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:
otseng wrote: 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.
otseng wrote: 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
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.
– 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.
– 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.”
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.