Was there a first human

[magellan004]

I have been attempting to 'pursuade' some evolutionists that the stock in trade denial of a first human individual is unreasonable. The concept of common ancestor demands a first human.

My endeavours have, perhaps inadvertently, flushed out the old misunderstandings that evolutionsists have, for all of my lifetime, held about the tree of life. Most evolutionsist believe that the tree of life is some sort of 'river' of organisisms that splits at branches , and goes on flowing in the form of more and more rivers. This splitting of masses of organisms is some sort of mystery process, not quite definable. Apparently we cannot identify the start of a branch and each branch is composed of a whole variety of organisims at certain points in time. Over time the river somehow settles and we find that the river has only one type of organism, until it branches again.

I am serious, This is how evolution has been explained to me my people who abuse my understanding of evolution.

I invite such experts to investigate the myriad branches of their own failed area of so-called science - evolution, to see an example of a real river of confusion.

Meanwhile, if any one is so silly as to deny that there was a first human (according to whatever branch of evolution they have founded) I'd love to discuss it.

Magellan.

[Ansgar Seraph]

, Magellan! Welcom to TWeb!

If we're just talking about classification, then yes; at some point in time, we would make a delineation of the first "human".

Biologically speaking, however, our classification system is an artificial construct that does not reflect reality perfectly. The first "human" was the son or daughter of his or her parents and was, relatively speaking, genetically identical to them. The border between species is incredibly blurry — so much so that interbreeding between species is becoming more and more respected as a source of HGT ("horizontal gene transfer").

Gotta run — looks like this will make for a good thread.

—Sam

[Howze]

My endeavours have, perhaps inadvertently, flushed out the old misunderstandings that evolutionsists have, for all of my lifetime, held about the tree of life. Most evolutionsist believe that the tree of life is some sort of 'river' of organisisms that splits at branches , and goes on flowing in the form of more and more rivers. This splitting of masses of organisms is some sort of mystery process, not quite definable. Apparently we cannot identify the start of a branch and each branch is composed of a whole variety of organisims at certain points in time. Over time the river somehow settles and we find that the river has only one type of organism, until it branches again.

This sounds like cladism to me - and dovetails with my understanding of evolution. So a main branch of a river is like a family of organisms all with primitive characters A and B. A certain branch of the river has derived character C and another has D. You don't see animals with ABC and D because they are on different linaeges. You know that A and B predate C and D because A and B are a defining characteristic of the family wheras C and D are restricted to certain genera.

From this you surmise that the ancestor of this family was an animal with only A and B not C and D which developed later. You don't know the nature ot timing of the split due to paucity of fossil evidence but it seems a reasonable assumption.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

As for the first human, I believe there was one, his name was Adam.

[NeilUnreal]

I've always thought a leaky dam was a better metaphor for speciation than is a river.

A body of water trapped behind a dam is like the gene pool of a species. But the dam is leaky. Most of these leaks dry up and don't amount to anything. But sometimes, one breaks out and water flows until it encounters a new dam downstream. Then is pools up there and forms a new species gene pool until the next break out.

You can't read too much into this, it's just a metaphor. But I've always found it more evocative of what's actually going on than is the river metaphor.

-Neil

p.s. My metaphor also lends itself well to quote mining: "Evolutionist admits theory of evolution is like a leaky dam!"

[Jorge]

I have been attempting to 'pursuade' some evolutionists that the stock in trade denial of a first human individual is unreasonable. The concept of common ancestor demands a first human.

My endeavours have, perhaps inadvertently, flushed out the old misunderstandings that evolutionsists have, for all of my lifetime, held about the tree of life. Most evolutionsist believe that the tree of life is some sort of 'river' of organisisms that splits at branches , and goes on flowing in the form of more and more rivers. This splitting of masses of organisms is some sort of mystery process, not quite definable. Apparently we cannot identify the start of a branch and each branch is composed of a whole variety of organisims at certain points in time. Over time the river somehow settles and we find that the river has only one type of organism, until it branches again.

I am serious, This is how evolution has been explained to me my people who abuse my understanding of evolution.

I invite such experts to investigate the myriad branches of their own failed area of so-called science - evolution, to see an example of a real river of confusion.

Meanwhile, if any one is so silly as to deny that there was a first human (according to whatever branch of evolution they have founded) I'd love to discuss it.

Magellan.

**********************************************************************

In my personal experience what I've run into is that Pro-Evos (I call them the 'Evo-Faithful')
have purposefully blurred the lines between species so as to make it very hard if not
impossible to answer your question (i.e., to 'nail' them on it). See, if you can't specify the
exact point wherein a non-human became a human (using their taffy-like theory), then
your question is actually invalid. I suspect you'll be scoffed at here shortly.

Specifically, as per their nonsense, how can there be a "first human" when there is a sort
of 'continuum' of species originating with the "common ancestor" and progressing since
that point? Any candidate that is suggested as being the "first human" can simply be
re-interpreted and, presto!, they wriggle off the hook. Suppose, for example, that you
proposed that 'Lucy' was the "first human". They could then easily (and logically) argue
that 'Lucy' was actually just another evolutionary step of that particular species that then
led to the "first human". And they can do this for any candidate that you may propose.
Thus, you are sent back far enough in time that they essentially immunize themselves
against falsification.

Such is the nature of the so-called "scientific" ToE --- it can be
molded to fit just about any story that they want to tell. Don't
expect to hear anything in this thread from the Evo-Faithful
that refutes the above. Watch and see ...

Jorge

[NeilUnreal]

The line defining a species is blurry. Organisms just either swap their genetic stuff or they don't. Sometimes they can't because of biological constraints, sometimes they can't because of geographical isolation, sometimes they just don't because of chance, etc. Groups that mostly swap genes within the group but not without we label "species."

There are natural centripedal effects in genetics and breeding that tend to help these groups arise and persist. But that they should form a sharply-definable platonic entity that we call a "species" is a human construct.

-Neil

[Tiggy]

I have been attempting to 'pursuade' some evolutionists that the stock in trade denial of a first human individual is unreasonable. The concept of common ancestor demands a first human.

My endeavours have, perhaps inadvertently, flushed out the old misunderstandings that evolutionsists have, for all of my lifetime, held about the tree of life. Most evolutionsist believe that the tree of life is some sort of 'river' of organisisms that splits at branches , and goes on flowing in the form of more and more rivers. This splitting of masses of organisms is some sort of mystery process, not quite definable. Apparently we cannot identify the start of a branch and each branch is composed of a whole variety of organisims at certain points in time. Over time the river somehow settles and we find that the river has only one type of organism, until it branches again.

I am serious, This is how evolution has been explained to me my people who abuse my understanding of evolution.

I invite such experts to investigate the myriad branches of their own failed area of so-called science - evolution, to see an example of a real river of confusion.

Meanwhile, if any one is so silly as to deny that there was a first human (according to whatever branch of evolution they have founded) I'd love to discuss it.

Magellan.

Of course there was a first human since we have humans today and we didn't have any 10 million years ago. The big point is - when the first 'human' was here is strictly a matter of how we define human. Modern humans have a continuous line of ancestors going back into past. At some point there was a population that was 99% 'human' compared to modern people. At an earlier point there was a population that was 98% human, then 97%...75%...50%. There is no sharp cut off, it's all where we define the breakpoint to be.

It's just like trying to define where orange stops and red begins on a color spectrum.

- T

[rogue06]

I have been attempting to 'pursuade' some evolutionists that the stock in trade denial of a first human individual is unreasonable. The concept of common ancestor demands a first human.

My endeavours have, perhaps inadvertently, flushed out the old misunderstandings that evolutionsists have, for all of my lifetime, held about the tree of life. Most evolutionsist believe that the tree of life is some sort of 'river' of organisisms that splits at branches , and goes on flowing in the form of more and more rivers. This splitting of masses of organisms is some sort of mystery process, not quite definable. Apparently we cannot identify the start of a branch and each branch is composed of a whole variety of organisims at certain points in time. Over time the river somehow settles and we find that the river has only one type of organism, until it branches again.

I am serious, This is how evolution has been explained to me my people who abuse my understanding of evolution.

I invite such experts to investigate the myriad branches of their own failed area of so-called science - evolution, to see an example of a real river of confusion.

Meanwhile, if any one is so silly as to deny that there was a first human (according to whatever branch of evolution they have founded) I'd love to discuss it.

Magellan.

Personally I believe that man became human when God bestowed him with a soul. Not exactly a scientific opinion but it is what I believe.

[Jorge]

The line defining a species is blurry.

Yes it is -- by definition. Thanks for helping to make my point.

Read my post again and note that, for all practical purposes, falsification is
essentially rendered impossible under this "blurry" line definition.
How, then, can you keep a straight face when you call this "science"?

Jorge

[Ansgar Seraph]

Yes it is -- by definition. Thanks for helping to make my point.

Read my post again and note that, for all practical purposes, falsification is
essentially rendered impossible under this "blurry" line definition.
How, then, can you keep a straight face when you call this "science"?

Jorge

At what precise wavelength does "green" become "blue", Jorge? Does the "blurriness" of color boundaries invalidate the sciences concerning colors?

—Sam

[Jorge]

Personally I believe that man became human when God bestowed him with a soul.
Not exactly a scientific opinion but it is what I believe.

********************************************************************

Not only is it not a scientific opinion (as you admit), it isn't even a
Scripturally-based opinion (as I have tirelessly been saying for years).

Rather, it is an opinion purposefully designed to allow evolution
and billions of years to co-exist with the rest of Scripture.
Genesis 1-11 must, of course, be 'scratched' for that to happen.

[Here's the truly amazing part : you'll deny this with fiery passion...]

Jorge

[Jorge]

At what precise wavelength does "green" become "blue", Jorge?
Does the "blurriness" of color boundaries invalidate the sciences concerning colors?

—Sam

*******************************************************************************

Like I've said, you missed your calling, O-Mudd rogue06 Sam.

1. We're talking about an amoeba becoming a Mozart, not green wavelengths 'becoming' blue.

2. Even so, one may specify a precise definition, e.g., 450-495 nm = blue; 496-570 nm = green.
Such specificity has been made impossible by definition by the Apostles of Evolution.

My point, clearly made except to lawyers, is that it is essentially impossible to nail you
people in any precise way thus leaving all the wiggle room in the world for you guys to
do your thing. The phrase "trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall" most probably originated
when thinking about trying to nail an Evo-Faithful to any fundamental doctrine.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Yes it is -- by definition. Thanks for helping to make my point.

Read my post again and note that, for all practical purposes, falsification is essentially rendered impossible under this "blurry" line definition. How, then, can you keep a straight face when you call this "science"?



Jorge

It seems I addressed this drek elsewhere... Let’s see... Ah, here we go:

Now I can already hear the objections: “Since biologists can’t agree on a universal and functional definition for species you can’t blame YECs for not defining kinds.” But there is a profound difference. Biologists realize that “species” is and needs to be an arbitrary grouping, since one species can slowly evolve into another shades of gray between them will exist and should be expected to exist.

Basically, the definition of “species” must be relatively open-ended if evolution is correct since all living creatures are related to each other. Species, by its very nature, is an inexact term because an animal isn't, for instance, either a lizard or not a lizard, with an exclusive set of traits that are either 100% lizard or 0% lizard, just like a pile of sand isn't either a pile or not a pile, with the addition of one grain of sand (the Sorites problem).

In stark contrast, YECs claim that “kinds” are distinct and that one can’t evolve into another – there are absolutely no shades of gray. Therefore, since “kinds” are “distinct,” it should be a rather simple thing to identify them (or at least explain why they must remain “fixed”).

But we don’t see distinct kinds like that. Instead, we see a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For instance, there are thought to be 350,000 species of Beetle so we are faced with wondering if each species is a kind or if beetles themselves are a kind, or are they members of the “Insect Kind,” or “Arthropod Kind” – all depending on how inclusive the kind is.

The point being, that no matter where you set the cut-off for how inclusive a kind is, there will always be a lot of groups just bordering on that cutoff. And as I already noted, this pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution not what one expects to see in the YEC model.

What Jorge fails to comprehend is by necessity species will have ill-defined boundaries for the simple reason that evolution is still taking place – some species are in the middle of forming and yet others have just formed and aren’t easy to figure out yet.

[rogue06]

*******************************************************************************

Like I've said, you missed your calling, O-Mudd rogue06 Sam.

1. We're talking about an amoeba becoming a Mozart, not green wavelengths 'becoming' blue.

2. Even so, one may specify a precise definition, e.g., 450-495 nm = blue; 496-570 nm = green.
Such specificity has been made impossible by definition by the Apostles of Evolution.

My point, clearly made except to lawyers, is that it is essentially impossible to nail you
people in any precise way thus leaving all the wiggle room in the world for you guys to
do your thing. The phrase "trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall" most probably originated
when thinking about trying to nail an Evo-Faithful to any fundamental doctrine.

Jorge

So where would you place something that has 496.5 nm? Is it blue? Green? Or blue-green?

[Jon_Day]

I always wondered if there was a first chicken, and if so...did it come from an egg...and if it did...where did that egg come from...if there was no chicken to lay it.