Can The Atheist Do Good?

[shunyadragon]

sure it was gradual, but there had to be a first modern human born. Even if everyone else was birthing 99% humans, there still had to be a first 100% human born. That is how it works, Tassy.

Not really accurate, many humans are about 5% Neanderthal. Do you consider Neanderthals human? There is not likely a specific time in the past you could draw a line and say at that time the first born 100% human.

[seer]

Not really accurate, many humans are about 5% Neanderthal. Do you consider Neanderthals human? There is not likely a specific time in the past you could draw a line and say at that time the first born 100% human.

Shuny don't you believe in a literal Adam? Certainly your religion does, that he was a manifestation of God, and the we get our physical life from him.

Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection.

http://reference.bahai.org/search?ma...e%5B%5D=en-SAQ

[JimL]

sure it was gradual, but there had to be a first modern human born. Even if everyone else was birthing 99% humans, there still had to be a first 100% human born. That is how it works, Tassy.

A hundred and 85 million years ago your ancester was a fish, there is no exact dividing line where you can say the first human emerged, because there was no first human any more so than there was a first tuna. When you say you understand that evolution is a gradual process, then by that understanding alone you should be able to figure out that there is no such thing as a first anything in evolution.

[Tassman]

sure it was gradual, but there had to be a first modern human born. Even if everyone else was birthing 99% humans, there still had to be a first 100% human born. That is how it works, Tassy.

So was the first Adam pure Homo sapien sapien or was he Homo sapien Neanderthal? And do those who today have some Neanderthal DNA count as 100% human?

[Sparko]

So was the first Adam pure Homo sapien sapien or was he Homo sapien Neanderthal? And do those who today have some Neanderthal DNA count as 100% human?

Neanderthals were human dimwit.

[Roy]

sure it was gradual, but there had to be a first modern human born. Even if everyone else was birthing 99% humans, there still had to be a first 100% human born. That is how it works, Tassy.

If you define the species Homo sapiens based on genetic or physical characteristics, such that there is a particular set of traits that make some-one human, then yes there will have been a first human who was the first to share all those traits. However, that individual will have been part of a population of thousands at least one other of which they successfully bred with.

Note that they are one individual, not a breeding pair, although it's quite likely that they were the offspring of a breeding pair each of whom had all but one of any traits you list, albeit not the same one.

If Homo sapiens came about via reproductive isolation rather than evolution of a single lineage, which seems to be the more common method of new species originating, then the exact moment that Homo sapiens appeared would not be with a birth, but with the death of the last individual capable of successfully breeding with members of both Homo sapiens and the parent species. At that moment there would be many individuals within the newly isolated population, and consequently there would not be a first human born, there would be a bunch of humans.

If all dogs but great Danes and Chihuahuas were wiped out, thus creating two species of domestic dogs rather than one, then there wouldn't really be a first Canis chihuahua or Canis claudius born.

[Sparko]

If you define the species Homo sapiens based on genetic or physical characteristics, such that there is a particular set of traits that make some-one human, then yes there will have been a first human who was the first to share all those traits. However, that individual will have been part of a population of thousands at least one other of which they successfully bred with.

Note that they are one individual, not a breeding pair, although it's quite likely that they were the offspring of a breeding pair each of whom had all but one of any traits you list, albeit not the same one.

If Homo sapiens came about via reproductive isolation rather than evolution of a single lineage, which seems to be the more common method of new species originating, then the exact moment that Homo sapiens appeared would not be with a birth, but with the death of the last individual capable of successfully breeding with members of both Homo sapiens and the parent species. At that moment there would be many individuals within the newly isolated population, and consequently there would not be a first human born, there would be a bunch of humans.

If all dogs but great Danes and Chihuahuas were wiped out, thus creating two species of domestic dogs rather than one, then there wouldn't really be a first Canis chihuahua or Canis claudius born.

Except there WAS a first Chihuahua and a first Great Dane born. That is how the breed originated. Cross bred from other breeds.

[Trout]

Neanderthals were human dimwit.

More so than Tassman?

[Tassman]

Neanderthals were human dimwit.

So were our immediate predecessors Homo erectus, c. 2 million years ago, which is the nearest one will get to the “first” human being.

[Sparko]

So were our immediate predecessors Homo erectus, c. 2 million years ago, which is the nearest one will get to the “first” human being.

yes. which still means there was a first homo sapiens.

[Meh Gerbil]

untitled.jpg

[Carrikature]

Except there WAS a first Chihuahua and a first Great Dane born. That is how the breed originated. Cross bred from other breeds.

Apples and oranges. The 'first' of a breed would merely be the first one registered under a declared standard. Roy's description of the actual change in physiology still holds.

[sylas]

yes. which still means there was a first homo sapiens.

There's a problem with this repeated assertion... you are presuming that there HAS to be a precise black and white definition of "homo sapiens" in which any individual in all history either is, or is not, "homo sapiens". There is no such definition. The term is necessarily ambiguous as you go back in time, precisely because of the impossibility of identifying a first individual homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens is not a term that works over time like this. It is a term which is clear and unambiguous at the present time, and this is its proper utility. Every individual living thing in the present either is, or is not, "homo sapiens". That's not true over all time. There was no "first" homo sapiens.

There are many different definitions of "species" used in biology; even the term "species" has no single definition. And that's only considering the relatively easy case of classifications at a given point in time. When used over long spans of times, the notion of "species" becomes hopelessly problematic. The notion of a paleospecies (a species over time spans and in the past) is useful, but certainly not with any implication that there's a first individual for any species. (There can be, in some special cases where a species arises by hybridization, but this does not apply for homo sapiens.)

A friend of mine whom I got to know though the glory days of the old talk.origins newsgroup is John Wilkins: his academic field is philosophy of biology. He's a really interesting guy and one of his major research interests (as a philosopher of science, not as a scientist) is the definitions of the term "species". He's extensively published on the subject in the academic literature; his PhD was on "species concepts" and he has written a number of books on the topic. His blog includes a useful post on the subject: A list of 26 Species “Concepts”. It gives a bit of technical background as to just how messy the notion of species is and why presumptions of a clear binary classifier are just incorrect.

Cheers -- sylas

[shunyadragon]

Shuny don't you believe in a literal Adam? Certainly your religion does, that he was a manifestation of God, and the we get our physical life from him.

Not in the sense that Adam was the first human, nor Adam and Eve were the fault of the Fall and Original Sin. He was manifestation of God ONLY for the beginning of the Adamic cycle. There were more cycles of Revelation prior to Adam. Adam is a title in the Baha'i Faith for the First Manifestation of God for each cycle of Manifestions of God.

Selective citations of Baha'i scripture to justify your agenda is SOP in the history of our dialogue, without a serious interest in understanding the Baha'i Faith. This is typical your selective biased incomplete view. See the following outline explains Adams role in the Adamic cycle.

Source: https://bahai-library.com/momen_encyclopedia_ages_cycles

TABLE: BAHA'I SACRED HISTORY
I. PREVIOUS UNIVERSAL CYCLES - of which no trace remains

II. PRESENT UNIVERSAL CYCLE

A. ADAMIC CYCLE, CYCLE OF PROPHECY - lasted approximately 6,000 year
1. Adam 1. Indian religious figures
2. Noah - Krishna
3. Abraham
4. Moses 2. Zoroaster
5. Jesus 3. Buddha
6. Muhammad
+ Other unknown or unspecified prophets
B. BAHA'I CYCLE, CYCLE OF FULFILLMENT - to last 500,000 years
1. The Bab
2. Bahá'u'lláh - Universal Manifestation for this Universal Cycle
a. Heroic, Primitive, or Apostolic Age - 1844-1921 (or 1932 - the death of Bahiyyih Khanum)
i. Ministry of the Bab (1844-53)
ii. Ministry of Bahá'u'lláh (1853-92)
iii. Ministry of `Abdu'l-Bahá (1892-1921)
b. Formative, Transitional, or Iron Age - 1921 -
i. First Epoch (1921-44/46) - Erection of the Administrative Order
ii. Second Epoch (1946-63) - spread of the Faith beyond the confines of the Western Hemisphere
iii. Third Epoch (1963-86) - emergence of the Faith from obscurity and initiation of social and economic development plans
iv. Fourth Epoch (1986- ) - national communities taking on the responsibility for their own development
v. Successive further Epochs
c. Golden Age
Successive Epochs leading to the Most Great Peace
3. Further Manifestations - under the shadow of Bahá'u'lláh
END OF PRESENT UNIVERSAL CYCLE
III. FURTHER UNIVERSAL CYCLES

© Copyright Original Source

This involves only our planet, one of many in creation, and endless cycles many planets.

[seer]

Not in the sense that Adam was the first human, nor Adam and Eve were the fault of the Fall and Original Sin. He was manifestation of God ONLY for the beginning of the Adamic cycle. There were more cycles of Revelation prior to Adam. Adam is a title in the Baha'i Faith for the First Manifestation of God for each cycle of Manifestions of God.

Actually Shuny, Adam was the father of humankind, and through him, his physical life, we receive our "imperfections." And according to your religion Adam was a special creation not born from a previous human being or species. No matter what cycle went before this is what your religion teaches.

Now consider how far this meaning conforms to the reality. For the spirit and the soul of Adam, when they were attached to the human world, passed from the world of freedom into the world of bondage, and His descendants continued in bondage. This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam, and is the serpent which is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam. That enmity continues and endures. For attachment to the world has become the cause of the bondage of spirits, and this bondage is identical with sin, which has been transmitted from Adam to His posterity. It is because of this attachment that men have been deprived of essential spirituality and exalted position. http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr8

Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection. http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr2

A great man is a great man, whether born of a human father or not. If being without a father is a virtue, Adam is greater and more excellent than all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother. That which causes honor and greatness is the splendor and bounty of the divine perfections. The sun is born from substance and form, which can be compared to father and mother, and it is absolute perfection; but the darkness has neither substance nor form, neither father nor mother, and it is absolute imperfection. The substance of Adam’s physical life was earth, but the substance of Abraham was pure sperm; it is certain that the pure and chaste sperm is superior to earth. http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr1

So we inherent our "imperfections" from Adam, and Adam was created without father or mother.