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]

otseng

Most of the dots that needs to be connected are from fossils. Yet, there is a severe lack of genetic information from fossils to be able to connect the dots genetically. So, the processes that you mention (drift, mutation, natural selection) would not be applicable to the fossil record.

Of course it would be applicable, it just isn't possible to nail down as well as we can for those creatures that we do have genetic information about. Darwin didn't have a clue what DNA was, yet he came to the same conclusions we now draw from genetic study.

The evidence for a designer spans many other areas, other than just this topic we are considering. So, in terms of parsimony, there is one common explanation that addresses many issues (eg origin of universe, anthropic coincidences, fine-tuning). Not only is it a parsimonious explanation when viewed across multiple disciplines, it has the most explanatory power.

It has absolutely no explanatory power except "Shazzamm". Magic is not an explanation of anything, especially when you cannot show one reason to think magic even exists. And what evidence of design are you talking about. All we see in nature is a drunkards walk tested by survival, not intent or design. If it was design it was a totally incompetent designer who's work was no better than pure chance and survival. The parsimony is not in the simplest explanation(IE magic), but in the simplest explanation that explains ALL of the facts. Creationism fails to do this, in fact it is at complete odds with the facts of this world. Man is not just thousands of years old, it is millions of years old. The world did not begin thousands of years ago, but BILLIONS of years ago, there was no world wide flood, no Adam and Eve living at the same time thousands of years ago and all of the fantastic "miracle" stories can not be shown to be actual occurrences any better than any other myth in history or antiquity.

I agree that a supernatural designer cannot and have not been observed. But, in neither case would it mean that it should be dismissed.

It sure shouldn't be given any serious consideration WITHOUT confirming evidence. Science has not dismissed it, it has just never found any rational reason to consider it.

As you've stated "we cannot observe accumulations of genotypic/phenotypic variation which occur on super-human timescales". And this conclusion is not automatically dismissed by you since it is unobservable. So, observability should not really come into play in determining the validity of an explanation.

We certainly can see MORPHOLOGICAL accumulation of traits and morphology, therefore there is at least circumstantial evidence of genetic accumulation, given the genetic accumulation causing morphological changes today and extrapolating those changes into the past.

I do not claim that there exists any natural mechanism to account for macroevolution. The distinction is that genetic changes/natural selection can only account for microevolutionary changes. It cannot account for macroevolutionary changes.

Micro changes and macro changes are simply differences in degree, not in type. There is no Macroevolution and Macroevolution, there is just evolution in different degrees. It is false that the evolution we see today does not lead to major changes.

And if you do claim that it can account for it, then the burden is for you to show that it can produce such changes.

As has been done many times in this forum.

It is not necessary to know how something was created to infer that it was created.

Yes, it is. Evolution does this, "God did it" doesn't.

If one looks across multiple disciplines, there are certainly fewer unknowns with a supernatural designer than natural processes.

Rubbish. When we look across all disciplines it is obvious that the more we learn about the natural processes, the smaller the gaps to hide your deity become. With a posited supernatural explanation we know nothing, explain nothing and can never learn anything(except "Shazzamm").

Here we can apply your principle of observable processes and extrapolation. If we apply what we observe to millions of years, the consistent position would be that the same result would occur - there would not be much significant change in morphological features. If you state that there would be significant morphological change, then it would be in conflict of what we observe.

More rubbish, when we look at the fossil record we see great changes in morphology throughout. Just the dinosaur/bird lineage proves this is true(that is why evolution is a fact). Comparing the Cambrian(the first age with extensive fossil evidence due to the development of hard body parts)with our current age indicates huge morphology changes with no examples of modern species in the Cambrian and no Cambrian species evident today. Something(everything)changed, it can not be denied(at least honestly)by anyone familiar with the evidence.

Because if all life arose from a single cell, then it would somehow have to account for major novel morphological features found in all organisms since the first cell.

It does, though there are gaps we have yet to fill. It is a fact that all creatures alive today descended from creatures that were different in the past. It is a fact that most creatures in the far past(trilobites, etc)do not any longer exist. It is a fact that many lines of descent can be shown as gradual morphological changes in form and in traits. It is a fact that man descended from creatures we would today call apes, it is a fact that humans and chimpanzees are very closely related,only about 3% of difference between our genomes is very close indeed, closer than horses and donkeys)indicating common origins before diversion onto separate lines of descent(like the horse and donkey), it is just a fact.

Grumpy

[otseng]

However, the question is what can explain that all other female lines disappeared? In terms of the probability that only one female is the progenitor of all, I'm going to ask Zeeby in my next post about that.

As Zeeby pointed out, in stochastic birth-death models like this the number of progeny left by each member of the initial population will inevitably go to zero or one after a sufficient amount of time (dependent on model parameters). The correct question is not if one female's offspring will eventually dominate the population, but how long (on average) it will take for this to occur. To answer that question, we need to know things like population structure, generation time, population size, etc.

Zeeby never modeled it going back to only one.

Also, if what you say is true, out of all the females that are living now, only one female will account for all the descendants at a particular time in the future, though it may be a long way off.

Figure 1: Haplogroup A Biogeography Circa 1500 (Before Modern International Transit)

Your images say "Circa 1500". How exactly could they have determined the genetic distribution around 1500 AD?

Because BT, CT, and CF are all hypothetical and not found in any human, it is entirely possible that F can be located nearer to the root of the tree.

You lost me here. This sounds like a non sequitur. yAdam is hypothetical in exactly the same way that BT, CT, and CF are hypothetical: Their markers, though shared by many males (the default marker set in the case of yAdam) are not found in isolation in any living male.

I'm not saying because that because the haplotypes are hypothetical that they could not have existed. I'm suggesting that because they are hypothetical that the known haplotypes can be in a different tree structure.

The phylogenetic analysis sets branch length proportional to amount of change between samples.

Could you provide a reference for this? Are you saying for instance, that there are more variations within the A haplogroup than the F haplogroup? And if so that it is necessarily older?

Note that every phylogenetic tree we make assumes homology.

Would even phylogenetic trees based on genetics also assume homology?

Yes.

Then would not using phylogentic trees as evidence of homology be a circular argument?

[Zeeby]

As Zeeby pointed out, in stochastic birth-death models like this the number of progeny left by each member of the initial population will inevitably go to zero or one after a sufficient amount of time (dependent on model parameters). The correct question is not if one female's offspring will eventually dominate the population, but how long (on average) it will take for this to occur. To answer that question, we need to know things like population structure, generation time, population size, etc.

Zeeby never modeled it going back to only one.

I explained the numerous limitations with my model which is why I was reluctant to present results from it as evidence. I just ran the model and (somewhat amazingly) the number of surviving lines did drop to 1, after approx 14600 generations. Is this unexpected? Didn't we establish that lines dying out is a predictable outcome?

Also, if what you say is true, out of all the females that are living now, only one female will account for all the descendants at a particular time in the future, though it may be a long way off.

Yes. A long way off, unless there is a huge natural catastrophe reducing the human population to a much smaller number. You seem to be saying this like it is a problem, when it doesn't appear to be (for either of our models).

[otseng]

I just ran the model and (somewhat amazingly) the number of surviving lines did drop to 1, after approx 14600 generations. Is this unexpected? Didn't we establish that lines dying out is a predictable outcome?

Is there any way I can see your source code? Also, I think I might have to write a simulation myself to see what would happen.

[nygreenguy]

Most of the dots that needs to be connected are from fossils. Yet, there is a severe lack of genetic information from fossils to be able to connect the dots genetically. So, the processes that you mention (drift, mutation, natural selection) would not be applicable to the fossil record.

Not true at all. We are consistently connecting the dots genetically because with our DNA we have clues (markers) to the past. We can examine what lives now, in different species, to see how they evolved from different ancestors.

I agree that a supernatural designer cannot and have not been observed. But, in neither case would it mean that it should be dismissed. As you've stated "we cannot observe accumulations of genotypic/phenotypic variation which occur on super-human timescales". And this conclusion is not automatically dismissed by you since it is unobservable. So, observability should not really come into play in determining the validity of an explanation.

Its called fossils. that right there is observation of macroevolution.

So yes, observation absolutely plays a role in determining the validity of an explanation.

How can you claim to know HOW a designer would work without any knowledge of who or what the designer is? You are making the assumption that it would design like a human would, but this is only because you only know human designs. How does that saying go, any level of technology sufficiently advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic.

I do not claim that there exists any natural mechanism to account for macroevolution. The distinction is that genetic changes/natural selection can only account for microevolutionary changes. It cannot account for macroevolutionary changes.

fossils.

And if you do claim that it can account for it, then the burden is for you to show that it can produce such changes.

Are you serious? Are you saying we havent shown how macroevolution can happen?

I think we covered this before. It is not necessary to know how something was created to infer that it was created.

Sure it is. People used to think life was created until we learned about evolution. Some people just still havent caught on.

Because if all life arose from a single cell, then it would somehow have to account for major novel morphological features found in all organisms since the first cell.

Ok, and this has been done. I dont get the problem here.

[otseng]

Mankind is the descendants of Adam and Eve.

This looks a whole lot like begging the question.

If this was the only definition of man that I offered, yes, it would be like begging the question. That is why I also offered other descriptions of what is a human.

Humans can only replicate with other humans.

Yes and cats can replicate with other cats. Speciation is impossible. The ark was really overcrowded. Or are you making the claim that only humans are exempt from evolution?

What do you mean speciation is impossible? I've certainly never said this.

As for what is exempt from evolution, since I don't believe in macroevolution for anything, of course humans would not also not be able to macroevolve.

Evolutionists claim that mankind has existed for over 2 million years. The earliest is probably Homo habilis. Do you claim that it would've been able to replicate with modern humans if they ever met?

Do you see sentience as an all or nothing thing?

Depends on how one defines sentience. If it's just experiencing pleasure and pain, yes, I would say that animals have this.

There are evolutionary explanations for humans' moral sense.

I find it to be contradictory. But, go ahead and present your explanations if you wish.

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

We love to tell stories. In fact, we prefer to explain stuff with stories. We personify inanimate forces.

And it is ironic that if we did evolve from physical stuff and that all the processes are natural, that the most intelligent creature would evolve to tend to believe in the supernatural and in religion.

[otseng]

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

I attempted to get just such a definition from you way back on page 27

Sorry, I am about 5 pages behind in this thread. I've offered my definition in post 302.

What is your definition for man?

[SailingCyclops]

What is your definition for man?

The broadest and simplest definition I can come up with is this:

The ever-evolving species of hominid beginning with those hominids who Mastered Fire and tool making, (about 1 to 1.6 million years ago) to those living today and beyond.

Bob

[McCulloch]

Humans can only replicate with other humans.

Yes and cats can replicate with other cats. Speciation is impossible. The ark was really overcrowded. Or are you making the claim that only humans are exempt from evolution?

What do you mean speciation is impossible? I've certainly never said this.

So are you open to the idea that humans and chimpanzees speciated from a common ancestor or is it that speciation is only possible for other life forms. Do you hold that domestic cats and wild species of cats may have a common ancestor but hominidae cannot? Is there a good reason to include one and exclude the other?

As for what is exempt from evolution, since I don't believe in macroevolution for anything, of course humans would not also not be able to macroevolve.

I don't think that we are not talking about macroevolution, unless you can provide a definition of that term. Genetically, chimpanzees and humans are close. Closer than chimpanzees and gorillas are. If you rule out evolution, then you will end up with an awfully crowded ark.

Evolutionists claim that mankind has existed for over 2 million years. The earliest is probably Homo habilis. Do you claim that it would've been able to replicate with modern humans if they ever met?

I don't know. Without a DNA sample, we probably could not tell. It is like a ring species except over time rather than geography. Each can breed with its neighbors but eventually, you get where the individuals of each branch cannot.

There are evolutionary explanations for humans' moral sense.

I find it to be contradictory. But, go ahead and present your explanations if you wish.

Entire books have been written on this subject. I can suggest Michael Shermer, the Science of Good and Evil; Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.; L. Katz (Editor) Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives; Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals ; Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue.

Essentially, the argument goes that human tribes with a genetic predisposition to a certain degree of altruism, will be more successful than their neighbors who do not. Humans who cooperate are not only more efficient at hunting, gathering and early agriculture, but they also spend fewer resources watching their backs and guarding their possessions, thus freeing up more resources for raising the next generation. That is clearly an evolutionary advantage. This is not new territory and it is surprising to find anyone interested in ethics and science who is not familiar with this line of research.

And it is ironic that if we did evolve from physical stuff and that all the processes are natural, that the most intelligent creature would evolve to tend to believe in the supernatural and in religion.

Yes. We do notice irony.

[otseng]

Thus there must exist a single woman whose is the matrilineal most-recent common ancestor of everyone in set of humans alive today.

Actually, I have no contention with this. And this fits with the human creation model. But in evolutionary theory, at the time of that single common mother, there are tens of thousands of other females who did not result in any lineage alive today. Those others that did not pass on their mtDNA is what needs to be explained.

If one of them had left matrilineal descendants, then that would not change the facts of the necessity of mEve, just require the calculation to be pushed back some generations.

And what I'm saying is that it pushes it back to only one female that existed. There is no need to posit thousands of other females who left no evidence of their existence.

The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is no longer in any doubt.

And fully predicted by the human creation model before genetic studies proved her existence.