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.

[nygreenguy]

It should not require exaggerating a position to support a point. You've stated something is a fact, where in actuality, the authors only state it is likely.

This is what science does. Its all inductive. We cant say its a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, but do you criticize someone saying "it is likely the sun will rise tomorrow" the same way you do the authors?

We have always seen only plants come from seed, but we can only say its "likely" to be a plant and "not likely" to be an animal.

These statement are just the same as the authors saying "its likely"

Evidence for this assertion? Also, even if true, it cannot be demonstrated that being more agile is a reproductive advantage.

Practically anything can be advantageous in the right environment. This is a very basic fundamental part of evolutionary theory.

[flitzerbiest]

Did humans descend from other primates?

Most of them did, although I parochially prefer the verb "ascend". Unfortunately, many still seem to be stuck in the trees...

[otseng]

You take it one step further and try to say these people are wrong without understand the science behind it.

This has been argued in When to disagree with the experts.

And instead of debating the person (that is, me), debates should be on the issues. If I raised issues with what I saw in the paper, and then my credentials are questioned instead of producing logical counterarguments, then it can be concluded that the latter cannot be produced.

[otseng]

The CM could severely wound their prey in an attack from some distance(spearheads)and then back off and follow the animal(possibly herding it in the direction of their camp)until it died from blood loss.

I think the main difference here would be the tools used, rather than strength versus agility. 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.

It's like the difference between a Boa Constrictor needing to kill their prey immediately(up close and personal)and venomous snakes needing only to make an initial strike(using venom, not weapons)and then tracking the dying prey, avoiding injury.

However, in this analogy, boa constrictors still exist. So, even if they have a "disadvantage" of having to kill their preys immediately, they still have survived.

[Grumpy]

otseng

I think the main difference here would be the tools used, rather than strength versus agility

Our tools are an artificial extension of our nature. Neandertal was an ambush predator, requiring thick forrests to successfully hunt. They had no throwing weapons, at best they had a spear with which to thrust at prey at short(and therefore dangerous)distances. The frequency of broken bones and other serious injury attests to this, as does the tools they left behind. CM, on the other hand, developed throwing weapons, their skeletons show much less injuries(both had similar life spans). When the thick forrests started disappearing in favor of savannahs and grassy plains the CM had a definite advantage. It was not the gracile form that gave CM the advantage, it was his method of hunting that was superior. The fact that Neandertal COULD NOT pursue wounded game(his skeleton was not built for running)meant he HAD TO kill his prey very quickly or he would lose that prey. CM could outrun(over long distance)every other creature on Earth, he could wound from a distance and follow his prey(even herd it towards camp, saving him from having to carry it)until blood loss caused it to die. This may be the single most important reason CM man is still around and Neandertals are not.

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. Neandertal was simply outcompeted for the same available prey. And that ignores the possible(or, really, likely)warfare between the two species, Lord knows CM sure has killed enough of his own kind. Factor in the caloric needs(twice what CM needed)and the more carnivorous diet(~85% meat versus about 40% for CM)and you have the recipe for extinction of the loser(which still took ~5,000 years to play out, about the length of time we have had in recorded history some 35,000 years ago).

However, in this analogy, boa constrictors still exist. So, even if they have a "disadvantage" of having to kill their preys immediately, they still have survived.

In suitable environments, yes. Why do you think the constrictors are such a problem in the swamps of Florida?. The environment is suited for their type of attack. You will rarely find a constrictor of any kind far from thick, swampy vegetation or jungle, whereas venomous snakes can thrive in all types of environments up to and including deserts(where you will not find a single species of constrictor).

Neandertals survived for hundreds of thousands of years entirely separate from modern humans. It may well be the encroachment of CM, a much more efficient hunter, that caused their demise when the environment changed during the last series of ice ages, or it could simply be the environment changed faster than Neandertal could cope with. It wouldn't be the first species that has happened to.

Grumpy

[nygreenguy]

You take it one step further and try to say these people are wrong without understand the science behind it.

This has been argued in When to disagree with the experts.

And instead of debating the person (that is, me), debates should be on the issues. If I raised issues with what I saw in the paper, and then my credentials are questioned instead of producing logical counterarguments, then it can be concluded that the latter cannot be produced.

This isnt a philosophical logical debate. Remember, logic doesnt deal with the truth. It only deals with the strength of an argument. You can make a logically sound argument that's totally hogwash. Its a debate about scientific facts, and scientific concepts. How can you debate something if you dont understand the facts and concepts involved? Its not even that you really ask questions as if you care to find out, rather you are making uninformed conclusions based upon false premises. Why do you think astrophysicists dont review biology articles? Why dont ecologists read medical papers? If it was as simple as making a logical argument, anyone who knows logic could read a scientific paper. Rather, you get people who know the facts and concepts involved.

There is no problem bringing a person into a debate if its relevant. If you are questioning long held and established biological concepts, then it should be presumed you are speaking as some sort of authority and it is my right to challenge that. 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. You criticized a statement talking about these phylogenetic relationships without knowing it could never be called a fact because it is based upon statistics.

[Fisherking]

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.

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

[Goat]

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.

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

And thus is demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the logical fallacy of "Appeal to authority' is. It is not a logical fallacy if the person is actually trained in the subject matter, and without reference to the actual data.

This is similar to the observation Issac Asimov made about our society.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

[Fisherking]

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.

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

And thus is demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the logical fallacy of "Appeal to authority' is. It is not a logical fallacy if the person is actually trained in the subject matter, and without reference to the actual data.

This is similar to the observation Issac Asimov made about our society.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

Johnny Wishbone says you are wrong regarding an appeal to authority (he is an expert in logical fallacies). He also disagrees with Asimov, who is not an expert on society (Johnny Wishbone is). Therefore, debate on this subject is over (or so they say).

[Goat]

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.

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

And thus is demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the logical fallacy of "Appeal to authority' is. It is not a logical fallacy if the person is actually trained in the subject matter, and without reference to the actual data.

This is similar to the observation Issac Asimov made about our society.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

Johnny Wishbone says you are wrong regarding an appeal to authority (he is an expert in logical fallacies). He also disagrees with Asimov, who is not an expert on society (Johnny Wishbone is). Therefore, debate on this subject is over (or so they say).

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.