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.

[PRESBYTERIAN]

You seem to know alot of what your talking about and wondered if you
could help me answer something.

how come there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record and why dont
we see mutations on earth now?

P

[perfessor]

There are hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

We do see mutations today.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "transitional fossil." You probably mean something different from the usual meaning.

[LiamOS]

Evidence of mutations today.

[Grumpy]

PRESBYTERIAN

how come there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record and why dont
we see mutations on earth now?

Transitional fossil



"Archaeopteryx (�original bird� or “first bird�) is the earliest and most primitive bird known.

The first specimen was found in 1891, almost coincident with Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species two years later, and ten more have since been found.

Archaeopteryx was about the size of a crow with short, broad wings and a long tail. While its feathers were similar to those of living birds, it had jaws lined with sharp teeth, three fingers ending in curving claws, and a long bony tail, in stark contrast to modern birds.

Archaeopteryx’s many features of dinosaurs such as the jaws with teeth, tiny forelimbs with three claws, a long tail and a head covered with scales while body, wings and tail were covered with feathers as in a bird provides strong evidence of the dinosaur ancestry of birds, and, more generally, of the validity of the Theory of Evolution."


Mutation

The Nylon Bug

Grumpy

[otseng]

The thing with a biface is that it is sharpened all the way around the edge. There is no spot to hold it safely to use it as a weapon or as an axe/hoe/knife. If I was a survivalist and had to create a tool out of chert, I would not spend extra time to sharpen the entire edge so that I would then cut myself when I used it.

An intelligent survivalist, or caveman for that matter would bury the wide end in wood, bone, vines, or leather, constructing an ax. hoe, knife, or spear.

We are talking intelligent hominids here, not Chimps.

However, bifaces are typically not known to have been attached to anything.

The proper phrasing would be 'radiometric dating', not carbon dating.

Yes, that would be the proper terminology. Carbon-dating would not be able to detect radioactive carbon beyond 50,000 years.

However, we have deposits that are supposedly millions of years old that has the presense of C14.

"Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 should have long since decayed. However, such deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to amounts comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

[nygreenguy]

"Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 should have long since decayed. However, such deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to amounts comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Its quite telling how you decided to leave out the rest of the quote. This would be considered an example of a "quote mine"

This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation causing the 14N(n,p) 14C reaction, direct uranium decay (although reported measured ratios of 14C/U in uranium-bearing ores[15] would imply roughly 1 uranium atom for every two carbon atoms in order to cause the 14C/12C ratio, measured to be on the order of 10−15), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material possibly indicates its contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in surrounding geologic strata. In connection with building the Borexino solar neutrino observatory, petroleum feedstock (for synthesizing the primary scintillant) was obtained with low 14C content. In the Borexino Counting Test Facility, a 14C/12C ratio of 1.94x10−18 was determined;[16] reactions responsible for varied levels of 14C in different petroleum reservoirs, and the lower 14C levels in methane, have been discussed by Bonvicini et al.[17]

[Goat]

The thing with a biface is that it is sharpened all the way around the edge. There is no spot to hold it safely to use it as a weapon or as an axe/hoe/knife. If I was a survivalist and had to create a tool out of chert, I would not spend extra time to sharpen the entire edge so that I would then cut myself when I used it.

An intelligent survivalist, or caveman for that matter would bury the wide end in wood, bone, vines, or leather, constructing an ax. hoe, knife, or spear.

We are talking intelligent hominids here, not Chimps.

However, bifaces are typically not known to have been attached to anything.

The proper phrasing would be 'radiometric dating', not carbon dating.

Yes, that would be the proper terminology. Carbon-dating would not be able to detect radioactive carbon beyond 50,000 years.

However, we have deposits that are supposedly millions of years old that has the presense of C14.

"Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 should have long since decayed. However, such deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to amounts comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Yes, that is true, and do you know WHY it is true? The selective quoting you made ignore certain things.. such as


This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation causing the 14N(n,p) 14C reaction, direct uranium decay (although reported measured ratios of 14C/U in uranium-bearing ores[15] would imply roughly 1 uranium atom for every two carbon atoms in order to cause the 14C/12C ratio, measured to be on the order of 10−15), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material possibly indicates its contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in surrounding geologic strata. In connection with building the Borexino solar neutrino observatory, petroleum feedstock (for synthesizing the primary scintillant) was obtained with low 14C content. In the Borexino Counting Test Facility, a 14C/12C ratio of 1.94x10−18 was determined;[16] reactions responsible for varied levels of 14C in different petroleum reservoirs, and the lower 14C levels in methane, have been discussed by Bonvicini et al.[17]

[otseng]

Yes, that is true, and do you know WHY it is true?

If the assumptions of carbon dating are true, then the more reasonable answer is that the ages are accurate. However, since it does not conform to evolutionary timeframes, an ad hoc explanation must be provided. So, "bacteria" or "other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production" is posited. As for bacteria, what it implies is that new bacteria has entered the coal after the coal has been deposited and formed. The bacteria would need to have originally come from the surface in order to get the C14 from the atmosphere. How can bacteria from the surface travel down to coal beds, which are on the order of hundreds/thousands of feet deep? The same problem holds for oil. And also for diamonds.

Also, if one is going to posit ad hoc explanations to modify isotope datings, then one can as well do the same for all other isotope dating techniques and say that all datings are suspect.

[nygreenguy]

If the assumptions of carbon dating are true, then the more reasonable answer is that the ages are accurate. However, since it does not conform to evolutionary timeframes, an ad hoc explanation must be provided.

Lests say you have 10 balls. You drop them one after another and they all fall to the ground. You go to drop the tenth one and amazingly, it goes up to the ceiling.

Now, does this mean the theory of gravity is wrong? Would you overturn it based upon this example OR would you try to figure out why there is an anomaly? What if the ball was magnetic and there was a magnetic ceiling? Would you label this as a post-hoc explanation?

You are so quick to try to dismiss evolution, you ignore the basic tenant of science which is to answer questions.

So, "bacteria" or "other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production" is posited. As for bacteria, what it implies is that new bacteria has entered the coal after the coal has been deposited and formed. The bacteria would need to have originally come from the surface in order to get the C14 from the atmosphere. How can bacteria from the surface travel down to coal beds, which are on the order of hundreds/thousands of feet deep? The same problem holds for oil. And also for diamonds.

This whole statement is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. The answers are out there. There evidence is there. The wiki article has citations. Why would you, once again, dismiss a claim before trying to read the evidence? You only read vague claims in a wiki article, not the papers which make these claims themselves.

There are bacteria and fungi that live MILES below the surface.

Jeez man, do your research before making outlandish claims.

[blueandwhite]

"How can bacteria from the surface travel down to coal beds, which are on the order of hundreds/thousands of feet deep? The same problem holds for oil. And also for diamonds. "

Well its this thing, you may or may not have heard of it, its called water. It moves. Mostly in a downward direction.