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.

[Fisherking]

And, other than the 'Johnny Wishbone' that claims to be a psychic, can you show what his credentials are? Sorry, but you are just reinforcing the mistake you are making.

I thank you for the opinion (unsupported). I could write up pages of credentials for Johhny Wishbone( tm ), but if you do not accept him as an authority on X, it doesn't do me any good to do so. If you do not accept him as an authority or expert, I would have to present the evidence or data to support my argument instead of appealing to him as an authority (if I am actually arguing to convince you or other readers my posistion is reasonable).

I appologize for side debate, but if I am to be convinced that humans descended from other primates, I would like to see the evidence and logic used to reach that conclusion. Not what Joe Blow believes it should be.

[Goat]

And, other than the 'Johnny Wishbone' that claims to be a psychic, can you show what his credentials are? Sorry, but you are just reinforcing the mistake you are making.

I thank you for the opinion (unsupported). I could write up pages of credentials for Johhny Wishbone( tm ), but if you do not accept him as an authority on X, it doesn't do me any good to do so. If you do not accept him as an authority or expert, I would have to present the evidence or data to support my argument instead of appealing to him as an authority (if I am actually arguing to convince you or other readers my posistion is reasonable).

I appologize for side debate, but if I am to be convinced that humans descended from other primates, I would like to see the evidence and logic used to reach that conclusion. Not what Joe Blow believes it should be.

You could.. but those 'write up credentials' would be unsupported claims. You see, like science, when ti comes to credentials, there is this little thing known as 'VERIFICATION'.

You can claim someone is an expert all you like, but being an expert leaves paper trails all over the place. Making unsupported claims about someone's expertise IS the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority' .

When it comes to science, there is the documentation known as 'publication in peer reviewed scientific journals'. There is also this thing known as 'Degree from accredited universities' , and 'peer review'. Not only that.. but for it NOT to be an appeal to authority, the expertise has to be in the proper subject. Appealing to what an astronomer or a physicists says about biology is an appeal to authority, but using the same physicist as an authority when discussing physics is not.

[otseng]

If anything has a spear versus using bare hands, the former would have an advantage. If you take the spear out of the equation, it can be argued that the stronger would more likely win.

But you cannot take the throwing spear out of the equation. While CM would definitely lose an arm wrestling contest, an arm wrestling contest is irrelevant to the reality of survival. The gracile form's ability to kill from a distance(and thus avoid injury)and run down fleeing prey(giving a better attempt/kill ratio)and even use the prey's own strength to deliver that kill to the camp all played a part in making CM man more able to survive(more successful)in the savannah or grassland that became more prominent during that period.

If one is only comparing strength versus agility, then one cannot consider the tools. By having tools also being considered, then it is not only comparing strength and agility.

Having agility by itself would not enable a human to catch more prey than someone who is physically stronger. But, as you say, if the agile person has a spear, then it would be more likely to kill more prey, than someone who does not have a spear. So, it is the additional factor of having tools that makes for a better hunter.

[Goat]

If anything has a spear versus using bare hands, the former would have an advantage. If you take the spear out of the equation, it can be argued that the stronger would more likely win.

But you cannot take the throwing spear out of the equation. While CM would definitely lose an arm wrestling contest, an arm wrestling contest is irrelevant to the reality of survival. The gracile form's ability to kill from a distance(and thus avoid injury)and run down fleeing prey(giving a better attempt/kill ratio)and even use the prey's own strength to deliver that kill to the camp all played a part in making CM man more able to survive(more successful)in the savannah or grassland that became more prominent during that period.

If one is only comparing strength versus agility, then one cannot consider the tools. By having tools also being considered, then it is not only comparing strength and agility.

So, it is not comparing only agility and strength.. it is comparing what tools are being used too. You still can't take a factor that increases survivability out of the equation, as much as you want to deny that. The ability to gather food to survive is part of the equation.. and the throwing spear is more useful on the plains , not the earlier deep forest.

[quote[

Having agility by itself would not enable a human to catch more prey than someone who is physically stronger. But, as you say, if the agile person has a spear, then it would be more likely to kill more prey, than someone who does not have a spear. So, it is the additional factor of having tools that makes for a better hunter.[/quote]

Agility is a major factor when it comes to being able to catch up with the prey animals to be able to throw the spear. The neanderthal was built for in close ambush in forests. The more gracile form of modern humans are better adapted to long distance running on the plains.

[Grumpy]

otseng

If one is only comparing strength versus agility, then one cannot consider the tools. By having tools also being considered, then it is not only comparing strength and agility.

You cannot separate the man from his tools and be talking about the reality under which he developed. As I said, our tools are an extension of our intellect, the tool might as well be an organ in our bodies as it has the same effects on our development and evolution. It is the same with the beaver, one cannot study the evolution of the beaver without also considering the dams he builds and the environment that creates for him to raise the next generation of dam builders, evolution will select for the beaver that fits best in a beaver dam and the beaver that makes the best dam. You cannot study the evolution of the ant without considering the ant hill, the buffalo without the herd, the lion without the pride(and the game), the deer without the mountain lion, the rabbit without the fox(and vice versa).

Gazelles are so good at leaping away because the lion is good at catching those that aren't so good, those that are so good get to reproduce more often, their genes get to survive, the genes of the poor leapers are eliminated by the lion. Over time the species of Gazelle becomes amazingly good at leaping. That's just how evolution works to "improve" the species. And if you examine a Gazelle from tens of thousands of years before and compare it with one today you will find the difference in leaping ability is enormous, but then so is the lions ability to catch leaping Gazelles. It's not called an evolutionary arms race for nothing. Predator and prey live in a constantly changing symbiosis, each affecting the evolution of the other. This sometimes leads down bizarre paths like Ankhliosaurus and theropods. The Ankh was a ball shaped armoured vegetarian with a wicked spiked tail, the theropods started as man sized collections of teeth and appetite. Small theropods stood absolutely no chance of eating an Ankh, but then they got much bigger, as a result the Ankh got bigger, more armour and even more wicked spikes on the tail. How far this would have gone will never be known, an asteroid wiped both species out of existence but the same thing is still happening today.

That is evolution in a nutshell(if greatly simplified). It selects from variations and mutations for the ones that best fit the environment. That environment includes predators/prey, habitats they create and foods available to eat. And if the environment changes in any way, so does the species or it dies and another takes it's place(just like mammals replaced the dinosaurs because our ancestors survived the event that killed them off).

Grumpy

[nygreenguy]

We all deserve to know why we should believe YOU over all of the experts, especially when you demonstrate a lack of understanding on the topics you criticize.

The arguments themselves (that will contain data, logic, reason, ect) are the reason to reject the so-called experts, if that be the case. For someone to demonstrate another lacks understanding on a criticized topic, they would have to argue with data, logic, reason, ect. why so and so lacks understanding. Simply claiming one understands and another does not is not an argument. Appealing to supposed credentials or knowledge is not an argument.

And I have done this. If I criticize someones lack of understanding, I always support it with evidence.

Debating the persons themselves and not their arguments demonstrates a lack of understanding on the topic -- which usually leads to an appeal to authority.

I only bring the people in when they extend their statements beyond that of their credibility. As I demonstrated before, O made a claim about a specific statement authors of a paper made without knowing how the results were even obtained. You simply can NOT criticize something if you know nothing about it.

[nygreenguy]

And, other than the 'Johnny Wishbone' that claims to be a psychic, can you show what his credentials are? Sorry, but you are just reinforcing the mistake you are making.

I thank you for the opinion (unsupported). I could write up pages of credentials for Johhny Wishbone( tm ), but if you do not accept him as an authority on X, it doesn't do me any good to do so. If you do not accept him as an authority or expert, I would have to present the evidence or data to support my argument instead of appealing to him as an authority (if I am actually arguing to convince you or other readers my posistion is reasonable).

I appologize for side debate, but if I am to be convinced that humans descended from other primates, I would like to see the evidence and logic used to reach that conclusion. Not what Joe Blow believes it should be.

To sort of build upon my other point:

You are claiming that if you can see the evidence then you are capable of making an informed opinion.

So, if you get convicted of murder would you represent yourself? You are allowed to see all the evidence and the argument presented against you.

What if you get some strange sickness? Would you look at the evidence and try to figure out what is wrong with yourself? Would you trust yourself enough to try to cure the disease?

The answer to both of these is "no". We dont understand how the legal system operates, the nuances involved with evidence, how it presented and how to argue a case. Sure, we might have a basic understanding with what happened, but not enough to make a good case for yourself.

Same goes for medicine. Sure, you might be able to google a few symptoms and figure a few things out but does this mean you would really understand whats going on? Would you know which medicines to use and why? Medicines work differently on different people. And if you diagnose yourself wrong, the treatment will be totally ineffective at best or could have dire consequences at worse.

Now, if people wouldnt do this, why would they do it with evolution?

[otseng]

This past weekend, our family went to a rock show (not like music, but minerals). And I saw a biface on sale! So, I just had to get it. So, here it is:





Can anyone guess when it's supposedly dated to and who used it?

[SailingCyclops]

Can anyone guess when it's supposedly dated to and who used it?

A survivalist in the Ozark mountains circa 2001?

Bob

[LiamOS]

God, and 13.75 billion years ago?

Out of interest, what does that have to do with the topic?