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.

[SailingCyclops]

Humans have a moral sense. They have a sense of right and wrong. And they can decide between right and wrong.

Animals can tell right from wrong

Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.
[...]
Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality.
[...]

Animals 'are moral beings'

Some animals can feel and think in ways not too dissimilar from us, welfare campaigners say.

Animals and morality

Apparently it has been a central problem of philosophy to explain "morality" as a uniquely human attribute. Philosophers, however, are keen to show that they are still equal to scientific thinking, so it has been hard to reconcile a unique human morality with related behaviors among other animals, i.e., with morality necessarily being an evolutionarily derived characteristic and not so unique after all.

And so reason is evoked as the essence of morality. Reason, we reason, is uniquely human, so everything that involves it must also be uniquely human.

This is, of course, a fine example of circular reasoning. Reason is uniquely human, morality requires reason, therefore morality is uniquely human. Neither premise is proven and exists only for the benefit of the other.
[...]
It is immorality, it seems, that is uniquely human and requires human reason.
[...]

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

Humans have complex languages. Our ability for complex languages it intimately tied with the ability to think and create complex things.

As with morality, this is not uniquely a human trait. See Dolphins above.

The only remaining point is

"born of Adam and Eve"

Which you have provided no evidence that these mythical people even existed. So again, what exactly makes "man" unique?

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

We have developed technology to overcome our physical limitations and can go do the deepest oceans, fly in the sky, and go to the moon.

This is more likely the result of humans being land animals, possessing ten digits, and opposing thumbs than it is intelligence alone.

Super intelligence in humans is also somewhat doubtful. Creatures who destroy their habitat and create weapons of mass destruction (an Imbecile not an intelligent trait) can hardly be considered more intelligent than dolphins who do none of those things. I don't see humans as the most intelligent creatures on the planet, only the most destructive.

Wouldn't you agree that the dolphins of the Gulf of Mexico would consider us rather unintelligent given the ecological destruction we recently wrought on that portion of the planet? What happened to human morality there I wonder?

Bob

[Grumpy]

otseng

Mankind is the descendants of Adam and Eve.

Then mankind does not exist.

Humans can only replicate with other humans.

Cats can only replicate with other cats, point?

There is no varying degrees of being a human. Either something is 100% human or 0% human.

Every one of our ancient ancestors were 100% human, but those from 200,000 years ago were significantly different from those alive today. Are Aborigines human? They certainly are not 100% like us, so which is not human.

Humans have consciousness and are sentient beings. Humans are aware that they have awareness.

Not unique. Mammals of all kinds have such awareness.

Humans have a moral sense. They have a sense of right and wrong. And they can decide between right and wrong. They feel guilt and shame when they do things wrong. They feel things are unfair and unjust when others do something wrong.

My dog has morals, she knows when she has done bad, though that doesn't stop her from deciding to do it(getting into the trash can is her greatest sin).

Humans can think deeply and create complex things. We have developed technology to overcome our physical limitations and can go do the deepest oceans, fly in the sky, and go to the moon.

So, basically, you are saying if it cannot fly, dive deep or go to the moon it is not human? We are not the only animal to make and use tools so why would this be qualitatively different. It is a matter of degree, not kind.

Humans have complex languages. Our ability for complex languages it intimately tied with the ability to think and create complex things.

Then Koko is human?

"Koko has a sign language vocabulary of over 1000 words, which she uses in complex statements and questions. Most of these signs are standard American Sign Language (ASL), but some are natural gestures (intrinsic to gorillas), some are invented (untaught) and some ASL signs are slightly modified by Koko to form what we call Gorilla Sign Language (GSL)."

Humans have a bent towards the supernatural. Almost all cultures in history around the world have some sort of religion.

I'm not sure this is a sign of intelligence. The supernatural beliefs have, at their base, fear of the unknown. I do not think other animals lack this at all.

So, there are no unique criteria that designate humans, the differences between us and other apes is simply a matter of degree.

But there is a marker in our study of the past that indisputably designates the presence of Humans, the control of fire. And that could well be 1.6 million years ago when we reached that marker. So all those hominids found since that time are humans, sometimes several distinct species lived at the same time. Neadertals were human, but there was little interbreeding between us and them. They used fire, had art, language, created complex tools and cared for the sick, aged and injured(a trait much more unique than any you have listed.

I don't mind if you believe every word in the Bible is true, it does not affect me that you do. But you are thrusting these stories into the scientific world as facts where they evaporate like an ice cube in the Sahara. They are just not true. But you insist on denying that reality despite the evidence. We look askance at people who insist they were abducted by aliens, questioning their veracity(if they are lying)or their sanity(if they actually believe their story). Why treat your claims differently? Because the fiction is believed by more people? Because it has been believed for many years? Because a great deal of human endeavor has been expended debating it? These reasons are not viable, nor have any other apologetics shown them to be true.

Grumpy

[SailingCyclops]

So, basically, you are saying if it cannot fly, dive deep or go to the moon it is not human?

This fact alone would rule out the mythical Adam and Eve of the bible. They could not qualify as human by that definition, now could they?

It appears that one can't even define what is human accurately within the "Creationist" paradigm, making the paradigm itself rather silly; if you can't define a thing, how can one even begin to discuss it rationally?

Bob

[otseng]

Bifaces are found practically all over the world.

So, it is quite surprising that "primitive" man would make and use the biface all over the world, and yet us "advanced" modern man cannot even determine what they were actually used for.
[...]

Whether or not we know exactly what they were used for is irrelevant. My question to you is this: Were the artifacts pictured above manufactured by man or beast? By "man" I mean Man as you have defined him in your "Creation Model".

No, I do not think it is irrelevant. Because if one does not know the purpose of the artifacts, one cannot say that they are "simple" tools. And one cannot say that the users of such tools were more "primitive" either.

And yes, I do think that man created them.

[otseng]

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.

Could you do something with your simulation? Determine what are the odds of having only one female progenitor (all the females lines would drop to just 1).

Certain, given enough time. Eventually the population of Earth would be forced to stabilise due to lack of resources, and then the process highlighted above takes over.

Really the question is whether the (insert estimate) number of years since mtEve lived is plausible for all other lines to be removed - as obviously it wouldn't back up the model if it took 20million generations or something crazy. Regarding that, I would have a hard time giving a probability, as it depends on largely unknowable factors such as
- fairly precise population history (size, distribution)
- particular diseases, natural disasters, etc
so the uncertainty on any result would be massive.

No, I'm not asking for how many years it would take for one female line to take over (though if you want to calculate that I wouldn't object).

Simply given the assumptions that you have already coded into your simulation, determine the odds of starting from 5000 females to drop to only 1 in 1000 generations. Basically all you have to do is run the simulation a bunch of times (the more the better). Then compare the total run counts to the number of runs where it drops down to one female line.

[otseng]

Determine what are the odds of having only one female progenitor (all the females lines would drop to just 1).

Pardon my ignorance of genitics. But if there was a literal Adam and a literal Eve (A first couple), wouldn't there by default be only ONE female line in all the world's population?

Yes. And that is what we see.

Wouldn't all mitochondrial dna have to be identical since it all came from Eve?

Normally it would be identical. But the occasional mutation would cause a change from one generation to another.

[otseng]

What is it about humans that you believe is novel, as compared to the other primates?

I'll quote Juan Luis Arsuaga:

We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing; there is no semi-pedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays just occasionally.

The Neanderthal's Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers

Well you're wrong on the 'semi-pedal' comment straight off the bat given that almost all primates can move biped-ally to some degree. Some are very good at it, and others not.

Sure and we can walk on our hands and legs also. But we are classified as bipedal because that is our normal method of locomotion. What mammal walks with two feet normally and not just occasionally?

And again, many animals can draw/paint:

The rest of the statements are a bit ridiculous given that if an animal can't use tools to any great extent, how are they to build spaceships? One follows the other.

You could create a list of features that are known only to itself, for just about any animal, really.

I knew that there would be disagreement from whoever I quoted from, so that's why I decided to quote an evolutionist.

What is it about humans that you believe is novel, as compared to the other primates?

I'll quote Juan Luis Arsuaga:

We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing; there is no semi-pedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays just occasionally.

The Neanderthal's Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers

OK, and I'll quote the linked review of the same book

The Neanderthals provide a surprising mirror for modern-day humanity. They belonged to our evolutionary group and lived like the Cro-Magnons, our ancestors, did — worshipping, socializing, and hunting. The struggle between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lasted thousands of years. The Cro-Magnons were not biologically fit for extreme cold weather, but their ingenuity allowed them to settle down, band together, and survive. In this tale of life, death, and the awakening of human awareness, Juan Luis Arsuaga, Spain's most celebrated paleoanthropologist, depicts the dramatic struggle between two clashing species, of which only one survives.

[font=Times New Roman]emphasis mine[/font]

I contend that the distinctiveness of the human species is a matter of degree not that there are any qualities that are unique to us. Even the author you cite agrees that the apparent uniqueness of humanity is not sufficient to exclude an evolutionary explanation.

There is no other bipedal mammal. There are no other primarily bipedal mammals but other mammals do have bipedal abilities and bipedalism is rather common for birds. But, it is in our thinking and communication that we stand out from the other species. Yet, even there, there is less difference between the mental abilities of a typical human and a typical chimpanzee than there is between a typical chimpanzee and most invertebrates.

Yes, Juan Luis Arsuaga is an evolutionist. You asked for a list of differences and I supplied one. Strangely that even though I quote from an evolutionist that there's an automatic disagreement with it. I submit that it's because it reveals a bias against any source that I present.

[otseng]

Juan Luis Arsuaga does not seem to know what he is talking about, almost everything in the cite is wrong.

He is a professor in the Paleontology Department at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid who is an evolutionist.

I'm glad to see that even you are willing to say that evolutionist professors do not seem to know what they are talking about.

Though I am glad to see you are finally admitting that the use of fire is an indication of being human. Man has used fire for over a million years and all creatures that use fire must be considered human. That's progress.

Where did I ever say that animals can control fire?

[ChaosBorders]

I'm glad to see that even you are willing to say that evolutionist professors do not seem to know what they are talking about.

I haven't been following along very closely, but I would like to point out that just because someone believes in evolution, or even studies evolution, doesn't mean they always actually know the details of more specific theories or hypotheses generated by the broader theory of evolution (if they even know the ins and outs of that). In many cases, even educated believers of evolution can get the details horribly wrong and "don't seem to know what they are talking about". This is to me very little different than believers in the Bible who haven't actually read most of it.

That does not, however, mean all evolutionists professors do not know what they are talking about.