stick with a hammer head, then a sharp point on the end of a stick, then a spear(by this time no more hand axes were being made, obsolete technology), an atlatl, a bow, etc.

We can actually trace the evolution of man's intelligence during this time, there is a general increase in the sophistication of the artifacts.

Also, it is assumed that Homo erectus used the biface, so if a biface is found, it is dated to fit within Homo erectus.

Actually, no. The date of any artifact is determined by a lot of methods, but none of them assume anything of the sort. But the other evidence indicates it was contemporary, colocated and unlikely to be other than Erectus. Assumptions are not evidence.

Grumpy

[nygreenguy]

Yes, everything is connected. But, I have made specific points and predictions in regards to human origins in the overall framework of creation. Is the TOE not able to do this?

For some thing, but things like human migration patters deal more with ecology. art of the reason the TOE is so amazing is that it easily applies to all life forms and you can talk about any individual species (knowing enough information about that species) using it.

[Matthew712]

That opinion is in no way supported by the evidence. No known creature alive today could make or use them as anything other than a hammer(Otters can do that)and these artifacts are MADE, INTENTIONALLY, by techniques that are quite difficult to become good at(I have tried it). No creature(other than hominids)appearing in the fossil record has descendents that could do this.

Bonobos are known to have the aptitude for making stone tools and flakes for cutting (Oldowan period tools). Watch this video from 9:27-10:45.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan ... write.html

While bonobos didn't learn this skill in the wild, they clearly have the aptitude, and if environmental pressures forced them to start making these types of tools I doubt it would take very long for them to start making them in the wild without assistance.

[otseng]

Frankly, it looks like an old rock to my untrained eyes as well.

If it looks like a duck...

Furthermore, microscopic analysis by Alexander Marshack appears to confirm that humans were responsible for the figurine.

This would be a stretch. How can one confirm that "humans" were responsible for supposed intentional grooves?

I think it's quite ironic that evolutionists cannot accept things such as DNA is a result of intelligent design, but a groove in a formless rock is evidence for an intelligent cause.

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 can seriously dispute that it looks like 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).

I can't even discern what is the "head" and "arms". Perhaps it was done by an abstract artist?

[otseng]

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.

Is there any theory, hypothesis, or even a model for human origins from an evolutionary point of view?

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

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

It's not entirely logical if one assumes naturalism for the sciences, and then say that the sciences show that non-naturalistic explanations is not possible.

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.

I find it quite ironic that people accuse Christians of being dogmatic. Yet, evolutionists constantly say, "Evolution is a fact" and do not see the irony that they make dogmatic statements. Even I do not make the claim that "Creationism is a fact". But, if evolutionists are going to continue to use the evolutionary mantra, then I might start using the same mantra for creationism.

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.

The term "model" is used in science. So, the term itself is not unscientific.

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.

By all means then.

[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.

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.

The migration patterns for both mtEve and yAdam are virtually identical. East Africa then branching out to the Middle East and rest of Africa. From Middle East branching out to Europe and Asia. From Asia to Australia and North America. From North America to South America. Now why would yAdam have a similar migration if he is tens of thousands of years later than mtEve? If man was all over the world at the time of yAdam, why would yAdam also originate in East Africa and also replace all other male lines in the same pattern at mtEve? The more parsimonious explanation was that the migrations of mtEve and yAdam happened at the same time, not separated by tens of thousands of years.

[SailingCyclops]

But, if evolutionists are going to continue to use the evolutionary mantra, then I might start using the same mantra for creationism.

Would you please define "man" as he exists in your model? What attributes must this being have to be considered man? The man which you claim is "above and apart from the animals", and which was created by god "some tens of thousands of years ago" must have a set of unique features not present in any other animal. What are they?

What makes god's creation of man unique? What test can we use to determine if a creature is man or beast?

Bob

[Goat]

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.

The migration patterns for both mtEve and yAdam are virtually identical. East Africa then branching out to the Middle East and rest of Africa. From Middle East branching out to Europe and Asia. From Asia to Australia and North America. From North America to South America. Now why would yAdam have a similar migration if he is tens of thousands of years later than mtEve? If man was all over the world at the time of yAdam, why would yAdam also originate in East Africa and also replace all other male lines in the same pattern at mtEve? The more parsimonious explanation was that the migrations of mtEve and yAdam happened at the same time, not separated by tens of thousands of years.

Yes, the migration patterns would be, because the last common ancestor of both mt-eve and y-adam predates the migration patterns.

Yet, according to your 'flood' model, the MT-DnA would oldest person, since everyone decended from her.

Yet, you seem to be avoiding the question about 'how do you explain the last common ancestor for microcephaline lived a total of 800,000 YEARS before MT-eve?

Please explain that. You seem to be avoiding that question.