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.

[LiamOS]

Here you go.

As for its suitability for a layman, I'm not sure. I also don't know of an alternative source, but perhaps Google will help; my internet is currently too slow to search.

[nygreenguy]

Here you go.

As for its suitability for a layman, I'm not sure. I also don't know of an alternative source, but perhaps Google will help; my internet is currently too slow to search.

Im talking to my friend who is a quantum chemist and did his doctorate on thermal neutrinos. Hes trying to enlighten my, but Im a biologist and I cant understand half of what hes talking about!

[otseng]

Here you go.

As for its suitability for a layman, I'm not sure. I also don't know of an alternative source, but perhaps Google will help; my internet is currently too slow to search.

Thanks. However, I don't see how it provides any confirmation of this claim:

Then, tell me, why is C-14 underground where there is uranium ore, but not where it is absent?

What I'd like to see is measurements showing C14 found with U and no C14 where there is no U.

[LiamOS]

Thanks. However, I don't see how it provides any confirmation of this claim:

Then, tell me, why is C-14 underground where there is uranium ore, but not where it is absent?

Nor do I.

What I'd like to see is measurements showing C14 found with U and no C14 where there is no U.

As would I.

Goat and Grumpy, is it possible that you could provide either experimental measurements noting a significant difference in C¹⁴ levels in natural deposits of hydrocarbons present only alongside Uranium ore and other radioactive ores or the theoretical framework to demonstrate that low frequency nuclear decay in the immediate area of a hydrocarbon deposit can, over time, cause a notable increase in C[sup14[/sup] content?

[nygreenguy]

Here you go.

As for its suitability for a layman, I'm not sure. I also don't know of an alternative source, but perhaps Google will help; my internet is currently too slow to search.

Thanks. However, I don't see how it provides any confirmation of this claim:

Then, tell me, why is C-14 underground where there is uranium ore, but not where it is absent?

What I'd like to see is measurements showing C14 found with U and no C14 where there is no U.

From my understanding, oil and uranium go hand and hand, and they are always found together.

[Woland]

Hello everyone,

I've read a lot of this thread over the last months but I cannot seem to remember evidence being presented in favor of the concept of humans being "specially created" - or rather, than humans are anything else than the descendants of earlier primates, which is what all the evidence I've ever heard of (and yes, my knowledge is limited, so please advise if you disagree) most certainly seems to indicate. Is my memory failing me? Does anyone have any evidence suggesting that humans actually are not primates themselves?

Is there a remotely serious competing theory being explored by academics and scholars at all?

Is there any non-creationist (and preferably non-religious) scientist who concludes, based on his/her examination of the evidence at hand, that humans did not descend from other primates?

I still, personally, haven't seen any hole in the well-supported scientific notion that humans are the product of the evolution of earlier primates. It's supported by tons of evidence, and the only criticisms I've heard against it, I'm sad to say, seem to only and unsuccessfully try to dispute the solid evidence we do have.

What's the most serious argument against the evolution of humans from other primates that's been presented thus far, in your opinion? I'm talking to theists as well as non-theists. It could be in this thread, or elsewhere.

I'll also add that one can reconcile or dispute anything at all if one is willing to engage in pure speculation. I challenge anyone to provide an example to the contrary.

-Woland

[Grumpy]

AkiThePirate

Goat and Grumpy, is it possible that you could provide either experimental measurements noting a significant difference in C14 levels in natural deposits of hydrocarbons present only alongside Uranium ore and other radioactive ores or the theoretical framework to demonstrate that low frequency nuclear decay in the immediate area of a hydrocarbon deposit can, over time, cause a notable increase in C[sup14[/sup] content?

Such studies have not yet been done, mainly because the levels of C14 we are talking about have just recently been detectable. The atmospheric atomic testing of the 50's created a huge spike in C14, so it is shown in principle that C14 can have sources other than cosmic rays, in particular neutrons generated by the fission of Uranium. Coal can be contaminated by several sources in situ, and even more sources can contaminate samples. Just the fact that they are now above ground exposes them to cosmic rays and their secondary effects, for example.

"Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon� explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to “intrinsic radiocarbon� raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?

These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon� but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon� is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps� theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon� will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C�"

A fairly thourough explanation can be found here

Grumpy

[otseng]

Goat and Grumpy, is it possible that you could provide either experimental measurements noting a significant difference in C14 levels in natural deposits of hydrocarbons present only alongside Uranium ore and other radioactive ores or the theoretical framework to demonstrate that low frequency nuclear decay in the immediate area of a hydrocarbon deposit can, over time, cause a notable increase in C[sup14[/sup] content?

Such studies have not yet been done, mainly because the levels of C14 we are talking about have just recently been detectable.

Then there is no support for this statement: "why is C-14 underground where there is uranium ore, but not where it is absent?"

The atmospheric atomic testing of the 50's created a huge spike in C14, so it is shown in principle that C14 can have sources other than cosmic rays, in particular neutrons generated by the fission of Uranium. Coal can be contaminated by several sources in situ, and even more sources can contaminate samples. Just the fact that they are now above ground exposes them to cosmic rays and their secondary effects, for example.

I don't think anyone is disputing that fission can produce solitary neutrons.

"Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon� explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to “intrinsic radiocarbon� raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?

These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon� but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon� is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps� theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon� will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C�"

A fairly thourough explanation can be found here

You do realize that you quoted from an organization that hold to these:

Our platform of faith has four important planks:

1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.


2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.


3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.


4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

ASA Beliefs

[Grumpy]

otseng

Then there is no support for this statement: "why is C-14 underground where there is uranium ore, but not where it is absent?"

The principle has been shown and radiation in the strata where oil or coal exist is also known, therefore it is entirely plausable for trace amounts of C14 to be generated in ancient carbon. This has been known by geologists for years.

I don't think anyone is disputing that fission can produce solitary neutrons.

And Uranium fissions of it's own accord. And Uranium is found in and around coal and oil. So C14 traces can be found in old carbon(only recently due to advances in technology). Therefore C14 in fossil carbon DOES NOT indicate a young age.

You do realize that you quoted from an organization that hold to these:
Quote:

Our platform of faith has four important planks:

1. We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.


2. We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.


3. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.


4. We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God's creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

Some of the greatest scientists have religious beliefs, but that does not include the Creationists who deliberately misrepresent things to support their beliefs. The whole C14 contreversy is made up out of whole cloth.

Grumpy

[LiamOS]

The principle has been shown [...]

Where? I've been asking for quite some time now.

and radiation in the strata where oil or coal exist is also known, therefore it is entirely plausable for trace amounts of C14 to be generated in ancient carbon. This has been known by geologists for years.

There's a notable difference between "it is entirely plausable[sic]" and "this accounts for the apparent inconsistencies to an acceptable degree.

Sorry that I'm being so facetious, but it doesn't look like we know from my perspective making the claim that we do seem intellectually dishonest.

And Uranium fissions of it's own accord. And Uranium is found in and around coal and oil. So C14 traces can be found in old carbon(only recently due to advances in technology). Therefore C14 in fossil carbon DOES NOT indicate a young age.

Given the rarity of U²³⁸ decay coupled with the negligible amount of U²³⁵ in nature, I have trouble seeing how this can account for any noticeable difference in C¹⁴ content when one considers neutron absorption between the materials in question coupled with the medium half-life of C¹⁴.

Some of the greatest scientists have religious beliefs, but that does not include the Creationists who deliberately misrepresent things to support their beliefs. The whole C14 contreversy is made up out of whole cloth.

While this certainly is the case in other disputes, I still fail to see that there is any adequate explanation allowing for the apparent inconsistencies.
The only scientific paper presented yet showed little other than a lack of an explanation and a few hypotheses to account for this. It didn't even have any framework for these hypotheses.

I'll freely admit that I have no adequate explanation to this problem. However, I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that anybody else(Creationists included) has one either.