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.

[Grumpy]

GrumpyMrGruff

I agree that we would flag a prime number signal as potential ETI because a) we know of no astronomical phenomena that produce such transmissions and b) we can produce them ourselves.

The problem with that is how would we know what base another civilization would use. We use base ten and base 2(digital)but there is no reason aliens would. Digital would seem to be the universal mathematical language but it would also be the hardest to recognize as being artificial.

Grumpy

[LiamOS]

It's usually regarded that the lower the base, the more likely its use to transmit signals. As such, most would search for binary and ternary.

Binary wouldn't necessarily be hard to detect as artificial. This would only be so if a civilisation went out of their way to look like a pulsar.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Observation

We are straying a bit off the topic. Let's see if we can address otseng's claim that humans did not descend from other primates.

_________________
When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[otseng]

You left out the word "novel". Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.

Can you give me the working definition you have of 'macroevolution'. It seems anytime someone brings out evidence, you proclaim it 'microevolution'. Just so there isn't a moving of definitions, can you give me a clear and concise definition on how you are using 'macroevolution'.

I gave my definition in post 180:

What I mean by macroevolution is major novel morphological features between different species. "An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs."

otseng

You left out the word "novel". Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.

Then an elephant with a long nose is no different from you with your nose. Sorry, does not compute.

The nose of an elephant to a human nose is not analogous to your example of some milk to more milk.

It does not take "novel" features to produce enough change to call it "macro", there is no macro or micro evolution, there is just change over time driven by survival of modified genes.

Why is novel important? Because if everything evolved from a single cell, then it would require for novel features to be generated along the way.

And what exactly do you mean by "there is no macro or micro evolution"?

The fossil record gives us copious and undeniable evidence that evolution has occurred, that is simply a fact.

No, it does not give us "copious and undeniable evidence that evolution has occurred". But, this thread is already branching out in too many directions. So, I will skip addressing this for now.

What I have shown is that from human experience in the domestication of animals, there is not much significant change in morphological features in animals to account for common descent.

As with everything, this is a gradient. I would like to ask you, what is novel? Is the human hand vs. the bats wing novel?

Yes, there is a gradient. And this makes many things difficult to classify because there is no clear delineation for many things. As for novel, it would be something that is new that has never existed before.

otseng

To reiterate my point, all I'm saying is that macroevolution is unobservable.

And repeating a statement in error improves it's validity how, exactly?

No, I'm not saying that my claims needs to improve in its validity.

What I'm reiterating is the main reason I brought up macroevolution is its unobservability. My intention is not to disprove macroevolution. But since everyone since has jumped on trying to "prove" macroevolution, I'm simply restressing the point that I was making.

Thinking about it more, I don't think trying to support or discredit macroevolution has much bearing on this thread. What we are discussing is human evolution and either proving or disproving macroevolution wouldn't affect the discussions much.

[LiamOS]

Here is an example of the evolution of a novel trait.
I hope it fits your definition.

[otseng]

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

Because modern day science assumes naturalism.

If human evolution is science then, then it should be simple to meet the basic requirements of listing the claims, listing the predictions, and a list of ways to falsify it. We're close to 30 pages here and I have yet to see such lists produced for human evolution.

[Goat]

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

Because modern day science assumes naturalism.

If human evolution is science then, then it should be simple to meet the basic requirements of listing the claims, listing the predictions, and a list of ways to falsify it. We're close to 30 pages here and I have yet to see such lists produced for human evolution.

That is because you are not reading.

I have given you a number of them.. yet you ignore it.

For example, since evolution predicts that small changes accumulate over time, there will be more similarities between fossils that are closer in time. The greater of difference in time between two fossils, the more differences there will be.

It predicted accurately, that in sea side fossils of the proper age, a transitional form would be found between shallow water fish and amphibians.. a creature that would have characteristics of both. A team went to look as rocks of the proper time frame and environment, and found the tiktilaak.

A way to falsify it would be if you found a modern configuration fossil that is in the wrong strata. (found in situ, so it can't be washed into place). .. like finding a rabbit in the Cambrian rocks.

Or , if it can be shown that structures exist that can not develop one small step at a time.

When it comes to human evolution, the exact same principles are in play. Find a modern human skeleton that is 400,000 years old, and you falsify it.

[Scotracer]

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

Because modern day science assumes naturalism.

If human evolution is science then, then it should be simple to meet the basic requirements of listing the claims, listing the predictions, and a list of ways to falsify it. We're close to 30 pages here and I have yet to see such lists produced for human evolution.

Feel free to offer one (and I mean 1) verifiable example of a miracle or anything supernatural occurring.

And in terms of predictions and falsification criteria, read Goat's post above mine - he covers some. If that's not enough for you, I'll give some. The reason I haven't done up until now is that your 'model' isn't even science....so why bother?

[Grumpy]

otseng

And what exactly do you mean by "there is no macro or micro evolution"?

There is no qualitative difference between what you called micro or macro, there is only evolution.

The fossil record gives us copious and undeniable evidence that evolution has occurred, that is simply a fact.

No, it does not give us "copious and undeniable evidence that evolution has occurred". But, this thread is already branching out in too many directions. So, I will skip addressing this for now

You can only say that because either...

A. You are ignorant of the evidence.

B. You are aware of it but you are being dishonest about the evidence.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)


Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981




Grumpy

[otseng]

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.

What I was referring to was Oldowan artifacts.

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.

What Mode 1 tool have you tried to make?

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.

You are misquoting me. Again, what I was referring to was Oldowan tools, not Acheulean tools.

And no, I do not find a biface simple.

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.

The term "man" keeps on being thrown around haphazardly. What defines something to be a "man"?

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.

I find it interesting that such "primitive" tools are able to stump us modern men. I think this is indicative that they were much smarter than we make them out to be.

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.

The problem is that it was intentionally made so that it is sharp all around. To use it as a "hand axe" or to scrape hide would be problematic since it would cut into the hand. If it was used for such purposes, it would make more sense to not sharpen where it was held by the hand. Shaving would also be highly unlikely. For one thing, they are much too large to be used as shaving devices. (Unless they were really quite hairy dudes)

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.

I don't buy that bifaces are less complex than a spear. It certainly took a lot of effort to make a biface, probably even more than a spear. Also, we know what spears can be used for. But the usage of bifaces remains a mystery. So, since we don't know its function, it cannot be said how less complex it is.