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]

AkiThePirate

The principle has been shown [...]

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

The principle that neutrons come from the fission of U235 or plutonium from neutron bombardment of U238 from those neutrons(this is the basis for chain reactions, you know), the fact that Uranium is known to be in close association with fossil carbons(thus neutrons are available), the fact that neutrons will cause N14 to become C14. The fact that the concentrations we are talking about have only recently been detectable(on the order of 10^-18 present levels, which are extremely small to begin with)and that even slight contamination of samples(or the instruments/chemistry/procedures)gives false results.

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

But the Creationist are claiming there can be no plausible source except young age for ANY C14. To falsify this it is only necessary to provide other, scientifically valid, plausible sources. I have done that, so the Creationist claims are falsified.

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.

The long and thorough explanations of these things by a distinguished member of the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is to be found here. Please read it so we can avoid the "wall of text" necessary to cover this subject. One statement dealing with your assertion of lack of credibility is...

" Some biological samples do have radiocarbon levels not explainable by sample chemistry. These samples are mostly coals and biological carbonates, both of which are prone to in situ contamination.

Coal is notorious for contamination. Uranium is often found in or near coal, releasing neutrons that generate radiocarbon in the coal from nitrogen."

So, yes, my cite did, explicitly, say that coal is "notorious" for being contaminated in situ from neutrons from Uranium causing N14 to be converted to C14. I don't really know how to make it much plainer, despite your incredulity.

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.

It is obvious that you are talking about some other cite, as mine is a comprehensive and thoroughly scientific explanation of the difficulties and errors made in the AMS results from the RATE study. To state it plainly...

Radiocarbon in ancient biological materials does not indicate young age(the entire basis of the Creationist claim). It has natural, in situ sources, contamination sources and instrumentation(background)sources that falsify the claims of Young Earth Creationists that ALL radiocarbon found was from cosmic ray bombardment and subsequent CO2 absorbtion and thus indicates young ages. One can only claim this by ignoring or being ignorant of the facts and limitations of AMS Radiocarbon dating.

Grumpy

[Grumpy]

AkiThePirate

The principle has been shown [...]

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

The principle that neutrons come from the fission of U235 or plutonium from neutron bombardment of U238 from those neutrons(this is the basis for chain reactions, you know), the fact that Uranium is known to be in close association with fossil carbons(thus neutrons are available), the fact that neutrons will cause N14 to become C14. The fact that the concentrations we are talking about have only recently been detectable(on the order of 10^-18 present levels, which are extremely small to begin with)and that even slight contamination of samples(or the instruments/chemistry/procedures)gives false results.

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

But the Creationist are claiming there can be no plausible source except young age for ANY C14. To falsify this it is only necessary to provide other, scientifically valid, plausible sources. I have done that, so the Creationist claims are falsified.

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.

The long and thorough explanations of these things by a distinguished member of the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is to be found here. Please read it so we can avoid the "wall of text" necessary to cover this subject. One statement dealing with your assertion of lack of credibility is...

" Some biological samples do have radiocarbon levels not explainable by sample chemistry. These samples are mostly coals and biological carbonates, both of which are prone to in situ contamination.

Coal is notorious for contamination. Uranium is often found in or near coal, releasing neutrons that generate radiocarbon in the coal from nitrogen."

So, yes, my cite did, explicitly, say that coal is "notorious" for being contaminated in situ from neutrons from Uranium causing N14 to be converted to C14. I don't really know how to make it much plainer, despite your incredulity.

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.

It is obvious that you are talking about some other cite, as mine is a comprehensive and thoroughly scientific explanation of the difficulties and errors made in the AMS results from the RATE study. To state it plainly...

Radiocarbon in ancient biological materials does not indicate young age(the entire basis of the Creationist claim). It has natural, in situ sources, contamination sources and instrumentation(background)sources that falsify the claims of Young Earth Creationists that ALL radiocarbon found was from cosmic ray bombardment and subsequent CO2 absorbtion and thus indicates young ages. One can only claim this by ignoring or being ignorant of the facts and limitations of AMS Radiocarbon dating.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Just so people won't think I've completely disappeared, I'll be off for the holidays for the next two weeks. I'll resume my posts when I return.

[LiamOS]

Thank you, Grumpy. It is now apparent to me that not only is the C¹⁴ anomaly accountable for, but is not much of an anomaly anyway.

[nygreenguy]

Thank you, Grumpy. It is now apparent to me that not only is the C¹⁴ anomaly accountable for, but is not much of an anomaly anyway.

I talked to my friend who is a quantum chemist (phd) at su, and he pretty much said what grumpy said.

[LiamOS]

It's okay now, I just was unaware of the minute differences in C¹⁴.
From my reading of otseng's posts, I had assumed that there was a notable difference, which there doesn't seem to be.

[gawsh_eemahm_goowah]

Apes did not evolve into humans. As evidence, I'll cite from "Creationism Is More Credible - 39 Reasons For Faith", which is at http://pumpkintooth.0catch.com/CreationismCredible.htm

[Reason] #35. APES TO HUMANS?
The biggest myth in evolution is certainly the transition from apes to humans, a myth based on similarities which actually reveal nothing other than a common designer. Some contend that apes and humans both have two arms and two legs, but apes have four legs and walk on their knuckles. Others point to the fact that there is a 98.4% similarity in genetic makeup. It should also be noted that chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes; humans have only 46; and the DNA molecules of a chromosome are some of the most complex things in the entire universe. Yet evolution is supposed to be about increasing complexity, so a chimp should be inferior in such ways to a human if we evolved from them. Dr. Barney Maddox discovered that the 1.6 % difference between the genomes of a chimp and a human consist of 48 million nucleotides. Moreover, Dr. Maddox discovered that combining any 3 of the 48 million in succession proves lethal to the host organism,
making it biophysically impossible for an ape to graduate into being human. (Actually its completely against both our genetic coding and theirs.)

Honestly,
gawsh_eemahm_goowah

[nygreenguy]

Your source isn't a credible one, an the authors are really hoping their audience is either gullible or ignorant enough to swallow it.

Their version of science simply doesn't match with reality.

[LiamOS]

Apes did not evolve into humans. As evidence, I'll cite from "Creationism Is More Credible - 39 Reasons For Faith", which is at http://pumpkintooth.0catch.com/CreationismCredible.htm

Nobody here is going to take this 'source' seriously. Just sayin'.


Funnily enough though, you did mention this:

It should also be noted that chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes; humans have only 46; and the DNA molecules of a chromosome are some of the most complex things in the entire universe.

The Chimpanzee Genome project mapped the chromosomes of Chimpanzees and noted that two of theirs look exactly like one of ours.
Here's a Christian talking about it:
[youtube][/youtube]

[Wootah]

From Wikipedia: Chimpanzee genome project

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. [...]Differences between individual humans and Common Chimpanzees are estimated to be about 10 times the typical difference between pairs of humans.

And we share 50% dna with bananas I believe.
http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

Also our y chromosome is apparently nothing like a chimps.
http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome

Cohen, C., Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, Science 316:1836, 2007. Return to text.