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.

[otseng]

As an aside, I'm glad that this thread was voted the 2010 Best Debate Topic.

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.

I think perhaps we've belabored this point long enough. But I'll summarize my critique of this and move on.

No evidence has been given to support that where there is C14 in coal that there is uranium and that where there is no uranium, there is no C14. Further, no evidence has been presented for oil or diamonds.

The spontaneous fission of uranium is minuscule compared to the radioactive decay of uranium. Though it is possible for some neutrons to be emitted through the spontaneous fission of U, it hasn't been demonstrated that this is sufficient to produce the levels that we detect of C14.

And if it is proposed that contamination can be used to reject values for carbon dating leading to young dates, I think one can also use this reasoning to question radiometric datings leading to old dates.

I will say that I do think more research on this is needed. I'd like to see more independent tests of coal/oil/diamond samples with measurements of uranium and C14.

Some of the greatest scientists have religious beliefs

Yes, I agree.

[nygreenguy]

No evidence has been given to support that where there is C14 in coal that there is uranium and that where there is no uranium, there is no C14. Further, no evidence has been presented for oil or diamonds.

This is because uranium is not considered the only source for contamination

And if it is proposed that contamination can be used to reject values for carbon dating leading to young dates, I think one can also use this reasoning to question radiometric datings leading to old dates.

With carbon, we find carbon reading what it shouldnt. Its date is erroneous because the surrounding rocks are old, so it dates young.

We never see anything like this with other types of radiometric dating. Everything matches up. If this was relevant for other types of dating, we should see inconsistencies, which we do not.

[Grumpy]

otseng

No evidence has been given to support that where there is C14 in coal that there is uranium and that where there is no uranium, there is no C14. Further, no evidence has been presented for oil or diamonds.

From post 481. Source

" 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."

Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.

Even though no study has been conducted yet, that does not negate the FACT that someone who has been involved from the very beginning of AMS technology says you are wrong about your above statement. The FACT is that the levels measured in the RATE study are within the limits of the margin for error, that sampling and contamination are more likely explanations and that coal, specifically, is known to be subject to miriad contamination sources INCLUDING Uranium, it is never used to carbon date anything for this reason(nor is oil, graphite or any other "fossil carbon" source).

The paper I cited cannot be construed as anything but a thourough refutation of every claim made about the RATE study. Handwave all you like, those are the facts.

And if it is proposed that contamination can be used to reject values for carbon dating leading to young dates, I think one can also use this reasoning to question radiometric datings leading to old dates.

Er, no. Contamination can only add C14, if there is little C14 you can be confident it represents the YOUNGEST that sample could possibly be. Where less means older contamination can only give a younger date. Of course, anything that shows older than 100,000 years(currently)disappears into the background noise and is innaccurate. If any coal was actually as young as the anomalous samples(flyers, their called)ALL coal would be that way if the Earth were so young.

Grumpy

[mitty]

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 it’s completely against both our genetic coding and theirs.)

Honestly,
gawsh_eemahm_goowah

It's what we share with chimps though. For example we share a "gene" for synthesizing Vitamin C. The problem is the gene doesn't work, and is broken in the same way in both man and chimps. If there was a divine creator, then why did it make the same mistake for both ape species? The data indicate that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. We also share a lot of other seemingly useless DNA.

[otseng]

I'll be giving my closing argument for this massive thread and conclude my participation.

Humans descending from primates

First, I'll address the arguments presented of man descending from other primates.

Chimps and humans

Originally, it was claimed that humans and chimps share 99% identical DNA. And this number is still often quoted. However, the latest research shows that this number is too optimistic. The number is now lowered to 94%. So, DNA evidence does not strongly suggest commonality as once thought.

Further, there is no direct ancestry from chimps to humans. Rather, what is claimed is that there is some common ancestor of humans and chimps. However, no fossil evidence has been presented on the existence of this ancestor. Since no fossil evidence exists, it is more likely that this hypothetical primate does not exist.

Endogenous retrovirus (ERV)

The argument for this is that retroviruses become junk DNA and are passed down from one species to descending species.

One counterargument is that ERVs are increasingly found to have function and are not junk DNA. So, a foundational presupposition of the argument is called into question. (Also since ERVs have been traditionally been assumed to be functionless, this has actually dampened scientific progress since scientists did not bother to investigate if they really had a function. Only recently has research been progressing in this area since we are now starting to find function for ERVs.)

No evidence has been presented that ERVs are a result of a virus being inserted into a human species ancestor. This is merely a hypothesis. And I'm not even sure this hypothesis is testable. Since the injections would've occurred in the remote past, and there's almost no chance of getting DNA sequences of those ancestors, and that we would have no way of finding out if such a virus existed prior to being inserted.

Also, ERVs between primates and humans do not form a clear hierarchy. For example, a common ERV exists in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but not in humans.

Merging of chromosome

I addressed this in post 50:

Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangutans have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). If humans evolved, then the fusion event must have happened at the chimp/human split or after the split. Let's take the first case - at the chimp/human split. When the split occurred, an individual underwent a chromosome fusion by random chance and reduced the count from 48 to 46. But, in order to pass this on, it would have to mate with the opposite gender that underwent the exact same fusion. So the first two male and female humans would've both had the fusion at the same time. So, for three events to happen concurrently - first pair of humans to arrive, a male chromosome fusion, a female chromosome fusion - would be quite improbable.

What would be more probable is that the fusion occurred after the split. There would be many humans with 48 chromosomes. So, the only thing that would be required is a male chromosome fusion and a female chromosome fusion and that they would have to mate. Since it's impossible for them to determine their chromosome count, it would have to be by pure random chance that they would meet. Then one would have to explain why all the humans with 48 chromosomes became extinct. All the great apes survived for millions of years with 48 chromosomes. If they also experienced fusion while they existed, the 46 count became extinct. So, why for humans would the 48 count become extinct?

Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification

When Linnaeus formed his taxonomic classification, it was simply based on morphological similarities. It was never meant to imply any kind of lineage. Similarities can equally be explained by a common designer or common ancestry. So, Linnaean taxonomy does not support common ancestry unless one already assumes it is the result of evolution.

Also, similarities can be either homologous or analogous. Either they share a common ancestor or they were independently arrived at. But, there is no objective test to determine if something is homologous or analogous. So, simply finding similarities does not show they have a common ancestor.

Human ancestors (hominids)

This is a huge area to tackle. One problem is that there is no consensus on how to define "human". And add to this the problem that many include all supposed ancestors (Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, etc) to also be human. And by defining them to be human, they are then presented as evidence that they are human ancestors. This is begging the question.

Also, if humans did evolve from these ancestors, one should be able to construct a hominid evolutionary tree. Though there have been some attempts, trees produced conflict with each other and there is no clear view on the evolutionary pathway. Even more, there is no consensus on a single hominid that is a human ancestor.

Post 88:

Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus - Not a human ancestor
Australopithecus boisei - Not a human ancestor
Homo habilis - Not a human ancestor
Homo georgicus - Dubious if a human ancestor
Homo erectus - No consensus on classification, ancestry, and progeny
Homo ergaster - Unsure if it is a human ancestor
Homo antecessor - Conflicting views
Homo heidelbergensis - Conflicting views

Ancient artifacts

There exists artifacts that are purported to be created hundreds of thousands of years ago. But it is dubious that they were created intentionally by any intelligent creature. Even more impressive artifacts that look more manmade are Klerksdorp spheres. But these are found in rocks dated to be 3 billion years old!

I addressed stone artifacts in post 260. We are not sure who or what used Oldowan stone tools. Bifaces typify Acheulean tools. But we have no clear idea what they were used for, yet it is found all across the globe and spans hundreds of thousands of years (even up to recent history). So, we cannot say that bifaces were primitive tools since we do not even know their function.

Human Creation Model

In addition to attacking evolutionary arguments, in post 109, I presented the Human Creation Model (HCM). I presented the tenets of the model, a list of predictions, and ways to falsify the model.

- God created the first man and woman (tens of thousands of years ago).
- God created the first humans distinct from the animals.
- All humans arose from the first couple.
- A global flood occurred. Noah and his sons and all their wives were the only humans (total of 8) to survive. They repopulated the Earth near the Middle East.

Predictions:
- All humanity traces lineage to one man and one woman.
- There is no gradual transition from animals (specifically primates) to humans.
- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.
- Origin of man traces to tens of thousands of years ago.
- Greater genetic diversity of females than males during the Flood. Males were direct descendants of Noah. Their wives were not direct descendants of Noah's wife.
- Human culture should appear quickly in history.

Falsified by:
- A gradual transition is found from animals to humans in the fossil record.
- Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.

The model falls directly out of a literal reading of Genesis. And the predictions fall directly from the model.

Though one could easily have produced this model hundreds/thousands of years ago, it is only recently that science has been confirming the model and its predictions.

Genetic evidence now supports that mankind is from a single woman (Mitrochondrial Eve) and a single man (Y-chromosomal Adam). There is also a genetic time difference between mEve and yAdam. yAdam is usually given a dating of 90,000-60,000 years ago. mEve predates yAdam by 50,000 to 80,000 years. This gap is explained by the HCM by the bottleneck during the flood. Adam and Eve existed at the same time, but because of a narrower male bottleneck, there would be less diversity in the male line than the females.

We've explored how this can be explained in evolutionary terms and there was no plausible explanation given to explain how only one female and only one male would be the ancestor of all humans and all others (at least 10,000 other males and females) would die out. And how could this happen twice independently? And why it would be 50,000-80,000 years apart? Why would the migration patterns be similar?

I've addressed already in the above section on the many problems of the transition from primates to humans.

The "Out of Africa" hypothesis is currently the most widely accepted model of human dispersal. Evidence suggests that the northeast part of Africa could have been the earliest point of human dispersal. This is for both mEve and yAdam. It would be a more parsimonious explanation that one couple arose from the same area at the same time, then for it to happen independently tens of thousands of years apart from the same location from a population of tens of thousands of humans scattered across the globe. Also, the northeast part of Africa would not be too far from the HCM of dispersal from the Middle East area.

Finally evidence points to human culture appearing on the order of tens of thousands of years ago based on cave paintings, clothing, ceramics, domestication, agriculture, bow, copper, wheel, and writing.

Lack of Human evolutionary theory

After asking to present the theory on how humans evolved from primates in post 33, it was finally acknowledged in post 197 that none exist - "There is no such thing as human evolutionary theory." The only thing that can be pointed to is just the general theory of evolution. In this thread, no theories were made regarding the naturalistic origin of humans. And human origins is the whole point of this thread. If theories were presented, it was regarding the general theory of evolution, but nothing specific to human origin. But though no human origin theory is even acknowledged to exist, it is accepted as a fact nonetheless. "the fact that humans underwent and are undergoing the same evolutionary transformations as the rest of the life on earth is a fact."

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, given the weakness of the evidence of humans descending from primates, the support of the Human Creation Model, and lack of any theory on human evolution, it is much more reasonable to believe that humans did not evolve from primates and humans were specially created.

[nygreenguy]

Lack of Human evolutionary theory

After asking to present the theory on how humans evolved from primates in post 33, it was finally acknowledged in post 197 that none exist - "There is no such thing as human evolutionary theory." The only thing that can be pointed to is just the general theory of evolution. In this thread, no theories were made regarding the naturalistic origin of humans. And human origins is the whole point of this thread. If theories were presented, it was regarding the general theory of evolution, but nothing specific to human origin. But though no human origin theory is even acknowledged to exist, it is accepted as a fact nonetheless. "the fact that humans underwent and are undergoing the same evolutionary transformations as the rest of the life on earth is a fact."

We got ourselves a whole lot of wrong in this post.

Tell me, do we need a different theory of gravity for watermelons? How about cats?

You only need a separate theory for something if the current one doesnt adequately describe what is observed, and the good old regular TOE adequately describes all life on earth, including humans.

[nygreenguy]

I'll be giving my closing argument for this massive thread and conclude my participation.

Humans descending from primates

First, I'll address the arguments presented of man descending from other primates.

Chimps and humans

Originally, it was claimed that humans and chimps share 99% identical DNA. And this number is still often quoted. However, the latest research shows that this number is too optimistic. The number is now lowered to 94%. So, DNA evidence does not strongly suggest commonality as once thought.

a 5% difference is significant enough to dismiss similarity?

Further, there is no direct ancestry from chimps to humans.

What would count as direct? Do we need to find every single transitional species that ever existed

Endogenous retrovirus (ERV)

The argument for this is that retroviruses become junk DNA and are passed down from one species to descending species.

One counterargument is that ERVs are increasingly found to have function and are not junk DNA. So, a foundational presupposition of the argument is called into question. (Also since ERVs have been traditionally been assumed to be functionless, this has actually dampened scientific progress since scientists did not bother to investigate if they really had a function. Only recently has research been progressing in this area since we are now starting to find function for ERVs.)

All this demonstrates is some ERVs have function. Your logic is in error as no one ever said a functional ERV proves they are not ancestral in nature.

No evidence has been presented that ERVs are a result of a virus being inserted into a human species ancestor. This is merely a hypothesis. And I'm not even sure this hypothesis is testable.

Think about it, what are the chances of having viral dna, of the same sequence, in the same locations in the DNA of different species? Well, for this to happen by chance is statistically impossible. Instead, this is because our common ancestor had these ERV inserted into their genome and it has been passed down ever since.

Since the injections would've occurred in the remote past, and there's almost no chance of getting DNA sequences of those ancestors, and that we would have no way of finding out if such a virus existed prior to being inserted.

Here is what is pretty amazing. We have built phylogenetic trees based upon fossils from species that have existed, and DNA of currently living species.

Now, when we find these ERVs, we can predict that we wouldnt see random occurrences. We predict we would find them in similar locations for related species and thats exactly what we see.

You are trying to look at this from just the ERV perspective, instead of the larger picture with all the evidence. Science doesnt operate by using facts independently. Independent facts are for trivia, not science.

Also, ERVs between primates and humans do not form a clear hierarchy. For example, a common ERV exists in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but not in humans.

So what. Those individuals ERV came for a separate common ancestor which came after we diverged.

Merging of chromosome

I addressed this in post 50:

Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangutans have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). If humans evolved, then the fusion event must have happened at the chimp/human split or after the split. Let's take the first case - at the chimp/human split. When the split occurred, an individual underwent a chromosome fusion by random chance and reduced the count from 48 to 46. But, in order to pass this on, it would have to mate with the opposite gender that underwent the exact same fusion. So the first two male and female humans would've both had the fusion at the same time. So, for three events to happen concurrently - first pair of humans to arrive, a male chromosome fusion, a female chromosome fusion - would be quite improbable.

What would be more probable is that the fusion occurred after the split. There would be many humans with 48 chromosomes. So, the only thing that would be required is a male chromosome fusion and a female chromosome fusion and that they would have to mate. Since it's impossible for them to determine their chromosome count, it would have to be by pure random chance that they would meet. Then one would have to explain why all the humans with 48 chromosomes became extinct. All the great apes survived for millions of years with 48 chromosomes. If they also experienced fusion while they existed, the 46 count became extinct. So, why for humans would the 48 count become extinct?

This is not true at all. This is more based upon not knowing the biology (which is ok, because this does get a bit complicated).

The only real time we have issues with not being able to reproduce is when there are enough genetic differences in the 2 individuals. If chromosomes just fused, the genes wouldnt be different, so there is nothing prevent reproduction.

Also, this sort of issue is already common in drosophila. They have all sorts of fusion (polymorphism) and we see no sort of issue with sterility in them.

So neither the theory, or the observed supports your claim here.

Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification

When Linnaeus formed his taxonomic classification, it was simply based on morphological similarities. It was never meant to imply any kind of lineage.

So what?

Similarities can equally be explained by a common designer or common ancestry. So, Linnaean taxonomy does not support common ancestry unless one already assumes it is the result of evolution.

The thing is, anything can be explained by the designer. Your hypothesis here is unfalsifiable, making it meaningless.

Also, similarities can be either homologous or analogous. Either they share a common ancestor or they were independently arrived at. But, there is no objective test to determine if something is homologous or analogous. So, simply finding similarities does not show they have a common ancestor.

There are plenty of objective ways for determine this.

The biggest and best way of doing this is through the field of evodevo. We can look and see how these analogous/homologous structures come to be.
We can see when cacti develop, the organs destined to become leaves, but a change makes them become spines instead. In roses, we have prickles which are modified structures of the epidermis. Sure, they may appear the same, but we have an objective way to determine if they are homologous or analagous.

We can do the exact same with animals.

Look at the fins of a whale, bat wings, and human hands. Every single one comes from the same structure and is controlled by the same genes. The modifications that made them evolve to function and look differently came later but their origins are the same.

Same goes for wings of flies vs. birds. The perform the same structure, but came as the result of different genes.

There are literally hundreds of objective examples that demonstrate the difference between homologous and analogous structures.

[mitty]

Merging of chromosome

I addressed this in post 50:

Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangutans have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). If humans evolved, then the fusion event must have happened at the chimp/human split or after the split. Let's take the first case - at the chimp/human split. When the split occurred, an individual underwent a chromosome fusion by random chance and reduced the count from 48 to 46. But, in order to pass this on, it would have to mate with the opposite gender that underwent the exact same fusion. So the first two male and female humans would've both had the fusion at the same time. So, for three events to happen concurrently - first pair of humans to arrive, a male chromosome fusion, a female chromosome fusion - would be quite improbable.

What would be more probable is that the fusion occurred after the split. There would be many humans with 48 chromosomes. So, the only thing that would be required is a male chromosome fusion and a female chromosome fusion and that they would have to mate. Since it's impossible for them to determine their chromosome count, it would have to be by pure random chance that they would meet. Then one would have to explain why all the humans with 48 chromosomes became extinct. All the great apes survived for millions of years with 48 chromosomes. If they also experienced fusion while they existed, the 46 count became extinct. So, why for humans would the 48 count become extinct?

This is not true at all. This is more based upon not knowing the biology (which is ok, because this does get a bit complicated).

The only real time we have issues with not being able to reproduce is when there are enough genetic differences in the 2 individuals. If chromosomes just fused, the genes wouldnt be different, so there is nothing prevent reproduction.

Also, this sort of issue is already common in drosophila. They have all sorts of fusion (polymorphism) and we see no sort of issue with sterility in them.

So neither the theory, or the observed supports your claim here.

Horses with 64 chromosomes and donkeys with 62 chromosomes have no problems hybridizing to produce mules and hinnies with 63 chromosomes and there have been apparently some cases of fertile female hybrids.

[nygreenguy]

Horses with 64 chromosomes and donkeys with 62 chromosomes have no problems hybridizing to produce mules and hinnies with 63 chromosomes and there have been apparently some cases of fertile female hybrids.

Yes, this goes to show almost every rule in biology has exceptions, and much of the basic biology we learn in school is far more complex than most of us imagine.

[FrostyM288]

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 it’s completely against both our genetic coding and theirs.)

Honestly,
gawsh_eemahm_goowah

There are a number of glaring problems with this.

#1. Only scientific sources are credible in a scientific debate.

#2. There's no problem with the chromosome mismatch. Human chromosome #2 has genes matching two of the chimp's smaller ones. In addition there are telomere sequences in the middle of it. I.e. Evidence that two chimp chromosomes merged. This was talked about in one of the PBS nova shows.

#3. Evolution never says there must be an increase in complexity. Note cave fish losing sight. Snakes losing limbs. Humans losing hair.